Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Using a Machete in a Global Civilization

You've probably read about this:
"Woolwich machete attack leaves man dead"
BBC News (May 22, 2013)

"A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot and wounded by police in Woolwich, south-east London.

"The Met Police said a murder inquiry was being led by its Counter Terrorism Command. Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK would 'never buckle' in the face of terror attacks.

"Footage has emerged showing a man wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.

"Police confirmed two men had been arrested in connection with the murder.

"There are unconfirmed reports that the dead man was a soldier...."
Those "unconfirmed reports" include at least two high-profile folks:
"...Both French President Francois Hollande and MP Nick Raynsford said the dead man had been a soldier at Woolwich barracks.

"The footage shown on the ITV website shows a man, speaking to the camera, saying: 'We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'..."
(BBC News )
Back in my 'good old days,' the (alleged) soldier might have been killed by a 'peace activist' trying to shove peace down the bloodthirsty throats of the icky military-industrial complex. I don't miss the 'good old days,' and that's not quite another topic.

At least one of the chaps who killed the man are black, but their actions and arrest don't seem to be motivated by racism: another reason I don't miss the 'good old days.' They're in custody, I understand: and will probably be charged with a serious crime. They seem to have been motivated by sincere religious beliefs:

"...By Almighty Allah...."

"Cameron condemns brutal hacking death, says Britain stands firm"
Laura Smith-Spark, CNN (May 23, 2013)

"Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would be 'absolutely resolute' in the face of terrorism Thursday, as he vowed to track down those behind the brutal hacking death of a British soldier in London....

"...A video recorded by one of the two men immediately after the attack seemed to suggest a jihadist agenda.

" 'We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,' said a meat cleaver-wielding man with bloody hands, speaking in what seems to be a London accent...."
Can't say that I blame BBC News for downplaying the Islamic angle here. Between legitimate concerns about the occasional murder and car bomb, it's quite possible that some old-school British residents are almost ready to solve the 'Muslim problem' the way the Ku Klux Klan tried to solve race relations here in America.

By the way, despite what I had to learn during indoctrination for being a teacher here: not all whites are racists. By the same token, not all blacks are stupid and lazy: and, in my considered opinion, not all Muslims are murderers looking for a victim.

I've corresponded with Muslims who seem to be at least as upset about terrorists with an 'Islamic' identity as I am. That's understandable, I think, since Islamic crazies tend to kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. Maybe it's easier to get at neighbors, maybe they're more upset about Muslims who don't live or worship the 'right' way, maybe they owe money to their victims: I really don't know.

Religion, Psychosis, and Violence

Again in my considered opinion, not all religious folks are crazy, not all crazy folks are 'religious,' and not all religious lunatics kill people. Some do, but they're not normal: in several senses of the term.

I've got more to say about religion, sanity, and lethal force. That's a bit off-topic, though. You'll find links to some of my take on what makes sense, and what doesn't, at the end of this post.

The 'Good Old Days'

Back when I was growing up, 'good old boys' thought telling the 'little woman' she was as smart as a man was a compliment. 'Nice' women were supposed to stay home, be improbably sweet 24/7, and act as if men were smarter and generally better than they were.

I didn't think that made sense, still don't, and think some of the social upheaval of the '60s was a long-overdue set of corrections to an ailing society.

Then, as now, some folks who are 'Christian' at the top of their lungs seem to believe that God hates the folks they hate, and wants everybody to be just like them: right down to musical preferences. They are not typical Christians. They're not even typical American Protestants: but they're the ones who tend to get noticed.

Folks who want America to be a WASP nest aren't the only ones who are uncomfortable with today's world.

Dealing With Today: Or Not

There are parts of the world where culture hadn't changed much since Abram moved out of Ur until a few generations back. The head of a house was a man, who could kill one of his women or children if they didn't behave 'properly,' and who lived with a comfortable assurance that all 'people' were like him.
He might have been aware that there were creatures off in some distant land that looked like him: but they weren't 'people,' not really. Not unless they agreed with him about everything he thought was important.

That was then, this is now.

Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, folks who follow other faiths, and those who wish religion wasn't so, are building a global civilization. I'm okay with that: but some folks aren't.

It's early days, but my guess is that the two chaps in England may have be at how non-Muslims - and quite a few Muslims, for that matter - reacted when religious crazies killed several thousand folks on September 11, 2001.

I understand nostalgia, and indulge in it now and then. But I also realize that it's no longer acceptable to use a machete for that sort of self-expression.

By the way, one reason I'm not horrified at the prospect of a global and diverse civilization is that I'm part of an outfit that was global and diverse before the current iteration of Western Civilization began. More about that in the second set of 'related post' links.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Being Offended, Clueless Tolerance, and the Smell of Bacon

This post is a little off-topic for Another War-on-Terror Blog, but not by much.

Screwball Traditionalism

In my opinion, part of what is encouraging some (a few, I trust) Muslims to wage war against the 'wicked' West is a matter of cultural perspective.

Here in the West, most people live in a world where the Magna Carta is centuries in the past.

It's hard to shake the impression that, in many parts of the Islamic world, the Magna Carta is thousands of years in their future.

From legal action taken against a 'blasphemous' teddy bear, to outlawing the color red: I think there's evidence that many folks living in places like Sudan and Saudi Arabia are dealing, none too calmly, with a world that they simply don't understand.

Or like.

As I've said before: just a few generations back, many folks had been living in a culture which hadn't changed all that much since the days before Abraham moved out of Ur. Then they were dragged across thousands of years of change, from a culture of burqas and honor killings to a world of bikinis, Budweiser and dog food commercials.

No wonder some went a bit nuts.

Screwball Progressivism

Then there are the folks who are convinced - passionately, blindly, irrationally - that groups of people they don't normally associate with are being oppressed something fierce. I think many mean well, but the results are - sometimes regrettable.

Here's the news item that set off this post:

"Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan because neighbour claimed 'smell of frying bacon offends Muslims' "
MailOnline (October 21, 2010)

"A hard-working cafe owner has been ordered to tear down an extractor fan - because the smell of her frying bacon 'offends' Muslims.

"Planning bosses acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, after being told her next-door neighbour's Muslim friends had felt 'physically sick' due to the 'foul odour'.

"Councillors at Stockport Council in Greater Manchester say the smell from the fan is 'unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity'.

"The fan has been in Beverley's Snack Shack takeaway in the Shaw Heath area of the town for the past three years.

"Mrs Akciecek and her husband Cetin, 50, - himself a Turkish Muslim - work more than 50 hours a week buying, preparing and cooking hot and cold sandwiches and hot-pots for their customers.

