I'm finding Benjamin Franklin's autobiography a really entertaining read.
'So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do.'
Describing his change from a vegetarian to a meat eater after he smells a lovely bit a fish, and justifys eating it by noting that this fish eats smaller fish; Ergo the fish has no moral objection to him eating it!
Update more later
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, 3 July 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
The Back End of Racism
The Korean Beat is a blog which translates Korean news articles into English. Although one or two major English newspapers have an English edition, they are often not exactly the same as the original. Most newspapers in Korea, understandably, can be separated into tabloid and broadsheet journalism.
I have experienced very little racism in Korea but I have seen its existence and heard from reputable sources about unseemly events. Some is not undeserved however. Many new teachers are fresh out of uni and try to continue the lifestyle of late night drinking, mid week parties, and a relaxed attitude to social proprieties. They fail to see that not only are they in a more reputable position in society but also this society is a lot more conservative than the one they previously dragged in to degeneration.
I will state that a vast majority of the teachers I know like their job (maybe not the hours), care about their kids, and want to see them improve. They may enjoy the occasional Wednesday night out but so do most Korean men. This article, in my opinion, co relates to all The Sun and Daily Express publishings that seek to sell more stories by picking an easy, less protected target, and degrade them all with one bush on baseless or singular examples. While at the same time ignoring all the positive things they bring to society and in this case the duty of the employers to higher and treat staff responsibly. I know most Korean people, like the Brits, enjoy the benefits of multi culturalism, but there's nothing like a xenophobic article to make you feel like your on the back end of racism.
Please read the article here.
NB. When I say conservative I don't mean you can't drink a lot and party. Korea has plenty of opportunities and ample enough young population to do that. They just see jumping around the street at 4am, shouting profanities at passers by, showing of your chest hair and being sick on the street as thoroughly off putting and undesirable.
I have experienced very little racism in Korea but I have seen its existence and heard from reputable sources about unseemly events. Some is not undeserved however. Many new teachers are fresh out of uni and try to continue the lifestyle of late night drinking, mid week parties, and a relaxed attitude to social proprieties. They fail to see that not only are they in a more reputable position in society but also this society is a lot more conservative than the one they previously dragged in to degeneration.
I will state that a vast majority of the teachers I know like their job (maybe not the hours), care about their kids, and want to see them improve. They may enjoy the occasional Wednesday night out but so do most Korean men. This article, in my opinion, co relates to all The Sun and Daily Express publishings that seek to sell more stories by picking an easy, less protected target, and degrade them all with one bush on baseless or singular examples. While at the same time ignoring all the positive things they bring to society and in this case the duty of the employers to higher and treat staff responsibly. I know most Korean people, like the Brits, enjoy the benefits of multi culturalism, but there's nothing like a xenophobic article to make you feel like your on the back end of racism.
Please read the article here.
NB. When I say conservative I don't mean you can't drink a lot and party. Korea has plenty of opportunities and ample enough young population to do that. They just see jumping around the street at 4am, shouting profanities at passers by, showing of your chest hair and being sick on the street as thoroughly off putting and undesirable.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Invade Privacy and Let the Industry off Scot Free.
Two new legislation on the table and one announcement on the banking industry and to me it's totally back to front and completely out of touch with reality.
First of the bat are plans to ban smoking in cars where children are present. Who would ever say that smoking when your child is in the car is a delightful habit?! What father would protest this bill? No one can come out and say this is a bad idea or that it's ok to smoke with children are around. However without an argument for the negative it doesn't mean the government should legislate control over an individuals lifestyle choice. The car at the end of the day is a vehicle in which you lose all your privacy. Cameras watching your speed. Police watching your driving and holding the right to stop and search you whenever they want. Government and companies ensuring your car's innards are in respectable order and so forth. And all this is needed to ensure road safety and a high standard of public safety. However new technology which auto tracks your windscreen and watches you from afar has already been piloted across Britain. Putting away the mobile phone is a good idea but being fined for popping a sweet or switching the radio on is backdoor secret surveillance and dare I say, totalitarianism. You can't smoke at work, in the pub and rarely at home now everyone has jumped on the anti-smoking banned wagon (which I am part of btw). Now you can't even roll down your window and have a smoke when your stressed out from grid lock, the kids are screaming in the back seat and your wife just left you for spending to much time at work.
It's a horrible image but I don't think the government or police should be concerned with our private habits and indeed their role should be protecting not suppressing them.
