Failed State

Free Alan Johnston (and everyone else)!

2007-05-08T11:37:00.000-07:00

As I write this, Alan Johnston has been held captive for 57 days somewhere in Gaza. Quite rightly his kidnap has caused international outrage and people across the community in Gaza are campaigning for his release. Journalists who work in Gaza do a dangerous job and keep the world in touch with some of the horrors which have been inflicted upon Palestine by the US/Israeli alliance. Just to draw a comparison: most of us have a much grainier picture of the Darfur crisis than of the Palestinian crisis, because Darfur, for reasons of accessibility, is poorly reported on by western media.

Generally speaking, the Palestinian crisis has been widely (if not accurately) reported and this has helped corral activists across the globe to seek justice and an end to the occupation. For that reason, hindering journalists and threatening their security has long been the preserve of Israel, who has most to lose from detailed knowledge of the occupation reaching the outside world.

The kidnap of Alan Johnston has only hindered those on the outside to get information from Gaza, and this has played directly into the hands of the Israeli propaganda machine. Whoever is holding him is no friend of Palestine.

Problem. There are many other kidnap victims in Palestine whose plight is going unnoticed. They are Palestinians kidnapped by Israeli forces and incarcerated without trial, legal representation or adherence to international law. They are victims, and just like Alan Johnston they are innocent. Aerial Sharon admitted that they are not being held on suspicion of any violent activity. It is just a form of collective punishment (illegal under international law).

I am glad that many people are trying to help Alan Johnston. It is great that the EU unanimously backed a resolution calling for his release on the 26th of April, it is great that The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, called for his release on the 7th of May, and it is great that London Mayor Ken Livingstone and a host of religious leaders from many faiths have also called for his release. The only problem is that this shows the ridiculous double standards of the entire Palestinian crisis. All of this for one (white) man while thousands of Palestinians suffering the same plight are largely ignored.

When it comes to the Middle East, we are not free until we are all free.

del.icio.us tags: alan johnston, palestine, gaza, kidnap, free

Sally Clark, why was she sent to prison anyway?

2007-03-17T09:59:00.000-07:00

Sally Clark has died aged 42. Another victim of British Justice.

For those of you who don't know, Sally was imprisoned for the murder of her two children and then released three years later when forensic experts changed their mind and realized that important parts of the prosecution case were based on dubious science. For a full run down of the case check it out on the BBC here.

The question I want to raise here though is not about miscarriage of justice. It is about how society treats people that have done wrong.

First I need to stress that Sally Clark did no wrong. She did not kill her children. They died of natural causes. However, every year some people do kill their own children. This, in my opinion, is not a crime.

Killing your own children is not a crime.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation involving infanticide committed by a mother. Two young children are found dead in their beds, apparently smothered in their sleep.

Naturally the hospital need to establish cause of death, and when a pathologist finds that it wasn't cot death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) the police become involved. This is all correct, unnatural deaths need to be investigated.

Skip forward a week or two and it has become clear that the mother was to blame. Maybe she even admits to it.

Two important things happened now:

The press become scandalized
Society is disgusted

By and large, the mother is then presented as being some kind of evil witch, an otherworldly satanic whore. When she stands trials it is as a common-or-garden murderer. This demonisation was rife in 1999 and lead to Sally Clark's conviction.

When she was found guilty, Robin Spencer QC, prosecuting, told the court that Sally Clark's actions:

"strike at the very core of everything natural and wholesome in the relationship between mother and child".

It was widely circulated that Sally Clark blamed her children for ending her successful law career. This was all conjecture, and the prosecution, media and police seemed to be seeking vengeance for the death of the children. Rather than feel any human compassion for someone who they thought was deranged enough to kill her own flesh and blood they wanted society to be rid of someone so unwholesome and disgusting. It was as if they could punish her for being supposedly mentally ill and make society better.

Vengeance and Punishment

There doesn't seem to be any differentiation in the eyes of the law, barristers, police and judges, or indeed the media, between a football hooligan stabbing someone to death and a mother killing her children. So at the time, when everyone believed Sally Clark to be guilty, it was as if she were a armed robber, a drunk driver, or an extortionist. In other words she was seen as a common criminal of the worst kind and not as a fragile and disturbed human being (remember that this is what they thought at the time, of course in the end she turned out to be innocent and sane).

People who kill their own children aren't normally criminals

A woman that kills two young children, her own children, clearly has psychological problems. That is obvious. It is true that any future children she might have will need protection from her, it is also true that some others in society might need protection from her and she might need to be incarcerated in a secure hospital for a period of time. Under no circumstances, however, should that woman be thrown into the criminal justice system to languish alongside drug dealers and thieves. All that does is make the police and gutter press reading class sleep more easily, it doesn't actually serve us as a society at all, it doesn't make children safer, and it doesn't help those people who recognize that they need help for postnatal depression but are afraid to talk to someone about it. It makes our society a colder and less caring place, an environment perversely in which mental illness that occasionally leads to infanticide can thrive.

This post has concentrated on the farce of a criminal justice system that punishes the sick and mentally ill. Therefore, even though they thought Sally Clark had killed her children it was ridiculous to send her to prison. Just to reinforce the fact, Sally Clark never killed anyone.

The main players in the Sally Clark case

Robin Spencer QC - prosecuting barrister works at the Ballyard legal practice in London. The Sally Clark Case is not listed on his personal biog on the site.

Det. Insp. John Gardner - who lead the police investigation and was "pleased" when Sally Clark received two life sentences for something which she hadn't done works for Cheshire Police.

No journalist who ever took part in the Sally Clark witch hunt has ever uttered a word of remorse.

Interesting links

Stolen Innocence: The Sally Clark Story - A Mother's Fight for Justice

del.icio.us tags: Sally, Clark, justice, misscarriage, infanticide, law

The pornographication of society

2007-03-04T11:54:00.000-08:00

Generally at Failed State we take a progressive view of things. We are not prudish or religious. I want to make that clear at the start because the traditional left can get a bit confused about pornography, women's rights, promiscuity and liberal thinking.

As a society, we are getting over-sexed. Sex is everywhere - on the TV, in music, on the radio, in magazines, on billboards. It has become a problem that progressive minded people can no longer ignore.

So what's your problem with sex?

