The terrorism we are fighting in Britain, wasn't born in Britain, though on 7th July last year it was British born terrorists that committed murder. The roots are in schools and training camps and indoctrination thousands of miles away, as well as in the towns and cities of modern Britain. The migration we experience is from Eastern Europe, and the poverty-stricken states of Africa and the solution to it lies there at its source not in the nation feeling its consequence. and

"The terrorism that afflicts them [he was referring to Iraq] is the same that afflicts us. Its roots are out there in the Middle East, in the brutal combination of secular dictatorship and religious extremism."

From the same speech. It is always 'the other'. Others are responsible, we are, presumably, victims. This is not the whole story and he knows it. Whilst there is no justification for terrorism, what we have, what we are still doing, serves the terrorists' cause. Anyone who refuses to look inwards at their own part in any issue is blinding themselves to half the story.

"The answer to terrorism is the universal application of global values. The answer to poverty is the same. Without progress - in democracy and in prosperity - security is at risk. Without security, progress falters. That is why the struggle for global values has to be applied not selectively, but to a global agenda."

"Global values" Sounds good and earlier on he spelled them out as "liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice." The problem here is the onterpretation of such words. Even in the UK, let alone the rest of the world, there are many who view Tony Blair's interpretation of these words as suspect: 'liberty' (internment without trial), 'democracy' - the UK's sytem of 'first past the post' is profoundly undemocratic, 'tolerance': I dispute the word itself - it implies a superior attitude, whereas 'acceptance' implies a view of others as different and equal, 'justice' (discarding ancient rights from Magna Carta onwards).

On the issue of Israel and Palestine, he was only able to urge Hamas to change. "There is only one way through. Clear acceptance by Hamas that the two-state solution is the only one; a renunciation of all violence; and then a move back into the Road Map, with a speeded up pathway to final status negotiations." Not a word on the need for Israel to respect agreed boundaries and he said this: "the state of Israel is here to stay; the Palestinian people aren't going to disappear;" Unfortunately it seems that the Israeli plan is to make the Palestinian people disappear. In other words, hold onto large parts of the West Bank, cause a Palestinian state to be impossible to maintain and squeeze and squeeze until they do in fact 'disappear' - into Jordan primarily, which is why Jordan is presently expressing alarm. As has been apparent for some time, if 'events on the ground' are gradually shifted, the international community loses interest, concedes the new 'reality'. And does not Tony Blair not see any link, any link at all, between how the West treats the Palestinians and unrest, violence expressed towards the West?

I agree on the need to reform the UN, especially the Security Council. but as usual (we are used to it here in the UK), we are treated to soundbites, nothing of substance.

Reform of the IMF and the World Bank? Indeed. But does Tony Blair really believe "Second, the World Bank and IMF. These institutions together play an important role in global stability and prosperity." and "The World Bank must remain focussed on fighting world poverty.", when these two institutions have been pushing poor nations into freeing up their markets, thus impoverishing them further, leaving them to the definitely not tender mercies of the international herd of money movers and the greed of the transational corporations? He knows this. He knows

"No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work. The EU doesn't move forward unless its leading countries agree. That is the reality of power; size; economic, military, political weight."

Fascinating opinion from a self-proclaimed democrat who claims to listen to his people. He forgets 'people power'. He forgets that as a culture, a nation, changes almost imperceptibly in the background, whilst he is on the world stage, unstoppable forces, powerful forces are formed. Size, economic and military power are not invincible. If they were the Americans would not have been defeated in Vietnam. These few words speak volumes about the beliefs behind Tony Blair's eagerness for military 'solutions'. He quotes Northern Ireland in his speech but appears to have learned nothing about how the edging towards a solution has nothing to do with military strength or actions.

The whole speech has the ring of a retiring politician who is looking towards becoming a world statesman in advocating solutions to global problems. Unfortunately, even with umpteen advisors, Tony Blair has failed to generate any ideas of substance, thought through and reasoned out. He tends to announce a reactive 'solution', say it is 'right', often 'the only way', but with no supporting evidence and no reasons why other solutions are less good. Not a good approach for a budding visionary. Have you no farm to retire to, Tony?

   I received this a day or so ago. It is worth your attention.

In the Valle de San Felix, the purest water in Chile runs from 2 rivers, fed by 2 glaciers. Water is a most precious resource, and wars will be fought for it. Indigenous farmers use the water, there is no unemployment, and they provide the second largest source of income for the area. Under the glaciers has been found a huge deposit of gold, silver and other minerals. To get at these, it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers - something never conceived of in the history of the world - and to make 2 huge holes, each as big as a whole mountain, one for extraction and one for the mine's rubbish tip. The project is called PASCUA LAMA. The company is called Barrick Gold. The operation is planned by a multi-national company, one of whose members is George Bush Senior. The Chilean Government has approved the project to start this year, 2006. The only reason it hasn't started yet is because the farmers have got a temporary stay of execution. If they destroy the glaciers, they will not just destroy the source of especially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the 2 rivers so they will never again be fit for human or animal consumption because of the use of cyanide and sulphuric acid in the extraction process. Every last gram of gold will go abroad to the multinational company and not one will be left with the people whose land it is. They will only be left with the poisoned water and the resulting illnesses. The farmers have been fighting a long time for their land, but have been forbidden to make a TV appeal by a ban from the Ministry of the Interior. Their only hope now of putting brakes on this project is to get help from international justice. The world must know what is happening in Chile. The only place to start changing the world is from here. You can email noapascualama@yahoo.ca to be forwarded to the Chilean Government. Say "No" to Pascua Lama Open-cast mine in the Andean Cordillera on the Chilean-Argentine frontier. Ask the Chilean Government not to authorize the Pascua Lama project to protect the whole of 3 glaciers, the purity of the water of the San Felix Valley and El Transito, the quality of the agricultural land of the region of Atacama, the quality of life of the Diaguita people and of the whole population of the region.

In carrying out a small piece of further research, it is claimed that the Chilean government have 'tentatively' agreed to go ahead, but the Argentinian government have so far not done so. The project straddles the border, so maybe representations to the government of Argentina might help too.

May 24th 2006

   "It could be an important step toward the peace that we both support." This is what President Bush said of Ehud Olmert's plan to draw unilaterally the boundaries between Israel and the remnants of a Palestinian state. Does not Bush understand that peace can never be unilaterally imposed without continued and sustained miltary oppression and if he does not, does he not have advisors who understand this simple truth, borne out time after time over history?

"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land. But I also believe that dreams alone will not quiet the guns that have fired unceasingly for nearly a hundred years. Dreams alone will not enable us to preserve a secure democratic Jewish state. Jews all around the world read in this week's Torah portion: 'And you will dwell in your land safely and I will give you peace in the land, and there shall be no cause for fear neither shall the sword cross through the Promised Land'. Painfully, we the people of Israel have learned to change our perspective. We have to compromise in the name of peace, to give up parts of our promised land in which every hill and valley is saturated with Jewish history and in which our heroes are buried. We have to relinquish part of our dream to leave room for the dream of others, so that all of us can enjoy a better future. For this painful but necessary task my government was elected. And to this I am fully committed."

Part of Ehud Olmert's speech to the US Congress. I find this remarkable. It implies that the Prime Minister of Israel believes that he is 'relinquishing' land that is rightfully his. Land that Israel has taken by force within living memory. Land that was already occupied by others. Land for which there has been no international authorisation or approval. That giving up a part of this land, leaving remnants that are probably not viable, is a 'compromise'. That Israel exists and should be allowed to live in peace is not disputed, but what is preposterous is that unilaterally imposing a 'solution'is in any way just or justifiable.