Legislation number two is tougher regulation on Sun beds, or tanning salons as they are called now. Again what argument or specialist is going to stand up and defend the right to have artificially brown skin, but I question the government when they want to clamp down on unmanned salons and underage bronzing addicts when hedgefund managers, banking executives and the like are off gambling with the public's savings; and after losing them ask for a government handout. When looking around the commons it is more likely that the sun kissed skin of our right honourable MPs is not from overdosing on UV beds but from vacations in the Caribbean or Sunday afternoons sailing on their moats which they fiddled through tax payer funded expenses. It almost too ridiculous to believe.
Looks like today Darling will announce that regulation was not to blame for the financial crises. To an extent tough regulation in the UK would not have stopped a global economic turn down but it would mean our banks would not have been such a major part of it. Regulation is what's needed and its what the public want too. If someone commits a crime you may blame the police for not catching them before they done it but you never let the criminal get off scott free on the same presumption.
First of the bat are plans to ban smoking in cars where children are present. Who would ever say that smoking when your child is in the car is a delightful habit?! What father would protest this bill? No one can come out and say this is a bad idea or that it's ok to smoke with children are around. However without an argument for the negative it doesn't mean the government should legislate control over an individuals lifestyle choice. The car at the end of the day is a vehicle in which you lose all your privacy. Cameras watching your speed. Police watching your driving and holding the right to stop and search you whenever they want. Government and companies ensuring your car's innards are in respectable order and so forth. And all this is needed to ensure road safety and a high standard of public safety. However new technology which auto tracks your windscreen and watches you from afar has already been piloted across Britain. Putting away the mobile phone is a good idea but being fined for popping a sweet or switching the radio on is backdoor secret surveillance and dare I say, totalitarianism. You can't smoke at work, in the pub and rarely at home now everyone has jumped on the anti-smoking banned wagon (which I am part of btw). Now you can't even roll down your window and have a smoke when your stressed out from grid lock, the kids are screaming in the back seat and your wife just left you for spending to much time at work.
It's a horrible image but I don't think the government or police should be concerned with our private habits and indeed their role should be protecting not suppressing them.
Legislation number two is tougher regulation on Sun beds, or tanning salons as they are called now. Again what argument or specialist is going to stand up and defend the right to have artificially brown skin, but I question the government when they want to clamp down on unmanned salons and underage bronzing addicts when hedgefund managers, banking executives and the like are off gambling with the public's savings; and after losing them ask for a government handout. When looking around the commons it is more likely that the sun kissed skin of our right honourable MPs is not from overdosing on UV beds but from vacations in the Caribbean or Sunday afternoons sailing on their moats which they fiddled through tax payer funded expenses. It almost too ridiculous to believe.
Looks like today Darling will announce that regulation was not to blame for the financial crises. To an extent tough regulation in the UK would not have stopped a global economic turn down but it would mean our banks would not have been such a major part of it. Regulation is what's needed and its what the public want too. If someone commits a crime you may blame the police for not catching them before they done it but you never let the criminal get off scott free on the same presumption.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Friday, 22 May 2009
New Way Thinking
I like the concept of noting the division between those committed to politics and those who rely on violence. It is obvious that the Islamic faith is divided between those who use faith to justify certain religious beliefs and others who defend Sharia law, barbaric actions and primative views. Moreover some who take a literal reading of holy texts can and will use it to justify violence.
We in Britain can tolerate any viewpoint and commit ourselves to freedom of belief inside the boundaries of debate and politics. In this way we can draw a line between us, of any and no faith, who are commited to a peaceful society and those who seek to bring change through violence. This could overcome the major hurdle of where particular groups 'fit' in society. Looking at the Muslim faith in this way can also help to marginalise radical groups through open debate and deliberation of ideas.
We in Britain can tolerate any viewpoint and commit ourselves to freedom of belief inside the boundaries of debate and politics. In this way we can draw a line between us, of any and no faith, who are commited to a peaceful society and those who seek to bring change through violence. This could overcome the major hurdle of where particular groups 'fit' in society. Looking at the Muslim faith in this way can also help to marginalise radical groups through open debate and deliberation of ideas.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Who Would You Have Instead?
Well I am not sure if the question referred to the Euro elections, politicians in general, or the Labour party.
I'll try and write a quick answer to all three. Well I have already publicly severed my connections with Labour a few posts back. I'd still support a party headed by a coalition of David Miliband, Alan Johnson, and Jack Straw over the Osborne and Cameron club. However Labour has too many unpopular, uncredible and downright poor front benchers. I genuinely fear another Labour victory will lead to a sterile, ineffectual government whose only hope of popular governance is an appeal to xenophobia and active scare mongering. Which would most likely result in more anti-liberal laws, scape goating and preservation of the status-quo. At least if Labour came back to power the party may be so unpopular that all cash for honours and bribery may end.
