tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31077094680560597702024-02-08T18:23:58.313+00:00Individual SovereigntyA Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-39533325557641405622011-02-05T11:59:00.004+00:002011-02-05T12:59:19.556+00:00The Danger of the Danger of Islamism.There is a fair amount of talk on the internet and on some news channels about the dangers to Israel, and thus to the stability of the Middle East, of an Islamist government in Egypt. People are concerned that if the secular but brutally oppressive regime of the National Democratic Party* is toppled then it will be replaced by a hardline Iran-style Islamist theocracy which will refuse to recognise Israel and bring to bear the considerable might of Egypt's military on the fragile Jewish homeland. This is held up as a reason to prop up Mubarak, or at least to allow a chosen successor to replace him. This fear of the "danger of Islamism" is rooted in a good intention, to protect the closest thing the Middle East has to a democracy and support peace. There's just one minor flaw in the plan; it's complete bollocks.<br /><br />Point one to note, the protests are not Islamist, sure the people protesting are Muslims, but in the same way that people at protests in America are Christians; almost everybody there is. There is an Islamist party, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), among the opposition, indeed they form the largest part of the previously elected opposition (this year's sham of a parliamentary election saw them banned as a party and the candidates intimidated and threatened when they ran as independents). This protest movement is not led by them, and for the large part it is not really their supporters on the streets. The MB has a support base largely among the middle aged (similar to the Tea Party, I guess at a certain stage of life politicians talking of golden ages and a return to core values begins to appeal), this is not who is out on the streets. The protests are led by young people who have been exposed to (largely western) deals of democracy, freedom and justice through Twitter and Facebook and Blogs; who have seen the cruel injustices of their government highlighted by Amnesty International and HRW and exposed by Wikileaks. Democracy is an infectious disease and it spreads through information. The calls on the streets are not for Islamic righteousness but for democracy and freedom, the popular figurehead is not an aging cleric but a scientist and diplomat who has done great work on behalf of the entire world in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and whose main problem with Israel is their refusal to join the NPT.<br /><br />It is true that a democratic Egypt could elect an Islamist party, but such a party working within the framework of democracy would not be in a position to threaten Israel all that much, and the reason is accountability. A democratic government must justify its actions to the people; it is hard (as many politicians have found) to win elections when sacrificing the lives of people's husbands, sons, brothers and fathers into a war of aggression. People vote with their pocketbooks to the extent that even maintaining a military stand-off can be fatal to re-election chances, when people pay taxes they want that money pent on roads, schools, hospitals, police and just enough military power to sleep securely at night, dozens of battalions pointing their guns over the border seems like extravagance. A democratic Egypt may not be as willing to support every action of the USA or the UK as is Mubarak, but the people will be free, self-determinism is a concept introduced to the world by America, and it is a dear one to me, a moral "red line" that I do not feel we should cross. I would rather have the conditional support of a free people than the unwavering obedience of a dictator.<br /><br />Israel also stands to gain from the domino effect that spread protests from Tunisia to Egypt. If a democratic rule took hold in Egypt it could spread still further. Already King Hussein of Jordan has changed his government. If he is serious about his job security he should give the elected parliament the powers to go with it's impressively fair elections, when democracy is spreading, the history of Europe tells us, constitutional monarchs become cherished, absolute monarchs become corpses. Jordan is at least a relatively just country, and one that has worked hard for peace in the region. The real jewel in the crown would be Syria. A democratic Syria would seal peace for the region, surrounded by democracy Hamas and Hezbollah would have few friends for the violent approach to Israel, and a two-democratic-state solution would have a fair chance of success.<br /><br />Democracy in Egypt is the jumping off point for democracy throughout the Arab Mediterranean. Democracy in the Middle east is the key to peace in the Middle East.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">*national, sure, but democratic they ain't and living under them doesn't seem like a party</span>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-37907633403643003852011-01-28T22:37:00.004+00:002011-02-05T13:00:04.247+00:00Egypt in PicturesSome fantastic shots <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6eaooyy">here</a> I've always admired those photo-journalists and cameramen who are willing to put themselves in harms way to get information and evocotive images to accompany it.<br /><br />I just wish people tould remember Martin Luther King's <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6yldkf4">observation</a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence; it's nonviolence or nonexistence"</span></span><br /></div>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-42959777217513795242011-01-28T21:37:00.002+00:002011-01-28T22:03:30.777+00:00Why Egypt Matters.The news is full of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698">Egypt</a>, and it's got my interest up (so far up in fact I've started using Twitter ( @OverHimself). You could ask why I should care, I'm a hell of a long way from Cairo, living in my safe democracy and totally unaffected by Egyption politics. Only I'm not.<br /><br />Well, OK, I am those first two, but I'm not unaffected, and in more than just a John Donne "no man is an island" way. The largest part of UK and US foreign policy in recent years is focused on an area from Libya to Pakistan, add in the worries in the Home Office around arab-led, islamist motivated terrorism, and the interdependence created by global trade and this is all of our business. We get to take sides.<br /><br />My horse, and I just hope she lives up to her form, is with people power. Mubarak and his party have ruled Egypt for 30 years. They have ruled under emergency law for most of that time; they have fixed elections and banned opposition parties and cracked down on dissent. They have provided stability and a degree of economic success. It's the old trade off, freedom <span style="font-style: italic;">from</span> (poverty, hunger etc) at the cost of freedom <span style="font-style: italic;">to</span> (speak, act, protest etc), and that is why the word bread is key in protesters' chants, once you stop providing the one, people will demand the other. The power of people protest is huge, and as I type this various sources are suggesting the government may have fallen.