"Today mother-of-seven Mrs Akciecek said she plans to appeal against the decision.

"She said: 'I just think it's crazy. Cetin's friends actually visit the shop, they're regular visitors, they're Muslim people, they come in a couple of times a week.

" 'I have Muslim people come in for cheese toasties. Cetin cooks the food himself, he cooks the bacon.

'When we go to a cafe my husband wouldn't be offended by the smell of bacon. His friends are not offended by it, we have three visitors who come here for a sandwich, friends of my husband, and the smell doesn't offend them at all...."
I don't doubt that a person, somewhere, was "offended" by the smell of frying bacon. That person may also be a Muslim. It's fairly obvious that other people who are Muslims aren't "offended" by the odor.

I've known 'Christians' like that, who were 'offended' by women wearing slacks. That's (almost) another topic.

It's Not Easy, Being Part of a Religious Minority

I have some sympathy for Muslims who are living in places where most folks don't follow Islam. Although 'it's not the same thing,' I have analogous experiences: being a practicing Catholic in America. Yeah: I'm one of those people. (see my A Catholic Citizen in America blog)

That said, I also think that:
  • Muslims aren't all alike
  • There's tolerance
    • And there's cluelessness
I suspect - strongly - that what we're seeing in that news item is an example of heavy-handed, clueless 'tolerance.' Possibly triggered by a woman who is so backward and ignorant - or maybe oppressed - as to actually have seven children (shocking!).

That last point is conjectural: but here in America I've run into the notion, among the 'better sort,' that having children - or, if one must, having more than one or (shudder!) two - is somewhat indecent. And a sign of backwardness, ignorance, and general ickyness.

No wonder it seems like the 'better sort' is a dwindling demographic.

And that is definitely another topic.

Related posts:More related posts, on Islam, culture, and catching up:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

There's an op-ed piece in today's online Telegraph that deals with Iran, those people over there who use Twitter, and - in my opinion - notions of propriety.

From the second and third paragraphs:
"...For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
I've put a more extensive excerpt at the end of this post1, but as usual I recommend reading the entire op-ed piece.

The author has a point, which he makes later rather deeper in the opinion piece: that people in Iran who disapprove of the Ayatollah's government, and say so, put their lives in danger. Including people in Iran who use Twitter or other online resources.

"There has been no revolution in Iran."

There has been no successful revolution in Iran. I'm quite sure that the Ayatollahs and their followers would be only too happy to agree that Iran's people are completely behind their Islamic republic - and that all the fuss is the work of outside agitators and CIA stooges.

The continuing protests are not, perhaps, quite a revolution in the sense of being a well-defined set of military operations conducted with the stated purpose of replacing Iran's current government with something else.

On the other hand, it's hard to shake the impression that quite a number of people in Iran are quite sincerely put out with their leaders and/or their leaders' actions.

Perhaps it isn't, quite, a revolution. But popular support for Iran's Ayatollahs is far from solid.

"Chubby Fingertips" and That Webby Award

Twitter is big these days: and to blame for quite a bit, if you believe everything you hear. ("Inbound Link Dead! Twitter Did It! (maybe so, maybe not)," Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 22, 2009)) What is quite certain is that Twitter is
  • New
  • Big
  • Growing
    • Fast
'Obviously,' from some points of view, that means that there's something improper about Twitter. I don't see it that way, but being an early adapter runs in the family. One of my forebears, Arba Zeri Campbell, had the first telephone in his part of the world. He waited a long time for his first call.

I'll admit to having a personal bias when it comes to Twitter. I'm one of those people with "chubby fingertips" who use Twitter.

Right now, though, I'm using my "chubby fingertips" to opine about being proper, what's going on in Iran, and responsibility.

The author of that Telegraph op-ed, perhaps magnanimously, says:
"...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
The "illegal activity" he's referring to could be either disagreeing with the Ayatollahs, or participating in some of the more violent anti-government demonstrations. The basic idea, though - that confronting a dictatorship has an ethical dimension - is valid.

Just before that, he wrote:
"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
I'm not an internet user in Britain. I live on the other side of the Atlantic. The same principle applies, though, I think.

There's been quite a lot written about the false sense of anonymity which many people seem to have when their online, and the equally false sense of immunity from consequences.

It's quite possible that some people who use Twitter - or other online social media - don't realize how profoundly non-anonymous they are when they're online. Even if you're not logged into Twitter or some other website, it's very easy to trace which server you're using - and just about exactly where you are.

I've written before, about how vulnerable the Internet is - particularly in some parts of the world - and how easy it is for repressive regimes to control and track online activity. (December 7, 2009)

Which is one of the reasons why I am so very concerned when I read that someone wants to 'protect' me or my family from the wicked, wicked Web. Remember when the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority tried to censor what Americans were allowed to read online? I do. (March 9, 2008)
That Webby Award
The Webby Awards have been around for quite a while, and are more prestigious than many, probably most, Web awards. That said, I'm neither impressed nor appalled that Twitter won a Webby. Since it's well on its way to being one of the Internet's 800-pound gorillas, it would be odd if the Webbys didn't recognize Twitter.

Politely Looking the Other Way

The idea that 'proper persons don't talk about that' isn't a uniquely British notion. I've run into the same idea here in America.

Back in the sixties, the more unreflective conservative types were passionately convinced that nobody, but nobody, should criticize the government. It's not the sixties any more, and there's a new set of taboo topics - but that's another topic.

Politely looking the other way while Iran's Ayatollahs deal with counter-revolutionaries does not seem to be what this op-ed is about: "...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran...." Although I had to look for that (disclaimer?)

Natives and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

What struck me, reading "Iran and Twitter: the fatal folly of the online revolutionaries," was what may be an underlying assumption. Repeating an excerpt I quoted before:
"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
Factually, there's nothing to quibble about here. It is important to remember that someone living in a country which allows some degree of free expression does not face the same dangers as someone who does not. And people at the 'free' end of a conversation should remember that.

However, it's hard for me to shake the impression that the responsibility is seen as being at the British end. After all, people living in Iran are, by and large, Iranian. They're simply not British.

I think it's laudable that the author be concerned with the well-being of people in a foreign land. But isn't it reasonable to assume some level of personal responsibility at the non-British end of these communications? The words "native" and "white man's burden" don't appear in the Telegraph piece.

But I still can't shake the feeling that there's something of the old condescension that people in "advanced" countries were apt to show toward those in "primitive" lands: although terms like "third world" are more commonly used these days.

