Whatshisname

I've never been interested in attending reunions, looking up old acquaintances or tracking down former girlfriends. As far as I'm concerned, the past is another country and I've no desire to go back.

So, you won't find me posting on Friends Reunited. But, every now and again, I find myself wondering: "Whatever happened to So-and-so?" Not that I want to look them up, just interested to know how life turned out for them. Of course, in the modern age, such idle curiosity need not go unanswered.

Last night, I googled "Rainer Hersch".

In my university days, I lived in a student house with this guy.



Twenty odd years later, Rainer is now a classical music comedian (yes, you read that right - you can check out his website for tour dates). And he's just finished a series for BBC Radio called "All the Right Notes, Not Necessarily in the Right Order" - including a profile of American band leader and musical satirist Spike Jones, you can still listen to it here.

Looks like Rainer's doing ok.

Clive Davis

I've been reading Clive Davis' blog for some time now. Every time I visit, I remind myself that I should add him to my list of sidebar links, I just keep forgetting to do it.

Anyway, today I remembered.

Woolly thinking

For Niall Ferguson, writing in yesterday's Telegraph, "Western Civilization" is just a vacuous phrase and "civilisation" much too woolly a term.

I have never entirely bought the theory that the future will be dominated by the clash of civilisations. For one thing, the term "civilisation" has always struck me as much too woolly. I know what a religion is. I know what an empire is. But, as Henry Kissinger might have said, who do I call when I want to speak to Western Civilisation? Anyone who crosses the Atlantic as often as I do quickly learns how vacuous that phrase has become.

Really? Guess I must be a slow learner.

Newspaper miracles

Mac just mailed me to highlight this extract from Ben Goldacre's piece on bad science reporting in Saturday's Guardian.

British newspapers just cannot help themselves, they have to run stories which say that miracle cures work, regardless of the evidence. In January, the journal Cancer (cheery) ran a paper on the survival of patients with proven, very bad, lung cancer, who had been given palliative radiotherapy, not to cure, but just to ease the symptoms a little: they found, perhaps unexpectedly, that about 1% survived for five years, when you'd have thought all would be dead by then. That's what they found.

The study also, briefly, at the end, said this [emphasis added]: "This is a very small proportion, but lung cancer is a very common malignancy. It is important that the frequency of this phenomenon should be appreciated, so that claims of apparent cure by novel treatment strategies, or even by unconventional medicine or faith healing, can be seen in an appropriate context."

In the Independent newspaper, this research paper became: "MIRACLE CURES SHOWN TO WORK: Doctors have found statistical evidence that alternative treatments such as special diets, herbal potions and faith healing can cure apparently terminal illness, but they remain unsure about the reasons." No. I have no idea either.

Heh.

UPDATE
I've been trying to track down the Independent article Goldacre refers to - I was just interested to see the context. Strangely, a Google search for "MIRACLE CURES SHOWN TO WORK" points to the Independent's news section but I can't find the article in question.

Their man in Washington

I'm beginning to warm to Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent. In the past, he's gotten some things badly wrong but, after his mea culpa in January, I'm willing to give him some respect.

This week, he featured on BBC Radio's "From our own correspondent" with a piece on bumper stickers, democracy and the American left. (You can listen to it here or read it here.)

It's not an entirely serious piece, but it does highlight an issue or two.

Making speech expensive

Franco Frattini, the European justice commissioner, is seeking changes to European law that would mean journalists accused of libel or defamation would be dealt with according to laws applicable in the complainant’s country, even if that country was not a member of the European Union.

On Wednesday, European justice ministers were unable to agree on the new regulations, which cover cross-border disputes in cases of media libel and the defamation of private citizens, public figures or religious icons in the press.

The EUobserver reports:

Media organisations, NGOs and politicians warned of damage to the principle of freedom of speech, arguing that a Swedish newspaper, for instance, could be sentenced according to Syrian or Pakistani law following a law suit on defamation from a citizen in either of these countries.

That seems to be precisely what Frattini intended, at least if his previous statements are anything to go by. He has already said he will not let the issue lie and is planning to put a revised version of the regulations before justice ministers in the near future.

I don’t know what’s more worrying: the European Commission’s continuing attempts to limit free speech or the fact that so few people seem to be paying attention.

