Archive for the ‘British Politics’ Category
Syria is bleeding to death and the west stands by
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is meant to protect against "barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind". The conscience of mankind, however, has become remarkably forgiving of late.
What can outrage it? Not the 80,000 dead, according to the UN (a minimum of 94,000, says the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights). Not the 1.5 million the war has driven into exile in poverty-stricken camps, where families sell their daughters to dirty old men to pay for food.
Personal Attacks and Acting on Syrian Crisis
It seems that my blog post today caused Mehdi Hasan and Mo Ansar to use twitter to have a full out personal attack – but not on my points on moral relativism regarding segregation, slavery and political religious ideology (Mo), or how do we help the Palestinians and those caught up in Syrian crisis (Mehdi did but I think diplomacy has not worked needing a change). Having been a moderator on the Richard Dawkins Forum I had great expectations.
Instead rather than critiquing it was Hasan: “silly” try to “keep up”. Ansar: “tabloid” “badgering” and ironically did-he-have-a-straight-face-when-he-tweeted “attention seeking” and “furthering career.”
I fear Mo has already cornered that market.
At least Hasan reiterated his call for diplomatic negotiation on the ground when I asked a second time for them to use twitter to state what we can do. Pity about suggesting I was “pretending” he had not stated in print his position and needed to “keep up”. My blog post he responded to linked to his article where he sets his diplomatic position. As my post stated:
Hasan in a thoughtful, to the problems if not solutions, recent article suggests the piety of those wanting to intervene is overdone. He fails to mention hundreds of thousands into the million Saddam Hussein killed instead talking about the dead by the international community’s response to Iraq post 9/11.
At the moment, as we remember D Day, worth mentioning 70,000 French civilians died as a result of allied bombing raids. We should be concerned about the consequences of intervention, and also of not doing anything. Diplomacy does not seem to be working in Syria, and while events on the ground happen the death toll mounts up towards 100,000.
To me instead of a diplomatic answer Hasan went for the offensive attack. Maybe we should do as Hasan does rather than says when it comes to trying to safeguard human life. [Emphasis added]
Yes Hasan I am keeping up – do me the same courtesy and do so as well. Ansar ignored the question again complaining of my “soft harassment” and “badgering”. I imagine he may be referring to this.
Sadly making a straw man to shoot the messenger rather than the message, can get in the way of the central theme I cared about – helping palestinians and those caught up in the Syrian conflict without resorting to moral relativism to criticise focusing on that crisis.
Here is a suggestion of groups to donate to and policy suggestion to kick start effective diplomatic negotiations.
Islamic Relief UK – Syrian Appeal
Medical Aid for Palestinians – Camps overwhelmed by refugee crisis
Tell the international community to have a no fly zone to prevent attacks on refugee camps and safeguard humanitarian aid routes and safe havens – see above link. Think Kosovo.
Use diplomatic efforts for this and to help with negotiations on the ground to resolve civil war or the international community will take further steps.
Set targets, clear goals, redlines, consequences and stick to them.
Disagree all you want with what I have to say, perhaps even dare to go for the argument – no Ansar I do not need a “sandwich board” to make my case – but continued ad hominem and insults suggests the playground rather than the media/commentary background you both belong to.
Update 9 June: Nick Cohen on intervention – must read
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tony Blair Islamophobic?
Tony Blair had a number of things to say about Islam in The Mail On Sunday. Having said there was no problem with Islam as a religion of peace:
But there is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.
Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.
At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those with that view think we are weak and that gives them strength.
Second, those within Islam – and the good news is there are many – who actually know this problem exists and want to do something about it, lose heart. All over the Middle East and beyond there is a struggle being played out.
On the one side, there are Islamists who have this exclusivist and reactionary world view. They are a significant minority, loud and well organised. On the other are the modern-minded, those who hated the old oppression by corrupt dictators and who hate the new oppression by religious fanatics. They are potentially the majority, but unfortunately they are badly organised.
The seeds of future fanaticism and terror, possibly even major conflict, are being sown. We have to help sow seeds of reconciliation and peace. But clearing the ground for peace is not always peaceful.
There is an enemy within that Islam needs to deal with – an ideology that cherry picks the Koran for a jihad against the west for being a pluralistic, liberal open minded society. For some though that goes against the grain of blaming western interference in the Arab region as the number one cause for Islamic extremism.
