Parody's Place

Harry's had the decorators in.

The politics of terror

At commentisfree: Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh sets out Hamas' position on Israel: "A just peace or no peace".

No plan will ever work without a guarantee, in exchange for an end to hostilities by both sides, of a total Israeli withdrawal from all the land occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; the release of all our prisoners; the removal of all settlers from all settlements; and recognition of the right of all refugees to return

If Israel refuses to accept these terms then, Haniyeh warns, Hamas will continue its struggle using "all available means" - unless Israel capitulates, there will be no end to terror.

For those who think the Palestinians can be deflected from this course by Western pressure and further negotiations:-

The message from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the world powers is this: talk to us no more about recognising Israel's "right to exist" or ending resistance until you obtain a commitment from the Israelis to withdraw from our land and recognise our rights.

Haniyeh notes that Hamas was freely elected and now legitimately represents the Palestinian people:-

If we are boycotted in spite of this democratic choice - as we have been by the US and some of its allies - we will persist, and our friends have pledged to fill the gap. We have confidence in the peoples of the world, record numbers of whom identify with our struggle. This is a good time for peace-making - if the world wants peace.

So, if the world wants peace from Hamas and their allies around the world, the Israelis must be made to surrender their state. The only alternative the terrorists have to offer is endless war.

Some choice, huh!

The dating game

PooterGeek returns today to the subject of British dating rituals - or rather, non-dating rituals, since he’s talking about women who agree to dates and then don’t turn up. He also points out (for those who may not have realized) that his original post on the subject wasn’t a heartfelt plea: “It was cynical, ironic, chippy, mocking, self-mocking. Almost everything I write here is. I wasn’t looking for a date”.

It seems some people thought he was. I wonder if I might have inadvertently encouraged that impression by my attempt at humour in this post. (Yes, I know, it’s not half as funny as the stuff PooterGeek writes. What can I say? I’m doing my best with a bad brain.)

In any case, Damian is making a serious point, and one that (regardless of any misunderstanding) has obviously touched a nerve with a lot of people.

That yoga thing

For a few years in my twenties, I devoted myself to the practice of zazen and yoga - I recently mentioned it in my Normblog profile. But I've only just realized that someone reading that might get the idea that being "devoted to yoga" involved me spending a lot of time contorted in bizarre postures.

No. When I said "the practice of yoga", I wasn't talking about physical exercise. I know some people dedicate themselves to practicing physical yoga: they teach yoga classes, write books about it and talk up the benefits. But that's not at all the same thing as being "devoted to the practice of yoga".

When people in the West think of yoga, they mostly think of hatha yoga, specifically the asanas (postures). Diligently practicing the asanas might promote good health and emotional well-being, but that's not really the point.

In the West, hatha yoga has been taken out of context and commodified. Isolated from the body of knowledge that gives it sense and purpose, it becomes nothing more than ritual exercise.

And that's not something I've ever been devoted to.

On human rights

"You cannot defend humanity without defending its right to speak and express itself." Maryam Namazie

Religious refugee

From the Independent:

Italy is considering granting asylum to Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was released from jail yesterday in Kabul, where he had faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity.

He was staying in a safe house last night after prosecutors dropped the case against him under intense international pressure. But Mr Rahman will have to flee the country for his own safety, after several leading Muslim clerics called on Afghans to kill him.

No sign of Global Civility there, then.

Acting time

One of the set books on my acting course is John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" - originally a series of televised workshops he did with the Royal Shakespeare Company.

In one chapter, where he's talking about the dangers of being too earnest with the text (Shakespeare's words are to be "searched and savoured" not solemnified) he perfectly illustrates his point by having two actors play out the following scene taken from the Cambridge Footlights of 1981. (In the original Footlights skit, Stepehn Fry played the Director, Hugh Laurie the Actor.)

DIRECTOR: All right let’s start at the beginning shall we?
ACTOR: Right, yeh.
DIRECTOR: What’s the word, what’s the word, I wonder, that Shakespeare decides to begin his sentence with here?
ACTOR: Er, ‘Time’ is the first word.
DIRECTOR: Time, Time.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And how does Shakespeare decide to spell it, Hugh?
ACTOR: T-I-M-E.
DIRECTOR: T-I?
ACTOR: M.
DIRECTOR: M-E.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And what sort of spelling of the word is that?
ACTOR: Well, it’s the ordinary spelling.
DIRECTOR: It’s the ordinary spelling, isn’t it? It’s the conventional spelling. So why, out of all the spellings he could have chosen, did Shakespeare choose that one, do you think?
ACTOR: Well, um, because it gives us time in an ordinary sense.
DIRECTOR: Exactly, well done, good boy. Because it gives us time in an ordinary, conventional sense.
ACTOR: Oh, right.
DIRECTOR: So, Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense. But he’s given us something else, Hugh. Have a look at the typography. What do you spy?
ACTOR: Oh, it’s got a capital T.
DIRECTOR: Shakespeare’s T is very much upper case there, Hugh, isn’t it? Why?
ACTOR: Cos it’s the first word in the sentence?
DIRECTOR: Well I think that’s partly it. But I think there’s another reason too. Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense – and time in an abstract sense.
ACTOR: Right, yes.
DIRECTOR: All right? Think your voice can convey that, Hugh?
ACTOR: I hope so.
DIRECTOR: I hope so too. All right. Give it a go.
ACTOR: Just the one word?
DIRECTOR: Just the one word for the moment.
ACTOR: Yep.
(He howls the word)
DIRECTOR: Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, Hugh. Where do we gather from?
ACTOR: Oh, the buttocks.
DIRECTOR: Always the buttocks. Gather from the buttocks. Thank you.
ACTOR: Time!
DIRECTOR: What went wrong there, Hugh?
ACTOR: Um, I don’t know. I got a bit lost in the middle actually.

Academic freedom

Following the suspension of Frank Ellis from his job as a lecturer at Leeds University for allegedly propagating racist views, I can't help wondering whether those friends of education who sought his removal might now move on to expose and condemn the divergent views expressed by other members of the faculty.

In any case, the message to academics is clear: Be careful what you say - it might cost you your job.

We're all doomed

Mad Bun is deconstructing reality, again. And this time, not even Norm can save us!

Spiked on speech

Brendan O'Neill at Spiked (yes, I know, it's Living Marxism in drag) has some thoughts on last Saturday's March for Free Expression.

An extract:

Saturday's rally reminded me of the dangers of defining free speech legalistically. Some seemed to see freedom of speech as something that the authorities must protect and promote, when to my mind freedom of speech means the authorities butting out of our conversations and correspondence, and all of us having the right to say, write, think and hear what we want without state intervention. At one stage Tatchell called on Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair to protect people from the 'intimidation' of religious fundamentalists. Five minutes later the organisers announced, to loud boos, that a protester's placard had been confiscated by the cops because it reproduced one of those silly Danish cartoons. But perhaps the police were simply protecting Muslims from the 'intimidation' of their secular critics? If you give the police an inch of moral authority on the free speech issue, they will take a mile of liberties. That's the cops for you.