Uncivil war

Via Winds of Change: Lee Harris writes at Tech Central on the developing situation in Iraq:

Those who are predicting that Iraq is on the brink of civil war may well prove to be guilty of wishful thinking. What is unfolding in Iraq may turn to be something far more horrifying -- not the relatively civil Civil War fought by Americans a century and a half ago, but kind of tribalist anarchy that swept over Rwanda within our own lifetimes, and that has been the baseline of most human existence from time immemorial.

Reading habits

Yesterday, the Big Fella read Dracula - Bram Stoker's original novel - from start to finish. He'd picked it up at lunchtime in the school library and was immediately hooked; he sheepishly admitted to secretly reading it in his afternoon lessons. And he begged to be allowed to stay up late last night to finish it.

I'm impressed, he's a fluent reader but late nineteenth century prose is different to the stuff he normally reads, which has recently been mostly Dan Abnett books from the Black Library.

So, this morning, I'm trying to think of some other writers from around the same period that might appeal to him, Conan Doyle or H G Wells, perhaps. But then, he gets back from a shopping trip with Mac, and I find he's already bought his next read: it's The Mammoth Book of Vampires.

I obviously wasn't thinking like an 11 year-old.

Totten abroad

Michael Totten meets the Yezidis of Northern Iraq:

LALISH, IRAQ – In Northern Iraq there is a place called Lalish where the Yezidis say the universe was born. I drove south from Dohok on snowy roads through an empty land, seemingly to the ends of the earth, and found it nestled among cold hills.

I went there because the President of Dohok University told me to go. “I am a Muslim,” he said. “But I love the Yezidis. Theirs is the original religion of the Kurds. Only through the Yezidis can I speak to God in my own language.”

Religion and swimming

From Women in the Middle East, edited by Azam Kamguian.

A [Bristol] City swimming pool has launched a weekly swimming session open to Muslim women only. The city council said the entry criteria for the one-hour sessions at Easton Leisure Centre have been changed in response to requests from the community.

Until now the sessions on Sunday nights have been open to Asian women only and are in addition to two women-only sessions at the pool. The city council said the change was made after a request to take part from some non-Asian Muslims - a growing community in the area during the past few years as more Somalis have settled there.

Council spokesman Simon Caplan argued that limiting entry to Muslims was aimed at allowing wider access:

"The aim was to open it up to all the city's Muslim women, regardless of ethnic origin, and not just those who are Asian - particularly important in Easton as there are a large number of non-Asian Muslims living in the area."
[...]
Easton's Liberal Democrat Councillor Abdul Malik, who is himself a Muslim, said the change was a sensitive issue. He said: "In an ideal society, everyone would be fully integrated and we could have multicultural swimming sessions."

It's seems strange to find Liberal Democrats using public facilities to promote religious segregation. But maybe I'm behind the times, and they're just following party policy.

UPDATE
Turns out, Bristol Lib Dems are bucking party policy. Liberal Democrats Policy Briefing 14 (pdf) sets out the party's commitment to fighting discrimination on the basis of religious belief. Their proposed Equality Act is intended to:

Protect people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the basis of religion or belief. This legislation will be equivalent to existing race discrimination legislation and would apply in fields such as employment, education and the provision of goods and services.

So, what's going on in Bristol?

Livingstone suspended

Ok, I never thought I'd find myself sticking up for Ken Livingstone but this is just wrong.

News of a whitewash

Esther Armah, writing in today’s Guardian, says white, middle-class liberals can't accept they're to blame for institutionalized racism in the media. Taking as a starting point police chief Sir Ian Blair’s accusations of racism in the reporting of black murders, Armah goes on to talk about the impression she got after speaking in a debate at a London university.

Too many white, middle-class liberals define racism solely as a crude and extreme reality. To think that is the only kind of racism that exists is to reside on Planet Denial, Defensive and Dishonest. The real issue for them is they are not prepared to define racism as educated, articulate discrimination; as subtle, complex and dangerous, with calculated intention - minus bricks, bats or the BNP.

Really? Does this stand up – as a generalization, I mean - the idea that white, middle-class liberals reject the notion of racism as comprising anything other than violent assault? Doesn't sound right to me, but Armah believes this notion is so widespread that: “It stifles discussion about the numerous subtle ways that racism in the media is manifest."