I don't have a problem with it. It is natural, and it is normal, and everybody wants it at least sometimes. The problem is not too much sex but, to misquote British Rail "the wrong kind of sex".

Let's be less British for a second and talk frankly about sex. Good sex has two main components, physical pleasure and emotional pleasure.

Physical pleasure is easy, and in this day and age relatively plentiful. That is not necessarily a big problem, people go out, go home together, have their fun, and do the whole thing again with someone else the next Saturday. It's what they chose to do and there is certainly no reason why they should be forced by law to stop, as some religious zealots would like.

The problem is that this type of behavior is becoming more and more mainstream and normal for all. There has always, since time eternal, been a bit of nookie going on, even in the strictest of societies. But now it is widespread and public it has become something rather unpleasant - a search for instant physical gratification. That brings us back to good sex, which is only 50% physical gratification.

So what used to be, in more innocent times, a build up of desire culminating in a dangerous and desperate liaison has now become as exciting as drinking a pint of beer or eating a chocolate bar. Just something you do that feels nice, if you can be bothered or have nothing better to do. Sex has lost its sex appeal.

People enjoy it.

Yes, people do enjoy it. But let's go back to the chocolate bar analogy. If you feel really hungry and you eat a chocolate bar it tastes great. If you eat three you start to feel sick. If you eat one everyday you forget how good they are and take them for granted, they become pleasant yet mundane. Sex is no different.

Through popular music and "lad mags" like loaded we are given the impression that constant, regular, dispassionate sex is the most important and best thing in life. It is not.

What the media gives us now is a new legitimacy of pornography. On BBC Radio 1 at about 5:30 last week (a time when literally hundreds of thousands of children are listening) the presenter gave a clear advert for a 3D edition of Loaded magazine, including a description of how a topless model's breasts looked through 3D specs. All harmless enough on its own. But it was not on its own. Now children and early teenagers are being constantly bombarded with, and sold, sex and sexual attractiveness from all quarters - to sell clothes, music, make-up, and to increase audience figures for TV and Radio.

There has long been a tradition of explicit lyrics with reference to sex and violence in some types of music, even going back through the ages. But now a great deal of manufactured pop and R and B music, which is created for the young teenage market, is nothing more than a constant stream of blatant physical promiscuity in which sex and in particular women are seen as very short-term concerns. Encouraging teenagers to have sex, especially outside committed relationships, with little thought for their physical safety is highly damaging. What is more, the teenagers who will fall for these cynical marketing gimmicks are the insecure ones who have little parental support in trying to differentiate between a music video and real life.

Insecurity is an important theme here. At the beginning I suggested that there were two important aspects of sex: physical pleasure and emotional pleasure. In fact there is a third new one: the pleasure of gaining notoriety by boasting about sex afterwards. This used to be the preserve of the "lad" but is now widespread. Again, it is insecurity that drives people today to seek to prove themselves, be accepted, and constantly be the centre of attention.

The outcome of all this is unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, further lack of self-esteem and self-respect in boys and girls and a society where stable long-term relationships are becoming ever more rare, as selfish people look for their quick drunken kicks wherever they can find them.

Perhaps the sickest thing of all is that this new pornographic society is driven by commercial interests that get richer on societies ills.

del.icio.us tags: sexual, pornographication, society, loaded, media, images, barrage, constant, teenager, pregnancy, std, self-harm, self-esteem, music, lyrics

Victims Families Must be Silent in Court

2007-03-01T16:25:00.000-08:00

Today the UK government hinted that it might extend a scheme which has allowed victims families to speak in court at the end of trials.

The scheme has, so far, enabled the families of victims of murder or manslaughter victims to read (or have an advocate read) an impact statement to the court. In the future crimes like "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" may well be added.

Of course the victims family is important and of course they have strong feelings on what has happened. But these victim statements really do not help us, or them.

At the moment, victim statements are read out before sentencing but after a guilty verdict has been returned by the jury.

The first question is what's the point? Are these statements designed to:

Influence the judge?
Make the defendant face the grief s/he has caused?
Allow the victims' families to let off steam?

If they are designed to influence the judge then they are wholly inappropriate. The judge must act in accordance with the law for the benefit of society. Judges are human, and if they are exposed to highly emotive victim impact statements then there sentencing might be skewed in a way that is ultimately defeating for society. Sometimes the harsh option seems attractive even though a lesser option might be better suited or more successful in the overall fight against crime and bid to make the UK safer.

If they are designed to make the victims face their grief then all is well and good. But the court room is not the place for this. The court must be reserved for the dispassionate consideration of evidence. Don't get me wrong, I think making criminals face their victims is a good idea and can be an important part of their rehabilitation, just not in court.

It is perfectly understandable that victims' families want to face the criminal and get some of their emotion out, however the court room is not the place. Victims often receive rather too much attention from the gutter press, and seem to be encouraged to grieve publicly in order to sell newspapers. Of course they have the right to speak out, but it is wrong to encourage the idea that victims have an active role to play in the criminal justice system. They don't. Judges and politicians alike must act for the greater good, working for the long term benefit of society, not the short term demands of the under informed or emotionally involved.

Above all, I suspect victim statements are introduced purely as a vote winner. They serve no purpose other than to answer criticism from many quarters that victims are forgotten and courts seem to worry more about the rights of criminals than they do about the rights of victims and their families. The sad thing is, these poor victims will have their day in court and the media will descend on them. They will ultimately learn that they can't lessen their grief or change society. They are just allowing themselves to be political tools and newspaper marketing devices.

Let's put victims first and work towards a crime-free society. End these pointless gimmicks.

del.icio.us tags: Victim, court, impact, statement, murder, manslaughter, death, by, dangerous, driving, justice, system

The Carter Effect

2007-02-24T01:44:00.000-08:00

This interesting article by Shahira Samy appeared in Al-Ahram Weekly. It focusses on Ex-US President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

Here is the full article with the source link at the bottom.

"One of the major goals of my life, while in political office and since I was retired from the White House by the 1980 election, has been to help ensure a lasting peace for Israelis and others in the Middle East."