<br /><br />If true this is a massive leap forward. The victory will belong to the people of Egypt, not to the Muslim Brotherhood, or other groups whose direction comes from Mecca and whose sympathy lies with Al Qaeda. The young, hopeful-looking protesters are talking of democracy and freedom, led by their experience and contact online with citizens of liberal democracies. It will shake up the region. The stabilizing effect of a relativly moderate and benign dictatorship in Egypt has probably prevented wars and moderated intifadas in Israel and Palestine. A democratic Egypt may not have this effect at first. But <a href="http://www.expatica.com/de/news/german-news/merkel-calls-on-egypt-to-allow-peaceful-protest_126399.html">Angela Merkel</a> had it right, the stability of Egypt is important, but not at the expense of the freedom of Egyptians.<br /><br />A liberal democracy may not be as reliable a friend as a pocket dictatorship, but in the long run I would rather have a democracy who disagrees with us than a dictatorship always at our side. Democracy tends to moderate policy, it tends to allow rationality a stronger voice, diversity, culture, interaction and peace are all cherished more in democracies, where they are needed than in dictatorships where they can be replaced by a poster of the president. And democracy spreads. Democracy in Egypt could lead to democracy in Jordan, in Syria, in Libya, if all of those happens, even the House of Saud might be shifting uncomfortably in their thrones. And that would give us a more stable, more peaceful, more free world.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-59221678389937863962010-11-12T07:39:00.000+00:002010-11-12T07:40:31.692+00:00Let's hope this isn't libellous.From Simon Singh;<br /><br /><blockquote><p>This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics. </p><p> The English libel law is particular dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach. </p><p> You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it. </p><p> The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/sign">http://www.libelreform.org/sign</a> </p><p> Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world. </p><p> If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world. </p><p> We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/sign">http://www.libelreform.org/sign</a></p></blockquote>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-57971390853635234232009-09-26T17:21:00.004+01:002009-09-26T18:10:52.827+01:00Something Needs Saying.<span style="font-size:130%;">The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">BNP</span> are racist fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist.</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-barnbrook-suspended-for-murder.html?showComment=1253859671375#c1590961417901402131">Richard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Barnbrook</span> suspended for murder claims | Tory Troll</a></span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://5cc.blogspot.com/2009/09/barnbrook-suspended-from-barking.html">Five Chinese Crackers: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Barnbrook</span> suspended from Barking & <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Dagenham</span> Council, made to go on ethics training</a></span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;">It's not said often enough and it's not said loud enough, so here it is again:</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">BNP</span> are <a href="http://www.bobpiper.co.uk/2009/08/family_fun_day_bnp_style_1.php">racist</a> fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist.<br /><span style="font-size:100%;">I guess most politicians can't say it as it's not a great tactic to insult the electorate, and the media, if they still have any pride (so not the mail) want to keep at least a veneer of neutrality, so they won't say it.<br /><br />The facts are simple, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">BNP</span> is a party that believes it is not possible to be non-white and British, who encourage the use of the term "racial foreigner" for British citizens, who support "repatriation" and senior members of whom were once filmed saying they wanted to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894529.stm">machine gun <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Muslims</span></a>. Talk to any <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">BNP</span> member or supporter and you are only one pint of (ironically foreign) larger away from hearing the words "of course Hitler was right about some things.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">BNP</span> is not a protest vote. The <a href="http://www.healthconcern.org.uk/">Independent <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Kidderminster</span> Hospital and Health Concern</a> party was a protest vote, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bell">Martin Bell</a> was a protest vote, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">BNP</span> are an organised fascist party with racist policies. Of course in a democracy they have the right to talk their bullshit, but to vote for them is to support their policies, in short to be one of them.<br /><br />Did I mention this?</span><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">BNP</span> are racist fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist!</span><br /></span>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-36040454873449704262009-09-26T12:36:00.003+01:002009-09-26T13:30:00.857+01:00A Good Week for the World.Every so often the mire of conflicting self interest that is the international community resolves itself into a cohesive unit. For a short time there will be a run of good news stories that move us all in a positive direction. The last week or so has been one of those. Of course it will all run back to shit in the blink of an eye, but let's have a look at the hope while it's still there.<br /><br />The UN General Assembly meeting, usually an Irish Parliament of pointless rhetoric, and the G20 summit, with a not much better track record, has seen a couple of good announcements.<br /><br />First the world seemed to unite at last (and all too briefly) around a nuclear non-proliferation/disarmament theme. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/23/general-us-us-iran_6923641.html">Russia indicated that she might give support to</a>, or at least not block, further sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue. With Russia on board, rather than the old position of lending tacit support to Iran, then it may be possible finally to bring enough pressure to bear that Tehran could be coaxed into following Libya's lead and abandoning their weapons programme.<br /><br />The old, "great" powers of the nuclear world have been taking action too to at least reduce the hypocrisy where we declare to the world that nukes are bad while stockpiling our own. Gordon Brown announced a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8270092.stm">unilateral 25% cut in at least Britain's delivery system.