Does it? Aren’t many people aware of at least some examples of racism in the media? They should be, the issue is addressed often enough. Search for media racism at the BBC, the Guardian or the Independent and follow the links: there’s been rather a lot of discussion about “the numerous subtle ways that racism in the media is manifest.”

More discussion might be useful, it might even be necessary, but to imagine that there's been no previous discussion of the issue is to ignore a wealth of literature on the subject.

And statements like this from Armah don’t seem designed to engender serious discussion:

Educated minds abandon intelligence when debating racism in the media and resort to intellectual tantrum-throwing.

Maybe, but it’s usually best not to throw them back.

Walk the Line

Mac and I just got back from watching "Walk the Line", a sketchy biopic of Johnny Cash that ends with his on-stage proposal to June Carter.

I have to say, we found it hugely enjoyable but then we're both fans of Cash and Carter. I suspect people who don't like the music might find it a little difficult to connect with - it got pretty wistful in parts.

Joaquin Phoenix puts in a good performance as Cash. He certainly captures something of the man's on-stage mannerisms, but his acting seemed a little stilted, at times. In contrast, Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of June Carter was both a revelation and a joy to watch - she seemed illuminated the whole time she was on screen. It's not just me, Mac said the same.

So, it was a good movie, worth watching for Witherspoon's performance alone. But it's left me itching for a taste of the genuine article - Michael Darlow's 1969 documentary of Cash live in San Quentin made for Granada Television.

I've only seen it once, now I need to see it again.

For heaven's sake

(I got e-mail about this, I know I should be grateful but...)

It’s not about cartoons or freedom of speech, or what’s blasphemy and what’s not, or even who’s upset and what they might do about it.

It’s not about asking moderate Muslims to calm the hot heads, or banning certain organizations and passing laws to limit speech. It’s not about terrorism or some war between two civilizations. It’s about grassroots political organization.

Islamic political groups have for the last three Saturdays brought thousands of demonstrators to London, not only to protest at the Danish cartoons but also to push for new laws protecting Islam from offence.

What they propose is an attempt to de-secularize our society that should, to my mind, be vigorously resisted. That the Muslim Action Committee seeks to promote itself as representing majority Muslim opinion is neither here nor there. What matters is there's no grassroots political opposition to them in the constituencies.

The cartoons have incidentally revealed at least one issue: it’s not about whether the MAC or anyone else represents mainstream or moderate Muslims, it's not even about the role of Muslims in the West (that’s for them to figure out), the pressing question for democrats is how to counter the rise of political Islam and effectively resist its demands.

It is in this context that I welcome Oliver Kamm’s initiative. But if anyone wants to go along and wave giant sized placards featuring certain cartoons, you can DEFINITELY count me out.

Harry's Place has comments.

Non-nuclear futures

Al, my ex-wife (and mother of No 1 Son) has been helping out while I've been ill by picking the boys up from school on a Wednesday and taking them back to her place. They'll have dinner, play with Al's young one (he's 7) and Mac will collect them on the way back from work. Although, she might stay for a cup of tea and a chat.

Al and I separated a short time after No 1 Son came along - we were chalk and cheese, distressingly immiscible - but we've always kept close because of our son.

So, right about now, my boys are sitting down playing with their brother's brother and I'm sitting here wondering why we don't yet have a word for that relationship.

Opposing the Islamists

I’ve been spending more and more time at Harry’s Place, recently. The reason, I think, is simply that the contributors there are so reliably anti-Fascist. In particular, they recognize that Islamism is an essentially fascist ideology and they are vocal in their opposition to it.

Unfortunately, words are not enough: Fascist movements cannot be ignored, they need to be openly opposed. I’m not criticizing those at Harry’s Place, they understand the need for action. But who will organize against political Islam?

The moderates won’t organize, moderates never do. They are content to chatter from the side-lines, and leave matters in the hands of their elected representatives, whose pleas for tolerance and accommodation are (at best) well intentioned rhetoric in defense of a status quo that no longer exists.

The kids won’t organize against political Islam, they’re too busy fighting globalization and trying to “make poverty history”. And in any case, they celebrate diversity - whatever the cost.

The majority of those on the left won’t fight political Islam. Some because they regard the Islamists as useful allies in their struggle against capitalism, others because they view political Islam as the legitimate voice of a downtrodden minority. For much of the left, it seems, opposing Islamism is akin to demonizing Muslims in general.