Indeed it is and, true to form, the police have now summonsed the lone protester who displayed the cartoons.

What do I think of free speech in Europe? It would be a nice idea.

Smoking in public

In today's Times, David Aaronovitch has some difficulty asesssing the nature of smokers' rights.

There was a ten-second period when I thought about resenting this ban on behalf of the smokers who currently exist, and in memory of the smoker in me who was overcome (after a decade of titanic struggle) 13 years ago. What I couldn’t do, however, was to construct an objection on the basis of political philosophy. In other words, I couldn’t proceed from a generalised concept of the relationship between the individual and society in order to solve the question: “Should people be allowed to smoke in public places?”

Normblog offers a helping hand: "preventing people from smoking anywhere in public, even if they could do so harmlessly vis-à-vis others, is paternalistic and illiberal."
Indeed it is.

A date for Damian

This blog wholeheartedly endorses the efforts made by Kerron Cross to find a date for PooterGeek's Damian Counsell. (The background to Damian's plight can be found here.)

There are, at present, no plans for either a petition or a demonstration in support of Damian. Nevertheless, those of you wishing to "do your bit" for the campaign (women in particular) might like to consider writing a letter of support using the following form of words (or some variation thereof).

Dear (name of single female friend),

Did you know Damian Counsell is single? No, I couldn't believe it either, but he is! And he's not only single - he's very, very eligible: intelligent, well-educated, highly amusing and solvent.

You said you were looking for Mr Right, well I've found him for you! Seriously, you really should contact him: e-mail him, leave a comment on his blog, anything - just get in touch. But you better be quick - he's gone public with this and you don't want to get left behind (again). Let's face it, none of us is getting any younger.

I tell you, if I wasn't in a relationship right now, I'd be straight in there.

Yours etc

Thank you in anticipation of your support.

Nonmutual respect

In discussing aspects of Anthony Appiah's "Ethics of Identity", Ophelia Benson quotes Martha Nussbaum's views on mutual respect in a pluralistic society:

I agree with Rawls such respect requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.

Ophelia Benson doesn't agree, such a position necessarily involves "surrender to the theocrats, who have no truck with 'delicate regard' for other people's religious much less non-religious doctrines".

She's right, of course. Attempting to accommodate myriad superstitions in the public space involves abandoning rational concepts like truth and objectivity in favor of the wilful acceptance of ignorance and religious bigotry.

"Global Civility"? No, thank you.

Indigenous rights

The Manchester Anthropology Working Papers series was established in 2004 with the aim of bringing current perspectives in Social Anthropology to the attention of a wider audience. The series is intended to promote discussion and debate, and features a mix of seminar papers, lectures by visiting scholars and the informal presentation of current research.

Of particular note is John Gledhill's - "Beyond Speaking Truth to Power: Anthropological entanglements with multicultural and indigenous politics" (pdf) which looks at the problematic role of anthropologists in representing the claims of indigenous movements.

[T]hese problems have been exacerbated by the fact that specific types of “pluralism” have now become integral to the redefined state projects of the neo-liberal era, and are, in a closely integrated way, also frequently integral to the strategies of political and economic forces that have far from “progressive” social agendas. We need to ask how far greater “pluralism" relates to both conscious tactics of “fragmentation” of popular movements and how far “fragmentation” is a bottom up response to changing socio-economic conditions that need to remain at the centre of our analyses.

The paper is part of an ongoing discussion on minority rights and the use of the term "indigenous", and includes a brief summary of Adam Kuper's critique of the indigenous rights movement.

Sunday roundabout

Marie Phillips is the subject of this week's Normblog profile.

The Religious Policeman gives his views on yesterday's March for Free Expression.

Tim Worstall posts Britblog Roundup #58.

Shuggy looks at blog-stalkers: if you have the word 'watch' at the end of your blog's title, you really "should consider the possibility that you've lost your goddam mind."

James Lileks gets one up on the video store guy and it's payback time for Captain Kirk in this week's podcast from the Diner.

And finally,

At Language Log, a budding linguist offers an innovative solution to the person/people problem.

Whatshisname

(This is the second in an occasional series. The first post can be found here.)

Is it juggling week or something? I've recently seen a lot of links to Chris Bliss' juggling finale and PooterGeek pointed out this parody by champion juggler Jason Garfield. All of which got me wondering: whatever happened to Wack and Zane?

Who? Ok, they weren't nationally famous or anything, just a couple of guys I used to know from way back when - jugglers from the Bristol comedy scene in the '80s, from Viv Stanshall's time at the Old Profanity Showboat.

They used to put on variety reviews there - an eclectic mix of comedy, performance and outright insanity. They even roped me in for one show: I refused point blank to be the compaire but I did agree to do a short set. I was billed as "Tall Slim American Poet" - I kind of liked that.

So, whatever happened to Wack and Zane? I knew that one of them had gone off to become a teacher (not sure if that was Zane or Wack). Yesterday evening, I found the other one - the American one - online.

Last time I saw Gary Parker, he was playing Piers in the first series of Chef!



That was over ten years ago. And it looks like he's still doing ok: he has his own IMDB page and recent writing credits include As if and Totally Frank. He's a talented guy.

Me? I'm still trying to make the transition from performance poet to dramatic actor. Given another twenty years, who knows what might happen!?

The wild rover

Oxblog's Patrick Belton is in Karachi, and doing rather well.

My new hosts, taken by my fetching shalwar kameez and resulting instant Pakistani credibility, have quite kindly opened their rolodex to me, with result I will now scurry off and talk with a large number of military men and journalists. I now somehow know people in Pakistan. I love my life.

Given that, one hopes my entire spotty journalistic career doesn't take the form of an extended suicide note.

Indeed. As Sergeant Esterhaus used to say: Hey, let's be careful out there.

Today in London

The BBC reports that the March for Free Expression passed off without a hitch, despite concerns from some quarters that the demonstration would be hijacked by racist extremists.

That never seemed a likely scenario, but the hysterical clamour against the march (the Islamic Human Rights Commission called it "a provocation to 1.6 billion Muslims") led to organizer Peter Risdon asking people not to display posters of the Mohammed cartoons.

This was too much for some, particularly those who had joined the campaign to show solidarity not only with Denmark but also perhaps with Jyllands-Posten. Whatever other motives may have been in play, I suspect a number of people who initially supported the march did so because they were disappointed that none of the British press had republished the cartoons. For them, the whole point of the demonstration was to display the contentious images - they weren't bothered if people were going to be offended by it.