If such was Jimmy Carter's opening statement in his latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, why would the Israel-sympathetic words cause uproar among US Jews and elsewhere? And why would the former US president be accused by many Jewish groups of being a liar, a bigot, an anti- Semite, a coward and a plagiarist? And why would staunch protest to the book come from none other than 14 members of the advisory board of the 25-year-old Atlanta-based Carter Center, resigning en masse, stating that "we can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position." The letter of resignation addressed to Carter went on attacking the book as being "unfairly critical of Israel and riddled with inaccuracies". In effect, the most vociferous of protestations were geared against the comparison of Israel's treatment of Palestinians with South Africa's gruesome apartheid system of racial segregation.

In his first direct address to Jewish Americans on his book at Brandeis University last month, Carter said the word "apartheid was intended to provoke debate on the rights of Palestinians, unfairly treated by Israel," he stressed to his audience. Ironically, the campaign to discredit the 2002 Nobel peace laureate has achieved nothing but open up forums of discussing Palestine in the context of apartheid and focus on the crimes of Israeli occupation. For the 11th consecutive week now since it hit the market last November, Palestine Peace not Apartheid has ranked high on the New York Times best selling list, unyieldingly defiant in the face of its assailants. For the mere effect of injecting such a debate into American circles, Carter's latest publication is no meagre accomplishment.

Outlining steps that ought to be taken for Palestinians and Israelis to share the Holy Land without the benefit of an apartheid system and the constant fear of "terrorist" attacks, is the book's declared objective. And Carter does not mince his words when he asserts that Israel's refusal to fully withdraw from the Occupied Territories is the main obstacle to a settlement. A glance through the last few pages of the book is sufficient to learn of the author's three most basic premises for peace: Israel's right to exist within recognised borders accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbours, a halt to acts of violence against civilians and the necessity for Palestinians to live in peace and dignity in their own land as specified by international law unless modified by good-faith negotiations with Israel.

But it would indeed be a great pity if the reader limited him or herself to the last two pages, for the author has been very clever and skilful in building up his case. Contrary to his stated objective, the prescription for peace is in fact not the only goal; rather more important for Carter is pricking the existing abscess.

Apart from the controversial title, the word apartheid does not resurface till relatively late in the chapter on the separation wall, or the "imprisonment wall" as Carter emphasises, that being a more accurate description than "security fence". Absent it may be, yet apartheid is the omnipresent thread running throughout the various chapters reviewing the Oslo agreement, the Camp David summit in 2000, the subsequent Clinton parameters, the road map, the Geneva Accord of 2003, Sharon's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, the legislative elections won by Hamas, the war in Lebanon and finally the deteriorating situation in Gaza. Page after page, Carter skilfully introduces the intrinsic details of daily life under occupation in Palestine, unravelling the essence of an apartheid system beyond scholarly definitions and philosophical interpretations.

It is no coincidence that a strong emphasis is placed on the use of the term "Holy Land" in the first chapter. Carter dwells on his biblical affiliation with Jerusalem and dedicates considerable space to narrating his impressions of the first trip he made to the holy sites in Palestine in the early 1970s. By the end of the chapter, the average American reader imbued with a Judeo-Christian affinity with Palestine as a holy land has warmed to Carter and is indeed ready to receive what the following chapters have to say.

The realities of living under occupation in Palestine come in a flashing sequence of simple narrative: Truckloads of Palestinian oranges held by the Israeli army till they rot and their owner matter-of-factly giving away the spoilt fruit as livestock feed; a family describing to the author how their home was demolished by Israeli bulldozers and dynamite; doctors pointing at idle ambulances donated by the European Union, left to bask in the sun, denied a license... Some of the most powerful pages describe the voting process in East Jerusalem and the systematic intimidating measures imposed by Israeli authorities on the voters. And even though Carter, who was an observer to the elections in 2006, hails the clean elections leading to Hamas's victory, he does not hide his condemnation of the suicide bombing policy of the movement. Nevertheless, the author painstakingly delineates why some Palestinians may consider this as an option to resist occupation.

Likewise, settlements in the reader's psyche change from being leafy compounds perched on hills, welcoming New Yorkers wishing to fulfil their dreams of living in the Holy Land, to an image of how the West Bank is sliced into three Bantustan-like parts where 200 Jewish-only settlements are mostly erected on confiscated Palestinian land. For the safety and convenience of some 187,000 settlers, about 2,460,000 Palestinians suffer considerable restriction of movement imposed by a rigid permit system enforced through 520 checkpoints and roadblocks

Interestingly, the many reviews flooding the world press have either emphasised the truth of the grim situation of occupation in Palestine or Carter's "biased" position towards Palestinians. None or few have dwelt on the peace blueprint Carter proposes. Several observations are noteworthy in this regard. From the very beginning Carter emphasises international law as a basis for solving the conflict. Yet he fails to explain what international law is in more concrete terms, letting it span a wide variety of norms, principles and issues ranging from relevant United Nations resolutions to state responsibility to reparations to self-determination -- to name just a few. Carter also declares a penchant for Security Council resolution 242 of 1967 and stays mute on General Assembly resolution 194 of 1948. One of the reasons for this may be to avoid delving into the Palestinian refugee problem. With one out of three refugees in the world Palestinian, Carter may have deemed it easier to avoid discussing resolution 194, calling for the right of return, compensation and restitution of property. In fact, the refugee problem is so strikingly trivialised throughout the book that it is almost unperceived and one wonders how peace can be discussed without a mention of the fate of over five million Palestinian refugees.

From another perspective, the only US president to have succeeded in brokering a peace agreement within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict offers surprisingly little on his insights into bridging gaps between conflicting parties. We are told nothing about the lessons learnt from negotiating Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1978. Nor do we find resonance of the wealth of experience accumulated throughout the presidency of a superpower and a conflict-resolution centre dealing with conflicts throughout the globe.

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not an authoritative analytical view of the conflict, nor is it innovative regarding its resolution. What Carter succeeds in doing is shake up Americans slumbering under George Bush's interpretation of the world and a media confusing its readers over who is fighting over what in Palestine. More importantly, for the many who have not read the book, debating the realities of the Israeli occupation of Palestine is very much on the menu of the written and visual media. Jimmy Carter is indeed paying tribute to the Holy Land.