We still need politicians though and I'll be voting for the party which offers the most ambitious but realistic set of reforms. In 1997 Labour ran on a reform agenda set on bringing in proportional representation and reform of the House of Lords. They have spent 11 years probing at the latter and have completely forgotten the former. Clegg, on Sunday, renewed calls for Lords reform, something which I think is greatly needed, and ordered any capital gains avoidance made from house 'flipping' and and profits from property investment to be paid back to the public. Is that change we can believe in? Maybe not, but its the most radical, realistic alternative.
In regards to Europe there are two parties i would not like to see take the seat. The SNP or the Tories (well ukip and BNP are unlikely). Labour can't be trusted the clean up their national expenses so I doubt their MEPs will be troubled much by not only Europe's SISO system or their massive public waste. That leaves us with the Greens or the Lib Dems and I don't even know who their candidates are.
Ahh, delving into minority party voting...it feels so....unprofessional.
I'll try and write a quick answer to all three. Well I have already publicly severed my connections with Labour a few posts back. I'd still support a party headed by a coalition of David Miliband, Alan Johnson, and Jack Straw over the Osborne and Cameron club. However Labour has too many unpopular, uncredible and downright poor front benchers. I genuinely fear another Labour victory will lead to a sterile, ineffectual government whose only hope of popular governance is an appeal to xenophobia and active scare mongering. Which would most likely result in more anti-liberal laws, scape goating and preservation of the status-quo. At least if Labour came back to power the party may be so unpopular that all cash for honours and bribery may end.
We still need politicians though and I'll be voting for the party which offers the most ambitious but realistic set of reforms. In 1997 Labour ran on a reform agenda set on bringing in proportional representation and reform of the House of Lords. They have spent 11 years probing at the latter and have completely forgotten the former. Clegg, on Sunday, renewed calls for Lords reform, something which I think is greatly needed, and ordered any capital gains avoidance made from house 'flipping' and and profits from property investment to be paid back to the public. Is that change we can believe in? Maybe not, but its the most radical, realistic alternative.
In regards to Europe there are two parties i would not like to see take the seat. The SNP or the Tories (well ukip and BNP are unlikely). Labour can't be trusted the clean up their national expenses so I doubt their MEPs will be troubled much by not only Europe's SISO system or their massive public waste. That leaves us with the Greens or the Lib Dems and I don't even know who their candidates are.
Ahh, delving into minority party voting...it feels so....unprofessional.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Proxy Voting
Should I bother to find a proxy?
I can't vote in the local elections only the European elections.
It's a Labour safe seat.
However I do want to 'Throw the bastards out!'
I can't vote in the local elections only the European elections.
It's a Labour safe seat.
However I do want to 'Throw the bastards out!'
Friday, 8 May 2009
Friday
A quick look at the papers and two statics hit me.
Firstly the gap between rich and poor is the widest since the 1960s and the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is the highest since Britain under Thatcher.
For Labour to hit it goals of halving child poverty by 2010 they would have the spend 4.5 billion pound a year. Very unlikely.
Is this the final nail in the coffin of New Labour?
Also t seems that the papers are eventually waking up to the truth about trash culture. Jonathan Jones writes
"If the left is ever to regain a voice in Britain it will now be necessary to face the truth about mass culture and its tyranny. Reality TV shows, celebrity "culture", inane pop groups and sport are not, and never have been, the hope of democracy"
Firstly the gap between rich and poor is the widest since the 1960s and the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is the highest since Britain under Thatcher.
For Labour to hit it goals of halving child poverty by 2010 they would have the spend 4.5 billion pound a year. Very unlikely.
Is this the final nail in the coffin of New Labour?
Also t seems that the papers are eventually waking up to the truth about trash culture. Jonathan Jones writes
"If the left is ever to regain a voice in Britain it will now be necessary to face the truth about mass culture and its tyranny. Reality TV shows, celebrity "culture", inane pop groups and sport are not, and never have been, the hope of democracy"
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Big Party
Come one come all to the big credit spending party!
The Patty has been so huge that the refuge is estimated at $4.1 trillion dollars .
Well now it's time, as after all parties, to clean up the mess. Throw out the garbage, pour toxic assets down the drains and replace some furniture (institutions) that got broke during the long night. As with most parties it takes time for the head to clear and the stomach to settle before you can pluck up the energy to sort the place out. It's only after a few bitter pills and some liquid stimulus that you realise the people who made the most mess, ate the most cake and drank the most beer, had long shuffled off home to retire for the night (or life) or maybe to cleaner climates.