I'm strongly in favor of freedom of expression and I would have liked to have been in London today. I supported the campaign as a mark of solidarity with Denmark and because I believe the rise of political Islam is a threat to freedom. But (as I've said before) I'm not interested in waving posters featuring drawings of Mohammed. At best, the cartoons are a distraction; at worst, they are a dangerously divisive issue.

Peter Risdon's eleventh-hour conversion to this point of view is to be welcomed. But, given the context of the campaign, it's hardly surprising that some of his erstwhile supporters regard it as a betrayal of principle.

UPDATE
Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has photos of the rally.

Against totalitarianism

From Alan Johnson's Camus' Catch: How democracies can defeat Totalitarian Political Islam featured in the March issue of Democratiya.

The fact is we are not engaged in a 'war on terror', any more than World War Two was a 'war on blitzkrieg'. We are engaged in a conflict with Totalitarian Political Islam and our enemy uses not only terror but also 'popular' riot, electoral politics, and ideological warfare. The rhetoric of a 'war on terror' gets us thinking about security solutions. Good, security is important. But we need, above all, a political analysis of a political movement in order to develop a political response.

Read the whole thing.

Australian graffiti

Banksy has a comment piece in today's Guardian on the removal of Melbourne's street art as the city cleaned itself up to host the Commonwealth Games.

Melbourne is the proud capital of street painting with stencils. Its large, colonial-era walls and labyrinth of back alleys drip with graffiti that is more diverse and original than any other city in the world. Well, that was until a few weeks ago, when preparations for the Commonwealth games brought a tidal wave of grey paint, obliterating years of unique and vibrant culture overnight.

This may seem like no great tragedy to readers of the Daily Mail, but Melbourne's graffiti scene is a key factor in its status as the continent's hothouse of creativity and wilful individualism.

If you live in Melbourne, you can check out the street art in your neighborhood here.

Who says everything has to be gray?

Random quote

The idea that Americans are stupid is a piece of racial condescension of which Europeans are often guilty.

David Hare

Random picture

Hizb who?

Scott at the Daily Ablution reviews press coverage of the Shabina Begum case, highlighting the involvement of radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

It seems a number of newspapers have mentioned HuT's role in the dispute but the Guardian has never reported on the connection. That does seem strange, particularly since (as Scott points out) Dilpazier Aslam, the Guardian reporter who covered the court case, was himself a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

But who knows? Maybe Aslam never mentioned HuT's involvement because he didn't want to compromise his integrity as a member of that organization.

Integrity? No, that's not the right word.

Consider and discuss

"Most blogs have nothing to say." Oliver Kamm.

In the name of God

Abdul Rahman is to be put on trial for his life in Afghanistan, charged with denying Islam. The evidence against him is his self-professed conversion to Christianity. He has refused to renounce his faith even though he faces the death penalty.

The Times interviewed the judge who will be trying the case:

"The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.

"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.

If Judge Zada, who is head of the Primary Court, passes the death penalty under Afghan law, Mr Rahman still has two avenues of appeal, the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. The death penalty then has to be ratified by President Hamid Karzai.

To demand that someone be put to death for their beliefs is simply and self-evidently evil. The outcome of this grotesque prosecution is not (as the Times report goes on to suggest) a test of religious freedom in Afghanistan. The country failed that test when Abdul Rahman was arrested for his "crime".

The Lobby

I turned to the essay by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: "The Israel Lobby" with some interest and high hopes. For some reason, I imagined it was going to be an insider's view of the hardball tactics employed by Washington's lobbyists. It isn't.

It starts to stink from the opening paragraph (and it doesn't get any better).

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?

Gee, I don't know, why is that?

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.

You mean the Jews, right?

We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

Yeah, I get all that, but you're talking about the Jews, right?

Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them.

See, I told you it was the Jews! "Not all" of them but most of them.

In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

But the rest of them, according to Walt and Mearsheimer, are all part of "the Lobby". Get it? Traitors the lot of them, conspiring together to compromise US security in the service of Israeli interests. Well, who'd have thunk it!?

Come to think of it - isn't this just a cheap rip-off of "The Protocols"?

Lee Smith (guest posting at Michael Totten's blog) finds it hard to believe that Walt and Mearsheimer were sober when they wrote this nonsense - I think he's being far too charitable.

More informed comment here and here.

Guilt by association

Alan Johnson of Democratiya has pulled out of the "March for Free Expression" and Maryam Namazie has received a letter from the Alliance for Workers' Liberty calling for her not to speak at the demonstration because it would mean sharing a platform with the Freedom Association.

As Scribbles notes, it's all getting rather tangled. But what is to be done.?

Liberty and religion

From the conclusion to Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus:

I have thus shown:-

That it is impossible to deprive men of the liberty of saying what they think.

That such liberty can be conceded to every man without injury to the rights and authority of the sovereign power, and that every man may retain it without injury to such rights, provided that he does not presume upon it to the extent of introducing any new rights into the state, or acting in any way contrary, to the existing laws.

That every man may enjoy this liberty without detriment to the public peace, and that no inconveniences arise there from which cannot easily be checked.

That every man may enjoy it without injury to his allegiance.

That laws dealing with speculative problems are entirely useless.

Lastly, that not only may such liberty be granted without prejudice to the public peace, to loyalty, and to the rights of rulers, but that it is even necessary, for their preservation. For when people try to take it away, and bring to trial, not only the acts which alone are capable of offending, but also the opinions of mankind, they only succeed in surrounding their victims with an appearance of martyrdom, and raise feelings of pity and revenge rather than of terror.

Uprightness and good faith are thus corrupted, flatterers and traitors are encouraged, and sectarians triumph, inasmuch as concessions have been made to their animosity, and they have gained the state sanction for the doctrines of which they are the interpreters.

Hence they arrogate to themselves the state authority and rights, and do not scruple to assert that they have been directly chosen by God, and that their laws are Divine, whereas the laws of the state are human, and should therefore yield obedience to the laws of God - in other words, to their own laws.

Everyone must see that this is not a state of affairs conducive to public welfare.

Wherefore, as we have shown […] the safest way for a state is to lay down the rule that religion is comprised solely in the exercise of charity and justice, and that the rights of rulers in sacred, no less than in secular matters, should merely have to do with actions, but that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks.

Reading Marx

Norm Geras gives 10 reasons for reading Karl Marx - they're all good ones.

[Oops! Almost forget - obligatory disclaimer for the folks back home: I am not now, nor have I ever been..., etc etc.]

On choosing allies

Judy at Adloyada raises a number of issues relating to the March for Free Expression in London this coming Saturday. She believes that supporting the demonstration is problematic, partly because of the agendas of some of the people and organizations involved.

She is right to raise the issue - I share much of Judy’s unease at the involvement of the Freedom Association. And I too am concerned to avoid taking part in a xenophobic or provocative event. But I am also worried that, in giving voice to concerns about people’s underlying motivations, our suspicions may warrant us to find grave fault with little justification.

