"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair


Email me *
How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant
Big boys (& girls)


British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*




Worth a look


Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Junius*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*

---

Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

 
A tale of three kidnappings

An interesting trial concluded recently.

Twenty-three Americans were [recently] convicted of kidnapping by an Italian court at the end of the first trial anywhere in the world involving the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme for abducting terrorist suspects.

The former head of the CIA in Milan Robert Lady was given an eight-year jail sentence for his part in the seizure of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, who claimed that he was subsequently tortured in Egypt. Lady's superior, Jeff Castelli, the then head of the CIA in Italy, and two other Americans were acquitted on the grounds that they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

But another 21 alleged CIA operatives and a US air force officer were each sentenced to five years in jail. All were tried in absentia and those who were convicted will be regarded as fugitives under Italian law.

Two cheers for Italy! Those who kidnap people, whether they are working with the sanction of their government or not, deserve the full force and opprobrium of the law. However, I am reminded of another, earlier kidnapping that took place in Italy where the outcome has been even less satisfactory.

Do you remember the case of Mordechai Vanunu?

He was an Israeli nuclear worker who decided to alert the World to Israel's atomic weapons programme. In 1986, he flew to the UK with photographs and other evidence of Israel's nuclear status. He presented his evidence to the Sunday Times who took an inordinate amount of time to decide on publication, so he went also to the Sunday Mirror whose proprietor – the late and sorely missed Robert Maxwell - promptly and secretly ratted on him.

This gave Mossad time to mount a form of 'honey trap':

Masquerading as an American tourist called "Cindy", Israeli Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov befriended Vanunu, and on 30 September persuaded him to fly to Rome with her on a holiday. Once in Rome, Mossad agents drugged him and carried him to Israel on a freighter, beginning what was to be more than a decade of solitary confinement in Israeli prisons.

Eventually, the Sunday Times published the story, verified additionally by the kidnapping so it was perhaps counterproductive, except in punishing Vanunu. One wonders what the Italian authorities thought at the time and, indeed, what they now think. Did they file charges against the Mossad agents and/or given their success in getting convictions against the CIA agents recently, could they now chase Vanunu's kidnappers once more?

The final kidnapping story concerns an attempt at apprehending the fugitive Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs.

In 1981, some 18 years after he took part in the Great Train Robbery, "the Houdini of the criminal world" was still living [a]t large in Rio, earning a nice living signing autographs and glad-handing visitors from around the globe. There was a kidnap attempt on Biggs, by a group of former military men led by ambitious security expert Patrick King… …in a thoroughly British farce.

King and his gang took Biggs to Barbados, expecting a reward from the British police but, because Barbados had no extradition treaty with the United Kingdom Biggs was sent back to Brazil.

So, here we have three kidnappings with different results. The stories serve to illustrate the way in which Israel and the US are cavalier in their behaviour towards suspects and host countries while British privateers are only capable of making a hash of things. The US & Israeli governments were clearly culpable. One wonders what would have happened had King and Co been able to get Biggs to British territory or somewhere with a suitable extradition treaty with Britain. One is tempted to hope that, unlike the US and Israel, the British authorities would have returned Biggs to Brazil on the grounds that the kidnapping was illegal. But that is simply speculation…

Labels: CIA, Israel, Italy, Kidnapping, Ronnie Biggs, Vanunu

posted by josh at 8:41 pm

 
Barrack Obama: the great orator (?)

From time to time, a senior politician puts in an abysmal performance and gets away with ludicrous, or non-existent, answers. George W. Bush was 'a class act' in this respect. I particularly remember watching his televised news conference on 13 April 2004:

American President George Bush grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath on Tuesday, before saying he could not think of a single mistake he had made since the September 11 attacks.

Here's how Reuters reported it.

Bush appeared a total buffoon, not for the first time.

Move on five years and we have a new US president who is hailed as a great orator. The contrast with The Shrub is, of course, quite marked but, faced with a similar, very well thought-out, question from the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson, did Obama do much better? I happened to watch the news conference live and I thought that, although he waffled for some time, Obama actually said very little. Here's the devastating question:

A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this [economic] crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?

A pretty good probe, don't you think? It's clearly a question more of the Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet? type, to which there isn't a diplomatic answer.