Now only a future of careful spending and higher taxes can cure the hangover and restore us to normal life.
Hang on a minute!!!!
I wasn't at no party. I was at uni!
I had to scrape by on minimum wage, work full time, pay extortionate rent rates, get used and abused by the property owning classes. Who took out massive mortgages in order to 'buy to let' and make a profit off some of the poorest sections of society, which only fueled (started?) the party and added to the headache.
Now I have graduated and started to pay back a thundering student debt I find that I also have to pay to clean up a massive celebrity party with champagne, caviar, and cocktails? A party that I never even got invited too!!!
I am not too sure our generation will be quite helpful at the ballot box.
The Patty has been so huge that the refuge is estimated at $4.1 trillion dollars .
Well now it's time, as after all parties, to clean up the mess. Throw out the garbage, pour toxic assets down the drains and replace some furniture (institutions) that got broke during the long night. As with most parties it takes time for the head to clear and the stomach to settle before you can pluck up the energy to sort the place out. It's only after a few bitter pills and some liquid stimulus that you realise the people who made the most mess, ate the most cake and drank the most beer, had long shuffled off home to retire for the night (or life) or maybe to cleaner climates.
Now only a future of careful spending and higher taxes can cure the hangover and restore us to normal life.
Hang on a minute!!!!
I wasn't at no party. I was at uni!
I had to scrape by on minimum wage, work full time, pay extortionate rent rates, get used and abused by the property owning classes. Who took out massive mortgages in order to 'buy to let' and make a profit off some of the poorest sections of society, which only fueled (started?) the party and added to the headache.
Now I have graduated and started to pay back a thundering student debt I find that I also have to pay to clean up a massive celebrity party with champagne, caviar, and cocktails? A party that I never even got invited too!!!
I am not too sure our generation will be quite helpful at the ballot box.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Charlie Brooker
This guy just disassembles the news right in front of you. Hilarious, insightful and thoughtful. Each episode gets better and better. His first series, Screenwipe, I always enjoyed but I find this show highlights his humour and skill much more.
Watch on bbc iplayer here or on youtube
Brilliant
Watch on bbc iplayer here or on youtube
Brilliant
Monday, 6 April 2009
Liberty
I came across the article via the FCOs website.
http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2009/03/police-state-rights-freedom
It is about how we are not entering a police state and modern liberty is not under threat. It is interesting and I agree with most of it. Primarily that there is no 'golden age' of liberty to which we can roll the state back to. Often putting institutional powers on the statute serves as a protection of society, giving a reference of norms and allocation and proprietary over powers. However I do think modern technology has the capacity to completely infiltrate our lives and provide surveillance for all manner of groups who wish to control, cajole, or pressure the public to act, behave, buy and ultimately think in a certain way. We need statute law and protection over the next generation where the battle for privacy will be fought. Namely email, Internet connections, text messaging and phone calls. We can not only define between citizen and criminal, we must define between citizen and suspect.
http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2009/03/police-state-rights-freedom
It is about how we are not entering a police state and modern liberty is not under threat. It is interesting and I agree with most of it. Primarily that there is no 'golden age' of liberty to which we can roll the state back to. Often putting institutional powers on the statute serves as a protection of society, giving a reference of norms and allocation and proprietary over powers. However I do think modern technology has the capacity to completely infiltrate our lives and provide surveillance for all manner of groups who wish to control, cajole, or pressure the public to act, behave, buy and ultimately think in a certain way. We need statute law and protection over the next generation where the battle for privacy will be fought. Namely email, Internet connections, text messaging and phone calls. We can not only define between citizen and criminal, we must define between citizen and suspect.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Ambassador Hughes?
I don't think Martin Ulden's blog has ever seen so much activity. I wonder how he will feel when after months of blogging with no comments, Guest bogger form DPRK Peter Hughes turns up and starts a debating chamber. I think the British Ambassador to DPRK pointed out on his second post how he wished to seperate the people from the politics. This, in my opinion, is a legitimate stance. However reading the comment by James I fear he has the wrong end of the stick aswell. I don't think anyone wants to return to gun boat diplomacy and 'grandstanding' ways, prefering brutal action over the art of diplomacy. However if you wish to engage the DPRK's regime 'based on mutual respect and understanding' then you might as well say goodbye to all your values and any freedom you have ever defended. That is why the definition of the people from the state is important, as the ambassdor notes the people are just like everyone else. The British government in the North should help to facilitate NGOs , promote sound domestic policies which will benefit the public, and work towards a favourable representation of Britain to the population. However at the political level we can not engage with the DPRK as an equal partner. Ambassadors and envoys can engage as they see fit, always courteously, often undertanding, but never can we argue that the DPRK's leaders deserve mutual respect. Not only are the regimes value systems the antipathy of our own but they also represent a parasitic and war mongering nation; a threat to Asian economics and stability and international peace. If you will not condemn a regime such as that James, at least privately, then you can not preach any morality publicly. Ambassador Hughes?