Unfortunately, these groups are not just unwilling to organize against the rise of political Islam, they will vocally oppose anyone who tries to do so. They will say there is no real problem, or that it’s been much exaggerated. They’ll tell you that opposing the Islamists just stirs up tensions. If you don’t listen, they’ll question your motives. Carry on, and the moderates will despair of you, the left will disown you and the media will ignore you.

Concerted action is needed but, so far, the stage is empty.

UPDATE
Or maybe not, perhaps this is a start: Oliver Kamm (echoing Christopher Hitchens) calls today "for some act of internationalist solidarity with Denmark", perhaps by means of a quiet and composed gathering at its London Embassy.

UPDATE
It's been suggested to me that demonstrating solidarity with Denmark involves saying "Ya boo sucks!" to Muslim sensitivities. It doesn't.

Hot house of bile

Harry's Place, supposedly.

The art of transgression

Nick Cohen on the latest from Gilbert and George:

Sonofagod is clearly trading under a false prospectus. Gilbert and George narcissistically present themselves as icons towering over a shrivelled Christ. 'God loves Fucking! Enjoy!' reads one inscription. This isn't a brave assault on all religions, just Catholicism.

The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them. That knowledge invalidates their claims to be transgressive. An uprising that doesn't provoke a response isn't a 'rebellion', but a smug affirmation of the cultural status quo.

Self-regulating speech

In the continuing cartoon row, today's Telegraph reports that Franco Frattini (European Union commissioner for justice, freedom and security) has called for a European press charter restricting media reporting on Islam and other religions. He said Muslims felt "humiliated" by the publication of the cartoons and the European press should accept the need to "self-regulate".

Mr Frattini believes that by agreeing to limits on free speech Europe will send a message to the Muslim world. Quote:

"We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression, we can and we are ready to self-regulate that right".

Read it and weep, because it marks the beginning of the end for free speech in Europe.

UPDATE
It looks like Frattini is trying to back away from his earlier pronouncements. Dzeno, a Romany association in Eastern Europe, has a statement from him in response to the Telegraph article. He makes clear that he has no powers to introduce press restrictions and was only attempting to initiate a dialogue - “How are we to reconcile freedom of expression and respect for each individual's deepest convictions?"

"It is a dialogue on such a question which I would be willing to facilitate but I will not impose such a role on any party if such a need would not be felt."

These look like weasel words to me. And it still doesn't sound like Frattini is aware of the real import of what he said.

I'd criticize anyone who suggested renouncing press freedom where it conflicts with religious sensibilities, but when the person proposing it is the European commissioner for justice, freedom and security, you really have to wonder if he's up to the job.

Or it could just be that security trumps freedom.

Poetry corner

Robert W Service

Someone once told me the only sure way to tell an American from a Canadian is to ask them if they’d ever heard of Robert W Service: Americans might answer yea or nay, Canadians will be affronted you asked.

Now, I don’t know whether that is, or was ever, true - but one thing is certain, the poetry of Robert W Service , "Bard of the Yukon", deserves a wider readership than Canada alone can muster.

The tightly rhymed ballad (Service’s speciality) is not a popular form these days; modern English poets tend to concern themselves with written verse and often ignore the rich oral tradition of which Service was a part. In England, his work seems little known and even less admired. Those who have heard of him often know only one of his poems: “The Shooting of Dan McGrew”. His other works are hardly ever remembered.

I grew up with a copy of Service's “Ballads of a Cheechako” and have always greatly admired his work. To me, his ballads have never seemed clunky or corny. Indeed, the ballad seems a fittingly heroic form for the task Service set himself – to tell tales of the “Men of the High North”.

My personal favorite from "Ballads of a Cheechako" is the "Ballad Of Blasphemous Bill" (it used to be my party piece), but the far darker "Ballad of the Brand" is also a notably powerful piece of work, and "Ballad of the Black Fox Skin", though overlong, shows Service at his best:-

There was Claw-fingered Kitty and Windy Ike living the life of shame,
When unto them in the Long, Long Night came the man-who-had-no-name;
Bearing his prize of a black fox pelt, out of the Wild he came.