Related posts: Views:
1 Excerpt from today's op-ed in the Telegraph:
"As young men and women took to the streets of Tehran on Sunday to confront the Revolutionary Guard, another very different protest sprang to life all over the world. This one didn't face tear-gas or gunfire. And its participants didn't risk prison, torture or death. It took place on 2009's most trendy website: Twitter.com.

"For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election. Meanwhile, protests continue to be violently suppressed by government forces and unregulated militias, with human rights groups saying that at least 400 demonstrators have been killed since June. Dozens of those arrested remain unaccounted for, and many of those set free tell of rape and vicious beatings in Iran's most notorious prisons...."

"...As a result, the crackdown in Iran has been easier than ever before. Once the Revolutionary Guard intercept a suspect message, they are able to pinpoint the location of a guilty protester using their computer's IP address. Then it's just a question of knocking on doors – and confiscating laptops and PCs for hard evidence.

"Sadly, when this happens, those outside Iran cannot always absolve themselves of responsibility. If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger.

"There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension. It's equally foolish, of course, to kid yourself that you're on the front line...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Indonesia, Islam, Adultery, Stoning, Burkinis, Divisiveness and the West

I've run into assertions like these quite often over the last few years. You probably have, too:
  • Those Muslims make women wear burqas, and let men do anything they want.
  • Islam oppresses women and has no standards for male behavior or dress.
  • Muslim women are forced to dress a certain way, Muslim men aren't.
I know: There's a bit of redundancy in that list. But you get the idea.

I can see why quite a few people think that those assumptions are true. Sudan and Saudi Arabia, for example, seem to be in a race for first place at displaying Islam as a hopelessly anachronistic cluster of beliefs, run by men with - to be polite about it - weird sexual hangups.

New Law Proposed in Indonesia: A Woman Accused of Adultery Should be Stoned

I've read enough about Islam, and corresponded with enough Muslims and Muslimas, to suspect - quite strongly - that the House of Saud and the bunch running Sudan don't represent all Islam.

Men who think Islam holds men and women to different standards don't just live in and near the Middle East. Here's some political news from Indonesia:
"The law also dismisses a rape victim's claims unless she can provide four male witnesses to the assault."(CNN)
In a way, no surprises here. That's the Islam most westerners see, the version of Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and - to a greater extent - Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Just on thing. This law went through a provincial parliament in Indonesia. And it's not likely to get implemented.

The law was railroaded through the provincial parliament in Aceh, a semi-autonomous Indonesian province. The lawmakers responsible are the outgoing MPs of the "Prosperous Justice Party" - a bunch of Islamic "hardliners," as CNN put it.

And:
"...'It is very unlikely the law will be implemented,' foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said Tuesday. 'The governor has already made it clear he won't support the legislation.'..."
(CNN)
Aceh has been a problem for Indonesia: and was given a measure of independence in exchange for a measure of peace.

The governor of Aceh, Irwandi Yusuf, is a former rebel who is in an unenviable position. On the one hand, he's got the "deeply devout" (or wildly wacky, depending on your point of view) religious leaders who have influence in the province.

On the other hand, the governor has foreign donors whose investments could help pull Aceh out of the mess left by his insurgency and a 2004 tsunami.

The problem, as nearly as I can see it, is that many of the foreign donors aren't all that keen on supporting an outfit that stones rape victims.

And lets get real: if a man in Aceh forces a woman to have sex with him, and they get caught, he isn't likely to say, 'I'm a rapist.' He'll say it was consensual sex, and that she's an adulteress. Unless four men break the 'good old boy' code and fess up to what happened, the dude's problems will soon be a bloody mess on the pavement.

The law doesn't just affect women, though.
"... Women are required to wear headscarves. Men caught gambling or drinking alcohol are whipped. Muslims are mandated to pray five times a day....

"...'Imposing these draconian punishments on private, consensual conduct means the government can dictate people's intimate lives,' Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said of the new law...."
(CNN)
I'd be surprised if I was on the same page with Ms. Pearson: more about that later. But I do think that the new Aceh law, as reported, is good news for male rapists/seducers, and really bad news for women.

Bikini Babes, Hot Chicks, Muslim Women and Ogling Men

On the other hand, the imposition of Islamic culture on British swimming pools has most likely been a big disappointment to ogling men, but might not be all that bad for women, in the long run.
News from the United Kingdom:
'...British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.'

'Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – ... must comply with the 'modest' code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees. [emphasis mine]

'The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water. [emphasis mine]

'The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds....'
(telegraph.co.uk)
"I think the Labor Members of Parliament have a point: this is a 'divisive' point. Men in western countries have learned to expect the titillation of watching nubile young women bouncing in their bikinis on the beach. Depriving them of this (right?) certainly could be a 'divisive' issue.

"On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that something being done in France makes it sophisticated and/or a good idea.

"Sure: right now, after decades of bikinis, hot pants and nipple rings, it's hard to imagine that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to deprive hot-blooded men of their jollies. Or women of the opportunity to be regarded as 3D living color moving centerfolds...."
A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)

Yes, This Does Connect With the War on Terror

I think the war on terror has at least as much to do with a conflict of cultures as it does with the religious beliefs of some Muslims and the increasingly secularized hodgepodge of fashionable notions in the West.

One of the most obvious and visible aspects of a culture is what people chose to wear - or are forced to wear.

A Disclaimer: I'm One of Those People

I'm a practicing Catholic: which puts me at odds with a great deal of Western culture. I am convinced that:
  • Women should be regarded as
    • People
    • Not sex objects
  • Everybody should exercise the moderate self-respect we call "modesty"
  • Sex
    • Is a wonderful aspect of the human condition
    • Is not the be-all and end-all of existence
  • Civilization is More than Bikinis and Nipple Rings
And yeah: that makes me really counter-cultural. Which is a topic for another blog.

But They Don't Do It That Way in France!

I have long been of the opinion that Versailles is a wonderful example of architecture and landscape design; that the Louvre is a great museum, and that Charlemagne was a great leader. But I do not think that an idea is worthwhile simply because it's French.

I've discussed how the French government believes that women should be free to decide how they dress. Provided that they choose according to French standards. (Ooh! La! La!) (July 11, 2008)

Are Bikinis the Only Thing Holding Up Western Civilization?

I'd like to think that flashing flesh on the beach or in the swimming pool isn't the only thing Western civilization has left.

And, I think it's important to note that at least some flavors of Islam have a dress code that applies to men and women:
Swimmers "...must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees...."
(Telegraph.co.uk)
Men in the West have gotten used to women putting themselves on display. It's a sort of tradition.

But that doesn't make contemporary Western standards of attire a good idea. A tradition of sorts, yes. Good idea: that's debatable.