* The writer is a lecturer in political science at the British University in Egypt. She specialises in the field of reparations and historical injustice, Palestinian refugees, displacement and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Link

del.icio.us tags: palestine, apartheid, carter, book, peace, arab, israeli, conflict, gaza, west, bank

In defence of conspiracy theorists

2007-02-18T11:06:00.000-08:00

Tonight, on BBC 2 There is a programme on 911 Conspiracy Theories. It will go through the conspiracies ranging from ligitimate scientific questions (why did the towers collapse so quick) to the ridiculous (were New York's Jewish Community forewarned). There are many people who believe both of the above and much more.

I don't believe the anti-Semitic one, few normal people in the UK do. That is because many of the 911 Conspiracy theorists come from the left wing, where racism is not tolerated. I also don't tolerate racism but I discount this conspiracy theory for one important reason and one reason only: no evidence exists to suggest that it is true.

Taking the former theory mentioned above, that of the behaviour of the falling tower, there are more questions to answer. That doesn't mean that I think it was all a CIA plot, that means I think some questions have been posed, by independent experts, that require answers. Answers which as yet are not fourthcoming.

I won't go deep into individual theories as a cursory Internet search will provide sites where they are explained in detail. All I will say is that questions need answers.

Question: Did any Jews die on 911?

Answer: Yes, look at the roll-call of the names of the dead, look at the official records.

Conspiracy Theory: Disproved.

Compared with...

Question: Why did the towers fall at the speed of gravity, and within their own footprint?

Answer: ????

Conspiracy: Neither proven nor disproven

So instead of jumping to conclusions and saying we have the answers, we need to have a proper investigation into the question which are out there.

Conspiracies have happened. All of us of any intelligence at all know that the evidence for WMD in Iraq was cooked up. The invasion of Iraq was a conspiracy. That is beyond doubt.

Some say people like conspiracy theories because the truth doesn't provide comfort. They of course have forgotten that not all conspiracy theorists are the same, and not all theories are the same. If the evidence for the Iraq war was faked that doesn't mean that Diana was murdered in Paris, the two are completely separate. So why talk about conspiracy theories as if they are one?

I hate the term conspiracy theory as much as I hate the term junk science. It is a term used to pour scorn on critics. We should, rather than relying on these sound bite phrases, argue about the facts.

del.icio.us tags: conspiracy, theory, 911, diana, defence

Kensington Protests

2007-02-17T15:39:00.000-08:00

I hate it when rich capitalists protest. I know they have rights and freedom of speech like the rest of us, but it is very boring to hear them whinge.

Imagine driving around Kensington and Chelsea in thirty thousand pound cars, which are normally parked outside three million pound homes to complain about an £8 congestion charge.

I don't feel sorry for them at all. I think people like these are stuck in their teens, obsessed by themselves and how they look, and whether they are socially accepted by the group they want to hang-out with. They are as dull as the chav-class they have successfully helped pacify with consumer goods.

Incidentally, elsewhere in Britain today a pregnant woman was told by a nurse to use a Yellow Pages to find a hospital where she could give birth because her local hospital was full. Just goes to show how the grotesque wealth inequality in this country that the Kensington bunch hold so dearly does not actually serve us. Viva la revolution? No chance.

del.icio.us tags: kensington, protest, chelsea, congestion charge, rich, greedy

What should we do about chavs?

2007-02-13T13:20:00.000-08:00

In my youth I felt sorry for chavs. I am a left-wing liberal minded kind of a bloke who likes to see the good in people. And as My equally left-wing parents always told me, "they come from a difficult background".

This is without a doubt true. Chavs do come from difficult backgrounds. They grew up in a society rocked by Thatcherism and Blairism. They are the product of a society blighted by extreme capitalism, high wealth disparity, 24 corporate media and education cuts and mismanagement (the former by Maggie and the latter by Blair and Maggie both).

So, they have my sympathy and I am only not a chav because like many middle class parents mine saw that I opted out of the purely consumerist upbringing that my peers were experiencing and got much richer formative years. That said, we have a problem on our hands. Chavs do not want my sympathy.

If I were to tell a chav how sorry I felt for them I would probably get hit, spat at, kicked, bottled, and just to add insult to injury have a mobile phone video of the whole thing uploaded to YouTube.

So, what are we to do about these violent, offensive, backward, purile thugs?

1) Try to educate them. Is recovery possible? Can the state afford to pay? Will they be willing to learn?

2) Give them more opportunities. This country is full of opportunities, the problem is that the only opportunities chavs want to take up involve alcohol and drugs (and bad clothes).

3) Organise citizens patrols. Vigilantes may keep some areas safe, but they tend to end up hurting the innocent sooner or later.

4) Stronger laws. Pointless unless we have enough police to enforce them. Probably pointless anyway, as they are only a stop-gap solution.

5) Parenting classes. Might help for the next generation.

6) More asbos. Nope, they have become a badge of honour.

Ok, I admit it, I don't have the answers. Do you? If so, join the debate!

del.icio.us tags: chavs, what, do, we, asbo, thug, social, problem

Another school closes in Blair's Britain

2007-02-09T11:34:00.000-08:00

Yet again, a small local school has been closed down. Increasingly civil servants are looking at a education with their market-economist hats firmly on, doing the sums and counting the pounds. Lanreath Church of England School, it has been decided, is not "educationally viable", a phrase that echoes the classic Michael Douglas film Falling Down.

This school is not failing academically, and is at the heart of a newly rejuvenated village community, a community that has managed to keep its shop and pub and a true Cornish atmosphere. Local people that are obviously devastated by the loss. So why is it closing? Because the "independent adjudicator", Dr Peter Matthews, thinks that value for money of the school will remain an issue.

Families that currently walk their children to school will now be forced to drive them to schools some miles away, putting more traffic on the region's roads and adding to pollution. But it is not just the children and the families that will suffer. The whole region, and indeed the whole country are feeling the brunt of austere education policies.

Small schools with family environments in close-knit communities have a habit of producing nice kids. That is not a scientifically proven fact and it is not something an economist can tell from the screen of the calculator. There is more to education than just getting as many kids through the classroom door as possible, like so many passengers being shunted through an airport terminal. Politicians and parents alike need to look beyond the bottom line, beyond the statistics and performance targets, beyond digitized classroom, and at the things which hold real value, which can not so easily be measured.