Well, here's a link to an amusing transcript of Obama's waffled reply, together with the author's suggestions about what Obama is thinking while he is 'replying'.

This reminds me of nothing so much as George W. Bush at his best. According to many accounts, Obama has been well-received around the World, but the nonsense he talks about Turkey may come back to haunt him and, indeed, us all. Here are some Turkey facts: the country is secular, even though its 72 million inhabitants are more than 90% Muslim. For Obama to talk about the country as being part of the Muslim world is risible and dangerous: there are religious Turkish parties that want Turkey to become a Muslim state and Obama's words will only encourage them.

Several years ago, I had a discussion with a former Turk, now a naturalized Briton; he explained that, with such a large population, an attachment to 'The Nasty Religion', and exaggerated literacy rates, the country would not be a welcome member of the EU for many years. Monsieur Sarkozy and Frau Merkl well-realize this. That's why they oppose Turkish membership. For Obama to push this is a bit much: he doesn't seem to understand Europe at all.

The Turkish army is the one secular institution that 'can be relied upon'. They have made it clear that attempts to Mohammedanise the country would cause a counter-coup. As democrats, we don't want that, do we?

Obama has made a good start; by contrast to his predecessor, he's brilliant, but The Shrub wasn't much competition. If Obama, through ham-fistedness or over-concern for the American view when a guest in Europe, creates a Muslim Trojan horse, there would be the devil to pay.

If you don't understand, keep your trap shut, Barrack; you managed it pretty well with Nick Robinson's question, didn't you?

Labels: George W Bush, Obama, oratory, Turkey

posted by josh at 8:47 am

 
Modernizing the Monarchy

I see that the 'The Palace' has been discussing some reforms to the position of the Crown under the 1701 Act of Settlement. One of the Act's provisions is to secure Protestant succession to the throne. Thus, (prospective) monarchs forfeit their hereditary rights should they marry a Roman Catholic, given Rome's strictures about mixed marriages which should, effectively be Catholic.

At the same time, the feudal precedence of male heirs, irrespective of their ages, in the matter of succession to the UK throne, is also under consideration. Public opinion in the UK is very much in favour of both sorts of reform. A BBC poll suggest that

89% of Britons are in favour of equal rights for women and
81% are in favour of lifting the ban on an heir marrying a Catholic.

It appears that the changes, one day, will be made as a package. There is a possibility that the Vatican would lift its strictures about the upbringing of children only in the special case of those born to a reigning, or prospective, British monarch married to a Catholic.

You can read the BBC article here; so far, so good: it all looks pretty sensible, doesn't it? However, contrast this with the following.

A 9-year old Brazilian girl was recently given an abortion after years of abuse by her stepfather. The local archbishop excommunicated those associated with the surgical termination but not the abusing stepfather. Read more here.

Then, there's this:

One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use. It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences. The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.

Read the full story here.

Richard Dawkins was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying 'The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim'. Dawkins himself denies that he said that,

I did not say the Pope is "stupid, ignorant or dim" – I hope I would never say anything so repetitive. My exact words were "stupid, ignorant or wicked."

That's a bit more like it! (See Comment 3.)

With respect to the changes sought to the 1701 Act of Settlement, even the most committed of feminists would, I suggest, forgo the primacy of the eldest female child if it meant associating the UK more formally with the Vatican's extreme and idiotic misogyny. My vote goes against changes to the status quo until we have a married, female pope.

Labels: Act of Settlement, Catholics, Feminism, Pope, Primogeniture

posted by josh at 7:45 pm

 
The problems with Fitna

Several people have asked me to comment on Geerst Wilders's film Fitna, and the British refusal to allow his attendance at a private screening in the House of Lords. Before I do that, I'd like to say a bit about the position I come from. Firstly, I regard all religions as silly: I object to the way in which most religions are dogmatic about the 'truth' of their faith, in the face of lack of evidence. Secondly, I object to the way in which all religions are afforded an unjustified reverence in modern society. And thirdly, I think that, in addition to being silly, some are quite nasty. These views illuminate my position on Wilders's film.

I have had some experience of Mohammedanism, the religion criticised in Fitna. I was in New York, just a few doors away from Salman Rushdie's publishers, Viking Penguin, when the demonstrations about The Satanic Verses started. As soon as I had the opportunity, I went out and remonstrated with the demonstrators. There was no doubt in my mind about their bloodthirstiness. Later, I tried to attend public readings of the book by prominent Americans, but the crowds in support were too great.