Blair’s critics would rather paint Islamic radicals as victims reacting against imperialist aggression, put on a war footing caused in no small part by the “war criminal” Tony Blair himself. That however does not work when we see in public policy how Islamist governments behave, and the political goal of Al Qaeda as a single Islamic nation for the Arab world and as a social movement for theocratic absolutism.
Update 3/6: More on that can be read on this post by Edisa of the Humane Intervention Centre.
Mo Ansar has taken exception to what Tony Blair wrote:
The cricket did not seem to help much:
I have asked Ansar to give a detailed critique rather than mud slinging. Blair went out of his way to praise Islam as a religion of peace and call the problem an ideology. The only modern way he suggests this can be beaten is:
The better idea is a modern view of religion and its place in society and politics. There has to be respect and equality between people of different faiths. Religion must have a voice in the political system but not govern it.
We have to start with how to educate children about faith, here and abroad. That is why I started a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths across the world to learn about each other and live with each other.
If that makes Tony Blair an islamophobic the word has been debased as an attempt to silence critics rather than deal with hate and violent crimes committed against Muslim people.
Ansar, we need to talk about the ideology that exists within Islam and how it is going to be challenged externally and internally. In the meantime we will do our best to maintain a secular liberal pluralistic society as our contribution. We need you to tackle the ideology of the extremists. You are ideally placed to complete this mission, knowing Islam as you do. Maybe the way you reacted, throwing your toys out of the pram, was just a cover for the real task that lies ahead. That in reality you will seek and counter hatred that is perpetuated in the name of your faith. Maybe it is so covert we just cannot see this in action through the mud racking.
Time for some intrafaith dialogue even if behind the scenes.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A Response to terror
How to respond is the question to a brutal murder on the streets of London by killers shouting “Allahu Akbar” demanding we have British troops returned from Afghanistan, and EDL taking to the streets as football hooligans looking for confrontation.
Regarding pulling troops out of Afghanistan, before the murder in Woolwich YouGov reported:
YouGov’s Public Opinion polling in April of this year found that a strong majority of the British public (77%, split between leaving immediately and leaving gradually) were in favour of bringing British troops home from Afghanistan, while 14% were not in favour, and 9% said they didn’t know.
Regarding getting rid of our government, voting intentions just before the murder had Labour on 38%, Conservative 27%, UKIP 16%, Liberal Democrat 10% (Source)
Not only is there a democratic process to be used by aggrieved citizens, but a swell of public opinion to be tapped into on these issues. The young men turned their back on using these means to create their own outrage. Violence can never be legitimised in a society that allows dissent. Anyone that suggests their savagery was justified lacks credibility on the issues and is not just an enemy of reason but of humanity.
In Spain the Madrid bombings of 2004 nearly 200 were killed and over 2000 injured, and the hundreds of thousands that protested against terror was dignified and moving as Spanish people showed solidarity with each other and mourned the victims.
We can contrast that moving spectacle of solidarity, protest and movement with the English Defence League when they descended on Woolwich the night of the murder.
So how should we in the secular, humanist and atheist community show solidarity with the Muslim community? The answer I would hope would be straightforward but it is has proven on social media not to be. The statement of the obvious needs repeating unless we are prepared for others to make up for our silence.
In no particular order as all important:
1. Do not treat Muslims as a homogenous group – everyone is an individual
2. Do not dehumanise Muslims – we are all human beings
3. Calmly note our difficulties and problems with Islam – and how that impacts on Muslims too
4. Speak out against outrages to religious freedom and human rights taking place
5. Talk to each other and find out how we can stop people being radicalised by others
This will not be easy, you will lose people who think this is the time to be quiet about criticising Islam, or think you should be abandoning secular liberal principles to respond harshly to the Muslim community.
We need to speak up even more so that our voices can be heard. In a civil society commitment and enthusiasm can make a difference where will power and not brute force triumphs. These values are what bring us together in a pluralistic state.
Now is the time to stand for human rights, secularism and the democratic process.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Woolwich: do not be terrorised by those that use fear
Sadly, not all of humanities problems will be resolved by a sit down to resolve our differences. For those of us that have been paying attention, in a world where a schoolgirl blogger is a target for a bullet between the eyes in Afghanistan, Baghdad markets are places to detonate bombs, and a Syrian rebel eats the heart of a government soldier, what happened in Woolwich is a rare moment of brutality in our land compared to the darkness of terror that happens around the world.