Larger, more impersonal suburban schools tend to produce more, chavs, more alienated, disaffected children, and pointless, worthless, soul-less adults.

Let's stop the economists ruining are country! Consolidation destroys communities.

More info from the BBC and also the National Association for Small Schools.

del.icio.us tags: schools, rural, village, close, education, policy, blairs, britain

Melanie Phillips - Climate Change Denier

2007-02-04T09:21:00.000-08:00

Even George Bush accepts that global warming is a problem, and for the second time in six months a major report has found that Global Warming is real, that it is man-made and that it is going to hurt us unless we take major steps now.

Furiously battling against the scientists are a small but powerful band of Climate Change Deniers who have the world of PR at their fingertips and think nothing of stooping to dirty tricks in order to deceive the public and further delay action to tackle the human causes of global warming.

Typically people deny climate change for financial reasons, but that may not be the only reason. Let's take Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips, who has long been at the cutting edge of UK climate change denial. Obviously people who actively deny climate change know they are wrong. They fake the research, spin the results, write the articles and champion true junk science. The question is, why is she so obsessed with the idea that environmentalists are lying to us?

Often people deny climate change for financial reasons; cheaper to put out junk science on the subject than change polluting and wasteful business practices. Others do it simply because they hate the left-wing, or can't stand being dictated to by the intelligentsia. With Phillips I suspect that it is something else.

Phillips, to make a huge understatement, supports Israel. She is an apologist for Israeli governments regardless of the number of UN resolutions they breach, women and children they kill, and self-defeating policies they adopt. It is clear from her articles and speeches that she wants the UK to support Israel politically, militarily and economically regardless of whether that support is in the UK public interest.

So how does Phillips' love for Israel affect her denial of climate change? Simple. Israel is only really important to the USA and the west as a "force for good" in the Middle East, a loyal friend in the midst of the world's greatest oil reserves. If the environmental lobby really took off and the world did start to shift away from fossil fuels, Israel could lose its economic importance and with it it's near-blanket support from the west. A personal disaster for Melanie Phillips.

Interestingly though, if we don't act to avert major climate change large parts of the economically vital south east of the UK are likely to become uninhabitable. Interesting how this catastrophe for the UK is not very high on Melanie Phillips priority list.

del.icio.us tags: melanie, phillips, global, warming, denier, climate, change, israel

Submit to Digg

10 things I hate about England

2007-01-30T17:13:00.000-08:00

The houses are too expensive. Property speculators and developers have pushed anyone on an honest wage out of the market. People think that it is a case of demand outstripping supply, but no, we can't afford to concrete over the countryside just so someone can buy a house, keep it empty, then sell it for a profit six months later.
People here are really stupid. Only the Americans are more stupid than us. We are ignorant of what is going on under our noses, and international politics is way out of our league. People know nothing about the EU or the Middle East, or things which are effecting them directly, like global warming. People have no idea about globalization and what it means to them, the causes of poverty, or the foundations of terrorism. They are thick.
We don't have a free press. Unlike China our politicians are unable to directly control what it says in our newspapers and on our TVs, but that does not mean they are free. Instead the news agenda is lead by the high-circulation gutter press, who play off the ignorance of the UK majority. We end up with simplified news that allows our woeful politicians to be as incompetent as they like.
Parents are awful. No body in this country has the first idea how to bring up a child. Everyone hits, shouts, swears at, and worst of all ignores their toddlers. Not surprising they grow up to be thugs, criminals and chavs.
We are obsessed with celebrities. And I don't mean good celebrities, I don't mean people who have starred in the films which inspired us, wrote the music that defined our adolescence, or who have earnt their fame. We are obsessed by people who are of such little worth they merit no further mention.
We are all the same. Human cloning is alive and well and living in England. People in England tend to fall into a couple of very distinct categories. Girls all shop at just a handful of shops and wear pretty much identical clothes. Their hair is the same, so are their shoes. Boys are no better. The only difference is the Goths, who all look alike and behave just like the chavs they claim to despise: spitting on the floor and swearing a lot before pissing up against a cathedral or museum. God it is boring.
Our towns are all the same. The British high street is dead. Long live out-of-town shopping centres with ample car-parking. Long live Tesco and Topshop and Boots. Long live Europe's premier shopping street, Oxford Street, with its 90 branches of Starbucks. Forget anything individual or locally owned, forget our cultural heritage. Long live bland, corporate, consumerist rubbish!
We love America. It has high crime, high teenage pregnancy, high obesity, high wealth gap, high racial tension, high corporate corruption, high drug abuse, and high religious fanaticism. But the people who make it there are the richest in the world; therefor we must copy them!
We are fat. Ok, the USA is still the obesity capital, but we are fat, ugly, pasty and unfit. In comparison to every other European country, we come off second best.
We are insecure. Everything we do is to impress others and to try and look "cool". It is desperate, immature and pathetic.

Digg this Post

del.icio.us tags: ten, things, i, hate, about, england, UK, chavs, houses, goths

The Davos Debacle - or Billionaires still get hangovers.

2007-01-27T02:44:00.000-08:00

It's the same every year, more or less.

Politicians, the corporate elite, and billionaire rock stars meet in the Swiss sky resort for a jolly good knees-up. The meeting is not over yet, but from my living room several thousand miles away I can comfortably predict the outcomes.

There will be no trade breakthrough which will allow the developing world to compete on a level playing field. That would be too dangerous for the arch-protectionists in the west.

There will be no agreement on environmental protection that even come close to the radical steps needed. Indeed many of the Corporate contingent and even the political contingent are climate-change deniers.

So, nothing to curb poverty and nothing to prevent serious climate change. So what is the world's elite, an entourage of thousands, a security force of tens of thousands, and the world's media doing in Switzerland?

For one thing they are cutting loose and letting it all hang out. The evenings in Davos are known for their revelry. Discos, live music, champagne cocktails and, let's not be naive, plenty of cocaine.

They are also having important debates, like "Who will Shape the Agenda?" So, with billions in poverty, more greenhouse gas emissions than ever, the Middle-East in crisis, North Korea going nuclear and much more besides, the world's (mainly unelected) "decision makers" are discussing how they are losing control of the agenda as traditional media channels face Internet opposition.

The world's elite have met to decide "How can I become richer/more powerful in 2007?"