This may be a good time for people in the West to decide what they really think women are, and whether the culturally-normative floor show is really respectful and appropriate.

And, I think that an idea that "runs counter to developments in France" can still be an idea worth considering.

Related posts: In the news: Background:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 27, 2009

He's Not Biased: He's Brazilian

" 'White People Caused The Credit Crunch' "
Sky News (March 27, 2009)
"Brazil's President, while meeting Gordon Brown, has said the global financial crisis was caused by 'white people with blue eyes'.

"Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made the comments after talks with the Prime Minister to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.
I've got the same genetic melanin deficiency that my European ancestors did.

I'd take this "fairly flamboyant language" personally, but I went to college in the seventies and eighties. I'm used to it. The 'white people are racist and to blame for [problem/grievance]' schtick is drearily familiar.

What does trouble me is the fact that remarks that would be career-wreckers, if uttered by Euro-Americans, in America, are glossed over and excused: provided that the right sort of person utters it.

More, from Sky News:
"Sky News' Joey Jones said it was an 'uncomfortable' moment for Mr Brown.

" 'The President does not mind using fairly flamboyant language. He likes to give extensive answers to journalists.

" 'But some of it was rather awkward for the Prime Minister, who was standing there listening to the President.

" 'A few eyebrows will have gone up at what he said.'

"Downing Street says the remarks were meant for 'domestic consumption'.

"Jones said: 'People in Brazil are very frustrated and angry at what they feel is the injustice of the situation: a crisis that has essentially come from the banking sectors in places like the United States and the UK, but is affecting their country.' "
I see Sky News' Joey Jones's - and Downing Street's - explanation as uncomfortably close to being a sort of soft prejudice. The British explanation, although very well-worded and considerate, could (with a bit of effort) be taken to mean 'he can't help it: he's Brazilian.'

Reading Jones' response, I was reminded of Basil Fawlty's recurring line in Fawlty Towers: "He's from Barcelona."

Nuff said.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Ah, for the Good Old Days: BBC Nuclear Doomsday Script Released

Kids these days: Sure, Al Qaeda is a problem, Russia showing signs of wanting an empire is a concern, and North Korea is something between a problem and a side show.

But, back in my day, we had real problems to worry about!

Nostalgia: Memory With the Color Control Set to "Rosy"

Some people see the fifties in America as "happy days:" sort of like "Happy Days," but without The Fonz. For others, it's the sixties that were the grooviest, man.

I remember the sixties, and part of the fifties, and I'd rather not go back, thank you. Never mind what it was like for a high school student who wanted to take shop, if she was a girl, or the way men were mocked if they were seen holding a baby in public.

That was the period when the bottom dropped out of the bomb shelter business, when people realized that it didn't matter if you survived the initial attack. If you were still alive after a full nuclear exchange, the odds were pretty good that you'd traded a relative quick death for a slow, agonizing one.

Granted, that's close to a worst-case scenario, but it could have happened. The Cold War was definitely not fun.

These days, all we have to worry about are crazed religious fanatics beheading people they don't approve of (Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists blundered when they made beheading the signature Islamic execution method).

Wait. I forgot: there's more. Russia may be trying to rebuild its empire. North Korea and Iran are most likely within a decade of having nuclear weapons, and one of those countries has a dictator who inspired the phrase, "our dictator is crazier than your dictator:" and the other is run by some of those fanatics I mentioned.

Still, Islamic terrorists and other assorted crazies with nukes aren't likely to have more than a dozen or so bombs. That's chicken feed, compared to the arsenals built up in the "good old days."

I'd say that even people living in major American cities have better odds now, than at the height of the Cold War. I'm no expert, of course.

Great Scott, Man! What Set This Ramble Off?!

I ran into a couple of headlines today. Over in the United Kingdom, the National Archives released the draft of a BBC script that would have been read after a nuclear attack. The draft of the message begins:

"This is the wartime broadcasting service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons." (Mirror.co.uk)

The Associated Press headline emphasized that the message was to be taped.

To Tape, or Not To Tape, That is the Question

Actually, there was some discussion about that.
  • On the one hand, if the Voice of BBC was unable to make the announcement, the British people might not feel that the BBC was really still there
  • On the other hand, if the Voice of BBC repeated exactly the same announcement, over and over, at regular intervals, the British people might not feel that the BBC was really still there
The point is, BBC was to England what Walter Cronkite was to much of America: I gather that the feeling was sort of, "there'll always be a BBC."

Those Were the Good Old Days

And you can have them. I like (some of) the art, music, and fashions of the fifties and sixties, but I'm profoundly glad that I live now.

In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

MI6 British Spy Camera Sold on eBay - With Secret Terror Pics

British intelligence officials are trying to find out which MI6 officer sold that Nikon Coolpix camera. On eBay. For £17. That's about $30 USD. Offhand, I think he may be unemployed soon.

An article in The Sun quotes terrorism author Neil Doyle: " 'These are MI6 documents relating to an operation against al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. It's jaw-dropping they got into the public domain.

" 'Not only do they divulge secrets about operations, operating systems and previously unheard-of MI6 departments, but they could put lives at risk.' "

British Officials

Displaying the sort of polite consideration that's so typical of the British character, those of Her Majesty's subjects who have come across secret documents and data have been kind enough to return them to the proper authorities. Like in June of this year, when an inattentive took papers out of Whitehall. And left them on a train.

Actually, it was two officials, two sets of secret papers, and two trains ("More secret files found on train" BBC (June 15, 2008)). Similar procedural irregularities had occurred previously, but that double-barrel whammy hit the Brit headlines and made international news ("British police investigating after secret documents about Al Qaeda left on train" International Herald Tribune (June 11, 2008)).

One might have expected that the "UK Top Secret" stamp might have reminded the absent-minded official.

That dodgy matter of documents on the trains, and now this spy camera, suggest that some people employed by the British government haven't quite grasped the importance of the second word in "military intelligence."

Selling State Secrets: For $30.50?!!

I remember, back in my youth, reading of government officials being accused of selling very sensitive information for sums of around $10,000 USD (around £5,500). Although ten thousand dollars was quite a bit of money back then, those people were sitting on information that should have been worth at least ten times that. I remember trying to decide whether I was more upset about them betraying their country, or having such abysmal business sense.

As for the British agent who sold a Nikon Coolpix worth over $100 USD (new) containing MI6 documents on eBay, for about $30 USD: that's so daft, I almost have to assume that he's a twit.