In her post, Judy describes Peter Risdon, one of the event’s instigators, as “a hard line English right wing nationalist, with a blanket anti-Muslim stance”. To underline this impression (gleaned from reading his blog), she makes a couple of contentions.

Firstly, that “he quotes extensively from Al-Ghurabaa, as if they were typical of Muslim opinion.”

It is clear that Peter doesn’t believe Islam to be a Good Thing (but he does distinguish between the faith and its followers) and he is implacably opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. He certainly focuses on the outpourings of Al-Ghurabaa – condemning their ranting and raving is central to the purpose of his blog – but I couldn’t find any basis for Judy’s assertion that these are presented “as if they were typical of Muslim opinion”. Quite the opposite in fact: he focuses on them because they are extremists, not because he believes they represent majority Muslim opinion.

Secondly, Judy notes: “He also quotes very extensively from what he acknowledges are the emphatically racist views of the young Winston Churchill of the 1890s on the subject of Islam, and the supposed mentality and potential of Arabs and Africans.”

Yes, in one post, he did quote the young Winston. That post was in response to quotations from Churchill by Al-Ghurabaa and Thabo Mbeki - Peter responded in kind, and was highly critical of Churchill's views on race. Context isn’t everything but it seems important here.

It is particularly important since Judy seems to me to be implying that Peter Risdon is not only a racist, he is also devious and dishonest:

Disingenuously, he states that he deplores the racism from which he quotes at such great length, whilst praising what he sees as Churchill's insights into the nature of Islam”

Implicit accusations of this sort, supported by selective references, may serve some purpose, but they don't really clarify the issues. I don’t know Peter Risdon except through his involvement in this campaign. It may be that in other contexts he has made his views apparent on a whole range of subjects. But from reading his blog, I don’t get the idea that he’s a racist - or even, for that matter, "a hardline right wing English nationalist".

Of course, that may just be indicative of some deficiency on my part. In which case, I imagine I’ll be trampled in the rush to judgement.

Duck on a pond

DeskDuck: "the only duck swimming about on a pond sort of thing you'll ever need".

Three years on

Amid a flurry of mea culpas from various people over their support for the invasion of Iraq (most notably from Johann Hari), Armed Liberal at Winds of Change says it for me:

Knowing everything I know today, I would have made the same decision three years ago - to support the invasion.

If you think I was wrong, fine. If you think I've got blood on my hands as a result of my support for the war, fine. But, if you supported the invasion three years ago and have now turned against it because the aftermath has been a bloody mess, don't try and tell me I'm the one who was naive.

Britblog Roundup

Tim Worstall has the latest Britblog Roundup, including Jackie Danicki's take on Oliver Kamm's Times column about blogging - she really didn't like it at all. Tim thinks the column may have been an example of Kamm's "very very dry wit" - if so, it was too dry for me.

Also via the Roundup: Mind the Gap reports on an anti-rape campaign desperately in need of some awareness. And it looks like Judy at Adloyada had some people fooled (at least momentarily) with news of Seamus Milne's departure from the Guardian - still, it's something to look forward to.

Grant in Israel

Via Harry's Place: Linda Grant in the Guardian explaining to a young Israeli that many Europeans don't accept a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"You should explain to them about how Israel was created by the UN, two countries, one Arab, one Jewish. It's all in black and white."

Yes, well, I went on, there's the view that the UN had no right to do that against the will of Palestinians, it was a mistake that needs to corrected. I could see now, that it was as if I was telling him that there were people who thought that the earth was flat or the moon made of green cheese. "But what about the Balfour Declaration?" That was an example of perfidious Albion, I went on.

"Okay, so Israel is not going to exist, where are you going to send us next? My family have been here eight generations, by the way." You don't have to go anywhere, I said. You and the Palestinians stay right here in one big country. There was a silence, as this sank in. I felt I was announcing the imminent cancellation of the solar system. "Right," he said, "so now we're all dead."

Blatantly. But, for some reason, a lot of Europeans don't seem at all troubled by the prospect of such a final solution.

Carter on Israel

In today's Guardian, Jimmy Carter is once again building castles in the sky: withdraw from the occupied territories and all will be well.

There is little doubt that accommodation with Palestinians can bring full Arab recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. Any rejectionist policies of Hamas or any terrorist group will be overcome by an Arab commitment to restrain further violence and to promote the wellbeing of the Palestinian people.

An Arab commitment to restrain further violence would be very welcome but it's just not going to happen. Nevertheless, Carter sets out what such a commitment would involve.

1. Israel's right to exist - and to live in peace - must be recognised and accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbours.

2. The killing of innocent people by suicide bombs or other acts of violence cannot be condoned.

3. Palestinians must live in peace and dignity, and permanent Israeli settlements on their land are a major obstacle to this goal.

Carter claims grounds for optimism here, though it's difficult to see why. The Palestinians are now led by an organization whose constitution denies Israel's right to exist; most Palestinians (and many of their supporters) regard suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic - Israeli civilians are not regarded as innocent people, suicide bombers are treated as martyrs; and the mere presence of Jews in the "Holy Land" (Carter's term not mine) is viewed as an affront to Palestinian dignity. Withdrawal will do nothing to change any of that.

Carter thinks that having achieved power, Hamas will be content to consolidate its political gains: "It will be a tragedy if it promotes or condones terrorism." Indeed it will be. Unfortunately, further tragedy seems unavoidable irrespective of Israeli actions - and to my mind, their safest course now lies in retreating behind the security barrier and mirroring the Hamas policy of non-engagement.

It's depressing, though entirely predictable, to find Jimmy Carter criticizing Israel for rejecting Bush's "road map to peace" when the Palestinians themselves declined to implement its provisions. As I said a while ago:

[A]ttempting to implement the road map has done little other than embolden those organizations working hardest for a Palestinian state. That would be fine, if it wasn’t for the fact that those groups are not democratic political parties, they are terrorist organizations with an agenda that goes far beyond the two-state solution.

I can see no basis for Carter's belief that Hamas in power will abandon both its methods and its ultimate objective, yet this assumption has become the conventional wisdom in certain circles - and that's a tragedy in itself.

An ocean in the making

From the English edition of Der Spiegel:

Normally new rivers, seas and mountains are born in slow motion. The Afar Triangle near the Horn of Africa is another story. A new ocean is forming there with staggering speed -- at least by geological standards. Africa will eventually lose its horn.

It seems the African and Arabian tectonic plates are moving apart at a rate of about a centimeter a year. As they do so, the ground between them is sinking, opening up vast crevices - and I do mean vast (it's worth clicking the link just for the photos).

Geology in action.

Dog business

PooterGeek is talking shit. No, really, he is.