That was the purpose of the attack – the stated aims of the bloody handed man to camera was a reminder that beheadings happen in other lands, in front of people. The target a soldier that had served in Afghanistan. Their aim to provoke a violent backlash to engulf London into fire. The suspects waited for the police to arrive so they could have a final confrontation. One Both of the suspects are in custody in stable condition after being shot the other shot dead at the scene. Hopefully investigators can piece together what happened to lead to such savagery on our streets. [Update: at time of writing reported one had been shot dead]
The mind of the murderers is one to examine, before deciding to blame a catch all bogey man like foreign policy, religious freedom or Islam – as sadly those who dislike complex nuance in favour of one problem one easy solution may. The latest reports suggests one of the suspects was an Islamic convert during or just after college; radicalisation to jihad may be a factor. The blame game will go on of course. The fault however lies squarely with those that would commit such an atrocity in the light of day wanting to cast in shadow how we go about our daily lives. In the fight against global jihadism it is preciously how we live which upsets them – it makes us all targets.
So yes it would be wrong to completely dismiss world events, and global Jihadism from what happened. It would also be wrong to hold UK Muslims to account for the actions of two people. Muslims are the main victims of jihadism.
In the wake of this tragic event, we need to stand in solidarity with our servicemen and women, the people of Woolwich and Muslims. Revenge and hate crimes are never legitimised by dehumanising people. I cannot criticise religion for that without stressing it is a very human trait that we all must avoid when provoked.
Murderers took away a life most savagely. I am resolved they will not take my humanity. I will not live in fear, or be terrorised into thinking differently by those that use violence or intimidation.
Follow up blogs:
A Response to terror
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Forgive me If I don’t stand to applaud Mehdi Hasan
Mehdi Hasan has written about his youthful homophobia and how by embracing secularism he resolves the private belief that homosexuality is wrong (New Statesman).
The mood music of the piece has been applauded while I wonder if they noticed the lyrics which demand attention. Ignore them and you miss that his secularism is for those of us who as non Muslim can enjoy the gay life; just leave us alone to make a Muslim being gay potentially difficult.
Let us start with what homophobic behaviour at school is like, something which effeminate boys like myself went through. I had a whole class of male 11 year olds chanting over and over “Bend over for Jehovah!” for a full five minutes only stopping when the arts teacher decided to finally come to her lesson. Part of my bullying, which once involved me being on the floor praying to God to forgive them as the shit was kicked out of me, was the decision that I must be gay because I had the look of a pretty boy and read books. That I was studying with an anti-gay religion is one of the biggest ironies of my life and I hold my head up now that I did not try to play that card with them.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that, as a teenager, I was one of those wannabe-macho kids who crudely deployed “gay” as a mark of abuse; you will probably be shocked to discover that shamefully, even in my twenties, I was still making the odd disparaging remark about homosexuality.
Yes Hasan, that behaviour gives the cover for the very things that happen in school. You may repudiate your younger self. It took you till your 30s. This is no cause for applause. About bloody time for a man of your education. Shame on you for taking so long should be the cry, not good on you.
So let me be clear: yes, I’m a progressive who supports a secular society in which you don’t impose your faith on others – and in which the government, no matter how big or small, must always stay out of the bedroom. But I am also (to Richard Dawkins’s continuing disappointment) a believing Muslim. And, as a result, I really do struggle with this issue of homosexuality. As a supporter of secularism, I am willing to accept same-sex weddings in a state-sanctioned register office, on grounds of equity. As a believer in Islam, however, I insist that no mosque be forced to hold one against its wishes.
If you’re gay, that doesn’t mean I want to discriminate against you, belittle or bully you, abuse or offend you. Not at all. I don’t want to go back to the dark days of criminalisation and the imprisonment of gay men and women; of Section 28 and legalised discrimination. I’m disgusted by the violent repression and persecution of gay people across the Muslim-majority world.
I am pleased Hasan you will not impose your faith on those outside it, as you are a secularist. My concern is you are quite willing to allow anti-gay feelings and belief to prevent Gay Muslims marrying in a mosque. You do not even attempt in the article to suggest how to address these tendencies in the Muslim community as you wrestle with your own beliefs. Beyond saying stoning or killing gay people of whatever religious persuasion is not on. I would like to think we could take your thinking on that as a given.