In the news:
    "For sale: Second hand camera, good condition, contains top secret MI6 terrorist records and pics"
    The Sun (U.K.) (September 30, 2008)
    • "A SECOND-HAND camera sold on eBay by a top MI6 agent held secret records used in the fight against al-Qaeda terrorists.
    • "Names, snaps, fingerprints and suspects’ academic records were found in the memory of the digital device.
    • "Alongside them were photos of rocket launchers and missiles which spooks believe Iran is supplying to Osama Bin Laden’s henchmen in Iraq."
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Hitler, Appeasement, and the Munich Parallel

I'll have to review my opinion of the arrangement that Chamberlain and company made with Hitler before World War II's big kickoff.

Researching another post, I ran into "Retiring Hitler and 'Appeasement' from the National Security Debate" (Jeffrey Record, in Parameters (Summer 2008)), on the U.S. Army War College website. The part of the article I landed in, thanks to the search terms I was using, included this quote: "...when neoconservative critics of appeasement speak about how Hitler could and should have been stopped prior to 1939, they mean forcible regime change of the kind the United States launched against Saddam Hussein in 2003. But it is here that the neoconservatives and others who believe in the continuing validity of the Munich analogy enter the fantasy realm of historical counterfactualism...."

These days, wild claims about neocons fly around like redolent missiles in the monkey house. I wasn't impressed. Particularly that business about "counterfactualism."

There seemed to be interesting, and maybe useful, references in the article, so I kept skimming.

I still wasn't impressed. The author pointed out, accurately enough, that threats like Hitler's Germany aren't at all common. Hitler, Record points out, planned "...a German racial empire stretching from the English Channel to the Ural Mountains...."

Compared with what I understand to be Al Qaeda's goal, Hitler's proposed empire seems comparatively modest. I considered the possibility that the author thought that only nations could pose a threat to other nations.

Nope. Record seems to realize that Al Qaeda is a real threat, and could be "Hitlerian:"

"A potential threat of genuinely Hitlerian proportions could arise in the event that al Qaeda acquired deliverable nuclear or biological weapons. Like Hitler, al Qaeda is undeterrable and effectively unappeasable; all it lacks is Hitler’s destructive power. As a fanatical, elusive nonstate actor, it presents little in the way of decisive targets subject to effective retaliation, and its political objectives—the complete withdrawal of American power from the Muslim world and the destruction of existing Arab regimes as a precursor to the establishment of a single Islamic caliphate—are literally fantastic. Possession of weapons of mass destruction would render al Qaeda a far more dangerous threat than deterrable or weak enemy states. Though the differences between the German dictator and the Arab terrorist leader are obvious, the similarities are impressive. Hitler was a secular German state leader obsessed with race, while Osama bin Laden is an Arab nonstate actor obsessed with religion. Both are linked by bloodthirstiness, high intelligence, a totalitarian mindset, iron will, fanatical ideological motivation, political charisma, superb tactical skills, utter ruthlessness, and—above all—undeterrability. One distinction is that Hitler lacked the means to strike the American homeland, whereas bin Laden already has."

This is a far cry from the silly side of academia's usual antics, like
  • Ward Churchill's "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality" - and his comparing "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as "little Eichmanns."
  • Columbia's welcoming Iran's President Ahmadinejad, but pulling Minutemen founder Gilchrist's invitation to speak. Columbia banned Gilchrist because he has extremist views (he claims that people coming into this country should obey the law while doing so)
Record isn't blaming America for the War on Terror, he isn't excusing Al Qaeda, and he is, as far as I can tell, sticking to facts.

I think it's arguable that England and France wouldn't have been able to make Hitler change his mind by using military force. For starters, those countries, and the rest of Europe, had experienced hard times during the thirties, just like America.

And, if I remember my history correctly, the winning side in World War I had been so distressed by the conflict that they didn't ever want it to happen again: a reasonable desire. So they adopted the Wilsonian idea of disarmament: at best a debatable idea.

I'm not going to try to boil down an article of over 4,400 words in a blog post, but I think that Record may have a point.

However: "Retiring Hitler and 'appeasement' from the national security debate does not mean that the United States should negotiate with any and all enemies or that it should refrain from using force against all threats that are not Hitlerian in scope. The United States is a great power with occasionally threatened interests whose protection sometimes requires the threat of or actual use of force."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 15, 2008

This Should be Interesting: Sharia Law Officially Adopted in Britain

The British Arbitration Act 1996 has a clause in it that classifies sharia courts as arbitration tribunals. That means that decisions of a sharia court are legally binding, as long as both parties in a dispute agree to give the sharia court the power to rule in their case.

A network of sharia courts has been set up in Britain, headquartered in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. There are now sharia courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. Two more are in the planning stages, in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi thinks these courts are a good idea. He runs them. In a TimesOnline article, he said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."

I understand how attractive it seems, setting up a separate-but-equal court system for civil cases. Just the same, I'm concerned about what may happen.

For one thing, having two different court systems working the same territory in the same country seems to be asking for confusion.

For another, sharia law has earned a debatable reputation lately. I've written about this before: There's more: use this blog's search function, and search for sharia law.

I sincerely hope that the British Muslims who run Sheikh Siddiqi's courts don't follow Sudan's and Saudi Arabia's lead when applying sharia law to 21st century British cases.

In the News: Another news article, not directly related to the adoption of sharia law in Britain, presented as background: "'Have more babies and Muslims can take over the UK' hate fanatic says, as warning comes that 'next 9/11 will be in UK' " (MailOnline (September 13, 2008)). This article contrasts Anjem Choudary's views with mainstream Islamic organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MCB condemned 9/11 and 7/7: which Anjem Chourdary says was 'selling their souls to the devil.'

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, September 5, 2008

British Hotel Refuses Room to Soldier: How Americans are Viewed Abroad

"World opinion of U.S. sinking / Dislike of everything American on the rise." Everybody knows it. And has, for years. As one publication put it, a couple of years ago, "The United States has often irritated the rest of the world, but lately it's gotten worse -- and more dangerous."

So, it's no surprise that a hotel in England refused service to a soldier. Everybody know what a low opinion the world has of America, and particularly the American military-industrial complex.

Just one thing: this soldier is Corporal Tomos Stringer, soldier since the age of 16 in her majesty's army. He's currently serving in 13 Air Assault Support Regiment of The Royal Logistic Corps.

Corporal Stringer wasn't in uniform when he tried to check in to the Metro Hotel, on Crown Square, in Woking, Surrey, England. He did, however, present his (British) army warrant card when asked for identification.

Then, as The Times put it, Corporal Stringer was told "That it was company policy not to accept members of the Armed Forces as guests."