"Should we realize that the bilateral track with the Palestinians is of no consequence, should the Palestinians ignore our outstretched hand for peace, Israel will seek other alternatives to promote our future and the prospects of hope in the Middle East. At that juncture, the time for realignment will occur. Realignment would be a process to allow Israel to build its future without being held hostage to Palestinian terrorist activities. Realignment would significantly reduce the friction between Israelis and Palestinians and prevent much of the conflict between our two battered nations. The goal is to break the chains that have tangled our two peoples in unrelenting violence for far too many generations. With our futures unbound peace and stability might finally find its way to the doorsteps of this troubled region."

From the same speech. There appear to be the same delusion that forcible imposition of a solution can lead to peace. As for "should the Palestinians ignore our outstretched hand for peace" that hand is restricted to the Palestinian president, not to the elected government. As we in the UK know, sometimes is is necessary to talk to those whom you consider to be terrorists. The way to peace can be hard and painful, but we also know that if the hard way is not taken, conflicts persist for far more generations than Ehud Olmert refers to.

"We cannot wait for the Palestinians forever." There is such a terrible resonance about such a statement - those are the sort of words which Hitler used to justify his campaign of war and mass murder.

   On an associated subject, Ehud Olmert expressed gratitude for the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. The US makes much of its support for the democratic process, in fact 'encouraged' the Palestinian Authority to hold elections. Yet part of this Act reads: `"(b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a certification transmitted by the President to Congress that contains a determination of the President that-- (1) no ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority is effectively controlled by Hamas, unless Hamas has-- `(A) publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; and `(B) committed itself and is adhering to all previous agreements and understandings with the United States Government, with the Government of Israel, and with the international community, including agreements and understandings pursuant to the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (commonly referred to as the `Roadmap'); and `(2) the Palestinian Authority has made demonstrable progress toward-- `(A) completing the process of purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism; `(B) dismantling all terrorist infrastructure within its jurisdiction, confiscating unauthorized weapons, arresting and bringing terrorists to justice, destroying unauthorized arms factories, thwarting and preempting terrorist attacks, and fully cooperating with Israel's security services; `(C) halting all anti-American and anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled electronic and print media and in schools, mosques, and other institutions it controls, and replacing educational materials, including textbooks, with materials that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence with Israel; `(D) ensuring democracy, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and adopting other reforms such as ensuring transparent and accountable governance; and `(E) ensuring the financial transparency and accountability of all government ministries and operations."

If you applied such wording to any other state - say Italy - it would be rightly seen as blatantly interefering in the affairs of another state. What possible right had the US to say "no ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority is effectively controlled by Hamas, unless...." Only the Palestinians have the right (and duty) to determine their government and what it 'effectively' controls.

There is of course the inconsistency that President Bush is willing to approve Israel's discarding of the Road Map whilst stating that Hamas must adhere to it. Logic however has no place in the Alice in Wonderland world of George Bush.

May 22nd 2006

   We in the West are trapped. We could get out of the trap, quite easily in one sense, but it is a subtle and poisonous trap. The trap of consumerism, of acquisition, of desire, baited by advertising. We are inundated with images of silkier hair, smarter cars, high definition television etc etc. Our problem, our fault, is that we fall into the trap. What does it do for us? We feel better for a short while - usually measured in days, sometimes months, rarely years. It does not last because the trap regularly gets baited with even silkier hair etc which feeds our discontent with what we have and the desire to have something that we deem to be better. Which again lasts the few days or weeks. I fall into this trap too. I am not immune, but we are not helpless. We can say 'Do I really need this?', 'What will it cost me - in terms of time, effort and money, not forgetting what I forego (leisure etc) to get it?' We do not have to be addicted. We do not have to opt out altogether, but if we reduce our addiction, avoid the trap sometimes, we will be happier, will be freer, will contribute to the slowing down of global warming. The pace of life is too fast, has outstripped our evolutionary capacity to cope. Saying 'No' is such a positive step. One personal example: since redundancy (ten years' ago now) I downsized my home (had to) and retrained for a much less lucrative job, but one which I enjoy. Not only am I happier - although I can still be Mr Grumpy - but my bank balance has never been healthier. Earnings went down, yet sufficient - and more - money keeps going in. It is not easy. My present struggle is to convince myself I do not need to replace my two year old camera with a better model. Photography is one of my passions and I know a better camera will produce better pictures and I can afford it. Why deny myself? Well, I may not, but struggling with each issue counts because it reduces my dependence on material objects, restores my ability to choose, to be in charge of my own life. Try saying 'No', sometimes, to acquisition. You may be amazed at what flows from it.

May 18th 2006

   The announcement that General Motors may pull out of Ellesmere Port, having axed the third shift illustrates the problems and effects of globalisation. My understanding is that the plant is highly productive, indeed won two awards. In the climate of binding treaties in relation to free trade and the absurd free movement of capital, the UK government is likely to say it can do little. On a national scale this may be right - until globalisation is rolled back. But it may be possible to do something without breaking trade treaties. It can be argued that GM is acting is bad faith, as the plant has performed well. The UK government could therefore say "OK, you could pull out, but if you do, we will put a substantial tarrif on imports of GM products into the UK" Note that this would be company-specific and would only hurt GM. Of course this could result in a short-lived flight of capital from the UK, but if the economy is as sound as the government says, it would flow back in again. That's the thing about transnationals and capitalists: they are greedy and will move their money where they see the prospect of a (preferably quick) profit. Retaliation? Any national retaliation, eg from the USA, would be in breach of the repective treaty. Who knows, it may encourage other nations to start standing up to the overweening power of capital.

May 14th 2006

   There has been much talk of a 'war between civilisations' etc regarding the 'war on terror' and I have rejected these terms and still do. However, amongst the thugs and people who just want to harm others which make up a significant proportion of those who carry out terrorist attacks I am beginning to think that there are others who see it as struggle for values. There are many good and positive aspects of the Western way of life and of what might loosely called Islamic societies, but there are certainly aspects to both ways of life that the other dislikes. Islamic societies are seen as autocratic and oppressive of some minorities - leading some in the West to mistakenly try to impose what they call 'democracy' on such states. The West is seen as individualistic, greedy for material wealth, and exporting such 'values' to Islamic society - leading some to mistakenly try to persuade the West to desist by acts of terrorism. I abhor violence of any kind and it is no answer to any issue - whether by terrorism or by regular armed forces. There are differences in values. Dialogue and tolerance is called for on both sides, otherwise all lose, as many are already doing, with their lives.

May 11th 2006

   These thoughts will probably take some more coherent form in the future, but it seems to me that unless globalisation with its attendant evils, one of which is a small group of people get ever richer and everyone else gets poorer, is reversed soon, then one of two things will happen. The catastrophic consequences of global warming will change the whole structure of human life and community on earth with unpredictable results, or a series of revolutions will enforce change. When we see those accumulating riches and retreating behind their electronic surveillance systems, guards and guard dogs etc, it is reminiscent of France before the French Revolution and indeed Russia at the start of the twentieth century. Note to anyone in authority zealously looking for evidence of any connection with terrorism, I am merely forecasting the possibilty of revolution, not advocating it. It would be better that those who have power and consequent unreasonablely high riches to recognise the need to help create a fairer way of organising economic affairs so that all can have a basic standard of living. Behaving like Marie Antoinette suits no-one's purpose.