</a> There are strategic implications and flotilla logistical problems that make the <a href="http://www.royalmarinesbands.co.uk/reference/Slang.htm">anchor faced matelot</a> in me shudder, but those deserve their own post. Perhaps if we are serious about Britain leading a new wave of disarmament then the best method would be to follow the lead of South Africa or Ukraine and unilaterally disarm, but at least it is a move in the right direction. And it is clearly a part of a general trend, as <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090925/usa/us_russia_nuclear_disarmament">US-Russia disarmament talks enter a second week</a>, perhaps the two largest nuclear powers might be headed for a further step down.<br /><br />In something of a surprise the week also brought encouraging signs of action on climate change, with <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6843555.ece">China announcing moves</a> finally to reduce emissions, with similar noises coming from the Indian sub-continent. If these laggards on the environmental stage can be brought up to speed then maybe we can at least eliminate the schoolyard "but china isn't doing it" objections to carbon limits.<br /><br />And in a no-doubt happy but painful sounding story, a woman in Indonesia has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6224785/Indonesian-woman-gives-birth-to-19-lb-baby.html">given birth</a> to a 19lb baby!<br /><br />That' the good news, the normal <s>shitstorm of selfishness</s> international political system will now be resumed.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-50186518068481763102009-09-19T19:05:00.004+01:002009-09-20T16:30:59.695+01:00Many mans doubleplusungood know newspeak.Many persons <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">malreport</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ungood</span> used <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">oldspeak</span> words as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">newspeak</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Doubleplususualwise</span> these <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">crimethinkers</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">unknow</span> meaning of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">newspeak</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">unhaving</span> read Big Brother's seminal <span style="font-style: italic;">1984</span> (which <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">sabateurs</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">untruthwise</span> claim Orwell wrote). <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Samewise</span> persons have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">plusungood</span> knowledge of Big Brother, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Thinkpol</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">crimethink</span> and Room 101. These <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">duckspeaking</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">oldthinkers</span> are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">doubleplusun</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">notannoying</span>.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Ok</span> that's (more than) enough <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">newspeak</span>. I had had the idea of starting a new blog written entirely according to the principles of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">newspeak</span>, as set out in the appendix to 1984, but it took me far too much effort and made my brain hurt just to write that much. Incidentally I couldn't have got that far without cribbing off the <a href="http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Newspeak</span> Dictionary</a> and I will be forever in the debt of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007lqrh">the fabulous Mitchell and Webb</a> for coining the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">newspeak</span> word "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">doubleplusunnotannoying</span>" .<br /><br />The point, if you only know <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">oldspeak</span> is this:<br /><br />So often on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">internet</span> people* decry a statement, usually by a politician but often a social worker, reporter or charity spokesman as "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">newspeak</span>". The thing is that if they had properly read and understood 1984, and particularly the appendix on the nature and development of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">newspeak</span> then they would know that the uses they rail against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">are</span> the opposite of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">newspeak</span>.<br /><br />To twist and distort the meaning of words is an horrible thing, and it damages the political debate, but it is not automatically <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">newspeak</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Newspeak</span> is not language abusing the existing definitions of words, but a language that eradicates all but the desired definition. It is not the use of new words, almost the opposite, it relies on the removal of words from the lexicon. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Newspeak</span> is not the language used by your political <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">opponents</span>, rather its purpose is to deny language to your political opponents (so that it is impossible even to think a heretical thought as thought relies on words).<br /><br />These same offenders pull the same trick with Big Brother, Thought Police and Doublespeak, and it's just fucking irritating. I haven't read <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Brideshead</span> Revisited, and so I steer clear of references to Sebastian or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Brideshead</span>, however apt what I think that they mean would be. Is it too much to ask that others do the same with Orwell?<br /><br />Take this as a warning, from now on when I see such a reference to 1984 I shall hunt down its author and beat them to death with a shovel.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">*Well I say people, really I mean a certain type of person. Well I say person, more a viciously right wing, half educated <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">wingnut</span> with opinions far in excess of their intellectual capacity. This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">wingnut</span> hangs around the comments section of the Daily Mail, or the Have Your Say section of the BBC News site, spewing forth hate on pretty much anyone different from them in appearance or opinion.