His cheeks were blanched as the flume-head foam when the brown spring freshets flow;
Deep in their dark, sin-calcined pits were his sombre eyes aglow;
They knew him far for the fitful man who spat forth blood on the snow.

"Did ever you see such a skin?" quoth he; "there's nought in the world so fine--
Such fullness of fur as black as the night, such lustre, such size, such shine;
It's life to a one-lunged man like me; it's London, it's women, it's wine.

You can read the rest here.

And I can't resist pointing to one of Service's simple gems: this sketch of one of life's perennial losers from "The Ballad of Hard-Luck Henry":

Now wouldn't you expect to find a man an awful crank
That's staked out nigh three hundred claims, and every one a blank;
That's followed every fool stampede, and seen the rise and fall
Of camps where men got gold in chunks and he got none at all;
That's prospected a bit of ground and sold it for a song
To see it yield a fortune to some fool that came along;
That's sunk a dozen bed-rock holes, and not a speck in sight,
Yet sees them take a million from the claims to left and right?
Now aren't things like that enough to drive a man to booze?
But Hard-Luck Smith was hoodoo-proof--he knew the way to lose.

Heh.

Black and white memories

I've spent over twenty years here in Bristol, mostly living and working in the inner city. A lot of things have changed in that time, not all of them for the better. Sometimes, I wonder at how many things we've lost.

Years ago, when I lived in the St Pauls area and worked in the city center, I’d walk home each evening along what used to be known locally as the Front Line. If I'd been working late, more often than not I'd drop into the local cafe on the way home. I knew the man who owned the place, so I was always assured of a friendly welcome and the food was good - despite how it looked from the outside.



The Guardian once said that no one ever went there for the food. But that was later.

By 2003, the cafe had become one of the hot spots in a battle between rival gangs for control of the city's drugs trade. For several weeks, in an attempt to head of further violence, high-profile armed patrols were used to police the area.

Three years ago, the local council ordered the owner to sell the property to a Housing Association, and it's since been demolished. A good thing too, probably. Not many were sorry to see it go - as the owner himself once observed (with characteristic understatement) few of his customers were the sort of people you'd want in your front room.

The police and the local authority hailed the cafe's closure as a local success in the "war on drugs". Ironic, really - it was the failure of local drug enforcement strategies in the 1980s that allowed the crack-cocaine trade to take root in the first place.

Still, I'll remember the cafe for the times I had there: in back, behind the counter, eating and talking with the owner and his family. Others will remember it as the place where the Bristol Riots started in 1980. For all of us, it should be a reminder of society's failure to deal with a social menace that continues to disfigure our inner cities.

Socialist futures

I want to make a minor observation about an essay Norman Geras links to on socialist alternatives to capitalism, but I'm probably going to take a lot of words to say it, so bear with me.

First, a preamble: I am not now nor have I ever been a socialist. I broadly accept much of the socialist critique of capitalism, but I have always rejected statism and have largely disavowed political action, believing that social transformation is only possible through direct action in the social and economic spheres.

To me, most socialist alternatives to capitalism look like utopian fatasies, either that or they depend on the myth of a benevolent dictatorship. Nevertheless, I am always interested to hear what socialists have to say about how radical social change might be achieved.

Thus, it was with some interest that I turned to "Taking the Social in Socialism Seriously" by Erik Olin Wright, in which he talks of "socializing capitalism" through a number of initiatives designed to promote a more socialist society. They are not that exciting (nor are they particularly new): an unconditional basic income, John Roemer's common ownership coupons, and neighborhood assemblies with partial responsibility for municipal budgets.

In his post, Norm notes that Wright, in considering socialist alternatives, makes no apologies for communism as a (problematic) historical alternative to capitalism. That's hardly surprising, but what I find remarkable, particularly given Wright's fondness for associationalism, is that he makes no mention of syndicalism or indeed (dare I say it) anarcho-syndicalism.

Not that I think Wright should have looked at initiatives stemming from a syndicalist perspective, I'm just surprised they never got a mention.

Imaginary solution

PooterGeek has the details.

More or less free speech

Some welcome news from the EUobserver:

European lawmakers have spoken out on the Danish-Muslim cartoon conflict and are expected to issue a resolution condemning the violent protests, supporting Denmark and backing freedom of expression. [...] MEPs were also strongly against a proposal by the commission to make media sign up to a voluntary "code of conduct" for reporting on Islam and other religions.