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Anglian Comment
I was planning to right a short piece about the protesters who hounded the Anglian regiment yesterday during their homecoming. However a quick look on youtube made me shudder. Was I now agreeing with far right organisations such as the BNP? Am I just adding fuel to the blatant misrepresentations propagated by neo-fascist, racist and thoroughly reprehensible hard liners?
Well I am still going to have a monologue and I hope the readers will judge that I am guilty of neither racism nor appeasement. I think we should bare in mind the context of the event first of all. There was no more than a dozen protesters. If you compare that to Glasgow's experience during the Orange Walks or the Friends of Ireland march we are talking about a very small number indeed. In fact no substantive violence broke out and no follow up vigilante activities have been reported. Which is a dam bit more civilised than inter-faith Glaswegian relationships.
I would label the men (yes all of hem were men) as anti-war protesters but I think that is being too impartial. These men are clearly Muslim and their protest is an Islamist agenda. This is not just about the war in Iraq but also the imposition of freedom and democracy over religious totalitarianism, the death of fellow Muslims and not the death of fellow human beings, and the publicising of an agenda which labels Islam as brave and courageous in the face of the decadent and morally corrupt (and lets not forget secular) west.
Where the BNP, other groups, and I depart is that I think the men have and should have the right to protest. Regardless of my opinion on the war, it is fundamental that the law protects the right to peaceful protest and to speak freely. However, if anything, this groups choosing of time, place and slogans show how utterly disgusting, base, and crude their opinion and teachings are. When the anti war movement began it was the biggest protest ever seen in the UK. Where were the anti-war protesters now? Definitely not on the side of the Islamist group. They recognise first and foremost the bravery of British soldiers and their sacrifice for the nation. There is no humanity, no decency, no moral code which sanctions turning up at a parade venomously chanting phrases such as 'Go to hell', 'Butchers' and 'Terrorists' when soldiers, having bled on the field- even died, return home. Where mothers greet their long departed sons and others mourn the loss of friends, siblings or even children, there should be time for reflection, sombreness and celebration; not drivel spouted by brainwashed youths and preachers one step away from terrorist activities. Let's not think lightly or wash away a phrase such as 'Go to hell!'. These people believe in the literal teaching of the Koran. For them hell is a real place. With torture and cruelty so unfathomed it takes the imagination of an supernatural diety to dream it up. They literally want to send soldiers who have spent what can only be approximated to hell on earth, to a real eternity of relentless torture. Who could ever or would ever want to inflict that punishment on any other human being? Their moral viciousness was exposed by their chants yesterday.
Secondly, I fundamentally believe in the freedom of speech but I do recognise that if someone is a direct threat to civil order or is indeed inciting civil order against his person then there may be the need for detainment (not arrestment) by authorities. However the right wing of the population jumped on the events of two arrests at the Anglian parade. The BNP advertised it as 'two white British men arrested for challenging Muslims'. Obviously it was not that simple. One man was detained for incitement to racial hatred because he chanted a base phrase 'no surrender to the Taliban' and 'scum'. I am sure the first phrase will be familiar to many old firm fans in Scotland. If the state must arrest someone for incitement to racial hatred then at least keep it consistent. To me the chants of the protesters were worse than that of the single man. I wonder; is this double standards or was it a tactic by the police to maintain order? Either ways it sends out a disturbing signal. An Islamic group can continue to protest in the most undignified and repulsive way, yet when another citizen (regardless of race, gender or social grouping) replies in kind then he or she may be silenced. That can not be condoned.
Lastly, related to the last point but maybe the most important thing I want to echo is a challenge to use of the phrase 'islamo-phobia'. The Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement it was appalled at reports of the abuse, stating the protesters provided "fodder for Islamophobes keen to drive a wedge between Britons". Now, yes thank you for condemning the protesters and let us hope, and I do agree, that these protesters do not represent the majority of Muslims. However this word which has found it's way into headlines, articles and conversation- islamophobia, or islamophobes- is a subtle but none the less wicked attempt at deflecting warranted criticism of an idea. How dare they make an attempt to label anyone who criticises and challenges their orthodoxy as a shameful and a Muslim hating person. Words such as homophobe are used to describe people who inherently hate someones private, individual choice which they are born with or choose. How dare they apply this to their religion. Are they seriously saying that anyone who doesn't agree with their theory which they openly propagate and recruit for, as I do, is an islamaphobe? Such wordplay cheapens the achievements of legitimate groups and seeks to silence critics and protect their own agenda. It is good to see that the British public will not stand for such treatment.