I have to say that I think the US's reaction to the Rushdie affair was rather better than that in the UK: John le Carré's comments, for example, were totally pusillanimous. The general reaction among the British establishment seemed to be encapsulated in an unexpressed hope that either the Mohammedan aggressiveness, or Rushdie himself – or both - would simply go away. This reaction was mistaken. Something much stronger was required.

Over the years, Europe has absorbed large numbers of Mohammedans. Children born here have been indoctrinated and the ever-expanding population now causes growing difficulties for administrations. Governments have either modified laws (e.g. introducing religious protectionism in the UK), or ignored them (e.g. in failing to deal firmly with polygamy, honour killings, and female genital mutilation, again in the UK), in the interests of 'multiculturalism'. The problems implicit, for the essentially liberal West, in Mohammedanism, have been ignored for too long. As a consequence, the difficulty is all the greater now.

Given the cowardice of the main political parties, it now falls to the extremists, such as the British National Party, or 'phobes' such as the UK Independence Party, to speak antagonistically about Mohammedanism. The film Fitna, which I have seen, comes from a Dutch director who appears to have extreme views. However, I think he makes a valid point: Mohammedanism is indubitably a nasty religion; there is no getting away from it.

Fitna is not an artistic masterpiece, but Wilders is rightly critical of the Koran. I have read it and I find much of it distasteful. It may have been a sensible social manual for desert groups more than a thousand years ago but it isn't relevant in the 21st century. An easy example, beside those given by Wilders on violence, is to be found in Sura 4: it is derogatory about women, regarding them as an inferior species. This only goes to confirm the view, gleaned by listening to the experiences of women in 'newly liberated' countries like Iraq, that Mohammedanism is a male-power thing. For that alone, it must be considered nasty: the overthrow of Saddam put the plight of Iraqi women back seventy years.

It is a pity that Wilders has been prevented from appearing in the UK. I think his visit could have done a lot of good. Our politicians are frightened of opposing this nasty group; when Mohammedans like Iqbal Sacranie, who advocated Rushdie's death - "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him…" – and who is highly critical of homosexuality, find themselves ennobled, it's obvious that we've gone wrong somewhere.

Fitna is rightly critical of Mohammedanism; it is a nasty religion. We shouldn't be shooting the messenger, especially when he's a Netherlands MP, even if we do not agree with him wholeheartedly.

Labels: Fitna, Islam, Koran, Mohammedanism, Wilders

posted by josh at 10:28 am

 
Reflections on the UK's atheist bus campaign

People have had some time to get used to the idea of these buses. The upset, apart from a few dotty complaints, has been very mild. The very gentleness of the message is a point strongly in its favour.

With a campaign like this, it is important to establish in the public's mind that religion and belief are not sacrosanct and that they are fair game. Additionally, having achieved this, the advertisements, light-heartedly and non-dogmatically, make the point that it's quite acceptable to be a free-thinking non-believer.

Too often, religion gets a free ride; it seldom has to be justified. It is simply accepted. The atheist advertisement undermines this mindset both subtly and appropriately; the deliberate use of 'probably' in its explanation and an implicit exhortation to feel neither guilt nor fear contrasts strongly with most religious messages.

Since the Enlightenment, the 'God-given' nature of 'God' and religion has been increasingly questioned; this campaign continues the process. The tube campaign cards, which will appear shortly, also make the point carefully, without being confrontational. No-one could possibly take exception to Douglas Adams's lovely question 'Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'

Atheists spend too much time rehearsing and repeating the arguments among themselves; seldom do they do something important and strategic. Carefully argued books like Dawkins's The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell challenge the cosy position occupied by faith and religion. Faced with the arguments, many of the religiosi have shifted to ground where they no longer claim the literal truth of their religious books. Instead, they now talk about the metaphorical point of many of the stories. The bus – and other transport - campaign is an important step further forward; it keeps up the pressure on those who would promulgate faith, requiring them to justify themselves more than they've hitherto been expected to do. Watch out for further retreat into the world of metaphor and simile.

A prominent complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority comes from Stephen Green, the national director of Christian Voice. It includes the claim that the advertisements break the ASA’s codes on substantiation and truthfulness.