May 9th 2006

   "if Israel wants to have a permanent place it must become part of the Middle East, and it must be aware of the culture that already existed here, and not pretend, as has been done for a long time now, that it was a desert and an uncultured one at that. For the future of Israel it is necessary for Israelis to open their ears to the Arab culture. This is not an issue of Israel denying its European roots but instead a question of enriching and enhancing its European heritage by placing it side by side with its Middle Eastern heritage. Otherwise the State of Israel will remain forever a foreign body, and as such there is no possible perspective of future for its remaining here, because a foreign body can exist in a society, or in music, or in a human being, only for a limited amount of time."

I only managed to hear the last of Daniel Barenboim's Reith lectures, but the extract above is from that one. Such a statement would be impossible for a non-Jew to make, for fear of charges of anti-semitism, and it takes a brave Jew to say it, but Barenboim does not lack courage. In an earlier part of the speech he made reference to the musical concept of tempo rubato ("stolen time"), whereby variations of tempo have to be given back, having been 'stolen' from the basic beat:

"It is the ear that must guide us in tempo rubato to have the moral strength to give back what was inadvertently stolen. In other words, when taking time in parts of a phrase, we must find the right place to give it back. This is not unlike the moral responsibility to give back what has been stolen."

I take this to be a clear reference to 'stolen lands'. The use of the word 'moral' is surely not accidental. Again, a brave statement.

Contrast this with the recent statement from the new Iraeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "we must ensure that there will be a proven Jewish majority in the State of Israel, otherwise the term Jewish state becomes empty of meaning. The obligation of the national leadership is to be responsible to the vision of Herzl and to ensure a Jewish majority in the State."

If we were to substitute any other country's name into that statement it would be regarded as racist and condemned. Eg "we must ensure that there will be a proven French majority in the State of France, otherwise the term French state becomes empty of meaning. The obligation of the national leadership is to be responsible to the vision of (Herzl) and to ensure a French majority in the State."

There are people living as refugees in Gaza and the West Bank, even after the passage of over fifty years, who could take you to their former home in Israel, from which they were driven out. I simply ask: which statement, which attitude, is more likely to lead to peace and justice in the Middle East, that of Daniel Barenboim or that of Ehud Olmert? Which is the more humane?

May 4th 2006

   Since 1971, a UK Home Secretary can order the deportation of a foreign national on the grounds that his or her deportation is "conducive to the common good", (Section 3 paragraph 5). There appears to be no definition of what this phrase means, so why does Charles Clarke trumpet his so-called 'radical overhaul' of the system? He has all the powers he needs, more powers than he needs than are good for him or for the country. It is yet another example of a headline grabbing announcement intended to take away the attention from the government's failings. I have worked for a number of bosses: none would have tolerated my delaying telling them of a problem for three weeks and then lying about the scale of my involvement - since when did 288 out of 1023 constitute a very few? The only justification for telling your boss there is a problem is to devise a solution and present that. Most bosses want solutions, not problems, but Charles Clarke didn't even do that. My conclusion is that not sacking him was a purely political/timing decision and that he will go, or be moved, very shortly.

Back

April 2006

April 30th 2006

   Another example of how NHS money is wasted. I wrote three days ago about my daughter expecting to have a heart procedure carried out. Well, she is still in hospital and the procedure has not been carried out. The scheduling is so tight that an overrun caused her procedure to be cancelled. No time the next day either, but she was unable to come home as her blood clotting levels were too low as a result of the preparation for the procedure. So she has spent, so far, five days in hospital for no purpose, as she will be discharged as soon as the levels have returned to normal. I do not know how much five days in-patient care costs but it is money the NHS can ill-afford. The problem is the acute pressure on resources such that there is no leeway when things overrun. This may be at present the least costly way of managing the situation but is is still wasteful and also treats patients like so many items on a production line. There were several other patients is a similar predicament and I gather a shortage of intensive care beds caused some operations to be cancelled. Those working in hospitals in the UK probably view this as normal. It probably is and another depressing and anger-provoking thought is that privately funded operations rarely get cancelled in this way.

April 27th 2006

   There is currently much debate in the UK about spending on health care, where the money goes etc. Well, today gives one example of how money can be wasted. The Healthcare Commission has produced masses of data about survival rates for heart surgery, right down to the figures for individual surgeons. This data does not get processed and published for free. It costs money which could be spent on healing people. The purpose of the website is stated as "This website was developed by the Healthcare Commission, the independent regulator of healthcare in England, and the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland to help patients who need heart surgery to make informed choices about their care and treatment." Informed choice. About the hospital? About the surgeon? This is a meaningless ritual, a mantra chanted by this government and its agents: 'patient choice'. Not only is there no real choice anyway, I would argue that there should be no choice. We need to trust professionals, knowing that they can and do make mistakes.

This is not written from an academic viewpoint. My daughter, today, is expecting to have a heart procedure carried out, at a different hospital from the one where the process was recommended, because the health professionals judged it to be more appropriate for her. In the past she has had two major open heart operations carried out, at two different hospitals. I have stood by three times as her survival lay in the hands of surgeons - indeed a friend of hers did in fact die after the same operation at the same hospital. So these are real issues, for me as well as many others, but I get very angry when I hear politicians speak of 'patient choice', knowing this is spurious. I get very angry when I see money being diverted from patient care to providing meaningless information. Yes, professionals need to be accountable. Yes, each profession needs its own internal and external watchdogs. What patients and their families do not need at a very stressful time is to spend time and emotional energy on this spurious choice. Whatever figures are produced, however detailed, have no bearing on what the outcome will be for a specific person at a specific place at a specific time. In that any anxiety reduces the body's capacity to withstand and recover from trauma, anxiety over the choice of hospital/surgeon can be said to be damaging to health.

What I want is at least adequate hospital provision within a reasonable distance of my home - adequate meaning comparable to the existing standards and the provision elsewhere in the country. I should and do not expect more, I should not put up with less. In the area in which I live I believe the provision is adequate. The statistics are superfluous.

April 25th 2006

   Many may have read the extraordinary exchange of emails between Tony Blair and Henry Porter of The Observer. Henry Porter is a distinguished journalist, yet Tony Blair's first sentence is "Frankly, it's difficult to know where to start, given the mishmash of misunderstanding, gross exaggeration and things that are just plain wrong." Disrespectful, or what? What he writes when he gets to the Regulatory Reform Bill is a lie - unless the Bill really has been fundamentally changed. He writes: "The proposal is that in circumstances closely defined and expressly where it doesn't interfere with people's basic rights, ministers can propose removing the regulation by order" Contrast this with some of the text of this Bill, taken from the Parliamentary website today: "2 Provision

(1) An order under section 1 may for either purpose specified in subsection (1) of that section make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation.

(2) Provision under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace legislation so as to—

(a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees);

(b) modify the functions conferred on any person by legislation;

(c) transfer, or provide for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by legislation."

and

"6 Criminal penalties

(1) Provision under section 2(1) may not create a new offence that is punishable, or increase the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishable— (a) on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; or (b) on summary conviction, with— (i) imprisonment for a term exceeding the normal maximum term; or (ii) a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."