Kamm on blogs

Clive Davis sounds as surprised as I was at Oliver Kamm's take on blogs in his recent column for the Times. After noting that blogs effectively "provide a vehicle for instant comment and opinion", Kamm goes on to point out that:

These are not a new form of journalism, but new packaging for a venerable part of a newspaper. Even the best blogs are parasitic on what their practitioners contemptuously call the “mainstream media”. Without a story to comment on or an editorial to rubbish, they would have nothing to say.

Well, perhaps. But aren't the comment and opinion pieces found in newspapers parasitic in exactly the same way? And I'm not at all sure that references to the "mainstream media" are neccesarily contemptuous, rather than simply descriptive.

I'm generally in favor of puncturing bubbles, (and some of the claims that have been made regarding the importance of blogging are clearly self-serving hype) but as Clive Davis notes "its effect on the media in the US is beyond argument".

I expect the same will happen in the UK, eventually. But, in Kamm's defense, we're presently a long way from that.

Wha gwaan?

For reasons I'm not going to go into right now, I have recently been researching South Western Caribbean Creole (also known as Jamaican patois).

Quite a few people I know are British-Jamaican. They all speak standard English when it's required of them but, in informal settings, a mixture of English and patois is the norm - unless someone gets heated about something and then it's full-on patois. I can usually follow most of it. I even use bits of patois myself on occasion, but only with people who know me well - its use in other situations can be problematic.

Anyway, I've been researching the spelling of Jamaican patois, which is no easy task since, unlike a number of French influenced creoles, there is no standardized spelling of SWCC. There have been attempts at standardization, but since Jamaican patois exists largely as a spoken language (most speakers read and write standard English) standardization isn't really a critical issue.

I won't bore you with alternate spellings of various creole words, except to say that the main argument seems to be over the use of "a" or "aa" in such words as "raas" and "gwaan". But something I came across in my wanderings does, I think, deserve to be shared.

In the 1990s, HUD (the US Department of Housing and Urban Development) issued a leaflet to tenants advising them of their rights, some 1,500 of those leaflets were printed in Jamaican patois.

Here's an extract:

"Yuh as a rezedent, ave di rights ahn di rispansibilities to elp mek yuh HUD-asisted owzing ah behta owme fi yuh ahn yuh fambily. Dis is a brochure distributed to yuh cawze Hud ah provide some fawm ahf asistance aur subsidy fi di whole apawtment buildin. As ah pawt ahfits dedication fi maintain di bes pawsible living enviornment fi all rezedents, yuh HUD field affice encourage ahn suppowts . . ."

As far as I'm concerned, such a rendering is a fundamentally misguided (and extremely patronizing) attempt at effective communication. But make up your own mind, you can find the full story here.

Bruce Lee interview

Via Winds of Change: Wizbang Pop! has a video of the Piere Burton Show from 1971 featuring Burton's interview with Bruce Lee.

A couple of weeks ago, I caught the tail end of the interview on cable TV - I was kicking myself for not catching the start of it.

Highly recommended.

Mardi Gras in Iraq

More photos of highly decorated soldiers are available at Lainey's Photo Website. (Thank to Dean Esmay for the link).

Den Beste's Matrix

I enjoyed the first Matrix movie but I found the rest of the trilogy disappointing, and more than a little bizarre. But now, having reading Steven Den Beste's take on it all (Too Many Words about "The Matrix" Trilogy), it's somehow beginning to make sense.

Not perfect sense, admitedly, but certainly more sense than I got from the movies.

Death and God and kids

My three children growing up, each in their turn has asked me about death. I haven't been able to tell them much - the way I see it, it's like falling asleep, except you never wake up. And, when my time comes, I'll be looking forward to a long rest.

Funny, but it was the same with all three of the boys: after they'd asked the Death question, the God question would follow a couple of days later. I figure it took about 48 hours for them to absorb my answer and reason that the only way to perpetuate themselves ad infinitum would be by way of some cosmic saviour.

With the God question, I always tried to give them a measure of hope: I've told them that God (in the sense of the creator and sustainer of all things) is a grapefruit; more specifically, the invisible giant grapefruit in our attic. They regard this notion as completely nonsensical. But seeing as how the only argument they have consistently advanced against it is that my choice of deity seems entirely arbitrary, I imagine they get the point.

The Big Fella was talking about it last week. He has a running discussion going with one of his Christian friends. When I asked the basis of his friend's belief, the Big Fella reckoned it was down to his parents: "He was brought up to believe in God: I grew up in a family of atheists."

"A family of atheists" - that makes me laugh. I've never told my children I was an atheist, but it seems they just won't accept grapefruit - which is probably a good thing.

Prosecuting religion

From Agora (via BBBC): A German group calling itself the BVB (Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen) is asking prosecutors in a number of German states to take action against the sale of the Koran, which it says violates the German penal code and is incompatible with the German constitution.

The BVB’s indictment includes 200 verses drawn from the Koran, including this rendering of Sura 98:6:

“The unbelievers among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians): They are the vilest of all creatures.”

The group cite this as being in violation of Paragraph 166 of the German Penal Code, which provides for the punishment (by fine or imprisonment for up to three years) of those who publicly insult, or who distribute material intended to insult, people’s beliefs (Weltanschauung) in a way that is likely to disturb the peace.

I imagine the German constitution guarantees freedom of belief, so I can’t believe we’re about to see the Koran banned in Germany. And I certainly don’t think its continued sale is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Though, obviously, if people took the Koran literally, absolutely believing it be the word of God, and used it to define their entire lives then it’s possible that, reading that particular Sura, they might come to think that all Jews and Christians were vile. But even given all that, it’s still a long way from being a disturbance of the peace.

To my mind, attacking the Koran in this way is not an attempt to defend the German constitution, it’s an attempt to limit freedom of expression - Islamic fundamentalism is not its only foe.

Michael Michaels

Via Melanie Phillips: The BBC's Newsnight program recently revealed that Britian supplied 10mg of plutonium to Israel in the mid 1960s. It also made some serious allegations against a former British civil servant.

The following is an extract from a transcript (the link to the video is here, under "Britain's nuclear link to Israel revealed").

Newsnight also reveals the crucial role played by the civil servant who, for fourteen years, was Britain's representative on the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA), the body which regulates nuclear proliferation.

Michael Michaels was Jewish, a keen supporter of the state of Israel (indeed his middle name was actually Israel). And, when, he retired, the Israeli government found him a job in London for two years.

What was Michaels' "crucial role"? He wrote a letter in support of Israel's request; the Foreign Office opposed the deal. This letter and the fact that Michaels was Jewish are enough for the BBC to question his loyalty.

Peter Kelly [a retired defense intelligence analyst] believes Michael Michaels acted out of sympathy for Israel.

BBC: "Do you think there was a certain element perhaps of dual loyalties there? That although he was...?"

Peter Kelly: "Yes. Yes, I think one could say that."