You mention the problem is men lusting after other men’s procreative genitalia as something to be considered wrong (the same for women too). For equity gay people should be able to get married. But the thought of consenting same sex people having orgasims with each other, without any chance of a baby, is something you have an issue with as a believer. If not, then I wonder why Islam’s view on homosexuality is a concern for you that it clearly seems to be. Faith and state have to get out of the bedroom.
I am writing this because I want to live in a society in which all minorities – Jews, Muslims, gay people and others – are protected from violence and abuse, from demonisation and discrimination. And because I want to apologise for any hurt or offence that I may have caused to my gay brothers and lesbian sisters.
And yes, whatever our differences – straight or gay, religious or atheist, male or female – we are all brothers and sisters. As the great Muslim leader of the 7th century and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib, once declared: “Remember that people are of two kinds; they are either your brothers in religion or your brothers in mankind.”
It is not clear what rights and privileges Gay Muslims should enjoy with their gay non Muslim brethren in Hasan’s article. Under the belief of secularism we are to respect these differences as religious freedom not discrimination. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is no detail by Hasan beyond what we know: homophobia is an issue in society. The word “rights” is not even mentioned in the article. Nor for that matter is the word “equality” by Hasan.
Does this not tell you all you need to know?
No one should get a round of applause for just saying homophobia is wrong and religious bigotry should not be imposed on non believers. That is the minimum to be taken seriously in public discourse, not grounds for a standing ovation.
If he had written not only should gay Muslims not be subjected to hatred by the community but also we should work hard to give gay Muslims the same rights and privileges that gay non Muslims have – then I would be cheering him from the rafters. Notice he never says that. Tolerance and mutual respect yes. That though empowers no one the way rights do, and the way equality enshrines as one law for all.
Speak up for gay Muslims who live in terror of being outed, where leaving the faith as an apostate to have their secular rights can be made unbearable by the community and even their own family. Do not give plaudits to someone that contains their own bigotry as a constant conflict. I know where my sympathies are.
Ladies and gentlemen please remain in your seats.
UPDATE 13 June: LGBT Muslim retreat article Washington Post
Related blogs: Oh for the wings of a horse … Dawkins and Hasan
Homophobia has no natural right
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Video: Panorama “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils”
The BBC flagship current affairs documentary Panorama revealed in April 2013 what the secularist community had long feared. That access to legal address from marriage, child custody and even domestic violence was being undermined by the Sharia Councils. That it encouraged the flouting of court judgements in place to protect victims.
A memory stirred today that these fears were first mentioned on this blog in 2008 when criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public support for Sharia Law to exist alongside secular law.
That blog examining the collusion of the Church of England with Sharia Law can be read here.
One quote to see in light of the above documentary:
[Archbishop Williams]: “The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court to decide finally and authoritatively about such a question would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens; and while a legal system might properly admit structures or protocols that embody the diversity of moral reasoning in a plural society by allowing scope for a minority group to administer its affairs according to its own convictions, it can hardly admit or ‘license’ protocols that effectively take away the rights it acknowledges as generally valid.”
The answer is simple my Lord Bishop – do not give religious law legal force. There is a reason why the law book of England is not the Bible. The law has developed based on tradition, culture, legal practise and Parliamentary Democracy within a liberal pluralist political system. Because a sub group feel passionate in their way of living does not make them a special case when it comes to temporal matters.His answer however is that the believer would have the right of appeal based on secular rights – that the jurisdiction of British law would trump Sharia law. The question then becomes why give legal weight to Sharia Law which under certain circumstances could be superseded? It becomes not only a recipe for conflict and legal wrangling but is ceding the rule of law to a religious body. It is a step back to the dark ages.
Rather than helping believers and none to live together in harmony this is something that would if enacted like Williams suggests tear the nation apart. The rule of law would not apply equally. Under what circumstances would someone accept less than their full rights that secular law gives them? Do we imagine such circumstances are done out of respect for the law of Allah, or fear of the community that they live in? What Williams promotes for harden the lines that already separate towns and cities across this nation. Many Muslims are in this country because their descendants were secularists fleeing the cruel imposition of religious law. He may not be advocating it, but the principle is the same – the law of the land applies to one and all, and is not based on supposed divine text and bodies with authority to interpret the mind of God.