Thank God for that!

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to stop Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy commissioner, who seems intent on limiting freedom of expression not just in Europe but across the world, as UPI reports:

EU foreign policy and security commissioner Javier Solana said after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Tuesday the EU and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) "are considering certain ideas to safeguard and protect religious values in general, but the time is not appropriate to disclose the details."
Solana issued a joint statement Monday with the chief of the Jeddah-based OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stressing their bid to push for measures at U.N. level to bar tarnishing the reputation of religions

What's going on?

Water lilies

Banksy

A poet's last request

Draw me cartoons.

Draw me cartoons of men being flogged,
Of women stoned to death,
Of others murdered for apostasy.

Draw them,
So I may go and show them to the scholars,
To the mullahs and the imams,
And to such others as are suited to pronounce.

And ask them this:
"Are these also not offensive in your sight?"

EU to debate free speech

The EUobserver reports that the European Parliament is to hold a restricted debate on the limits of free speech amid calls for a European “code of conduct” covering freedom of expression.

In response to incidents in several Muslim countries following the publication of caricatures of Muhammad, MEPs will hold a debate on freedom of expression and respect for religious faith.

The presidents of the parliament’s political groups have, however, decided to only allow one person from each group to speak on the sensitive issue, as MEPs do not want to take a firm stance on the matter before next month’s Euro-Mediterranean summit, including several Muslim states.

MEPs will also discuss the past weeks’ burning issue of whether there any limits to freedom of expression and if a European code of conduct regarding the freedom of expression could be applied to sensitive matters such as personal faith.

Anything for a quiet life?

Thought for the day

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

William James.

Reading Djerejian

I‘m with Gregory Djerejian most of the way in his take on the Jyllends-Posten affair (and as usual the comments make for interesting reading) but this stopped me in my tracks:

[F]reedom of expression is a right that needs to be defended vigorously. Muslims who wish to live in the West must understand and, indeed, accept this. If they are not willing to accept these bedrock norms, and particularly if they will resort to violence to counter them, they must be forced to leave their adopted countries.

Two things:

1. Most Muslims who live in the West are not living in “adopted countries”, they are full citizens of the countries in which they reside and, quite rightly, they enjoy the full benefits of such status, including equal rights and political freedom.

2. Freedom of expression is indeed a right to be defended vigorously, but the exercise of free speech is guaranteed by law not by “bedrock norms”. Within a democratic society, Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter) are perfectly entitled to organise politically to seek changes to the laws governing freedom of expression. When and if they do so, they should be opposed not because of their religion but because of their views. They should be argued with, not forced to leave the country.

(Correct me if I’m wrong but) I don’t believe that Greg is seriously suggesting the forcible deportation of Muslim citizens for opposing the right to freedom of expression. But it sure reads that way.

Three things

Three things you didn't know about me and would probably never have guessed:

1. I was a vegetarian for twenty years.
2. I played for the Pernod team in the first British pétanque championship.
3. I have never voted.

No kidding.

Banksy in Palestine

"Some people become vandals because they want to make the world a better looking place."

Banksy, from his new book "Wall and Piece".

Cartoon characters

Three snippets from this BBC report on today's rally in Trafalgar Square:

A mass rally by mainstream Muslims demonstrating against controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist is to be staged.
Organiser Anas Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain said he was confident the demonstration would not be taken over by extremists.

Doctor Azam Tamimi, who is the director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, is due to speak at the demonstration and said it would be peaceful.

And this, from Labour MP Louise Ellman, House of Commons, December 2003:

It is time that the spotlight fell on the Muslim Association of Britain, particularly the key figures, such as Azzam Tamimi, Kamal el Helbawy, Anas Al-Tikriti and Mohammed Sawalha. All of them are connected to the terrorist organisation Hamas. The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood—an extremist fundamentalist organisation founded in Egypt in 1928, and the spiritual ideologue of all Islamic terror organisations.

Thankfully, the Muslim Association of Britain doesn't speak for the majority of Muslims in this country, but it is troubling that the BBC describes the organization as representing "mainstream Muslims".