</span>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-89197082827426608202009-07-06T10:35:00.003+01:002009-07-06T11:01:54.261+01:00Upheaval in China.There appears to have been a rather large-scale <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8135203.stm">massacre in China</a>. I say appears because as seems to be their standard response to civil unrest, internet and mobile phone service have been cut of to the area, leaving the reports rather thin.<br /><br />It appears that at least 140 people are dead and over 800 injured, largely in inter-ethnic violence. That is not a short violent riot, that is massive civil unrest. Until the world's media is allowed access to eyewitnesses we have only the official version to say what happened, and you'll forgive me I hope for not just taking the word of a dictatorial, authoritarian post-maoist government at face value.<br /><br />The part that really starts to get tedious is that old response that totalitarian governments always bring out when faced with dissent:<br /><blockquote>"The Xinjiang government blamed separatist Uighurs based abroad for orchestrating attacks on ethnic Han Chinese."</blockquote>It's never actually the people being angry, you see, after all everything is paradise within the nirvana that is China, Iran, Burma/yanmar or wherever. And so the government casts around and finds that the CIA, the BBC, the Russians, the Jews, or as in this case the exiles. And that's just lazy. Nobody believes it really: the people accused know they didn't do it; the people involved in the dissent know the real reason they are involved; spectators, journalists and other leaders around the world are unconvinced; and the Gorvernment sure as hell knows they made it up. So wouldn't it be nice, just for a change if dictators could start being honest?A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-9002567876843578992009-07-05T22:19:00.004+01:002009-07-05T22:26:56.357+01:00I understand she also thought about taking some post-its home.<a href="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/07/civil-servant-loses-job-over-blog.html">Iain Dale's blog </a>mentions a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Torygraph</span> story of a sacking in the Civil Service. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Apparently</span> if you work for the British government it is now a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">sacking</span> offence to criticise your boss. Especially if said boss has been doing something massively unethical.<br /><br />This is the kind of thing that gets a government a reputation as illiberal and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">authoritarian</span>. Well this and wanting ID cards. Well this, wanting ID cards and wanting detention without trial. Well this, Id cards, the detention thing, trying to scrap jury <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">tria</span>...I'll start again.<br /><br />This government is illiberal and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">authoritarian</span>.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-90348113322440011772009-07-05T11:53:00.002+01:002009-07-05T17:20:22.277+01:00La Belle Label.In my other blog (<a href="http://www.blogster.com/apedant/look-out-for-that-bandwagon">over here</a>) I got into a discussion with a couple of guys and the thorny issue of labels came ups. I favoured the classic Oreos label and they prefer the modern and groovy Snickers label. Or perhaps it wasn't that sort of label. Yeah, on second thoughts maybe it was <a href="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/07/left-redefined.html">political labels</a>. I say they have almost no usefulness, others think they serve a purpose.<br /><br />The problem I have with them is complex. For starters there is the lack of flexibility. If I define myself as a realist, I am seen to think within a certain box, the way I interpret the world around me is coloured by a certain system. And this is not just the way others view me; having told the world I am a realist I begin to train myself to think like a realist. And this is all very well, except that, untrammelled, it becomes a runaway train. I know (at least online “know”) many neo-cons who feel compelled to support a Cheney style attitude that torture is ok if it protects the USA from attack. At least one of these I know to have been an active Amnesty member before 9/11, who abhors torture. Having announced loudly and often that he is a neo-con, however, he now feels that he cannot stray from the fold without somehow being treacherous.<br /><br />As most people soon realise (and I worked out a few weeks after I rushed into my first-week-as-an-undergrad declaration of realism, for most people no one paradigm will cover all of their thoughts, rather they fall into the grey areas that form the borderlands of differing worldviews. The way that we combat this is to start adding prefixes and suffixes, and so certain Republicans beacame no longer conservative but neo-conservative and I become a neo-realist, adopting a very slightly different position than previously. Of course this can end with ridiculous tags as people vary the already-varied paradigms and add a new prefix.<br /><br />All of this works fine if we're just sticking within a single field, one international relations geek says to another what he thinks about Iran, the reply starts with “Well I'm a neo-liberal, so...” and being a part of the clique the geek knows what the rest of the sentence is. But then the world isn't that simple I also have opinions on domestic politics , economics, philosophy, in fact all sorts, and if I want to be in with the, well I was going to say cool kids but lets face it all these interests land me squarely in the nerd camp, then I need to identify myself. Of course it could be simple, we could use the terms to mean at least roughly the same thing. We could, but we don't. I am a liberal in domestic politics, which is not the same thing as a liberal in international relations.<br /><br />And right there's another problem, the labels don't even mean the same thing in the two most prominent English speaking nations (that's right the Falkland Islands and St Helena). I have received all of my education in the UK, liberalism is still the term used here to define the dominant political paradigm of the developed world, a centrist, multi-party democratic, broadly market led society with individual freedom. A more committed liberal like me might wish for more individual freedom, less state intervention and a greater use of utilitarianism, but generally western society is liberal. To get the same meaning in the USA I would have to describe myself as libertarian; the term liberal is hurled as an insult at, and increasingly chosen by, socialists. The things that the American right attributes to liberals would make any liberal foam at the mouth.<br /><br />Which brings us on to the other big flaw, labels are self chosen and self described on one level; I am a liberal, I am trying to make an impression on the USA so I call myself a libertarian, I know what this means and I tell you what it means; on another level the labels are externally chosen, you oppose me and so you shout all over the US press that I am a self described liberal; if that doesn't work then you look at my small government preferences and where I say libertarian you say anarchist; suddenly I'm a lot more scary.