The implication, I take it, is that Michael Michaels was some sort of Israeli double-agent, a traitor to British interests. Is this really the case? Or are the BBC simply playing "Spot the Jew"?

The morning after

Ok, so I've been wallowing in self-pity. In my defense: it's a healthier response than mute depression - though only slightly less debilitating.

Anyway, on with the show.

What it is

Nobody loves you when you're down and out,
Nobody sees you when you're on cloud nine.
Everybody's hustlin' for a buck and a dime,
I'll scratch your back and you knife mine.

Nobody loves you when you're old and grey,
Nobody needs you when you're upside down.
Everybody's hollerin' 'bout their own birthday,
Everybody loves you when you're six foot in the ground.

What it is, what it is,
All I can tell you is it's all show biz.
All I can tell you is it's all show biz.

Wafa Sultan

Via Normblog: An excerpt from a February interview on Al-Jazeera with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan (transcript here).

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

You can watch a clip from the interview at MEMRI (scroll down to clip #1050) and I recommend you do: Wafa Sultan speaks with passion and conviction, and (it has to be said) with little regard for her own personal safety.

A weekend away

I'm off away this weekend with No 1 Son. He's going to keep me company on the long drive north up the M6.



Back Sunday.

Visual contact

In an attempt to liven up the blog a little, I decided to put a recent photo of myself in the sidebar. Let me know if it detracts from the tone.

Take off the sunglasses? No way! I blog anonymously, remember.

Tough questions

Last night, I was Science Dad, fielding bedtime questions from the boys. Spud wanted to know how life got started and the Big Fella asked what happened before the Big Bang.

In both cases, I gave them a simple and easy answer: "We don't know."

But I also gave Spud a run down of potential explanations for life on Earth. And I walked the Big Fella through Hawking's ideas on the nature of space-time close to the singularity.

Too heavy for such young minds? I don't think so - I couldn't answer their questions but at least I was able to point their curiosity in the right direction. If they're interested, they'll look for the answers themselves.

I hope one day they will. They may not find the answers they're looking for, but that's not what really matters: simply looking is enough.

Isaac's journey

Following a link from Joe Katzman at Winds of Change, I've been reading a series of posts by the pseudonymous Isaac Schrödinger, a Canadian student who was born in Pakistan but spent most of his childhood in Saudi Arabia.

The posts chart "Isaac's" journey from his childhood in Saudi Arabia and times in Pakistan, through to his arrival in Canada and his rejection of Islam. It's a fascinating series, well written and worth reading.

One passage from the opening post in the series, about his time at a Pakistani school in Saudi Arabia, stood out for me.

Finally, the teacher had had enough. He got up. The entire class went silent. He went over to the student and started slapping him. The student covered his face. The teacher started to slap and punch him on the neck and the back with each hit more forceful than the last. The kid sitting next to the student got up from the desk and stepped away. The teacher kept on brutally beating the student. The student started crying and fell to the ground within the desk. The teacher grabbed the front of the desk with his left hand and the back with his right. He then started to kick the bawling student. He kicked him for about 20 seconds. He then went to his desk while swearing. No-one said a word.

I saw exactly the same thing happen in my school when I was 13 or 14. No one complained - we were all too terrified to say anything - and nothing ever happened to the teacher. Of course, it wasn't a Muslim school in Saudi Arabia, it was a Catholic school in England. But the presumption was the same - the teachers (Irish Christian Brothers in my case) had an absolute and unchallenged right to beat the children in their care.

The only difference is the congregation of Christian Brothers in Ireland have apologized for the years of sexual and other abuse inflicted on the children in its institutions, at least in Ireland - as far as I'm aware, the Brothers have made no apology for their behaviour in England, or indeed anywhere else. And it's easy to doubt the sincerity of the limited apology that has been offered, since the Order continues to harbor its miscreants.

I wasn't badly beaten or abused at school (though the threat seemed ever present) and nor were the vast majority of my fellow students. Nevertheless, we were educated in an atmosphere where the random brutality of our teachers was an accepted part of school life.

If I'm making a wider point than simply noting a similarity between "Isaac's" life and my own, then it's this: when reading people's accounts of the fear, ignorance and injustice they've experienced in foreign cultures, we shouldn't imagine that such things never happen here. They do, it's just that a lot of people would rather not talk about it.

The New Threat

In an essay at the New Republic, Daniel Goldhagen (author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners") warns of the dangers posed by the radical politics of Islamic fundamentalism.

The figure who most formidably exemplifies contemporary political Islam is not Osama bin Laden. It is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, with whom Hamas forms a tag-team of interlocking support. (Iran has just announced that it will help fund the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority.) Ahmadinejad's by-now-notorious Holocaust denial was no act of a rash militant. More than being merely anti-Semitic, it was a symbolic political gauntlet, a declaration to the West that he, Iran, and political Islam seek to overturn what is understood to be truth, who is owed moral respect, and who will determine the contours of acceptable politics. It should have been no surprise that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial came as warp to the woof of his Hitlerian exhortation that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and his confrontation with the West over restarting nuclear production.
This rhetoric of mass murder, though shocking to Western publics and political Islam's more naïve apologists, is entirely consistent with the genocidal rhetoric and proto-genocidal violence already long practiced by political Islam's vanguard--especially Hamas and Iranian-controlled Hezbollah--euphemistically known as "suicide-bombing."

Read it all (registration required).

Homeland security

From the Kalamazoo Gazette:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A charge of inducing panic through a bomb scare has been dropped against a Three Rivers man who had a sticker with the band name This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb on his bicycle.

Terry Johnson, the band's bass player, said fans often have their bikes impounded but it's rare for the streets to be cordoned off, the bomb squad called in and the bike destroyed as happened in Ohio.

UPDATE
Mark Kozak at the Daily Vidette has the whole sorry story. The T-shirt campaign is here.

Only repent

There's been a lot of coverage of Julie Nicholson's decision to step down from her post as vicar of a Bristol church because she feels unable to forgive the people who murdered her daughter in the London bomb attacks.

"It's very difficult for me to stand behind an altar and celebrate the Eucharist Communion and lead people in words of peace and reconciliation and forgiveness when I feel very far from that myself... so for the time being, for the moment, that wound in me is having to heal."

I feel for Julie Nicholson in her grief and wish her well in coping with her tragic bereavement. My eldest son was in London and on his way to Kings Cross that same July morning - I can only begin to imagine the depth of her grief as a parent by setting it against the relief I felt when I learnt my own child was safe.

But it's not Nicholson's grief I want to focus on, it's her concept of forgiveness: when it is demanded of us and what it involves.

Sometimes I think the idea of forgiveness gets confused, at least in Christian minds, with such exhortations as "turn the other cheek" and "judge not lest ye be judged". To my way of thinking, forgiving someone is only meaningful when they acknowledge the hurt and suffering they have caused and seek forgiveness for their actions. The idea that one might forgive those who have neither acknowledged nor repented their crimes is meaningless to me - and yet, it seems, this is the type of forgiveness that modern Church doctrine requires.