It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules. There is plenty of evidence for God, from people’s personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

This complaint can only help: either the ASA will rule the objection too trivial to consider – (Ariane Sherine has already checked out the 'probably' with the ASA and, in any case, one would have thought that if 'God' were half the person his acolytes claim, s/he/it could surely take care of him/it/herself) - or Green will be asked to substantiate his assertions. Whichever way things go – and the case being ruled 'beyond an earthly court's jurisdiction' being far more likely – the atheist campaign will benefit from yet more favourable publicity.

Labels: atheist bus, atheist bus campaign, freedom from religion, freethinking, UK atheist transport campaign

posted by josh at 10:45 am

 
God's wrath against sin

In June 2008, a blog article in The Guardian – arguably the best newspaper website in the blogWorld [I think he means blogcolon(y); see Wikipedia - Ed] - described a UK Christian advertising campaign, including a website reference, to bring religion, unbidden, to non-consenting citizens. The warning article, by Ariane Sherine, included the arresting comment

It seems you wait ages for a bus with an unsettling Bible quote, then two come along at once.

The slender rocket then carried on to describe one of the features of the associated Christian site, principally God's reaction to sin:

You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits) (Matthew 25: 41).

Her article then went on to propose an ingenious riposte. She argued that it would be possible to have free-thinking advertisements on buses, too. She reasoned

…you can buy a "bendy bus streetliner" for only £23,400 for two weeks. Which means that if there are 4,680 atheists reading this and we all contribute £5, it's possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Her campaign was an outstanding success and the necessary £23,400 was raised very quickly. The money hasn't stopped - if anything the flow has quickened - and currently the total is over £140,000. The buses are to be seen, not only in London, but all around the country. Other countries have followed suit. You can read more here. On the positive side, as Ariane puts it: 'You wait ages for an atheist bus, then 800 come along [all] at once.'

Australia, that bastion of freethinking has, however, banned their light-hearted version. What a shame! I think it worth pointing out that the City of Sydney subsidised a visit by the Pope last July, to the tune of at least $Aus40 million. As an Australian taxpayer, I object; by contrast, the banned Aussie 'Sleep in on Sunday' ads were financed by individual subscription. Grrr!

The UK campaign, having raised so much money, will also be extended in London:

From Monday January 12, 1,000 tube cards will run on London Underground featuring atheist quotations from Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, Emily Dickinson and Katharine Hepburn... alongside the original campaign slogan.

These quotes will be amusing, as well as thought-provoking. For example, the Emily Dickinson quote observes that because 'it will never come again is what makes life so sweet'.

An animated version of the slogan will also appear on two large LCD screens on Oxford Street (opposite Bond Street tube station), so that you can see the advert live without having to wait for an atheist bus. And, to thank all donors and show the strength of atheism in the UK, every ABC advertisement will contain the line "This advert was funded by public donations".

Ariane's soaring campaign may not change minds, but it may have several important effects. While, to many - atheists included - Richard Dawkins is a pain, he has made atheism more acceptable: someone had to start 'The Emperor has no clothes' ball rolling. The 'Get on with your life' message is likely to make free-thinkers of all persuasions less reluctant to talk about their irreligion: the religiosi ought to be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs; it is not for the rationalists among us to be disconcerted. My personal slogan: Religion: an activity for consenting adults in private sums the matter up and could, perhaps, be considered for inclusion on a bus poster...

This is unlikely to be the end of the dispute. On the one hand, the money is still pouring in; on the other, there have been complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. Stephen Green's complaint (he's the national director of Christian Voice) includes the claim that

the advertisements broke the ASA’s codes on substantiation and truthfulness. “It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules. There is plenty of evidence for God, from people’s personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.”

Ho hum! The polite response is to describe this statement as utter balderdash, but other, less polite, expressions also come to mind. Does Stephen Green perhaps lack a few glarneys among his marbles?

The best result might be to insist that religious ads include 'possibly' in their message, to match the 'probably' in atheist ads. A close second would, of course, be a ban on atheist advertisements and on those of a religious nature. This ban would include all signs, having the slightest religious content, outside religious establishments.

Labels: atheist bus, atheist bus campaign, freedom from religion, freethinking, The Guardian

posted by josh at 7:42 pm