In other words, ministers would be able to confer new powers relating to earlier legislation and impose criminal penalties of up to two years' imprisonment. No interference with people's basic rights? Merely 'removing' a regulation?

Two small points: the Bill is very short, a mere five A4 sheets and contains the phrase "(5) An order under section 1 may bind the Crown." , so someone has been careful to include Her Majesty!

On to what our defender of civil liberties would like to do:

"I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive aroubd in, and require then to prove they came by them lawfully" Note that these are suspected drug dealers, not convicted drug dealers. So here we have a Prime Minister actually proposing that people will have to prove their innocence. As we all know it is very difficult to prove a negative, apart from the fact that this turns the principle of justice on its head. Would the 'suspicion' of drug dealing be at the same level as the 'knowledge' of Saddam Hussein's WMD?

Further, "I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in serious crime. In fact, I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country" Note again, the word 'suspected'. Unless a law to this effect were tightly drafted it would almost fall foul of the laws against harrassment.

It is ironic to say the least that this is a Prime Minister would be harried, hassled and hounded under his own principles. The man who is suspected of lying to or misleading Parliament over Iraq, leading to thousands of deaths, (can you, individually, prove your innocence, Mr Blair?) and who cannot be trusted not to do the same against Iran would indeed be hounded out of the country etc by Tony Blair. He should not be, of course. Unlike Tony Blair I believe that justice and civil liberties are indivisible and are the right of everyone, convicted, suspected criminal or otherwise. It is dangerous in the extreme to have a Prime Minister spouting such nonsense. Tony Blair claims he is in touch with public opinion. Unfortunately, there is no such entity, public opinion is multi-faceted to say the least. We tend to connect with those parts of public opinion which gell with our own. Well, we know which parts of public opinion gell with Tony Blair's own views. Those of the lynch mob, of the vigilante, those that shoot first and ask questions afterwards, those who want a quick fix and are not too bothered about the rule of law. Such a person is not fit for his office.

April 20th 2006

   "What individuals want to see is a legal system that correctly finds guilty those who are guilty of an offence and acquits those who are innocent, with respect to what they did or didn’t do rather than with respect to whether the legal process was or was not correctly followed." Charles Clarke, the UK Home Secretary. No, Mr Clarke, both aspects of the legal system are important, otherwise we are going further down the slippery slope to arbitrary punishment. Why is it that this government always wants to cut corners with the law? Why is that people accused of crimes appear to be regarded as being guilty, whether or not they are found guilty? Why is it that those who are victims of an arm of the state - the legal system - should be less worthy of compensation than those victims of other citizens? The implication too of taking into account previous behaviour also creates a difference between the two types of victim. A previously convicted criminal is still entitled to compensation for criminal acts committed against himself (except in the course of his own criminal activity), yet it appears that a former criminal will have compensation reduced or witheld for previous criminal activity, even though wrongly convicted for the present crime. This is manifestly unfair and begs the question of what sort of criminal record will be taken into account - parking offences? A convicted criminal is also more likely to be accused of a crime committed in his area in the first place, but rather like Tony Blair's bland assumption that a convicted drug dealer walking around with £1,000 in his pocket will be assumed to have gained that through drug dealing unless he can prove otherwise, criminals, whether reformed or not, are seen as fair game by this government for unfair treatment and anyone accused of a crime is assumed to be guilty in some way, even if proved innocent. The cavalier way in which Charles Clarke introduced the 'not proven' ruling is totally inappropriate: such a fundamental change in English law needs considerable thought and discussion before any proposals are considered, not trotted out as if scribbled on the back of a menu receipt after lunch.

April 19th 2006

   I have just returned from a stay in Italy and noticed that in the Italian cities I visited, there were ample litter bins available in the streets, in contrast to the UK where they have been removed because of the "terrorist risk". Another example of how the UK government fosters a climate of fear at the expense of the ordinary day to day lives of its citizens.

   In the debate about the funding of city academies and the role of individual or business 'sponsors' there has been much reference to 'fiving something back to society.' I have no problem with that, but the word 'giving' is both accurate and its implications clear. A gift asks for nothing in return, so there should be no question of sponsors being either offered peerages or of having any say in the running of an academy. If it is anything other than this then it is a payment - either for a (possible) future honour or a stake in running the academy. No-one should be able to purchase an honour - indeed it is illegal - and no-one should be able to buy influence in the way the education system is run.

Back

March 2006

March 27th 2006

   In Australia Tony Blair is making the most extraordinary statements: "If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it, that means standing up for our values not just in our own countries but the world over."

Who are we fighting? The hornet's nest in Iraq which Tony Blair himself stirred up? What does 'the world over' mean other than impose our (or rather his) values on other countries?

"We will not defeat this terror until we face up to the fact that its roots are deep and that it is not a passing spasm of anger but a global ideology at war with us and our way of life. Their case is that democracy is a Western concept we are forcing on an unwilling culture of Islam. The problem we have is that a part of opinion in our own countries agrees with them."

Indeed, there are many, of whom I am one, who believe that no nation should 'force' a culture on another. Tony Blair here seems to say explicitly that such force is justified.

"Every reactionary element is lined up to fight us. Why? They know if they lose a message is sent out across the Muslim world that strikes at the heart of their ideology. That is why they are fighting us hard." Note the old trick of the term 'reactionary', a catch-all word which simply means someone who disagreess with you. Note also the rhetoric, as if it really were a war that is being fought.

"We must not hesitate in the face of a battle utterly decisive as to whether the values we believe in triumph or fail."

In case you think this is rather over the top, he later says "In 1939, when Britain declared war on the Nazi tyranny, that same day your prime minister [Ausralia's] announced you were at war too; no ifs, no buts, just solidly with the world. How magnificent and how typical of Australia. We needed you then and we need you now. Today's struggle is of a very different nature, but it will determine our collective future. I believe it is one together that we can win."

So is the implication that 'Islamist extremism', Tony Blair's phrase in the same speech, is the equivalent of Nazism? Well, we are in epoch-making times indeed. I am sorry, but my rather simplistic and obvious understanding of 'Islamist extremism' is that it is primarily a protest - bloody and deadly - against Western interference in its culture. We in the West may not like some aspects of Islam, but does that give us the right to invade nations in order to 'free' them of the values we disapprove of? I believe not. As I have said before, if our values are so superior they will spread of their own accord. There is also the selective nature of such enforcement of Western values. OK for Iraq and Afghanistan. Not so OK for Zimbabwe - mustn't upset other African nations (OK though to upset other Arab and Islamic nations); not OK at all for North Korea, even the US can recognise this as another Vietnam; not OK at all for China - we'd lose; not even OK for Burma - not sure why this is - no oil, or other 'strategic' assets?

The simple fact is that Tony Blair ahs shifted his ground so often over Iraq that there is no credibility in his statements, no integrity, no honour.

March 24th 2006

   The UK government, true to form, has dropped following protests the proposed Mental Health Act which provided for the indefinite detention of people with personality disorders and posed a possible threat to themselves and others, with a new Bill which contains essentially the same provisions. What is it about this government which seems to want to lock people up without trial and without charge? I work in this field. I know how difficult it is to assess personality disorder and to assess potential risk. I am also aware of the political repercussions of a high profile murder or series of murders by someone who is considered to fit into the 'personality disorder' category and I suspect the political considerations are uppermost in politician's minds.