Oh, and of course the whole escapade is on the taxpayer.

The leaders will keep insisting that such meetings are worthwhile, essential, and fruitful. But this is wearing thin. Every round of trade talks fails because of western hypocrisy. And politicians sitting down with corporate CEO's never have anything more important to talk about than power and money.

Such summits as this should be put out to grass, debates should be had at the UN, and Corporations should adhere to the law, not have a say in making it.

del.icio.us tags: davos, wto, trade, corporate, ceo, party, cocaine, mps, africa, climate, change, poverty, power, money

New Labour should butt-out of investigation.

2007-01-20T10:43:00.000-08:00

The call tonight from the Metropolitan Police (London) for the government to stop putting "undue pressure" pressure on them has probably fallen on deaf ears. New Labour is renowned for its arrogance and will be buoyed by its recent triumph over justice in the dropping of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into an arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the UK.

Regardless of the truth in the alleged loans for honors scandal, it is absolutely nothing but outrageous for New Labour politicians and officials, who themselves are potential witnesses or defendants in any pending case, to use their public position to criticize the police handling of this case.

If they feel any mistakes or procedural errors have occurred then they can refer the matter to the Police Complaints Commission or speak to their lawyers. They must not use their network of media contacts to brief against what is, unless proven otherwise, perfectly legitimate police action. I wonder if doing such amounts to perverting the course of justice.

The main complaint, that arresting Ruth Turner in the early hours of the morning was unnecessary and heavy handed, is erroneous.

To state the obvious, the police powers of arrest are used to give officers specific advantages in serious investigations. To suggest that the Metropolitan Police had any other motive when they arrested Ruth Turner is to suggest that they are in some way anti-government, anti-Labour, or anti-establishment. Pretty bizarre allegations all things considered.

It is of course away of making it clear to a suspect that this investigation is very serious and very much "for real". Let us not forget that as "The Gatekeeper" Ruth Turner is not averse to power play, tough questions, and canny strategies. It may have been necessary for the police just to show who is boss, and make it clear that they won't be taking any "funny business".

There are other more procedural reasons why an arrest might have been necessary, such as to enable the seizure of documents, or to burden the witness with the responsibility put on her shoulders back in the early days of New Labour by David Blunkett: that if she failed to mention now something she later relies on in court it may harm her defence.

Maybe some charges are in the offing, and we can guarantee that a file will go to the CPS. But until this story has unfolded and the slow wheels of justice have inched to their conclusion it would, for once, be wholly inappropriate for the minister to comment.

del.icio.us tags: ruth, turner, government, police, investigation, cash, for, honours, scandal, loans, blair, arrest

Helicopter down north of Baghdad, 13 dead

2007-01-20T08:46:00.000-08:00

The US military says one of its helicopters has come down north-east of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killing all 13 people on-board.

Of course we can only speculate as to what caused this helicopter to come down. With the number of aircraft working in Iraq under high pressure we certainly can't rule out a simple human error crash or a mechanical failure. Neither though can we rule out enemy fire.

US forces were quick to seal-off the scene but all passengers and crew war dead. There have been several other high-profile aircraft downings in recent months: 4 were killed in Anbar Province in December and a UH-60 Blackhawk transport aircraft went down in August with the loss of two servicemen.

The insurgency in Iraq has certainly got the capability (video footage has shown sufficient armory and if the Coalition is to be believed arms will be finding there way in from Iran). But in the past the Coalition have often been slow to accept enemy action as a cause of casualties, fearing a loss of face and a propaganda coup for the insurgents.

Either way, 13 lives is a lot for any western state to lose in terms of political damage, and the already unpopular war just got less popular. The political implications of this one incident are unlikely to be severe, but it will stoke the fires of unease that are already burning in Washington and across the US.

del.icio.us tags: helicopter, iraq, blackhawk, baghdad, 13, dead, down, casualties, service, personnel

Blair and Moqtada Sadr both have aides arrested!

2007-01-19T07:03:00.000-08:00

It has been confirmed today that Tony Blair's aide Ruth Turner has been arrested by police investigating the cash for honours corruption scandal. Blair himself became the first UK Prime Minister to be interviewed by police in the same investigation. The police visited Downing Street on the same day the outcomes of the investigation into the death of Diana Princess of Wales were dominating the news.

Ruth Turner is not the most important or well-known of Blair's "spin team" but she is someone very very close to the Prime Minister and the heart of government. Her official title is Ruth director of government relations. In reality she is known as "The Gatekeeper" as minor politicians have to approach her before they can reach Blair. It is rumoured that she is much despised by backbenchers, who see her as coming from the unacceptable face of New Labour control freakery.

It will be interesting to see how long Blair can continue letting others take the rap for him. Presumably it is only a misguided sense of loyalty that is maintaining the wall of silence that police seem to be facing.

Ruth Turner has now been released without charge after being questioned.

In Iraq a top aids of Moqtada Sadr has also been arrested. It is a bad day for firebrand leaders! In somewhat deeper water than Ms Turner, this aide is thought to be involved in the Mehdi army's alleged campaign of sectarian killings.

del.icio.us tags: blair, aide, ruth, turner, cash, for, honours, row, investigation, met, police, arrested, spin, doctor, gatekeeper, interview, question, bail, release

Get Involved

2007-01-19T03:31:00.000-08:00

Hi

Obviously you are free to post comments to this blog, but I also would like to invite you to write a main post, which I would publish for you. It can be on whatever political topic you want and argued from any perspective.

Mail me at mailto:info@failedstate.co.uk

About Me

2007-01-19T03:17:00.000-08:00

Hi,

I suppose I should say something about myself, so people know who they are listening to.

I live in the South West of England and work primarily as a teacher, although I have a few irons in various fires.

I have a BSc in Geography and an MA in Creative Writing (which doesn't mean that my posts will always be eloquent and grammatically correct).

I am not a political firebrand but I do keep myself up to date with what is going on and devote a certain amount of time to swatting up.

That's about all, if you want to know anything else please mail me or post a comment.

Also read the Issues section.

Cheers

Issues in this Blog

2007-01-18T03:54:00.000-08:00

Hi, welcome to the Failed State blog which I started at the beginning of 2007.