Talking democracy

I get fed up of hearing people talk about democracy as if it’s the be-all and end-all of everything, it isn’t. Democracy is worthless without pluralism, and pluralism is not possible without respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Other people, I know, have different ideas about democracy which don’t involve respect for individual liberty. In fact, some people’s idea of democracy seems to depend on abrogating the very freedoms on which I think it depends.

Take the distinguished American historian John Hope Franklin, for example. Interviewed in today’s Guardian, he tells us the US is not a democratic country: “We have undertaken to spread democracy when we ourselves are not democratic."

His reasons (at least those given in the interview):

"Our presidents are elected by electoral colleges, not directly. And our military is not democratic. There's no draft. Bush's children and my children do not serve." He points out that those who do serve are mostly from America's poorer classes, including many blacks, driven into the professional army by economic necessity.

It seems, as far as Franklin is concerned, no country can be regarded as being democratic unless the head of state is directly elected. If a country uses some other method to decide upon its head of state, whether it’s an electoral college or hereditary privilege (as in the UK) then Franklin's view would be that country is not a democracy.

This seems to me a very narrow view of democracy, and one that is a long way from our everyday usage of the term. It is also too absolutist for my taste - Franklin views the electoral college system as undemocratic, rather than simply less democratic than other possible electoral systems.

His second point is that the American military is not democratic because there is no draft. I am not sure if this is meant as a separate issue or as support for his contention that the US is not a democratic nation. Is any nation that lacks a conscript army undemocratic, regardless of its electoral arrangements?

In any case, Franklin is using the word democratic here, not in the narrower sense introduced earlier, but in a way completely at odds with common usage. I fail to see how a military in which people are forced to serve against their will can somehow be regarded as more democratic than one made up entirely of volunteers.

I am unsure as to whether or not Franklin regards the military as a special case here - could other areas of government not also benefit from such democratization? The Department of State, for example, which (just like the military) recruits its employees from those who choose to apply. Does this make the State Department undemocratic in the same way that Franklin says the miltary is undemocratic? If all government workers were forcibly conscripted rather than freely recruited would this be somehow more democratic?

Who knows? Maybe we could mix and match Franklin’s ideas of democracy: draft someone to be president but take votes on who gets to join the military.

I’d have more respect for Franklin if I thought his words were anything other than highly politicized rhetoric, in which meaning and logic are switched and twisted to suit the occasion.

As he himself remarks:

“I'm not attached to objectivity as such. If you say my writing is politicised with the purpose of achieving a certain goal, then I have no problem with that."

Well at least we agree on something.

Published and damned

At the end of January, I wrote that the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten was more a matter of poor editorial judgement than an issue of free speech. Well, things have certainly moved on since then.

I still think JP's cultural editor, Flemming Rose, was wrong to publish the cartoons, not because they would likely cause offence, but because publishing them might put the cartoonists' personal safety at risk. I've heard a lot recently about freedom of speech coming with responsibility, it doesn't. But the job of editing a newspaper comes with a lot of responsibilities, and one of them is protecting the people who work for you.

The twelve cartoonists at the centre of the row have reportedly gone into hiding. They may never again be able to go about their normal business without fear of attack. That seems a high price to pay for the sake of a few cartoons.

Vigorously asserting the right to free speech by publishing provocative material whatever the consequences is not a responsible editorial policy. There are a whole host of issues an editor needs to consider before publishing controversial material. Peter Preston covered some of them in Sunday's Observer. (Emphasis added):

There are plenty of good reasons for not publishing those 12 Danish cartoons in Britain. Some are principled, like not giving gratuitous offence to fellow citizens, keeping inter-faith relations on an even keel and not getting tangled up in that BNP judgment.

Some are pragmatic: not putting your Middle East reporters in jeopardy, not putting sales at risk of boycotts, like the Sun did over Hillsborough, not offending thousands of newsagents who have ways of making you squeak. And some are mistily emotional: European papers are over there, aren't they - so why should papers over here get caught up in their debate, especially when we're 36 hours late joining the party?

Commentators may lament the fact that the British press has not reprinted the cartoons, but it is hardly surprising: who wants the life of a Danish cartoonist?

Mohammed in Court

Mark Liberman at Language Log reminds us there is a depiction of Mohammed in the Supreme Court Building and notes that a number of American Muslims once tried to have it removed.