We need to think very carefully about depriving anyone of their freedom when no offence or harm has been committed. We need to be as sure as possible that the risk is real. Considering how cavalier we are as a society with cars as lethal weapons and seemingly accept the carnage that goes on on our roads, it is perverse to generate so much heat (and money - the Mental Health Bill was 8 years in preparation before being dropped) on relatively few people and relatively low actual risk. Anyone with any diagnosed mental illness is at risk - from society, as mental illness is so little understood and so much feared. Those with a personality disorder who are harmless will be put at risk of unfair detention unless the process of diagnosis, risk assessment and treatment possibilities are both researched and improved, and a rigorous process formulated and followed. They are human beings, worthy of just as much respect as any other human being and should not just be swept up and out of sight because of media, public and political hysteria. Unfair detention of innocent and harmless people will not provide justice for those killed and bereaved by the few mentally ill people who are dangerous.

March 21st 2006

   Western media and politicians have made much of the lack of freedom in Belarus and the undemocratic election process. It is ironic however to note that the protests in Belarus are not being met with mass arrests. Similar protests in the UK would result in arrests due to this government's cavalier way with our civil liberties. This does not make Belarus a better or a freer place than the UK, but it reminds us that our freedom of speech is not boundless and is much more restricted than it used to be.

March 18th 2006

   I have yet to seeTony Blair or anyone else promise to reveal not only the source of loans to the party but when (or if) each loan is repaid. There is little point in knowing that Joe Bloggs donated £1m to the Labour party if we never find out if it were ever repaid. The suspicion remains that these 'loans' are written off and are in fact gifts masquerading as loans. Until all the details are revealed suspicion remains: the reason for the lack of trust lies squarely with Tony Blair's record for lack of honesty.

March 14th 2006

   Fifteen minutes after UK and US monitors left their posts at the jail in Jericho where Ahmed Saadat the PFLP leader, amongst others, were being held, Ahmed Saadat since 2002, Israeli forces stormed the jail and seized the prisoners. One prisoner and one Palestinian guard were killed. The US and UK representatives wrote to the Palestinian Authority President as follows:

March 8, 2006 Mr. President: The Palestinian Authority has never fully complied with basic provisions of the agreement that established the U.S. and UK Jericho Monitoring Mission. While the six detainees -- Fuad Shobaki, Abmad Sa'adat, lyad Gholmi, Hamdi Qur'an, Majdi Rimawi and Basel alAsmar -- are held in continuous custody at the Jericho prison, the Palestinian Authority has consistently failed to comply with core provisions of the Jericho monitoring arrangements regarding visitors, cell searches, telephone access and correspondence. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority has failed to provide secure conditions for the U.S. and UK personnel working at the Jericho Prison. Repeated demarches by our governments to the highest levels of the Palestinian Authority have not resulted in improved compliance with the Jericho monitoring arrangements. The pending handover of governmental power to a political party that has repeatedly called for the release of the Jericho detainees also calls into question the political sustainability of the monitoring mission. If the Palestinian Authority would like the U.S. and UK to continue their involvement with the monitoring mission, conditions at the Jericho Prison must be brought into full compliance with the Jericho monitoring arrangements. Alternatively, the Palestinian Authority can come to a new arrangement with the Government of Israel regarding the disposition of the six detainees. Likewise, adequate measures must be put in place to assure the security of the U.S. and UK personnel working at the prison. Regrettably, if the Palestinian Authority does not come into full compliance with the Jericho monitoring arrangements and make substantive improvements to the security of the U.S. and UK personnel working at the prison, or come to a new agreement with the Government of Israel, we will have to terminate our involvement with the Jericho monitoring arrangements and withdraw our monitors with immediate effect. I hope you understand our concerns and the seriousness with which we take this matter. Signed, Jake Walles, U.S. Consul General John Jenkins, UK Consul General

The text in bold has been emboldened by me. We know what 'alternative arrangements' Israel have made - the usual 'shoot first and talk afterwards, if at all'. And why 'with immediate effect'? You do not have to be a conspiracy freak to smell a very large rat. Predictably, the seizing of Palestinians has provoked violence, which Jack Straw condemns as 'appalling'. Israeli violence is of course not 'appallling' and Jack Straw has been quite open about the fact that Israel was notified of the impending withdrawal of monitors, hence their arrival within 15 minutes (what kept them?). Note that the UK and US provided unarmed monitors - the Palestinians were responsible for policing the jail.

Equally predictable is the world reaction to any further reaction from Palestininans in terms of further violence towards US and UK personnel or attacks on Israel itself. It will be the fault of Hamas. It is never Israel's fault.

Meanwhile, Israel is planning further extensions to its West Bank settlements, possibly 3,500 houses, joining Jerusalem to Maali Adomim, thus prejudicing the possiblity of a viable Palestinian state still further. If I feel such despair at these events, what must Palestinians feel?

March 9th 2006

   The referral of Iran the the UN follows a well-worn and futile path. There is now open talk of military action being a possible step in the process. How utterly, utterly stupid. The 'great powers' are like children, brandishing their own weapons of mass destruction like toys. War is always a futile, painful detour away from the path forwards. There is only one logical explanation for the US-led threats. It is that the US is determined to exercise its perceived right to tell other countries what to do and to punish them, if necessary to destruction, if they disobey. Iraq has already suffered greatly for this madness. How much longer before regime change in the US brings an end to this folly, or must we wait for the US itself to self-destruct?

March 7th 2006

   I am reading Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez - a marvellous book enjoyable on many levels and at times very thought provoking. Two brief extracts are relevant to the preoccupations of this web site. "What every culture must eventually decide, actively debate and decide, is what of all that surrounds it, tangible and intangible, it will dismantle and turn into material wealth. And what of its cultural wealth, from the tradition of finding peace in the vision of an undisturbed hillside to a knowledge of how to finance a corporate merger, it will fight to preserve." There is a reflective wisdom here which needs no further comment save the observation that it is a universe away from current political and economic orthodoxy.

The other quotation is "Few historians can say precisely where.............plans for industrialization cross a line and become of greater service to a nation's economy than the well-being of its people." The West crossed that line long ago. I heartily recommend this book for the quality of the writing alone.

March 5th 2006

   Michael Barton was convicted at 17 of murder. I do not condone that crime in any way but I do condemn Knowsley Housing Trust for their decision to seek to evict his parents from their home in Huyton. The Trust's statement does not mention any crime being committed by Michael Barton's parents, nor of any anti-social behaviour on their part. Why then are they being punished by being evicted? The Trust's statement reads: ‘As the major landlord in Knowsley, KHT is committed to working alongside the Police and other agencies to help deliver safe, stable communities. One of the key ways we are able to contribute to this is through our tenancy agreements. Any act of crime or antisocial behaviour by a tenant or a member of their household constitutes a breach of their tenancy and will result in us seeking to repossess their home. The crime in question, which so appalled the nation, was committed while Barton was a resident at one of our properties and we are therefore applying to gain repossession of the home, in line with our policy. We believe this policy sends out a very clear message to the community that no form of criminal activity or antisocial behaviour will be tolerated. Our action today demonstrates beyond any doubt that we intend to stand by this policy in this and every such case.’

The difference between this treatment of the relatives of a convicted criminal and the bulldozing of the homes of relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers by Israel is one of degree only. Both are unjust. Knowsley Housing Trust should have to show just cause why Michael Barton's parents are not fit tenants. Anything else is victimisation.