The aim of this blog is for me to give my opinions on the current political and socio-economic issues affecting the world today. I am likely to focus in on the Middle-East, Europe vs the USA, Americanization, and China. With particular consideration given to the ongoing Iraq war and the schism between Islam and the West.

I want to present various arguments in this blog. I consider my self to be progressive and solution focused. I do not subscribe to traditional left-wing ideals and dogmas, I believe in what works. Unlike Tony Blair, however, I do not think that being progressive and letting go of out-of-date dogmas means making the case for pure free-market economics. This is in itself an out-dated dogma. To me, extremism is wrong. And I include extremist capitalism alongside communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism and nationalism in my definition of extremism. I believe what we need is much more of a balance, and the rarely criticized equation change=progress is horribly erroneous.

I hope people will debate with me here. I welcome well-made arguments from all quarters and will not censor posts that I disagree with or that strongly criticize what I have posted. I will only censor spam and filth.

Thanks for reading.

Thomas

del.icio.us tags: issues, failed, state, iraq, globalization, middle, east, political, blog, americanization

What shall we do in Iraq?

2007-01-18T03:16:00.000-08:00

Whether you believe that the number killed in Iraq since the invasion of 2003 is 6000 or 600,000 you will, unless you are deranged, agree that there is a problem of the highest magnitude. Even some republicans now call it a Civil War. Whatever it is, the current situation is untenable and the latest coalition casualty figures are not encouraging. If anything, things seem to be getting worse.

Here is what we should do if we want to leave Iraq any time soon:

Speak to Iran and Syria

They are going to have a hand in the future shape of Iraq whether Bush likes it or not. It is much better to include them at this stage and try to work out some agreement than try and stop them having any role. Between them they have thousands of miles of common Iraqi boarder, cultural and religious ties, and of course potential economic ties. They have a vested interest in an eventual stable Iraq. They also have a vested interest in it not being US dominated. They are part of this, it is time to accept it.

Hearts and Minds

The Americans just don't get it. It has worked in southern Iraq, it has born fruit in Afghanistan, it has many benefits. To state the obvious:

The locals have less reason to want to kill you.
It promotes stability.
You incur less casualties.
You can gather more information and intelligence.
You can ostracize the enemy through gaining the trust of the locals.

I suspect that the American Army are to over-stretched, stressed, and poorly trained to achieve this. In which case:

Replace the Coalition

After the Balfour declaration, Suez, Support for Israel, the bombings of Tripoli and Khartoum, and countless other western disasters involving the Middle East, no Arab state wants to be occupied by predominantly American forces. So let's hand over control to the UN and get a proper multinational force involved. Maybe they can win over the trust of the Iraqi people and start to get the country back on track.

More Troops

I know many people think that the troops are just causing trouble and should be pulled out but I think that could lead to a complete collapse of whatever law and order exists. It could be the precursor to all out civil war, as opposed to the low level civil war that is happening at the moment.

I think Iraq needs a much greater stabilization force. Not one that concentrates on a bogus hunt for terrorism,or protects oil infrastructure before people, but one that is omniscient in all urban areas, enforcing calm and promoting economic activity. This force is difficult to construct because it needs to be large in number, well equipped, and well trained enough to do the job properly and without corruption or wanton violence.

The current plan for Iraq has failed. Miserably. A secure and bright future for Iraq will come only through new thinking. And this thinking needs to come from 2007, not the nineteen-nineties. Remember, the American Century ended 7 years ago now.

del.icio.us tags: iraq, war, bush, strategy, solution, quagmire, stability, troops, withdraw

Undercover Mosque - Channel Four Documentary

2007-01-15T13:10:00.000-08:00

Channel four documentary Undercover Mosque gave a frightening insight into the extremist form of Islam called Wahhabism.

The programme showed preachers encouraging violence against non-Muslims, girls who won't wear the hijab and homosexuals.

Preachers from Saudi Arabia (where Wahhabism is prevalent) deliver speeches over the Internet and take part in question and answer sessions where Fatwas are issued on various issues. DVD recordings of these preachers are sold throughout the community.

Many of the most extreme preachers were young and flamboyant, they reminded me of the Christians from Evangelical churches in the US Bible Belt. One stated that parents should teach their children to love Jihad:

"Put in their soft tender hear the zeal of jihad and the love of martyrdom."

Another preacher told his congregation that AIDS was a Christian Plot, deliberately planted in Africa.

Although many DVDs of the preachers are sold, much of the literature we are told comes free, from Saudi Arabia. And the literature is definitely not a modern or typical reading of Islam. It is Wahhabism and is anti-Christian, Jew, homosexual, and sexual equality.

What was continually amazing about this documentary was the closeness of the Saudi Political and Religious mainstream to this extremist preaching. One of the speakers was a Saudi Diplomat, with diplomatic immunity. All of the preachers had trained or studied in Saudi Arabia, and all were looking to enforce a strict Wahhabist form of Islam on the UK, looking to "take over". Wahhabism, it seems, will bring down west.

The UKIM (UK Islamic Mission) was praised by Tony Blair as part of his PR drive to appear less Islamophobic. This would seem to have backfired as the UKIM (in this documentary as least) seemed to preach intolerance and everything Blair would claim to be fighting in his war on terror (although they claimed that preachers had booked their premises privately, and that it was not their opinions being preached).

This documentary tells us that some Muslims in the UK and Worldwide have fundamentalist beliefs that are abhorrent to the average westerner. But we already new that. Yes, the footage was shocking but it was old news. Apart from one aspect:

That major UK and USA war on terror ally Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of this extremist preaching. That for all the talk of madrassas in Pakistan where the London bombers allegedly studied, and Al Qaeda apparently hiding in the hills on the Afghan Border, and Hamas in Palestine, Saudi Arabia is at the heart. So what on earth are Blair and Bush doing? Saudi Arabia is a major ally, the west arm them and support their regime. We let them invest heavily in our industries, we are in effect in their pockets. The west's current foreign policy is completely unfathomable.

One more point on the documentary. There was very little of the majority, moderate UK Muslim voice. That, Channel 4, was unforgivable. Or an attempt to understand why fundamentalist Islam flourishes in the current political environment.

del.icio.us tags: islam, channel, 4, four, documentary, dispatches, preachers, Wahhabism, muslim, homophobia, hijab, jihad, jew, christian, bigotry

Iraq - What's the body count?