In such a conception, "forgiving" is no longer a social act between two people involving repentance and acceptance, it becomes the private virtue of "forgiveness": a means for Christians to demonstrate their special state of grace. It's a modern conceit and not something you'll find in the Gospels, which repeatedly stress the need of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Forgiving the unrepentant is not a Christian virtue, it's a sin against society.

Politically confused

I just found this page at Kinja.com that's got me down as being conservative, or at least that's how they've labelled the blog. Doesn't sound right to me.

But then I hear Norm Geras is a recent convert to neoconservatism, so now I don't know what to think.

Popular prejudice

More from Gary Younge’s column in Monday’s Guardian. Not to harp on, but sometimes I wonder whether he’s being deliberately naïve or if it’s just that he's lived a sheltered life.

There was a time when such words as "darkie", "paki", "puff", "spastic" and "coloured" were common currency. We have abandoned them for the same reason we no longer burn witches at the stake or stick orphaned children in the poor house. We have moved on. That's not political correctness but social and political progress. Not imposed by liberal diktat, but established by civic consensus.

In my experience, the British haven’t, as a whole, abandoned such words, though thankfully they are heard far less frequently. It’s certainly true that such words are never used in polite society, but I do sometimes wonder if that’s simply because the English middle classes have become wary of revealing their prejudices.

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I don’t think society has “moved on” quite as much as Gary Younge thinks it has.

Those Danes

In Monday's Guardian, Gary Younge touches briefly on the Mohammed cartoons issue, which he cites as an example of bigotry.

Take the Danish cartoons. They were first printed in a country that supports the war in Iraq, where the far-right Danish People's party receives 13% of the vote and where, according to the Danish Institute for Human Rights, racially motivated crimes doubled between 2004 and 2005.

He uses this example to illustrate his main point, which is that "those who choose Goliath's corner cannot then claim underdog status once David gets out his slingshot."

Now, it seems to me, those Danish cartoonists who live in fear of their lives because of the things they drew might reasonably be accorded the status of underdog. But Younge wants to deny them that status because of Denmark's support for Iraq, the electoral performance of the Danish People's party and a rise in racially motivated crime.

In other contexts, I've heard Younge argue strenuously against this type of guilt by association, but these days it seems if you're a Dane, you're a bigot - and presumably, in Younge's view, a fitting target for David's slingshot. The fact that the "Davids" in this instance are religious extremists with murderous intent seems not to enter into his thinking at all.

UPDATE
Via PooterGeek: I learn that Shuggy also has a thing or two to say about Younge's column.

Totten in Egypt

Michael Totten continues his tour through the Middle East:

To those who are easily and perhaps willingly fooled, Egypt’s ruler Hosni Mubarak appeared to cry “uncle!” after sustained U.S. pressure to open up his one-party state and hold real elections. But the reforms are a farce -- and hailing his just-kidding charade as a sign of progress in the Middle East is both naïve and reckless.

Read the rest at TCS.

Questioning Begg

The BBC seems ever willing to skate over the troubling aspects of Moazzam Begg's personal history but, judging by some of the questions being put to the former Guantanamo detainee on this comments thread, many of its readers are not so forgiving.

The Spitfire legend

Sometimes, I despair at the standard of BBC News. I find it particularly depressing when it blythely perpetuates popular misconceptions about events in British history.

In the opening paragraph of a news item marking the anniversary of the Spitfire's maiden flight, the BBC endorses one of the myths associated with this iconic British warplane.

The 70th anniversary of the first flight of a fighter aircraft which became Britain's main defender in the Battle of Britain is being celebrated.

What's wrong with that? Well, the Spitfire wasn't Britain's main defender during the Battle of Britain. If any plane deserves that accolade it's the Hawker Hurricane.

A total of 1,715 Hurricanes flew with Fighter Command during the period of the Battle, far in excess of all other British fighters combined. Having entered service a year before the Spitfire, the Hurricane was "half-a-generation" older, and was markedly inferior in terms of speed and climb. However, the Hurricane was a robust, manoeuvrable aircraft capable of sustaining fearsome combat damage before write-off; and unlike the Spitfire, it was a wholly operational, go-anywhere do-anything fighter by July 1940. It is estimated that its pilots were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period July-October 1940.

I'd mail the BBC about the mistake but I'd probably just get a letter from Louise.

UPDATE
I guess I wasn't the only one to notice - the BBC has now rewritten the opening paragraph to remove the error.

Force-feeding

The BBC once again draws attention to the force-feeding of hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, highlighting the claim by a recently released detainee that ”the force-feeding of hunger strikers amounts to torture”.

Epluribus Media covered the same ground in more detail last week, looking at some of the historical background on the force-feeding of prisoners, including the “Cat and Mouse” act the British authorities used against the suffragettes.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have participated in the force-feeding of someone who persistently refused to eat. The manner of feeding was precisely the same as that used at Guantanamo. Am I a torturer? You be the judge.


My “victim” was a 17 year-old female anorexic. Two nurses helped me to forcibly restrain her, while another nurse forced the plastic feeding tube up her nose and down the back of her throat. By the end of the procedure, the patient was bleeding as a result of the passage of the tube, had vomited up most of the nutritional fluid and was bruised by the restraint. She was also, understandably, severely distressed. The nurse in charge stood back, and measured the liquid left in the jug: “She hasn’t had enough.” So we did it all again.
Some people might wish to absolve me of responsibility for my part in this act. They might say that I was only doing my job and point out that I was following accepted clinical guidelines. Both are true: force-feeding of this kind is common in British hospitals and prisons (remember Ian Brady). But neither of these things justifies the act itself or my participation therein.

Others might seek to justify the procedure by reference to the duties required of the institution rather than those of the individuals involved: the patient’s right to refuse food was overridden because the hospital had a duty to keep her alive. But I can’t see it that way.

I took part because I was assured (and truly believed) that the patient was no longer in control of her actions due to an underlying abnormal pathology AND that if she were “well” she would not have wanted to take her own life AND that if she wasn’t force-fed in this manner, her life would soon be in danger.

At least, that’s how I’ve always justified it to myself. But, of course, there’s a postscript – shortly after that procedure, the patient absconded from the hospital. She was later found dead. I have always wondered if she fled to avoid a repetition of the terrible ordeal she’d experienced whilst in our “care”.

Did we do the right thing?

I still don't have an answer to that question, and I was never required to nurse another anorexic, but I continue to regard the force-feeding of people who refuse food for pathological reasons to be justifiable, although I accept that it involves a categorical denial of the rights of the individual.