Comment? I dare you?
NB* Two viewpoints. Opposing views of the trouble that outbroke that day/
I like this one because it shows how a relatively small mob can seem intimidating and can enter and aggressive spiral on a calm day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM
This is from the far right point of view. They use scenes from numerous other protests to blow this one out of proportion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCO963eCD5U
.
Well I am still going to have a monologue and I hope the readers will judge that I am guilty of neither racism nor appeasement. I think we should bare in mind the context of the event first of all. There was no more than a dozen protesters. If you compare that to Glasgow's experience during the Orange Walks or the Friends of Ireland march we are talking about a very small number indeed. In fact no substantive violence broke out and no follow up vigilante activities have been reported. Which is a dam bit more civilised than inter-faith Glaswegian relationships.
I would label the men (yes all of hem were men) as anti-war protesters but I think that is being too impartial. These men are clearly Muslim and their protest is an Islamist agenda. This is not just about the war in Iraq but also the imposition of freedom and democracy over religious totalitarianism, the death of fellow Muslims and not the death of fellow human beings, and the publicising of an agenda which labels Islam as brave and courageous in the face of the decadent and morally corrupt (and lets not forget secular) west.
Where the BNP, other groups, and I depart is that I think the men have and should have the right to protest. Regardless of my opinion on the war, it is fundamental that the law protects the right to peaceful protest and to speak freely. However, if anything, this groups choosing of time, place and slogans show how utterly disgusting, base, and crude their opinion and teachings are. When the anti war movement began it was the biggest protest ever seen in the UK. Where were the anti-war protesters now? Definitely not on the side of the Islamist group. They recognise first and foremost the bravery of British soldiers and their sacrifice for the nation. There is no humanity, no decency, no moral code which sanctions turning up at a parade venomously chanting phrases such as 'Go to hell', 'Butchers' and 'Terrorists' when soldiers, having bled on the field- even died, return home. Where mothers greet their long departed sons and others mourn the loss of friends, siblings or even children, there should be time for reflection, sombreness and celebration; not drivel spouted by brainwashed youths and preachers one step away from terrorist activities. Let's not think lightly or wash away a phrase such as 'Go to hell!'. These people believe in the literal teaching of the Koran. For them hell is a real place. With torture and cruelty so unfathomed it takes the imagination of an supernatural diety to dream it up. They literally want to send soldiers who have spent what can only be approximated to hell on earth, to a real eternity of relentless torture. Who could ever or would ever want to inflict that punishment on any other human being? Their moral viciousness was exposed by their chants yesterday.
Secondly, I fundamentally believe in the freedom of speech but I do recognise that if someone is a direct threat to civil order or is indeed inciting civil order against his person then there may be the need for detainment (not arrestment) by authorities. However the right wing of the population jumped on the events of two arrests at the Anglian parade. The BNP advertised it as 'two white British men arrested for challenging Muslims'. Obviously it was not that simple. One man was detained for incitement to racial hatred because he chanted a base phrase 'no surrender to the Taliban' and 'scum'. I am sure the first phrase will be familiar to many old firm fans in Scotland. If the state must arrest someone for incitement to racial hatred then at least keep it consistent. To me the chants of the protesters were worse than that of the single man. I wonder; is this double standards or was it a tactic by the police to maintain order? Either ways it sends out a disturbing signal. An Islamic group can continue to protest in the most undignified and repulsive way, yet when another citizen (regardless of race, gender or social grouping) replies in kind then he or she may be silenced. That can not be condoned.
Lastly, related to the last point but maybe the most important thing I want to echo is a challenge to use of the phrase 'islamo-phobia'. The Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement it was appalled at reports of the abuse, stating the protesters provided "fodder for Islamophobes keen to drive a wedge between Britons". Now, yes thank you for condemning the protesters and let us hope, and I do agree, that these protesters do not represent the majority of Muslims. However this word which has found it's way into headlines, articles and conversation- islamophobia, or islamophobes- is a subtle but none the less wicked attempt at deflecting warranted criticism of an idea. How dare they make an attempt to label anyone who criticises and challenges their orthodoxy as a shameful and a Muslim hating person. Words such as homophobe are used to describe people who inherently hate someones private, individual choice which they are born with or choose. How dare they apply this to their religion. Are they seriously saying that anyone who doesn't agree with their theory which they openly propagate and recruit for, as I do, is an islamaphobe? Such wordplay cheapens the achievements of legitimate groups and seeks to silence critics and protect their own agenda. It is good to see that the British public will not stand for such treatment.