<br /><br />So Labels are both too broad and too narrow, over-flexible and not flexible enough, self-chosen an externally imposed. How can something that contradictory be useful? I would say that it can't.<br /><br />But what would I know? I'm just a neo-realist-quasi-capitalist-liberal-free-market-monetarist-utilitarian-running-dog.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-6456429898004350602009-07-03T12:14:00.004+01:002009-07-03T16:23:40.805+01:00Those pesky places far away...It seems the news is filled at the moment with the old <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">perennials</span> of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">international</span> relations; trouble with and upheaval in Iran; a coup in a central American country; Korea (<a href="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/07/etzioni-whither-decent-left.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">LGM</span> has a good analysis</a> of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Etizoni's</span> arrant tosh on the subject); and Burma (or Myanmar if you prefer).<br /><br />The military <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">dictatorship</span> is back in the news today with the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8131869.stm">visit of the UN Sec Gen</a> to the state. As this visit takes place the "trial" of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Aung</span> San <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Suu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Kyi</span> rolls on, now with another week's adjournment. When oh when will this woman finally get punished for the heinous crime of someone effectively breaking into her house? The answer is of course that it doesn't matter, she may even be found not guilty, so long as the process lasts till after the election. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Suu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Kyi's</span> house arrest you see, while itself of dubious legality, was due to expire in time for her to run in the sham that is Burma's general elections. Now we can't have that can we?<br /><br />The problem is that this will not stop the problem. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Ban</span> can talk at the generals all he likes and it will do noting to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">achieve</span> any more than a temporary respite in the litany of human rights and other abuses that is Burma's recent history. What is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">kind</span> of depressing is that none of the other solutions offer a magic bullet either. Long history from <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Vietnam</span> to Iraq tell of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">inadvisability</span> of military <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">intervention</span> for a nations "own good". However well intentioned, it is wide open to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">misinterpretation</span> by the citizens of the now-occupied country, as well as by rabble-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">rousers</span>. Sanctions don't work either, somehow there always seems to be a way for those at the top to keep at the top, while the people still suffer.<br /><br />Ultimately the only way for effective and lasting change in any country is for the people of that country to make it and this is true of Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe and all the rest. As for the rest of the world community, all we can do is offer support, and be ready to recognise democracy when it does arise, even if we don't like the democratic leaders it throws up.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-19803891990789531762009-07-02T22:23:00.003+01:002009-07-02T23:03:03.649+01:00Excuse me officer, my car has been extra-legally removed.There seems, at least in the UK to have been very little news coverage of the recent <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8129787.stm">coup in Honduras</a>. In fact I mentioned it at work today and no-one knew what I was talking about; not their fault, about the only news story in the last week has been the fact that a man who died last Thursday is still dead and that people who liked him are upset he is dead.<br /><br />The blogging community does seem to have noticed it, and opinion seems mixed, some people are suggesting that it's not a coup at all, simply on the grounds that a civilian government is in place and the Honduran court has ruled that all is above board. <a href="http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=16166">Steven Taylor</a> has coined a nice phrase to address this idea<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"just because a institution of the state declares an act legal does not make it so." </span><br />This seems especially apt in a situation where the various <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">institutions</span> of state make up the parties of the coup. Over at <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/07/democracy-is-process.html">Lawyers, Guns and Money</a>, </span>which I have just begun to follow, there is, as seems to be usual over there, a lively debate in the comments. A <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">disturbingly</span> common opinion seems to be that the proposing of a referendum is a dangerous and, somehow, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">undemocratic</span> act (the concept of forcibly holding a vote has been brought up), and that this of itself justifies a coup.<br /><br />Meanwhile some <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">bloggers</span> seem to be needing cushions to ease the pain of fence-sitting. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Increasingly</span> I am reading language lie "<a href="http://blog.lordsutch.com/archives/4265">Extralegal</a>" to describe the transfer of power. This is the kind of language that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">wikipedia</span> refers to as weasel words. They are an attempt to get around a very basic disapproval of coups and support for democracy by redefining what has happened. This isn't a coup <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">d'etat</span> you see, those are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">undemocratic</span>, they are illegal, this is just a case of having to use extralegal means.<br /><br />But Extralegal only has one meaning, outside of the law. And we have another word for that. Illegal.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-6155507838003858892009-07-01T15:56:00.003+01:002009-07-01T17:09:50.736+01:00Run for the hills! Run for the hills!<span style="font-style: italic;">The UK is currently in phase six of the swine flu pandemic, is likely to reach level three of a heat wave and the terror threat is "severe".