Back to Guantanamo: Force-feeding by means of a nasal tube is a brutal procedure, no matter whether it’s done in a US detention facility or a British hospital. The act itself is an abuse of the individual but its use is sometimes necessary to preserve life.

Is the refusal of food by some of the Guantanamo detainees due to an underlying abnormal pathology? If individuals are going on hunger strike in desperation at their confinement then I would argue that it is.

Is it a human rights abuse? I don’t think so. Imprisonment necessarily involves the suspension of many of the rights an individual would otherwise freely enjoy. The Guantanamo detainees are being refused the right to commit suicide. There’s nothing unusual in that, it’s not a right that prisoners normally enjoy and, to my mind, that’s as it should be.

I accept that nasal feeding is a violent procedure but the fact that it is being used at Guantanamo reflects accepted clinical practice (both in the UK and abroad) and not the desire of American personnel to use archaic medical procedures to torture those in their care.

One last thought – and I’m not trying to deflect criticisms of the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo when I say this - sometimes the BBC seems completely unaware of what goes on in British prisons. I guess it’s easy to ignore.

George who?

Apart from posting occasionally about the incidentals of family life, I'm usually very cautious about revealing personal details online, particularly since I blog anonymously. But, lured by the offer of a Normblog profile, I just couldn't help myself.

So, if you're interested, my Normblog profile is up - you might want to take a peek.

[Thanks Norm, it was an honor to be asked and a pleasure to complete.]

Thursday roundabout

Home and away: Scribbles has a thing or two to say about animal testing.

Making sense of multiculturalism: Ophelia Benson comments on Amartya Sen's "Chili and Liberty".

Bucking the consensus: Dean's World explores Peter Duesberg's ideas on HIV/AIDS.

Ask the troops: Smash has some thoughts on the Le Moyne/Zogby poll of US troops in Iraq.

And finally,

Bumper sticker of the day: Patrick Belton at Oxblog has the details.

Schizophreniaphobia

Another schizophrenic story from the BBC:

A paranoid schizophrenic has been convicted of killing a stranger and stabbing five others during 90 minutes of violence in north London.

It would be nice if the BBC's news coverage of schizophrenics wasn't almost entirely limited to reporting frenzied and sometimes deadly attacks by those who've stopped taking their medication.

Instant chess

When I was at college, I used to play a lot of competitive chess. I was never a great player, I had little knowledge of opening theory and practically no end-game technique, but I used to really enjoy playing.

What I loved about the game, and still do, is its fathomless diversity. Particularly in the middle-game, where a myriad of variations compete for attention and tactical possibilities abound.

I gave up playing league chess years ago - right about the time I realized how much work I was going to have to put in if I wanted to keep on improving. Nowadays, I rarely play at all and when I do it's strictly for fun.

Recently, I've been playing at Instantchess.com which, like the name suggests, is quick and easy to access ("cup of coffee compatible" as they say). And you can play for free, at least initially.

If you like an occasional game of chess, you might want to give it a whirl.

Forty-six

Today is my birthday.

It's also the first day of spring in some parts.

The Met Office was accused yesterday of “advancing the seasons” by insisting that today be viewed as the first day of spring, despite Arctic weather conditions across
Britain.

MPs demanded to know why the Met Office regarded March 1 as the official start when, historically, spring begins on March 20-21, when the vernal equinox brings day and night of equal lengths.

The Met Office said that, for statistical purposes, it had been treating March 1 as the start of spring for “as long as we can remember”.

Secular manifesto

Via Butterflies and Wheels: A number of prominent secularists, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie, have published an open letter in Jyllands-Posten calling for "resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all."

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Legal tribute

Fun in Idaho:

"Any members of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Legislature of the State of Idaho who choose to vote Nay on this concurrent resolution are FREAKIN IDIOTS! and run the risk of having the Worst Day of Their Lives!"

In order to avoid such a fate, the state legislature passed the following resolution commending Jared and Jerusha Hess for their film Napoleon Dynamite.

Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

WHEREAS, the State of Idaho recognizes the vision, talent and creativity of Jared and Jerusha Hess in the writing and production of "Napoleon Dynamite"; and

WHEREAS, the scenic and beautiful City of Preston, County of Franklin and the State of Idaho are experiencing increased tourism and economic growth; and

WHEREAS, filmmaker Jared Hess is a native Idahoan who was educated in the Idaho public school system; and

WHEREAS, the Preston High School administration and staff, particularly the cafeteria staff, have enjoyed notoriety and worldwide attention; and

WHEREAS, tater tots figure prominently in this film thus promoting Idaho's most famous export; and

WHEREAS, the friendship between Napoleon and Pedro has furthered multiethnic relationships; and

WHEREAS, Uncle Rico's football skills are a testament to Idaho athletics; and

WHEREAS, Napoleon's bicycle and Kip's skateboard promote better air quality and carpooling as alternatives to fuel-dependent methods of transportation; and

WHEREAS, Grandma's trip to the St. Anthony Sand Dunes highlights a long-honored Idaho vacation destination; and

Etc etc.

Immoderate Muslims

In Monday's Guardian, Madeleine Bunting was, as usual, channelling the emotions of others. In this instance, it's a group of Muslim professionals ("lawyers, accountants, teachers and the like") who are unhappy about a range of things, from Danish cartoons to the war in Iraq. Bunting says "the anger was visceral".

"Enough is enough" she reports one of them as saying. According to Bunting, that remark attracted audience applause. As did this: "we will react without the shackles of rationality, regardless of the consequences", to which Bunting appends the generalization: "Such anger is common currency in Muslim circles."

Seemingly, in Bunting's view, large numbers of British Muslims are on the verge of committing desperate and irrational acts in defense of Islam without regard to the consequences. Hmm, not really the kind of thing you expect to read in the Guardian. Never mind, let's see if Jasmin Alibhai-Brown over at the Independent can do any better.

Unfortunately, she seems to be saying much the same thing:

This week, I have been at three events where the majority of people in the audience were educated, sharp Muslims, some exceedingly rich and good friends with key politicians and Prince Charles. Guantanamo Bay and Iraq are topics that now madden even these establishmentarians.

One gentleman took my elbow, shuffled me to a discreet corner and whispered 'I have been here for 40 years, dined with royalty. Today, if I was young, I would go straight to Bin Laden. Mr Blair is a war criminal. Don't put my name down, but tell him we detest him'.

So, according to Alibhai-Brown, even moderate Muslims close to the establishment readily identify with Bin Laden's violent extremism.

Is this really the message the Guardian and the Independent want to put out?

Laban Tal notes the implications:

Yazza is making a point about how we need to change our foreign policy and how many people it's upsetting. Seemingly unconsciously, she's also saying that unless we do, people who have been here for years, who have grown wealthy and lead a lifestyle more privileged than any most Brits have known - that those people will support those who would like to kill us by the thousands, the tens of thousands, if possible by the millions.

That's what it sounds like.