Comment? I dare you?
NB* Two viewpoints. Opposing views of the trouble that outbroke that day/
I like this one because it shows how a relatively small mob can seem intimidating and can enter and aggressive spiral on a calm day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM
This is from the far right point of view. They use scenes from numerous other protests to blow this one out of proportion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCO963eCD5U
.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Short analysis
Today the South Korean and American military have a joint training session which will last for 12 days. It's the biggest exercise of the year and is usually met with animosity from the North. The strange thing is that I only heard about the news from the bbc website. After checking The Korean Herald website sure enough there is a report, but not headline news.
It's a strange feeling living on the door step of a rogue state. Most of the time you never think about it and then you here they are threatening to immanently destroy Seoul because South Korea elected the 'wrong' president. The recent warning comes before the latest military training by the South and the Yanks. Incitements to hatred and fear out pore like a 1970s cold war propaganda video. Threats of instant invasion by the North or the barbaric and hostile outsiders threatening North Korea's enlightened path. However, as far as I can see the average person on the street is either completely aware of the North's bitter utterances and treats them as an annoyance rather than a threat, or is completely disinterested.
Kim Jung Ill has begun grooming his third son for power now that he can see his health is failing. I wonder what will happen to the North once he is gone. The contrast between the freedom of Seoul and that of Pyongyang is striking and saddening. In my view if there ever were a people who could embrace democracy and freedom, yet are held back by a dictator it must be the Koreans.
Over the last two years I have think the North has gradually increased its rhetoric against the South. Growing ever more venomous and spiteful towards it's southern kin. As the Republic grows prosperous, its people become well fed, and its young enjoy ever more integration with the international system, North Korea starves. Its encirclement ever more evident and ever more unified. Its traditional ally is departing on ideological grounds and lacking any need to continue trading. Its outbursts become ever more synonymous with the thrashings of an ignored child. Screaming louder to be heard and threatening to use violence if it is not acknowledged as the great nation it thinks it is. Sadly North Korea continues in its delirium to think itself an international power worth listening to; while in reality it is little more than a thorn in Asian unity. \Meanwhile North Koreans suffer under its theocracy.
One local man I spoke to put the military training in a better perspective.
'about time the US troops do something aside from hitting on girls in frog'
It's 6:35pm and no bombs have fallen yet. Fingers crossed.
It's a strange feeling living on the door step of a rogue state. Most of the time you never think about it and then you here they are threatening to immanently destroy Seoul because South Korea elected the 'wrong' president. The recent warning comes before the latest military training by the South and the Yanks. Incitements to hatred and fear out pore like a 1970s cold war propaganda video. Threats of instant invasion by the North or the barbaric and hostile outsiders threatening North Korea's enlightened path. However, as far as I can see the average person on the street is either completely aware of the North's bitter utterances and treats them as an annoyance rather than a threat, or is completely disinterested.
Kim Jung Ill has begun grooming his third son for power now that he can see his health is failing. I wonder what will happen to the North once he is gone. The contrast between the freedom of Seoul and that of Pyongyang is striking and saddening. In my view if there ever were a people who could embrace democracy and freedom, yet are held back by a dictator it must be the Koreans.
Over the last two years I have think the North has gradually increased its rhetoric against the South. Growing ever more venomous and spiteful towards it's southern kin. As the Republic grows prosperous, its people become well fed, and its young enjoy ever more integration with the international system, North Korea starves. Its encirclement ever more evident and ever more unified. Its traditional ally is departing on ideological grounds and lacking any need to continue trading. Its outbursts become ever more synonymous with the thrashings of an ignored child. Screaming louder to be heard and threatening to use violence if it is not acknowledged as the great nation it thinks it is. Sadly North Korea continues in its delirium to think itself an international power worth listening to; while in reality it is little more than a thorn in Asian unity. \Meanwhile North Koreans suffer under its theocracy.
One local man I spoke to put the military training in a better perspective.
'about time the US troops do something aside from hitting on girls in frog'
It's 6:35pm and no bombs have fallen yet. Fingers crossed.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Surveillance
I used to think the phrase 'They're watching us, they control everything!' was reserved for a select group of people. Namely 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, UFO enthusiasts, Elvis spotters and the like. But in all serious how much can,or will, Britons take?