<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span>That comforting information was given me by the BBC this morning at the beginning of one of <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm">Today'</a>s</span> great little ten-to-nine discussions (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8128000/8128154.stm">specifically this one</a>). The topic, whilst obviously covering the heatwave and swine flu was whether or not warning levels are worth a rat's arse.<br /><br />The principle problem is of course that by and large we have no understanding of what the levels mean, most often they are presented to us, as above, in the abstract, it sometimes takes considerable leg work to divine that the <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/heathealth/">heatwave</a> warning is 3 out of a maximum of four; that <a href="http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/">phase six of a pandemic</a>, whilst the most severe level of human-to-human infection is the last before the post-pandemic phase begins and infection lessens; and that a <a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/current-threat-level/">severe</a> terror threat level means that a terrorist attack is "highly likely" (and even more to find that the <s>panic</s> threat level has not been <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806413417360?f=rss">changed</a> since it was dropped after the 7 July 2005 bombings).<br /><br />As <span style="font-style: italic;">Today's</span> discussion brought up there is the fact that even given our poorly informed state we just don't know what to do with this kind of information. We might talk in shades of grey but we think in binary. It will either rain or it won't there's so much danger we should hide in the basement or there's nothing to worry about, it's safe or it's dangerous. It takes a great deal of training to break ourselves of this deeply ingrained (some psychologists say hard-wired) instinct, and even then one catches experienced academics doing this occasionally. Dan Gardner's excellent book <a href="http://whatareyouafraidof.co.uk/">Risk: the Science and Politics of Fear</a> (excellently written, heavy on the science, light on the politics but understandable to the lay person) covers this situation in depth, including our tendency to fear the worst despite all the evidence, putting this down to the fact that ultimately we are negotiating the information age with stone age brains.<br /><br />So if we are incapable of processing the information, what use is it? It merely forms a part of our hunger for classification. From school league tables to government performance to mortgage interest rates, we want a number, and preferably a ranking. What we have to come to grips with is the one simple fact that life is not digital, and is not a football game. Rarely is it all as simple as win-loss, and almost never as starkly easy as good vs evil. Left vs Right is a straw man fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. Maybe, just maybe we should all be adult about things.<br /><br />Or we could just <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" >PANIC!</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></a>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-65234767203686245232009-06-30T23:30:00.002+01:002009-07-01T00:05:14.419+01:00Great idea, but is it even possible?The IPPR has published a paper stating that it is time for Britain to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm">stop "punching above its weight</a>".<br /><br />This is a good idea. It could save us millions, billions if one also includes unilateral nuclear disarmament. On top of that we could bring to an end the statistic that at least one British serviceman has died on active service in every "peacetime" year except one since 1945. Without trying to exercise a global reach that is the legacy of our former empire we could safely scrap all plans for our <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8125449.stm">new aircraft carriers</a> without impacting on operations. Untrammelled by the need to wheel and deal in the world of global alliances we would be free to sort out a society in which liberty and justice are key and the harm principle and utiulity guide our thoughts and actions.<br /><br />The problem is that I'm not sure it can be done. In the school playground that is international relations might is right. We are one of the bullies and I'm not sure it has ever been done to step down from that group without taking a pasting in war. This is a world where, right or wrong, having nuclear weapons gives one enhanced rights and not having them leaves one vulnerable.<br /><br />In the more peaceful spheres one judges a nation by its international actions, by its aid, by its relief organisations, by its peacekeeping efforts. I am proud to live in a country that ranks highly in these fields, mostly as a result of our economic status. And there it is, we can only step down from the lead nations if we are ready to take the blow. If we do it, not only does it mean we cannot aggressively pursue <s>oil</s> our own interests around <s>Iraq</s> the world, it would also mean that our ability to pursue the common good around the world would be drastically reduced. Our opinion on Burma's human rights would be so much spit in an ocean. I'm not sure we're ready for this, nor that it would be a good thing.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-44770969775869424012009-03-10T19:06:00.001+00:002009-03-10T19:09:28.282+00:00Almost Right<div id="user-content-post"> <p>Stanley Fish has written an interesting <a href="http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/neoliberalism-and-higher-education/" target="_blank">blog on the NY Times website</a>, concerning neo-liberalism, not so much in defence of it as in exploration, having had the tag thrown at him as a term of (albeit academic) abuse. He provides quite a neat example of the ideology in practice:</p><p><em>"In a neoliberal world, for example, tort questions — questions of negligence law — are thought of not as ethical questions of blame and restitution (who did the injury and how can the injured party be made whole?), but as economic questions about the value to someone of an injury-producing action relative to the cost to someone else adversely affected by that same action. It may be the case that run-off from my factory kills the fish in your stream; but rather than asking the government to stop my polluting activity (which would involve the loss of jobs and the diminishing of the number of market transactions), why don’t you and I sit down and figure out if more wealth is created by my factory’s operations than is lost as a consequence of their effects?"