From the Council on American Islamic Relations Tenth Anniversary Report (pdf):

In 1997, CAIR continued to rely on the strength of its numbers to challenge inappropriate portrayals of Islam. In March, many American Muslims asked the U.S. Supreme Court to remove a carved stone depiction of a sword-wielding Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), Islam's revered prophet, from its courtroom wall. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations. Moreover, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) was shown with the Quran, Islam’s Holy Book, in one hand and a sword in the other, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors, a CAIR official said.

As Liberman reports, Chief Justice Rehnquist rightly gave the request short shrift.

Tuesday roundabout

Tim Worstall has the latest Britblog Roundup showcasing the best of the British blogosphere. It's packed full of linky goodness, including the Religious Policeman's priceless Memo to the House of Saud.

Peaktalk's Pieter Dorsman is the subject of this week's Normblog profile.

At Slate, Christopher Hitchen's makes the case for mocking religion: Ophelia Benson has commentary.

Natalie Solent is discussing what ended slavery. Suggestions so far include: the horse-collar, the Industrial Revolution and the Little Ice Age. Where I come from, it was none of the above: it was my great grandfather, his brother and a million others like them, all dressed in blue and carrying Springfield muskets. Or so we like to believe.

And Oliver Kamm has thoughts on the cartoons and the offence.

The Old Country

Old Man Simpson: "The story of the Simpson family began in the Old Country. I forget which one exactly."

Luckily, in my family, we remember.

Here's a frame showing pictures of Alsatian national costume (from "The History of Costume" by Braun & Schneider). The dapper looking guy on the right is from Oberseebach - the same village as my great great great grandfather.



Funny, I always thought we fled Europe to escape religious persecution but maybe we just went looking for better clothes.

Fisking Fisk

When I visited the Independent online and read the introduction to Robert Fisk's (pay to view) article "Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism", I instinctively clicked over to the Daily Ablution to see if Scott had picked up on it, even though I know he doesn't normally blog on a Saturday.

I wasn't disappointed: "Fisk's Independent piece is so inferior, so reeks of desperate frustration, that to answer it seems required."

And answer it he does.

Incidentally, I notice via Instapundit that Fisk's been called on a number of factual inaccuracies in his book The Great War for Civilization.

Sense and sensibilities

From Normblog (emphasis in the original):

Respect for the right of free speech and respect for the sensibilities of others are not symmetrical and no one should pretend, in the present situation, that they can be neatly balanced. If the right to free speech is under attack it has to be defended. It is not possible fully to respect it except by recognizing that it leaves in place the freedom to be disrespectful to the beliefs and sensibilities of others.

Indeed.

Today in London

Jeremy Bowen reports for the BBC from outside Regents Park Mosque (video link):

"For many at Regents Park Mosque in London today this is just a new chapter in an old story of Western hypocrisy and hatred in which Muslim rights come second to everyone else's freedoms."

Some of those demonstrating against "Western hypocrisy and hatred" are chanting:

UK YOU WILL PAY
BIN LADEN ON HIS WAY

A few hundred of them then set off for the Danish Embassy fronted by placards proclaiming:

KILL THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY FANTASTIC 4 ARE ON THE WAY

Free speech indeed.

UPDATE
Saturday's Guardian puts the number of demonstrators at more than 500 and notes they were led by al-Ghuraba (formerly al-Mujahiroun).

Passersby stopped police officers to ask why the marchers were being allowed to carry banners threatening further suicide attacks in the city. One police officer replied: "Don't worry. We are photographing them."

How reassuring.

Cartoon roundup

I've been too busy to blog the last couple of days, and when I haven't been busy, Ive been dead dog tired - the boys has been home from school with a virus that's been doing the rounds and I've been struggling with the domestics.

But I have managed to follow the increasing frenzy over Jyllands-Posten and the Mohammed cartoons (there’s already a detailed Wikipedia entry). I'm hoping I'll get time to post on it later today but who knows?

In the meantime:

There’s a lot of comment in the Guardian including Sarah Joseph’s pitiful bid for victim status - Tim Worstall has the perfect antidote.

Condition Orange: The Religious Policeman warns us that the Muslim "Offense Level" has been raised.

Our Lady of Cultural Differences: The Brussels Journal digs up an artwork that subverts Christian iconography.

And Cox and Forkum add a cartoon of their own featuring some guy called Mohammed.