We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, has given an interview to the Telegraph which neatly puts on display the vast cultural gulf and complete lack of understanding on the Muslim side when they discuss how Muslim and Western cultures can learn from each other. Dr. Bari says…
“Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn’t say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists.”
The various global franchisees of Al Qaeda do the things they do precisely because of their interpretation of the values and imperatives of Islam. They are motivated 99% by religion and therefore they can only be correctly described as Muslim or Islamic terrorists. Describing them as ‘Asian’ as the BBC often does (as in “two Asian men were arrested today and held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act…”) is a grotesque bit of racism, because their race and ethnicity is utterly irrelevant to why they were arrested. They were arrested because they are suspected Muslim terrorists, not Asian terrorists.
The IRA on the other hand was a secular Marxist Irish nationalist paramilitary organisation that just happened to be drawn from the Catholic community. What they were not doing was trying impose Catholicism on anyone. They were trying to end British sovereignty in Ulster and make Ulster part of the Irish Republic, hence they were called ‘Republican’ terrorists…Being a Catholic but supporting the Union still made you an enemy of the IRA, as many people found to their cost. This is also why opposing paramilitary outfits like the UDA were usually called ‘Loyalists’ paramilitaries rather than ‘Protestant’. If anyone seriously thinks the Troubles in Ireland were a religious conflict, they have clearly not been paying attention. That Dr. Bari did not bother to figure this out suggests to me that like so many of his ilk, he cannot see the world through anything other than the distorting lens of religion.
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted, he says. “He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped.”
The ‘Satanic Verses’ should have been pulped by whom? I assume Dr. Bari means the State, in order to prevent ‘distress and discordance’. So if a large number of non-Muslim British people find the Koran causes them “distress and discordance”, as well it might, is Dr. Bari really wise to want the State to take upon itself the role of pulping books in order to sooth people’s distress and prevent discord?
According to a recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank, the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, stocks extremist literature.
“The bookshops are independent businesses,” he says. “We can’t just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?”
So he wants Rushdie’s book pulped but is quite sanguine about Islamic books calling for violence and hatred just so long as contrary Islamic views are also available. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others, eh Dr. Bari?
He says we should look favourably upon arranged marriages and learn from Islam by become less overtly sexual and more modest. Why exactly? I met many Bosnian ‘Muslims’ who had learned quite the opposite lesson and saw no reason not to wear miniskirts and enjoy their sexuality rather than becoming psycho-sexual cripples.
But when I read this bit, it became clear to me that Dr. Bari was not merely well meaning but wrong:
Is stoning ever justified? “It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,” he replies. “When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he said there should be four [witnesses] – in realistic terms that’s impossible. It’s a metaphor for disapproval.”
I see…
Don’t worry, dear, what we are about to do to you is just a metaphor It is pictures like that which fill my mind with homicidal rage. The Muslims depicted partially burying this Muslim woman, in preparation for her being stoned to death in accordance with the Koran, all deserve nothing less than a bullet in their brains, to be put down like rabid dogs. And when I hear people like Dr. Bari describing this practice as a “metaphor for disapproval” rather than a method of theocratic execution, my feelings towards him move from mere disagreement into transcendent loathing. Take a moment and really look at that fucking picture because that actually is how it is done: the victim is partially buried and then battered to death by having rocks thrown or dumped on them. According to Dr. Bari, if there were four witnesses, that is perfectly okay then. Try getting your head around that.
And so when a man who cannot bring himself to unequivocally condemn such barbarity tells us that we have anything whatsoever to learn from what he sees as Islam, it would be fair to say “I do not think so”. As I discovered in Bosnia in the 1990’s, being a Muslim and accepting the norms of western post-Enlightenment civilisation is entirely possible… ‘Muslim’ becomes more of an ethnic identity rather than a religious one, in which you just have to ignore large chunks of the Koran or ‘interpret’ them into something harmless (and face it, there are parts of the Old Testament most Christians prefer to gloss over too). The key is that the Bosnian Muslims became more and more secular (i.e. less religious), more western, the west did not become more like them.
That said I am sure you can be a practising Muslim and still embrace western modernity. I would be astounded if Tory MEP Syed Kamall, who is well and truly on the libertarian wing of his party, would have any problem whatsoever condemning stoning as a barbarous throwback regardless of how many witnesses there were to a woman’s infidelity. People like Syed have simply grafted many of the best bits of the European enlightenment onto their religion and as a result made themselves wholly compatible with any pluralistic tolerant society. Is it still Islam? Well I am sure Syed would say it is and I have no reason to doubt him.