</em></p><p> </p><p>This strikes me as a good system, with one modification, or perhaps clarification. A Millsian reading of liberalism, with its strong <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Utilitarianism-John-Stuart-Mill/dp/087220605X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236692542&sr=1-2" target="_blank">utilitarian roots,</a> would admit of a non-cash meaning of value. This is the tricky point where political theory proves itself not to be a science, but rather a philosophy. The pure science of economics, in which neo-liberalism is rooted, considers in this example only the economic (i.e cash) value of the fish and the factory, however our human experience tells us that there is more to both life and value than cost. The idea of solving the dispute with reference to cost-benefit analysis is sound, but we must find some way to weigh up the aesthetic and cultural value of the fish and the stream and the leisure and enjoyment they provide to individuals and society, againstnot only the financial but the social benefits of the factory.</p><p> </p><p>There is a problem with any aim to create a society based on this model, and that is the gap in education, we are not teaching our young people (in pretty much any country) to think in terms of general value, and so people's idea of value rests on the arithmetic which they are taught. Until we can separate the ideas of value and cost, then we are stuck in a position of greed, where money will drive us all.</p></div>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-2373886756105286552009-03-10T19:04:00.001+00:002009-03-10T19:08:10.989+00:00Power sharing in crisis...<p>The tragic news today is of an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7930995.stm" target="_blank">attack on an army base in Northern Ireland</a>, the first in around a decade of hard won peace. All loss of human life is tragic and this is possibly more so for its potential to spiral into a return to the low-grade civil war that ate at British and Irish society for three decades. The thing that has been getting at me all day however is the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/03/08/world/international-us-irish-army-shooting.html?hp" target="_blank">insistence of leaders</a> on all sides that this will not derail the peace process. The sad truth is that the peace process has been stagnant for several years, and one of the main planks of the process is to blame--Power sharing.</p><p>Power sharing is not in itself the problem, indeed it has been an invaluable tool in Northern Ireland and could provide the vital bridge towards progress in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7927954.stm" target="_blank">Zimbabwe</a> and elsewhere. The problem is that it has become seen as an end-state. Power sharing ought not to be the target end-state for the main reason that it is not democracy. A situation where an election is held and the losing side take up powerful positions within the government is in fact almost the reverse of democracy. True democracy is a position where the minority accept that they are a minority and will be governed by the majority, whilst (and this is important) the majority accept that being in the majority does not give them the right to demonize, terrorize, discriminate against or impose personal morality and religion upon, the minority.</p><p>It is this state that must be the target of any peace process, and the events in Northern Ireland are perhaps a sign of what happens when the flow is allowed to stagnate. If the peace process was moving forewards properly, then the extremist dissidents on both sides would not be able so easily to find solid ground and support. We as people on all sides need to redouble our efforts.</p>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-56534759428433560702008-10-30T14:50:00.000+00:002008-10-30T15:13:08.228+00:00The World Will Not Change OvernightWith the US presidential election seemingly all over bar the shouting (and perhaps the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851287,00.html">Bradley Effect</a>), the whole of this side of the Atlantic seems to be convinced that the world will be a better, more cuddly place by about 10am next Wednesday. The sad news for those desperate to be rid of Bush is of course that he is in office till January. The USA has never adopted the approach of British politics where a losing prime minister's stuff is being packed up by the removal men even as they make their concession speech.<br /><br />I have to say that I think the nation suffers a little for this anticlimax. A new president, elected on a surge of hope, whether it be Democats hoping for less bombast from Obama, or Republicans desperate to distance themselves from W's brand of big government, bedroom policing conservatism, is left with nothing to do but sit and wait for 2 months. Meanwhile W remains president in name only. What foreign government wants to deal with a man who has no real power to make long term arrangements.<br /><br />And a word to all those Americans who moan when the rest of the world takes an interest , or even join the campaigning in the race. You guys coined the phrase "leader of the free world" and you are right. Where America leads the rest of us have little choice but to follow. We aren't powerful enough to lead and most US policy doesn't allo for getting out of the way. So by all means ignore our opinions, but don't criticise us for holding or expressing them.<br /><br />As for the result of the election, I will be fairly happy either way. Obama will hopefully be a break, for at least 2 years until the next election cycle starts, from the kind of conservatism that is worse than socialism, that intrudes into the personal, social and moral with overbearing legislation. McCain meanwhile is the only person in the entire race, including both sets of primaries, to have categorically said that torture is always wrong. Hint for the others, Torture is un-American, that's why your constitution bans it.<br /><br />So all I can say to Americans is go to the ballot and make a choice, there are actually two good candidates. But please try to choose for some logical reason, not age or looks or colour, not the stupid and vindictively made claim that Obama is a muslim, not the record of a past president. Try to do what most of us, wherever we vote, forget to do in an election, vote <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">for</span> somebody, not <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">against</span> them.A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-6871574253630841532008-04-15T08:10:00.000+01:002008-04-16T17:43:38.463+01:001252 Killed in Global Slaughter.<a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/organisations-internationales/article/2008/04/15/en-2007-au-moins-24-personnes-ont-ete-executees-chaque-semaine_1034317_3220.html">Over 1200 people were killed in the last year</a> by their governments. That figure doesn't include genocide, or malicious or incompetent mal-administration such as that in <a href="http://www.economist.co.uk/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11020424">Zimbabwe</a>. That was just the figure of those put to death through capital punishment. The figures reported by <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/">Amnesty international</a> make grim reading, especially if you are a proud American. The leading countries in the world for executions are places where political and social freedoms are curtailed to the point of non-existence, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So what is the USA, one of the world's greatest democracies doing up there in the top 5?