March 3rd 2006

   It is very regrettable that Hamas is still refusing to recognise Israel, as an early step towards progressing some sort of peace process. Khaled Mashaal said "I declare that if Israel officially announces its willingness to return to the borders of 1967 and to return the Palestinian refugees, to destroy the dividing wall and to free all arrested Palestinians, our movement will take steps towards peace" I can agree to much of this. What is disappointing is no mention of recognising Israel - even as a result of a peace process; the freeing of all Palestinian prisoners - some at least must deserve imprisonment; whilst Palestinians who were genuinely driven out of Israel have a right to return determining who is eligible would be difficult to say the least. Anyone who has visited this site before will know that I am against Israeli policies and consider the Palestinians the more sinned against than sinning, but with a new political force in the occupied territories and new political realities in Israel, the chance is there for imaginative leadership on both sides. Hamas at present does not appear to willing to take positive steps.

Back

February 2006

February 25th 2006

   There will be a lot of heat generated by Ken Livingstone being found guilty by the Standards Board of England, in terms of freedom of speech, double standards re causing offence to Muslims - OK - or causing offence to Jews - not OK etc. The issue does not lie here though. Members of the Greater London Authority are governed by a code which amongst other things require them, whilst on official business, to treat people with respect and not to do anything which brings the office or authority into disrepute. I'm not sure about the 'disrepute' part, but there is no doubt that Ken, having learned that the journalist was Jewish, continued to compare him to a Nazi concentration camp guard, which cannot be regarded as treating him with respect. We need to guard our freedom of speech, but the code of conduct that Ken signed up to when taking office precludes those types of comments in that situation. Ken could have been suspended for a year. Four weeks does not seem excessive.

February 21st 2006

   A nice own goal - not picked up by the BBC interviewer - about the extradition of the three NatWest former employees. Commenting on the imbalance in the 2003 Extradition Act which enables the US to give far fewer grounds - in effect no evidence at all - to extradite UK citizens to the US as against the evidence required before US citizens can be extradited to the UK, Andy Burnham said that the US could not go further in reducing the need for evidence because of the requirements of the American Constitution. Quite so. If we had a written constitution in the UK, this government could not throw away the rights of citizens in quite so cavalier a manner. I was not the only one at the time to express fears at the way the Act could be abused. The laws that this government has introduced have been careless in relation to safeguarding the UK resident or citizen and are open to even worse abuse in the future unless repealed. The issue is not whether these men are innocent or guilty. The issue, as usual, is about the rule of law and the creation of just laws. This government - Andy Burnham again made reference to speeding up the process - considers speed to be paramount and assumes that speed equals justice. Alas, this is not always so. Justice has to fair and accurate, as fast as possible within these aims. Accuracy and fairness are more important than speed for the sake of it.

February 19th 2006

   I have not read anyone msking an obvious point relating to the Israeli intentions to withold tax payments to the palestinian Authority. It is this: Israel has an obligation towards every man, woman and child in the occupied territories as the occupying power. The West Bank and Gaza do not constitute a state, against which Israel could take action in the light of terrorist attacks or any other acts of violence. The West Bank and Gaza, until a Palestinian state is formed, is Israel's responsibility. They cannot and should not be allowed to abrogate that responsibility.

February 16th 2006

   The UN report is quite clear that the US tortures detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that it should be closed down. The official US response is predictable: "These are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about that are there" said spokesman Scott McClellan as if that makes torture acceptable. These allegation that these are "dangerous terrorists" are conveniently not tested in a court of law. The US thus continues to flout the rule of law and contemptuuosly dismisses the most senior international body. There is thus a contemptuous and contemptible arrogance: the US is above ordinary laws and bodies such as the UN and considers it hardly worth a response. At the same time, the US appears not to connect with the anger of the rest of the world at all. Blind and deaf.

   The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'glorify' as follows: "Make glorious; exalt to the glory of heaven; invest with radiance; transform into something more splendid; (try to ) make (common or inferior thing) seem more splendid than it really is; extol; praise". We have to get down the last definition before there is a hope that statements encouraging terrorism will be caught by this weak and woolly term and even then lawyers will be able to prove that what is said does not fit most of the definition. So how much, or how little, of the definition needs to fit before a conviction can be obtained? Certainly, the placards encouraging people to behead those responsible for the cartoon will not be caught under that term. They are however caught under the existing law of incitement. It is interesting to note that of the guilty verdicts on Abu Hamza six were under an Act of 1861 and a further three under a 1986 Act. Only one was under the 2000 Terrorism Act, yet hearing and seeing the footage of his speeches one would have assumed that recent legislation was tailor-made for such acts. Apparently not. I suspect that recent legislation, even though appearing to be draconian and fundamentally contrary to our values, has been so badly drafted that it is unworkable. Certainly the 'glorification' clause is PR spin, no more and no less and yet another contemptible gesture.

February 11th 2006

   There has been much talk as a result of the anger over the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed of a 'clash of civilisations'. It is nothing of the sort. There is indeed a difference of opinion, a sharp one at that, but this is to do with different values. The secular West values freedom of expression. Islam is sensitive to blasphemy and puts freedom of expression lower down the scale. Whilst a minority of Muslims turn to express their anger violently, there is no doubting that anger spreads deeply into the Islamic population. I believe that many Christians have similar feelings when Christ is blasphemed but most have given up the fight. This does not mean however that offence is felt and taken. There is no absolute right and wrong here, but old maxim of 'I can say bad things about my family, but you, as non-family, may not' could be applied. So if a practising Christian or Muslim says something outrageously provocative about their faith, they have to answer to their fellow-believers. Anyone else would be better to stick to reasonable criticism which stands scrutiny, not trivial or humerous opinions. Why should anyone be careless with another's sensitivities? There are plenty of issues in which we have an interest and on which we can express an opinion. Making fun of a person's beliefs is rarely justifiable or beneficial.

Judging the cartoons by my professional code of ethics, two of which indicate that I should strive for beneficence (do good) and strive also for non-maleficence (avoid harming), then they clearly fail.

February 7th 2006

   Have you noticed that, amidst the furore concerning the election of Hamas, with the US and Israel taking up holier than thou positions about terrorism, Israel has murdered seven Palestinians in Gaza in the last three days. As usual, Israel disdains to use the rule of law in territories that it has responsibility for, instead opting for the easier, illegal and unethical method of state terrorism. Hamas has refrained from terrorist activity for over a year but you can be sure that if Hamas were to carry out any attack, there would be long and loud condemnations from the likes of Jack Straw and Condoleeza Rice, but not a peep about Israeli terrorism. Valuing the rule of law - a fundamental principle of any society with pretensions to being civilised - is not a matter of picking and choosing. Everyone subject to the rule of a country operating under a legal system has the right to be judged under that legal system, no matter what the alleged crime. Anything else is barbarism, as bad as the terrorist acts that are condemned. Even at the practical level it does not make sense, merely deepening hatred and making everyone less safe.

February 4th 2006

   Donald Rumsfeld is busy reprising the process which led up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" was one phrase. There is the deliberate creation of and focus on an external enemy: "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire. As during the Cold War, the struggle ahead promises to be a long war." So we are told that the 'Islamic threat' is on a par with the struggle against the 'evil' Soviet empire. It is always convenient to have an external enemy, even when none exists. Your armaments industry loves to have a justification to develop more and more horrifying weapons; your politicians have a permanent diversion from domestic problems; when your citizens are living in a state of fear of their own government's creating they are less likely to criticise that government; it enables the control freaks in government - and wanting to be in government means wanting to have control - to pass more and more Acts/Bills enabling them to monitor what their citizens are doing and control their freedoms.