Please support the One Law for All Campaign
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Margaret Thatcher via Spitting Image
Margaret Thatcher – a tribute brought to you via Spitting Image.
My Way:
Grantham Anthem:
The Wets:
The Vegetable Cabinet:
UPDATE: Apologises to email subscribers for broken link to Grantham Anthem – have mended.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Contrarian to the Pope and British Politics
Political Compass is an attempt, based on how strongly you feel about a series of questions, to see where you are on the left/right and authoritarian/libertarian spectrum (not sure of margin of error). Here are my results from this week:
This does seem to politically put me in a rather isolated position, with Nelson Mandela almost removing me from solitary confinement:
Still that is what you get for being a social liberal antiauthoritarian, concerned about big government, using normative economics so that Rawlsian social justice is effectively delivered by social institutions. My answers make me the mirror opposite of the pope – the pope’s contrarian.
What really interested was the analysis on the British Political Parties featured on the graph below over time.
I was a member of the Liberal Democrats since 2003 – almost perfect alignment with my views. However, since then to now the outlook of the political party has been moving away as it went more for the centre ground where most of the electorate is to be found in the top right hand corner.
Since the coalition took office 2010 you could argue that the Liberal Democrats are even closer to the Conservative position. The result should therefore not be surprising that, for people like me, there was no reason to renew my membership – quite simply the party was no longer what it once was and had overtime moved away from where we once thought the same.
Some may suggest that the reality of government led to people that wanted the cosiness of opposition to leave, because the idea of compromise and consensus did not fit the rebellious mentality. The analysis of the graphs here suggests what I would argue – the Liberal Democrats no longer represents the views of people like myself who believe in social justice without an authoritative state. So last year I did not bother to renew my membership.
Have a hunch not alone. It was not the deal to power, but the ideological moving away that happened over a ten year period. As such, it is not just a matter of people coming round to the idea that coalition was a necessary thing. Rather, it was being left out in the cold so when goodwill was necessary for a deal with the Conservatives it was no longer there.
As such I am a political animal in the wilderness. However, I am determined to roar.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Plebgate New Twist
Andrew Mitchell was forced to resign as Chief Whip of the Conservative Party (responsible for the government getting legislation through), because trying to leave Downing Street on his bicycle he was less than civil to the police guarding the main gate when they asked him to walk through the side gate rather than them open the main gate for him. The altercation happened days after his appointment this September, but dragged on till his resignation in late October 2012.
The row centres on whether or not he used the word “Pleb”, which he denies, and whether his behaviour fell short of a person of his position. CCTV footage revealed today shows that there were less members of the public around then claimed, and that the altercation could only have been about 20 seconds not a harangue. Further that a police officer fabricated what happened, and posed as a member of the public when contacting the deputy chief whip about the above events by email, without ever being present at Downing Street.
Hopefully the inquiry into these things will hold people to account.
I was vocal on Facebook that Mitchell should resign, though not on the blog. The day before Plebgate two policewomen were deliberately ambushed at random as members of law enforcement in a gun and grenade attack in Manchester. We might not have children being massacred in schools for close on to a generation since Dunblane in 1996 due to stricter gun controls, but we do have gun violence still in the UK by organised and disorganised crime.
Public feeling in support of the police service was running high in the wake of a senseless violent attack on those that risk their lives in our defence. Further no less a Conservative figure than the Mayor of London Boris Johnson had supported making abusive language to a police officer a crime, as had others in the party.
Lastly though Andrew Mitchell claimed he did not say Pleb, and admitted he said as a parting shot “I thought you guys were supposed to be fucking helping us”. He did not give further details of what he did say.
As such, I felt he should go. His apology when it did come was not exactly heartfelt or full of contrivance given national feeling at the time. That he was a Tory had nothing to do with it. If he was Liberal, Labour I would have felt and said the same thing
With the latest revelations, people are trying to recreate history that Mitchell did not get a fair hearing. The thing is he did not help his cause by giving a full public account of what did happen, and the timing of Plebgate could not have been worse given events in the last 24 hours.
A lack of sentiment, courtesy and contrition did for him. Sometimes sorry is not enough.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