Corporal Stringer spent the night in his two-door car, his wrist in a cast - healing from a combat injury. My guess is that he's slept in less comfortable places, but that's not the point.

The Metro Hotel, Surrey, has received letters from Corporal Stringer's local MP, Hywel Williams, the British Defence Minister, Derek Twigg, and Bob Ainsworth, the British Armed Forces Minister. All of them suggesting that the hotel acted inappropriately.

The Metro Hotel, after being deluged by phone calls and threats, asked for police protection. And, finally, apologized. That may not be enough. Somewhat non-positive reviews are popping up in travel sites: "Metro Hotel - Military Personnel NOT welcome" (TripAdvisor.com), for example.

According to the Metro Hotel, a receptionist made a mistake. Anyway, the Metro has experienced " 'some rather serious incidents" involving soldiers from the nearby barracks," as a letter to a Mr Williams, MP for Caernarfon, put it.

The Metro Hotel is owned by a company called American Amusements, Ltd. So far, I've found two addresses for American Amusements, Ltd. One is on Crown Square, Woking, Surrey. The other is in Bournemouth, Dorset. Despite the name, by guess is that it's a British company.

How America is Viewed Abroad

Corporal Stringer's mother isn't a statistically significant sample of the British population, but I think her comment, quoted in The Times, was quite interesting:

"I'm very, very angry. It's discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin."

That's not the really interesting part. This is: "In America, they treat soldiers as heroes. We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering. Here, soldiers can't even get a bed for the night." (The Times (September 5, 2008))

She doesn't seem to be expressing an anti-American sentiment.

I've long suspected that America and Americans aren't quite as roundly despised, world-wide, as the self-described best and brightest think. Sure, there's anti-American sentiment in many quarters, including some American universities, but I do not see evidence that it's quite as wide-spread as might be hoped.

In the news: Some of my views on how America's 'better sort' view America:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

April Fools Prank? I Don't Think So:
Islam Watch Reports Imam's Bloodthirsty Beliefs

A disturbing news report is starting to circulate in the blogosphere.

One version:
"Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished"
FOXNews.com (April 1, 2008)

It leads with: "A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape."

What follows is a chilling set of excerpts from a page on Islam Watch, repeating a London imam's statements about the proper treatment of non-Muslims.

A Lesson to Learn: Always Check Your Source

The original Islam Watch report is quite likely accurate: and it links to a 3 minute, 40 second interview video in which the beliefs reflected in the report are confirmed in general, if not in detail.

The news report, however, contains a serious error. Islam Watch is described as "a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings ...."

Islam Watch's 'about us' page ("Who are we?") Reads in part: "We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us had taken a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth. ..."

There's a considerable difference between "Muslim" and self-described "Muslim apostate."1 People who, for whatever reason, turn away from the faith into which they were born may exaggerate or over-generalize flaws in the familial faith.

Apostate, Shmapostate, What's the Big Deal?

In news reporting, accuracy tends to encourage belief. Lack of accuracy does the opposite. If you read an article about American history that started with the words, "Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary War hero...", would you be more or less inclined to believe the rest?

I think there are two dangers here:
  1. Dismissing Islam Watch's report, because of the reporting error - or for other reasons
  2. Taking Islam Watch's report on the Imam as being representative of all Islam.
Muslims Against Sharia," for example, is an organization of (non-apostate) Muslims whose stated goals are to educate
  • Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
  • Non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
  • Both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror
That's a far cry from the 'kill the infidel! Rape his women!' policy of Imam Abdul Makin.

Finally, Something About the Islam Watch Report

A London Imam has been making statements that my pagan ancestors, a dozen centuries or so back, would have recognized as being similar to their own customs and beliefs. They might have decided to do unto him and his, before he had a chance to do unto them, but I don't think they'd have been very shocked by his words.

That was then. Christian missionaries, the Magna Carta, and several centuries of social and administrative reform changed the culture of Europe> One of Europe's more successful colonies, America, took those changes and made some more.

Imam Abdul Makin and his predecessors don't seem to have been in the loop.

Here's part of what Islam Watch had to say:

"London Imam's Attempt to Carry Out Sunna Gone Awry"
Islam Watch (March 22, 2008)

"During a question answer session in East London Mosque, preacher Imam Abdul Makin was asked by a niqabi muslima about recent fatwa from a well known Imam.

"Naqabi Woman: 'One eyed hooked Imam Hamza Mesri said muslims can kill British infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters, Do you agree with him?'

"Imam: 'It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing with him or not. It is in Quran thus those are Allah's orders.'

"N.W.: 'But why would Allah tell muslims to kill and rape innocent non muslims?'

"Imam: 'Because Non-muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet. If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top muslim lawyer of Britain, Anjem Choudhary (Video).'

"N.W. 'But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never hurt any body in his life'

"Imam: 'Yes he never hurt a muslim in his life. But Allah said non-muslim are lowest beasts and worst creatures in ayas 8.22,8.55,95.5 and 98.6 and muslim are ordered to kill them.' "

Finally, that 3:40 interview video on YouTube is an informative, if unpleasant, experience. The Muslim leader, asked if he would condemn new attacks on London said: "No, I can never condemn a Muslim brother. I would never condemn a Muslim brother. I will always stand with my Muslim brother ... whether he is an oppressor, or oppressed."

That's Scary, But is it Islam?

I'd like to think that Imam Hamza Mesri is as much like many other Muslim leaders, as James Warren "Jim" Jones was to Billy Graham. The existence of groups like Muslims Against Sharia and individuals like Mahathir Mohamad make me think that there are many followers of Islam who can tolerate the presence of people who aren't exactly like them. Maybe, enough to counteract people like the London imam.
1 (Apostate: "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, on Bartleby.com)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Fitna Gone Again: Someone had a Chat With the Host

Fitna is off the Web. All it took was a few threats.

I'm not blaming the company that yanked the film. It's good to see an employer caring about the employees' welfare.

" Film critical of Islam dropped from Web site"
CNN (March 28, 2008)

"A London-based Web site has dropped a Dutch lawmaker's film that features disturbing images of terrorist acts juxtaposed with verses from the Quran to paint Islam as a threat to Western society, citing threats to its staff.

"LiveLeak.com said in a statement Friday that it decided to remove the film a day after it was posted 'following threats to our staff of a very serious nature.' "

On Thursday, I was more hopeful about the response to Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders' fifteen-minute film. ("Fitna Fizzles: Online Today, No Fires" (March 27, 2008)

CNN reported, "Some in the Muslim community rejected the film as nothing more than dangerous anti-Islamic propaganda.