<br /><br />To be fair to them, the USA comes in a rather distant fifth, with a mere 42 compared to Pakistan's 135 in 4th, and miles behind China's estimated 470. And at least the list of capital crimes in America is limited to the most serious. In Iran last year a man was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7346938.stm">stoned</a> to death for adultery, In North Korea one was shot for, among other misdemeanors, making international phone calls. However justice is not always thorough, even in the USA. Amnesty raise the case of Michael Richard, who was executed in Texas after a court house refused to stay open just an extra 15 minutes to file his appeal.<br /><br />Regardless of the procedural pettifogging, or the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the crime, today's figures horrify me. People have died, and they have been killed in the name of justice. This is a concept I can't quite grasp. What gives people, even in the name of "The People", the right to take human life? Nothing in my understanding.<br /><br />Two main arguments are made in support of capital punishment, and to me they both ring hollow. First that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. If this were true then those states with the death penalty would have the lowest murder rates in the USA. This is not the case, and indeed many countries around the world that have abandoned capital punishment have lower rates for capital offences now than they did before the abolition; killing the criminals is not a deterrent. Second that it provides justice. This seems fallacious to me, justice for whom? Are we really setting out a sensible basis for our society if we say, "it is wrong to kill people, so we are going to kill you"? It sets the entire edifice upon a contradiction. So if it is not deterrence, and it is not justice, then all it can be is revenge. If you are religious, then vengeance is surely the realm of God alone. If you are not religious then tell me where the logical sense is in attritional killing.<br /><br />The list of those countries still actively carrying out the death penalty is a list of banana republics, brutal dictatorships and oppressive despotisms. The USA is none of these, it does not belong on that list. Only the American people have the power to take themselves off that list, so think about it, if you are American; is this the kind of company you want to keep?A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3107709468056059770.post-17793423518774169552008-04-13T17:43:00.000+01:002008-04-13T19:35:40.485+01:00The Threat To The British Way Of LifeJaqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, seems desperate to introduce <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7345182.stm">42 day detention without trial</a> for terrorist suspects. This is the same government that bangs on incessantly about "Britishness", and they seem entirely to misconstrue the very nature of being British. Despite the calls from Whitehall for lessons, tests and pledges in schools, being British is not about things we do. The core values of Britain are those things we do not do. We do not rig elections. We do not torture people, and we do not imprison people without fair trial. This is not some new-fangled right, it has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, or the UN Charter. This is an ancient right, <a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=magna+carta&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1517519&ActiveTextDocId=1517519&filesize=58673">Magna Carta</a> was first sealed in 1215, the latest version dates from 1297, 2 articles remain in force. One of these is article XXIX which states:<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."<br /></span>Nowhere does it say "except for certain crimes", there is no wriggle room in the phrasing of "any man" to say "apart from those who look a bit Arabic".<br /><br />Not only is the right to a timely trial ancient, the need for it is enforced by what happens when it breaks down. Elizabeth I and James I's persecution of catholics and protestants respectively kept England in a state of turmoil and near-revolution, Oliver Cromwell's disdain for these rights in Ireland were the cause of death and hatred that would last hundreds of years. More recently British governments suspended these basic rights to deal with the very real threat of Irish Republican terrorism. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius">Internment</a> was a disaster and a rampant recruiting poster for the IRA, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts">Diplock courts</a> were little better. The true success of dealing with terrorism came only through fair criminal trials, and political reform.<br /><br />A small number of imams are preaching to a disenchanted youth, afflicted mainly by urban poverty and racism and labeled failures by failing schools, that the west, and their own government is out to get them. By denying basic rights to members of these communities we build a case for these pernicious preachers of hate. The problem runs deeper than this; as a nation we oppose human rights abuses in Burma (Myanmar), we demand rights for the oppressed Tibetans, and call for <a href="http://www.globefordarfur.org/">human decency in Darfur</a>. If we ourselves cannot guarantee within the United Kingdom the rights we have so often fought for around the world, we are nothing but a nation of loud-mouthed hypocrites. <br /><br />There is here and now, as there was in 1971, a genuine terrorist threat, the figures quoted by the Home Secretary of the numbers under surveillance are real (however they are not new, having been announced by various security chiefs at times dating back to 2006). However just as in 1971, to deal with this threat to our traditions by suspending those traditions is to give succor to terrorism. The threat must be countered without losing our decency, by allocating more resources to the security services, by allowing the use of properly obtained (i.e. with a warrant) phone tap and other intercept evidence in court, and most importantly by producing evidence and allowing fair defence.<br /><br />So if you live in the UK take a stand NOW. <a href="http://www.writetothem.com/">Write to your MP</a>, lobby members of the House of Lords, point out to them the great traditions of British justice, and the threat that comes from abandoning those principles; say to them "this is something that I will not do and I will not let you do it in my name". Ask them to vote against this bill when it comes before them. Only if we have British action for justice in Britain do we have any right to call for Global action for justice in Darfur.<br /><br />And wherever in the world you are, take the same stand, don't let fear and hatred triumph over the rights that you and past generations have struggled for. If we do then we risk permanently disfiguring the beautiful freedom we enjoy.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>A Pedanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557578922149835789noreply@blogger.com0