Off the top of my head I could name several government policies or actions since 2001 that have not only infringe on our freedoms but seek to severely undermine and curtail them. Just think now, just for a second, and I bet you can too. ID cards, DNA capture, bio-metric passports, detention for 28 days without charge (wait 90 days is what they want right?), refusal for freedom of information on MP's expenses (our employees mind), are just a few policies being continually pursued by the good new Labour Party. They see nothing wrong in denying European Union citizens entry into the UK, even if they are elected representatives, or allowing local councils (not the police) to monitor someones movement 24 hours a day. They are suspected of banning evidence in court cases because it may simply be embarrassing for them. They ask university lecturers and professors to report students who they suspect of academic misadventure. But when two subs collided in the English Chanel last week the extent of the damage was classified. Yet it is not like it was damaged in battle, and even if it was there isn't a precedent for not disclosing this information. We learned more about the crash from the French media than our own government. I'm sure the list could go on and on but the problem is compounded by the governments inability to keep the information they suck from us secret. The loss of 25 million individuals' data last year comes to mind.
Well, have you heard the latest operation Glasgow to take place on the Merseyside? Surveillance cameras with automatic face recognition. I'm sure the only thing holding back a national out rolling is the unreliability of previous face recognition software. The worst thing about it is that anyone detained by the police, regardless of whether they are charged or not, will be photographed and linked to the Surveillance network.
Why are we quiet about this?
The Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London this week. If I was home I'd be there.
Off the top of my head I could name several government policies or actions since 2001 that have not only infringe on our freedoms but seek to severely undermine and curtail them. Just think now, just for a second, and I bet you can too. ID cards, DNA capture, bio-metric passports, detention for 28 days without charge (wait 90 days is what they want right?), refusal for freedom of information on MP's expenses (our employees mind), are just a few policies being continually pursued by the good new Labour Party. They see nothing wrong in denying European Union citizens entry into the UK, even if they are elected representatives, or allowing local councils (not the police) to monitor someones movement 24 hours a day. They are suspected of banning evidence in court cases because it may simply be embarrassing for them. They ask university lecturers and professors to report students who they suspect of academic misadventure. But when two subs collided in the English Chanel last week the extent of the damage was classified. Yet it is not like it was damaged in battle, and even if it was there isn't a precedent for not disclosing this information. We learned more about the crash from the French media than our own government. I'm sure the list could go on and on but the problem is compounded by the governments inability to keep the information they suck from us secret. The loss of 25 million individuals' data last year comes to mind.
Well, have you heard the latest operation Glasgow to take place on the Merseyside? Surveillance cameras with automatic face recognition. I'm sure the only thing holding back a national out rolling is the unreliability of previous face recognition software. The worst thing about it is that anyone detained by the police, regardless of whether they are charged or not, will be photographed and linked to the Surveillance network.
Why are we quiet about this?
The Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London this week. If I was home I'd be there.
Monday, 16 February 2009
Excerpt from a letter
Anyways a few things that have been on the news that either got me thinking or reaching for my mental affiliation with labour and dousing it in petrol (the match will come soon enough I fear). Firstly, and I think most easily criticised would be the visit of that vile Dutchman Geert Wilders. I wasn't very interested in what a bigot had to say until it turned out he was banned from saying it. The story had been floating around for a few days and I had already formed my opinion. I was glad to see that a majority of comments on the guardian website regarding the incident were criticising the home office's stance on the matter. However after watching Question Time it was clear that 4 out of the 5 panelists thought the immigration ban an excellent thing. The only one who disagreed was a Gardener (no disrespect but he doesn't hold sway over public opinion unlike the editor of The Sun). Geert Wilders' movie which was about to be shown to an invitational audience has probably increase it's viewing figures by hundreds of thousands. I was actually about to youtube it myself but decided that nothing can be gained by watching the documentary/film equivalent of gutter press and BNP propaganda. I just did a quick search in youtube and a recent speech of his has almost 700, 000 views whereas one copy of his movie on youtube alone has 100,000. The government has promoted his career beyond his dreams, and knowing he would be turned away from Heathrow he capitalised on the publicity. Furthermore the government has once again shown it's disregard for free speech and individual liberty. I do not agree with Wilders for one second, and you know my feelings on Islam and religion, but he has the same right to free speech as any man is endowed with by nature. If we simply ban opinion we do nothing to counter it and instead of being blasted away by superior argument it seeps into the public imagination, creates xenophobic outcries by minorities which then play on the minds of more sensible folk when times become hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)