" 'This film is a direct attempt to incite violence from Muslims and help fan the flames of Islamophobia,' Arsalan Iftikhar, a contributor to Washington-based Islamica Magazine, told CNN on Thursday. 'Any reasonable person can see this is meant to spit in the face of Muslims and insult our religion.' "

I won't argue with Arsalan Iftikhar, that Fitna was calculated to insult Islam. On the other hand, threatening the staff of a company to get the film off the Web isn't "fanning the flames of Islamophobia," as the article put it -

It's pouring lighter fluid on them: in some quarters, at least.

I said in an earlier post, a contributor to the Washington-based Islamica Magazine, Arsalan Iftikhar, told CNN that "he doubted the film would spark the same type of violence that followed the caricature of Mohammed, adding, 'We in the global community learned a lot from the Danish cartoon controversy ... I don't think it will be anything remotely like that.' " [emphasis mine]

I hope that what the "global community" learned from the Danish cartoon controversy was to respond to insults with reasonable words: not lean on some London company, until the boss decides that it's better to lose the movie, than lose some staff.
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Britain's Separate-But-Equal Treatment of Islam: Is the Idea Better? Or Batty?

That was Then

"We can learn so much from Europe/England/Denmark" was a common attitude when I grew up. At least, in the academic sub-culture I lived in. The phrase, "we can learn so much from...." was actually used sometimes. The idea was that all the best ideas were from
  • Europe in general, because of all that 'culture'
  • England, because of their socialized medicine
  • Denmark, because that country had legalized prostitution
    (thereby showing how open-minded and uninhibited they were)
'We can learn so much Sweden' was on the list, until word got out that the country was a world leader in suicide rates.

This is Now

We can learn so much from England: like how to promote humanism, multiculturalism, and, probably, terrorism.

That's what the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said in a report yesterday.

There's probably still something to learn from England's well-intentioned effort to make minorities feel at home by exempting them from the rules that Britons had to follow, and letting them (forcing them?) to set up ghettos, where they could do things their way: 'Don't do it!'

The United Kingdom's experiment with a 'separate-but-equal' approach to distinctions between people isn't going too well. That should be no surprise. Remember how well "separate but equal" worked in America?

An "International Herald Tribune" article had interview extracts from one of the RUSI report's authors, Gwyn Prins, including these quotes:
  • "One reason that the United States does not suffer from homegrown terrorism is that it is the world's melting pot, where immigrants are Americans, salute the flag, and obey the constitution and the law."
  • "The U.K. should have the self-confidence to do the same, but we don't."
  • "We don't insist they learn English, that they fully and properly integrate into our society as a whole. So we have these ghetto societies where Islamist extremists can create a narrative of resentment and recruitment."
Prins is a specialist on international security at the London School of Economics. He's also good at pressing all the wrong buttons, at least for people in some circles.
  • "The safety and security of our citizens is the government's main priority and the government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists."
    Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government
Britain's current Prime Minister is unquestionably aware that terrorism is an issue for the United Kingdom. The wisdom of his approach to the situation may be debatable. Last July, for example, he forbade government ministers from using the word "Muslim" and told his team to drop the phrase "war on terror."

I've got nit-picking problems with what the RUSI report writer said.
  • "Melting pot," for example, isn't a good metaphor for America. I've traveled around enough to know that there are very distinct regional and ethnic cultures here. "Crazy quilt" might be a better way to describe what we've got.
  • Saying that "the United States does not suffer from homegrown terrorism" is simply wrong. From the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, to a mosque-burning in Tennessee, America has had home-grown terrorists. The American terrorists, though, generally are people who don't like this country's habit of welcoming non-WASPs.
On the whole, though, I think that the British think tank identified an important point.

People moving to another country should expect to meet some qualifications. For example, I'd expect to learn German, if I decided to live in German, and expect that I'd have to learn German customs and obey German laws if I became a citizen there. In fact, I'd be a little disturbed if I found that I had to live in the "American quarter" of Düsseldorf, or some other area, and had "leaders" who discouraged me from learning German. I'm not talking about American military bases, with their transient populations, but what happens with individual immigrants.

That's not to say that ethnic neighborhoods are wrong: it's natural for people with preferences for, say, garlic or lutefisk to settle near each other.

But trying to be "multicultural" by allowing select groups to set up independent legal systems, and then maintaining de facto barriers to keep members of that group from getting jobs outside the ghetto, is crazy. It hasn't worked before, and I'd be astonished if it worked now.
More, about the RUSI report: Study criticizes UK's vulnerability to Islamic extremists "International Herald Tribune" (February 15, 2008)

Selected "Another War-on-Terror" posts about the 2007 Glasgow/London attacks in the United Kingdom:
"Arrests, Doctors and Terrorists: Keeping a Cool Head"
(July 2, 2007)
"Doublethink, Doctors, and Dumb Ideas"
(July 3, 2007)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2008

Don't Like British Law? No Problem!
Set Up Your Own Courts!

I am not making this up.

"The British sharia 'crime' court in a cafe where knifemen walk free"

Well, not quite free. There was an exchange of money and an apology after a knifing.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is still dealing with reactions to a little speech in which he called for an "accommodation" with parts of the Islamic legal code. Quite a few Britons were not amused.

On the surface, allowing one minority to have their own little system of law courts seems daft. On consideration, however, I believe that that the Archbishop's recommendation, as implemented, is insane, bonkers, dotty, demented, unbalanced, wrong on several levels, and barmy, as well as daft.

I mean to say: letting one group decide that they'd rather not obey the law that everyone else does? I'm all for community involvement, but this is carrying the idea way and away too far.

British culture secretary Andy Burnham said it best: the Archbishop's mooncalf notion about independent sharia courts would be a "recipe for chaos."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Cultural Acid Test:
Islam and Hygiene, Rights and Responsibilities

I think the War on Terror will be a useful acid test for both Islamic and western cultures. I've written before about the challenges facing Islam ("Islam, Assault, Culture, and a Houston Area Crisis Hotline" (February 1, 2008), for example).

Contemporary western culture is having some of its basic assumptions tested, too.

For at least three decades, at least in America, western culture has been extremely concerned about individual rights. We're not to discriminate against people: and our legislators and regulators gave us a lavish pile of overlapping rules to make sure that what they think is discrimination doesn't happen.

It looks like a not-altogether-unreasonable fear of discrimination has seeped into Britain's law, too.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the system has worked, more or less. Partly, I think, because all but the most radical 'rights' enthusiasts were careful about what 'rights' they demanded.

That seems to be changing.