All this only works if the citizens buy in to the 'emperor's new clothes' trick. Look more closely. See the acres of naked flesh. Remember the lies told by those still in power.

Yes, terrorism has increased over the last decade. It is not as simplistic as our leaders maintain it is, either in its manner, aims, or causes. Donald Rumsfeld conveniently, for his spurious argument, links bombings in London, Spain, Egypt and Beslan. Beslan, well, if Russia wasn't on 'our' side, these atrocities - for atrocities thay are - would not be condemned so readily, being seen as part of Chechnya's 'legitimate' quest for self-determination. We know a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter' are so called depending upon your political stance and aims. The terrorist attacks on the Palestinians by Israel, destroying crops, women and children, houses; the recent attack by the US in Pakistan which killed women and children are condoned or approved. These incidents and the continuing atrocity of Guantanamo Bay and other wholly illegal concentration camps demonise the 'other'.

There is only one way to reduce terrorism. The causes of each arm of terrorism need to be understood and corrected. This does not mean condoning or pardoning terrorists. It means cutting off the supply of whatever fuels their purposes and cutting off the sympathy and support which they get from otherwise law-abiding citizens. It is not quick. It is not flashy. It is not as macho as swaggering off to war. But it would work over time and one invaluable product of such a process would be a greater understanding between peoples, regions and religions. The 'other', as seen by both sides, would become more 'like us', would not be so demonised, fought against. The other key element is respect, absolute respect, for the rule of law. The creation of draconian reduction in civil liberties shows contempt for the rule of law. 'Targeted killings' (in other murdering in cold blood) of terrorist suspects is not good enough. Our hard won freedoms are too precious to be thrown away so lightly and it reduces the 'enemy' to an object. When we reduce any other person or group of people to the status of object, we have lost all humanity. We ourselves have become a lost people. The Blairs and Bushes of this world have led us into the wilderness. It is up to us, the ordinary citizenry, to seek ways out of this wilderness. With courage, clear thinking and complete abstention from any form of violence.

We can defend ourselves against fanatics without compromising our principles and without throwing fuel on the fire which motivates such fanaticism and which thus increases it. Remember that, whatever their protestations, the 'war on terror' rather furthers our politicians aims to get and hold on to power. Power and more power. I believe it's right that Tony Blair has led this country to war more times than any other Prime Minister. That in itself says something about his mindset.

Resist this continuing mindless onslaught in whatever peaceful ways you can. 'Peaceful' as a matter of principle and also because anything else is as bad as those we are criticising.

February 2nd 2006

   The State of the Union speech is a strange mixture. The explicit attacks on 'radical Islam' and the glowing references to democracy as if that system were perfection itself have all the hallmarks of a religious crusade. The language: "In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies on Earth", "Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others." The language is grandiose, with references associating his presidency, his achievements, with accepted, major turning points in history. But is this such a turning point and is George Bush a Lincoln, a Martin Luther King? I think not. When he says "Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world.", referring to terrorists he conveniently forgets that this possible 'safe haven' did not exist under the regime he was so determined to overthrow on a false pretext.

His aim to cure America's "addiction" to oil is purely political, not ecological. There is no hint of encouraging Americans to use less energy. This is the aim: "another great goal: to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025". Indeed he is still concentrating on economic growth, still parrotting the defunct language of globalisation, of lower taxes, of technology being the answer, of funding more federal research (how?) so that private corporations can take the new knowledge free of charge, patent it and make money at ordinary people' expense. In other words, more of the same, even using the word "safe" in connection with nuclear energy - a contradiction in terms and a contradiction in it being OK for the US to build nuclear reactors but not Iran. Always implicit or explicit is the theme of competition, not of cooperation. Always the same theme: America will grow, will take care of itself, and may cast a few scraps to others, as long as their government is on the approved list. If you are on the approved list you also benefit from America's 'protection'. Well, I comfort myself that it will pass. Many people will suffer in the meantime, but it will pass.

Back

January 2006

January 28th 2006

   The US is threatening to cut off aid to Palestine. Could anything be more unproductive? Worse than that, if such a calculated decision is taken, it could accurately be dsecribed as evil. Evil in that a group of people, oppressed politically and economically, who are thwarted in any attempts to be self-sufficient, are then denied any aid which might alleviate their suffering to a small degree. Firstly, what would be the likely reaction of Hamas? No prizes for guessing that it would harden their stance. What effect will it have on the rest of the world when the US, who pushed for the election on the basis that it is a move towards democracy, then rejects the result? Again, no prizes. The conclusion is: democracy is fine just as long as we approve of the people you have voted into power. If we don't approve, then boy, will we punish you. Remember that this is in the context of Hamas having carried out no attacks for about a year. Given this, wouldn't the policy of any state interested in peace be to look for ways in which to extend that cessation of violence? Is there not a time for a carrot rather than the usual US blunt instrument wielded with undue force?

I note that Israel is considering witholding revenues collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, funds which not only are the property of the Palestinian people but which are a fraction of what they could be, but for the malicious policy of Israel to stifle economic activity in the occupied terrirories as far as possible. It is also salutary to remember that it is Israel, being the occupying power, who is responsible for the welfare of the ordinary Palestinian. This responsibility is enshrined in international law, which Israel has broken with impunity, as well as United Nations resolutions (those not vetoed by the US).

Those of us living in the UK must also mark the views of the UK government, as this situation is one to which the draconian anti-terrorism laws can be applied. Thus, anyone expressing support for or approval of a Hamas government could find themselves in prison. It is also possible that anyone sending aid to the Palestinian people could be accusing of supporting a "terrorist regime" and find themselves in prison. This probably breaks a UK law, but I would encourage anyone who presently provides (non-military) aid to Palestine to continue to do so and to make their opposition to any plan to reduce or cut off aid to Palestine loud and plain. I hold no torch for Hamas, or any other party in Palestine or elsewhere, but I am aware that Hamas, like all political parties gaining support against the historical ruling party or class, gained that support by providing services and support in the occupied territories for the Palestinian people. My guess is that the Palestinians voted for Hamas for several reasons: dislike of Fatah, acknowledgment of what Hamas has done socially, belief that Hamas will govern justly (yet to be proved), support for their terrorist campaign. The last reason is only one amongst several.

Hamas may prove to be a disaster, a disaster that is of their own making. It makes no sense whatsoever to treat them right from the start in such a way to make a disaster more likely.

January 26th 2006

   At the political level, the Hamas victory in Palestine means several things. The reality that Palestinians, having had a free election, bear real responsibility for what will be done in their name. The US will have to change its 'we do not talk to terrorists' stance, sooner or later. It may be later. Israel has to face the reality of an elected representative body to negotiate with rather than the pretence that there is no such body. Finally, Hamas may have to emulate Sinn Fein/IRA in order to gain effective legitimacy and bargaining power. It may all end in disaster, but, once the Israeli electiona are completed - if a clear mandate is secured - both sides know with whom they are dealing.

   It is sad that the Liberal party, at the height of its political influence, should implode with such force and speed. Personal morality should not be important, but it sadly still is in this country. I fear that Liberal MPs will live to regret the day they ousted the leader who had brought them so much success.