2007-01-15T04:02:00.000-08:00

General Tommy Franks famously said "We don't do body counts". Deputies quickly tried to put out a statement that was more palatable to the international media.

"It just is not worth trying to characterise by numbers...And, frankly, if we are going to be honourable about our warfare, we are not out there trying to count up bodies. This is not the appropriate way for us to go." - Vince Brooks deputy director of operations US central command 2004

A strange statement. How, one wonders, is counting civilian casualties dishonourable? Brooks gambles that buy stating something which is palpably false as a an obvious truth it will be largely accepted. His gamble paid off, no one present and few mainstream media outlets bothered to question his logic.

Blair and the New Labour team have been much more media savvy, but have still rejected out of hand any suggestion of an estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths.

"Figures from the Iraqi ministry of health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is." Blair to parliament, 8/12/2004

But this statement also raises questions. The Iraqi ministry of health is more accurate compared to...? Well, presumably the Iraq Body Count. But let's look at the details. The Iraqi ministry of health is counting the bodies which are brought to its hospitals and morgues, and those who die in its hospitals. On top of this the figures are released through the government which can not be taken as an unbiased source. The government are supported by the USA which has a vested interest in a low civilian death count. Only the naive would suggest between them they are beyond massaging the figures.

The figure given by the Iraqi ministry of Health at the time of Blair's 2004 speech was 3853. Up to the same period approximately 1000 US servicemen had been killed. The idea that Iraqi civilians were dying, compared to US servicemen, at a rate of 3.8:1 is preposterous, it is also hard to refute without hard evidence to the contrary. For now we rely on the "circumstantial" evidence. The best equipped military in the world, in vast strength, were suffering such high casualties in a ground invasion in which fewer than 4000 Iraqis had died. Probably not.

Furthermore, the Iraqi ministry of Health figure is also suspect. It does not take into account or try to estimate through any accepted statistical process the number of dead that would not be recorded by hospitals. Many people that died in bombings may have not had identifiable remains. In remote areas deaths, in such troubled times, may well not have been reported to the authorities and casualties would have had little hope of getting to an official hospital. In some areas, notably Fall, the new Iraqi establishment was not in control and even the Red Crescent were not able to stay.

Beyond Blair and Bush

Fast forward to 2007 and it is obvious that we need to go beyond the complete denials of the Bush regime and the warped statistics of Blair's spin doctors. The question is: Do you go with the Iraq Body Count or the now infamous Lancet Report?

del.icio.us tags: iraq, body, count, death, toll, franks, blair, bush, health, ministry, falluja, lancet, war, invasion, 2003

Iraq - Everyone's fault but ours!

2007-01-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

The US has warned Iran on 'meddling' in Iraq days after Coalition forces seized several Iranians from diplomatic premises in the northern City of Irbil. Of course in this war of claim and counter claim it is impossible for us to know who is telling the truth: Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Whether Iran is funding and fuelling the insurgency to any great extent or not, it has certainly taken the number one spot in the USA's blame list. Since the start of the war trouble in Iraq has been blamed on:

Ba'athists - Loyal to Saddam and hoping to re-instate him.

Nationalists - Some of whom hated Saddam, but they hated the invaders more.

Syria - aided and abetted Arab Jihadists from the Middle-East and North Africa in entering Iraq, or at least turned a blind eye to their presence.

Radical Shia - Sectarian Attacks and ethnic cleansing of some areas.

Al-Qaeda - Trying to destroy the occupation to rid Iraq of American Influence.

Iran - Possible end goal of a Shia state.

All of the above are either perfectly plausible or known to be true. They do however forget the biggest culprit of them all in the destabilizing of Iraq. The USA.

The roots go right back to the pre-war rhetoric. Operation Shock and Awe was not about saving Iraqi people, it was about destroying and dispiriting them. The war itself was conducted in a manner which would alienate Iraqi support for the invasion: civilian targets were repeatedly hit with only arrogant dismissal coming from the US high command by way of an excuse. Prisoner abuse came next, despite it being obvious that few of those in custody had the kind of evidence against them that would be required by a western court before being held on remand.

By the time of the Haditha Massacre (no doubt the tip of the iceberg of extra judicial killings) the seeds of hatred were already sown. It is not a coincidence that the "hearts and minds" approach of the British in the South has had more effect.

It is probably too late for the USA to adopt a conciliatory approach to Iraq. It is probably too late for the USA to achieve anything in Iraq. That said, if the USA took the advice of the masses and tried to involve Iran and Syria in a solution, then maybe Iraq would have a future. To do so requires more humility than anyone in the Bush administration has.

Blair's Speech

2007-01-12T15:26:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair's speech today regarding his "controversial" foreign policy was little more than further, and wholly unnecessary, proof that he is the most arrogant prime minister this country has ever had bar none.

Taking a leaf out of George W Bush's book, he addressed the world in front of a safe audience aboard a warship. The main content was the same as it has been since September the 12th 2001: the world faces a new threat and if we don't act we will regret it.

He continued by reaffirming that he wanted "for us as a nation to be as willing (as the USA) to fight terrorism and pay the cost of that fight wherever it may be". Of course his use of "us" is utterly erroneous. Opinion polls have consistently shown that as a nation we are not willing to partake in this endless dirty war. What's more few of us that have anything to lose are willing to pay the cost. It is almost unheard of for families of soldiers killed to be able to speak of the pride they have in the cause their kin died for. And Blair has shown himself to be utterly cowardly. Any personal risks posed through independent and far reaching inquiries, awkward questions, or the mounting evidence of serious mismanagement are avoided like the plague. And all he has to lose is his pride (and the all important place in history).

Indeed the "blood price" is only paid by the minority of the armed forces who are killed or maimed, and by those who know them. The machismo pride and ego trip, not to mention the historical notoriety, of being a wartime leader, seems to be what is really driving Blair.

Of course none of this is possible without a friendly press and a mortally wounded BBC. No expert on Middle Eastern affairs or counter-terrorism will tell you that the war on Iraq was a constructive or relevant part of the so called "War on Terror". Blair is of course well aware of this, and to refer to Iraq quite blatantly in a "War on Terror" speech is clearly dishonest. How long will his legacy taint us all?