Europe and America now have sizable populations of Muslims, whose culture developed independently of the Magna Carta and germ theory. Basic western assumptions about the balance of individual rights and social responsibilities are being tested.

Over in United Kingdom, hospitals and medical facilities, hundreds of peope have died from MRSA and Clostridium difficile infections. So, the Department of Health said that all doctors should be "bare below the elbow". There was no prurient interest involved.

As a professor of microbiology at Imperial College London, Dr Mark Enright, said: "To wash your hands properly, and reduce the risks of MRSA and C.difficile, you have to be able to wash the whole area around the wrist.

Common sense? Apparently not.
  • Some Birmingham University students would rather to quit their studies than expose their arms
  • A Sheffield University medic refused to "scrub:" it would have left her forearms exposed
  • Several Leicester University students wouldn't roll their sleeves up to the elbow for "appropriate hand washing"
You guessed it: the no-roll medical types were all Muslim.

These people aren't isolated crackpots.

The Islamic Medical Association (IMA) insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam. Here's how the IMA put it: "No practicing Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow."

The IMA isn't pro-germ, though. Its spokesman, Dr Majid Katme, say that sterile disposable gloves that run up the arm would be better than bare skin. Think throw-away evening gloves. Dr. Katme may have a point, though.

This to-scrub or not-to-scrub question is quite serious in the United Kingdom.

On the one hand, there are people whose religious beliefs (apparently) forbid them from following contemporary hygiene rules. On the other hand, there are people who believe that it's time to stop killing patients with avoidable infections.

Conservative MEP (Member of European Parliament, I think), former hospital consultant and infidel, Dr Charles Tannock, has a possible solution: "Perhaps these women should not be choosing medicine as a career if they feel unable to abide by the guidelines that everyone else has to follow."

That makes sense to me. 'If you can't accept the rules, don't join the club.' I know of someone who is taking medical training, but will probably move to another state to work. If he stays where he is, he'd be required to perform executions: which goes against his beliefs.

It's not that easy, of course. The British legal system. Like America's and many if not most western countries', has a satchel-full of anti-discrimination laws.

Since the modest medics are invoking religious belief, the odds are that they'll sue, if hospitals or universities insist on their washing before medical procedures.

My guess is that Dr. Katme's disposable evening gloves will be used, after a few hundred more people die in British hospitals. And, that if British courts are as badly fouled up as America's, several law firms will make obscene profits by pushing 'discrimination' lawsuits.

Finally, this isn't a Muslim/non-Muslim issue. There are at least four groups involved:
  • Traditional Muslims
  • Contemporary Muslims
  • Traditional westerners
  • Modern westerners
In my view, traditional Muslim and traditional western culture have more in common with each other than either has with modern western culture. And, contemporary-culture Muslims should, I think, take a hard look at how modern western culture has treated traditional western culture, before they decide embrace the modern ethic.

My hope is that people on all sides of the cultural divide take a long, hard look at which of their beliefs are indispensable, and how they can accommodate people whose beliefs are not exactly the same as theirs.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Mohammed the Teddy Bear vs Islam: The Saga Continues

This isn't Islam's finest hour.

Unless the masses of mad Muslims in Khartoum today didn't accurately reflect Islamic thought and belief, when they said:
  • "Shame, shame on the U.K." as a chant, and
  • "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad"
They were talking about Gillian Gibbons, a British schoolteacher sentenced by a Sudanese (Islamic) court for "inciting religious hatred" - by letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear after one of their classmates: whose name is Mohammed.

Gilliam Gibbons has been moved from the Sudanese women's jail she was in, to an undisclosed location. For her own protection, purportedly. Considering what's going in the streets, that might be a good idea.

At least some mosques in Sudan are pumping up the people. In one, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, famous for his 'hard-line' beliefs, said, "imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion."

There's more: "This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad."

The demonstrators were probably doing in on their own, or without government sponsorship, at any rate. Sudanese government-inspired demonstrators generally carry semi-automatic weapons. This lot carried axes, knives and clubs.

So:
  • Gillian Gibbons has nine days to go on her sentence: wherever she is; and providing that the Sudanese court doesn't change its mind
  • Muslims are demonstrating in the street
  • Mohammed the Teddy Bear has dropped out of sight
The effects of this Islamic groundswell against the blasphemous teddy bear go beyond Gillian Gibbons. The school she taught at, Unity High School has been closed since Gibbons' arrest. Unity High School (www.unityhighschool.org, "The British International School in Sudan / Member BSME; BISW / A school for boys and girls aged 4 to 18") was founded by Christians. Now, about 90% of its students are Muslims: most of them from upper-class Sudanese families.

The sound and fury in Sudan may not be typical of Islam.
  • In Britain, a Muslim Labour peer, Lord Ahmed, says he'll travel to Sudan to try to get Gibbons out of the hoosegow
  • The Muslim Council of Britain wants the Sudanese government to release Gibbons
  • A Peacebuilding Fellow with the American Islamic Congress, Jana El-Horr, said, "Ms. Gibbons needs to be freed at once"
I've heard and read that the "Arab on the street" believes that the wicked west is attacking Islam. They could be right, depending on how "Islam" is defined.

If "Islam" is the bunch of terrorists who accept Osama bin Laden as their leader, the Muslims who kill their daughters when the girls are raped, the people who stamped out soccer in Afghanistan, and destroyed a set of irreplaceable ancient statues in that country, then America and other western nations are attacking "Islam."

I like to believe that there's more to Islam than explosive vests and and lashings: and that the war on terror is going to benefit Muslims in the Middle East as much as atheists in New Hampshire. At least, those Muslims who don't mind getting an education, and catching up on what's happened in the last thousand years or so.

Posts on "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

British Archbishop on World Affairs:
British Empire = Good
American Defense of Freedom = Bad

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams is all the rage in the British Parliament, it seems. It's easy to see why.

The Times (UK) repeated what the (Anglican) Archbishop said in a Emel magazine. Muslim magazine, that is.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did – in India, for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together – Iraq, for example."

I think I've got that.
  • British colonization of India was a good thing, because England occupied India for generations.
  • American efforts to help Iraqis weed terrorists out of their country and set up an independent government is bad
If he keeps this up, the good archbishop may even get a Nobel Peace Prize.

It's true that England poured resources into India. It's also true that, from the founding of the East India Company in 1600 to 1947, when Mahatma Gandhi convinced England to get out of his country, the British Empire brought law, order, and guidance to India - and all they asked for in return was tons of tea the the Kohinoor. "Asked" might not be quite the right word.

Back to the archbishop: He's certainly got the right, and responsibility, to point out evil where he sees it. He also has the right to be wrong.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.