January 19th 2006

   Tony Blair's slash and burn campaign on the criminal justice system continues. It is just too cumbersome to send "low level" acts of crime to magistrates' courts, not to mention the cost of so doing. So such low level crime would be summarily dealt with outside the court system. Someone is caught in a drunken brawl. The police say that if he admits his guilt they will effect a summary fine and that's it. No-one to advise him as to whether this is in his interests. No court to look objectively at the facts, the circumstances of the case, only the biased views of the police and the prosecuting services. The acquisition of a criminal record in a matter of minutes.

Let us look at what Tony Blair said: "In theory there is no need therefore to change these criminal law processes. Except that, in practice, its (sic) not what happens. In practice, the person who spits at the old lady is not prosecuted because to do so takes many police hours, much resource and if all of that is overcome, the outcome is a fine. The result is the police do not think it worth it; and so it doesn't happen. In practice, to prove that person X with £10,000 on them in cash in the middle of the city at 2am got this money through specific acts of drug dealing is too hard. You may know it. But how do you prove it? So it doesn't happen." "Knowing it" is a rather popular pastime of the Prime Minister, rather as he 'knew' Saddam Hussein had WMD. Is this the sort of 'justice' we want in the UK? 'We know you are guilty, can't quite prove it, or can't quite afford the money to prove it, so, you're nicked, convicted and if you have a problem with that, you'll have to appeal.' Guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Incidentally, unless it's a typo, the figure for summary 'justice' for carrying large sums of cash started at £1,000. Which is it?

Tony Blair is well aware of what he is proposing: "This has, bluntly reversed the burden of proof. The person who spits at the old lady is given an £80 fine. If they want to challenge it, they have to appeal. The suspected drug dealer loses the cash. He has to come to court and show how he got it lawfully." Look out for more too, as he went on to say: "Now, as I shall say later, we want to take these powers further. Today I focus on ASB. Shortly we will do the same on serious and organised crime. But the principle is the same. To get on top of 21st century crime, we need to accept that what works in practice is a measure of summary power with right of appeal, alongside the traditional court process. " So he proposes to move the principle of 'guilty unless you can prove your innocence' into "serious and organised crime"? Would that maybe include murder? 'You were in the vicinity when the deceased was murdered. We think you are guilty. It is up to you to prove your innocence'. If not, where does 'serious' crime begin and end?

This is not 'summary justice', Mr Blair. It is summary punishment. It is not 'modern', 'post-modern' or '21st century'. It is old, backward, uncivilised. Justice always costs and if justice is not the core of civilisation, what is? The barbarian is not at the gates, he is in the presidential palace of No 10.

January 15th 2006

   There can be no doubt that the US airstrike on a village in Pakistan is a war crime. There can be no excuse for a military attack on a sovereign nation which not only kills innocent civilians but which was almost certain to kill innocent civilians. Even if Ayman al-Zawahiri were there and even if he had been killed there is no excuse. It is not surprising that the US will not sign up to the International Criminal Court, which would certainly have a remit to investigate and bring charges. However, the US is not beyond the power of the International Court of Justice, which the US is a party to, even though it disregards decisions taken against it (e.g. Nicaragua vs USA, 1984) Even if the ICJ could not enforce its decision, the hearing itself would be worthwhile, demonstrating that no state can claim to be beyond international law.

January 13th 2006

   It is depressing to see, in relation to Iran, the start of the the re-run of the Iraq fiasco. Condoleeza Rice speaks of not trusting, not believing Iran about only developing nuclear technology for energy production. Well, we didn't believe Saddam Hussein about WMD but that time he was telling the truth. I am personally against nuclear power, but countries who use nuclear power for themselves cannot deny other countries the same choice. Europe is now setting in motion the process of sanctions against Iran. What purpose will this serve other than to consolidate Iran's leadership and strengthen resolve to be autonomous as a nation? What purpose does it serve other than to make everyone the poorer? Even more importantly, it will lock the West out of any possibility of finding out just what Iran is doing - why should they co-operate - and we are back down the dodgy intelligence road. The only potentially productive course is to continue - for I assume this is what has been happening - to talk to Iran to agree a way that they can develop nuclear energy in a way that can be monitored so that Iran can prove that nuclear weapons are not being developed. Of course this risks deception, but if there is no basic trust to build on, then conflict is inevitable and I do not believe in the context of recent relations with Iran that conflict is inevitable. If we are so concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon but accept that nuclear energy is OK, then why has not the West used the logic of its capitalist system and devoted energy into investing in Iran, thereby being effectively in control of the programme> Maybe we have tried and the Iranians have been smart enough to decline our kind offers.

In the wider context it demonstrates yet again that the West's political mindset is fundamentally hostile to different cultures, to countries that show a reluctance to order their affairs according to Western political and economic principles. In short, it illustrates yet again the arrogance of the West in believing that 'we are right and to be trusted implicitly, you are wrong and are to be distrusted until you think and behave like us'.

January 7th 2006

   Ariel Sharon's illness and almost certain departure from political life raises wider issues in my mind beyond any short term changes or lack of them in the Israeli stance towards the Palestinians. I come to the conclusion that Israel as presently constituted is probably doomed. There is always the outside chance of a military strike from outside, but this is unlikely and even more unlikely to succeed. What is most likely is the inability of Israel to maintain the racial purity of political power and to move inexorably towards a multi-cultural state. Whilst this is both normal and to be welcomed, the history of Israel's oppression of her neighbours means that non-Jewish citizens with real power may treat Jewish interests with less than due fairness. (So what's new I hear you mutter) What was new fifty years' ago was the possibility of Israel being created as a multi-cultural state. What was new was the possibility of the vibrant and inventive Jewish culture being the prime power within a multi-cultural state, wielding an altogether different and positive influence in the region and in the world as a whole. I understand Jewish fears of being overwhelmed at the birth of Israel, but Israel chose the exclusive, military route as long ago as 1956, when the state was barely eight years' old. The tragedy of Israel, for Israel itself, the region and the world is of what might have been: the historically downtrodden and persecuted Jewish people declining to treat others as they have been treated and to provide a national inspiration to the world as Jews have and continue to do at the individual level. Yes, others share the responsibility for that tragedy, that missed opportunity, but we all know that Israel's security has not been in real doubt for many decades and that the military oppression of the Palestinians has made Israel's security less certain rather than the reverse.

It is still not impossible for Israel to move towards a multi-cultural state, to resolve the bitterness both inside Israel and outside, but the history makes that process more difficult. I hope that it will be possible, but I am pessimistic.

January 3rd 2006

   I have started to read Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez (a Christmas present) and I agree wholeheartedly with this: "Because mankind can circumvent evolutionary law, it is incumbent upon him, say evolutionary biologists, to develop another law to abide by if he wishes to survive, not to outstrip his food base. He must learn restraint. He must derive some other, wiser way of behaving towards the land. .............Having taken on his own destiny, he must now think with critical intelligence about where to defer." (p38-9)

The political and economic problem with this are our old friends capitalism and democracy. Where does 'wisdom', 'restraint' and 'defer' fit into the capitalist system? Where does delayed gratification fit into a democratic system whereby politicians see the need to provide ever-increasing standards of living in the short term to their citizens in order to be re-elected? A new political and economic system is needed. No-one has yet come up with a coherent alternative but it is crucial to our survival that one is found.

The alternative is that we go the way of the dinosaurs and bequeath the planet to the insects. From the perspective of the planet, this is probably the best future.

Back