But sadly the Pakistani and Saudi flavour of Islam that Dr. Bari is part of have done nothing of the sort and show no signs they actually want to embrace modernity at all. Their notions of Islam, which is clearly the most evangelical version of the religion, is a toxic political and philosophical creed that is simply incompatible with liberal modernity and Dr. Bari’s equivocation about stoning people to death tells you everything you need to know about where he is coming from intellectually.
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul seems to have attracted a lot of attention with his big fund-raising day, although Mark Steyn says that although he now has money his poll rating is still very low. If you don’t know what he looks and sounds like, watch him being interviewed by Jay Leno.
The most interesting thing I have encountered about Ron Paul is this, from Jonathan Wilde:
On the heels of the big fundraising day, I’ve noticed that a lot of people I know are declaring themselves Ron Paul supporters. Many of them are not just not libertarian. If anything, they’re big government advocates. They justify their support with vague statements like, “He’s shifting the landscape” or “The system needs to be shaken up”. I don’t think they have any idea what Paul actually stands for.
Maybe they will learn. I have long thought thought a way for libertarianism to spread will be when people get that it is a different sort of mischief they can make to the usual kind. This was surely the appeal of Marxism, while it had appeal. Now, the world is still full of Marxists but they keep quiet about it, and wrap it up as other things, like Greenery. Where’s the mischief in that? That won’t shake up the system. That is the system. But libertarianism is a kind of mischief making that dares to speak its name, and if done, would cause serious embarrassment to thousands of politicians and lobbyists and subsidy guzzlers.
Of course, much of Paul’s appeal is that he is mounting a non-left attack on US military involvement abroad. But if many are backing him because of that, they may also become acquainted with the notion that maybe seriously cutting back big government is something that a decent man could genuinely want to do. Paul wants to cut government spending on foreign wars, and rather than blowing what is ‘saved’ on schools and hospitals and other foolishnesses, he says: let the citizens keep their money.
I presume that Ron Paul has lots of domestic personal policy positions concerning how to get there from here, so to speak, as any serious political candidate must. I do know, because he said this to Leno, that he wants to phase out welfare addiction very gradually, rather than just cold turkey it, for example. But that makes sense (‘cold turkeying’ it might also make sense, I think, but what do I know?)
Important data on the meaning of curves and wiggles.
The UK authorities issued warnings of a freak rise in water levels in the North Sea yesterday, caused by a combination of tidal/atmospheric forces. There was a fear that flooding along the east coast of the UK – in places like the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts that are familiar to me – could be as bad as in 1953. Fortunately, some of those fears have abated, but not disappeared. The Thames Barrier flood defence has been put up. The warning was made in good time, so hopefully no lives are at risk. The report linked to here makes little mention of what the situation is on the other side of the North Sea, such as in the Netherlands. Odd.
Talk about the American off-year elections has been dominated by the Gubernatorial elections (victory for the Republicans in Mississippi – against a trial lawyer, victory for the Democrats in Kentucky – against an ‘ethically challenged’ Republican Governor) and by the onward march of the Democrats in the Washington D.C. suburbs of northern Virginia. And, of course, by the defeat of the voucher plan in Utah by the unions.
However, there is a another side to these elections – tax and spend is clearly not favoured by the voters.
For example, voters in Oregon voted down an increase in the cigarette tax in spite of the money being for more children’s health welfare. And voters in New Jersey voted down a proposal to borrow money for stem cell research. Children’s health welfare, and stem cell research – two poster issues for the left and they were defeated. And defeated in ‘Blue States’.
Also an election in the heartland of the United States caught my eye… the tax-and-spend Mayor Bart Peterson was defeated in Indianapolis by the almost unknown Republican Greg Ballard – in spite of Mr Peterson outspending Mr Ballard’s campaign some thirty to one (thanks to donations from politically connected business enterprises and so on) and the support of the usual suspects (the media and academia).
Message to Republicans:
If you really do oppose tax-and-spend (rather than just pretend to, whilst carrying on in your normal corrupt way) you can actually win in 2008.
Every investor/economic commentator will have their own pet theories of when or if a market is going to hit the wall and the economy slow down. You would have to have been living in the upper reaches of the Amazon not to have realised that the global economic situation is looking dicier than for many months, at least as far as the West is concerned (emerging markets like India are a different story). Well, I wonder whether this story, about a disappointing art auction, is a harbinger. In the late 1980s, art fetched incredible prices: Van Goghs and Monets went for previously unheard of prices. But in the early 1990s the market sank before recovering as the dotcom boom took hold.
There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
– Sam Harris, rebutting the daft charge that a denial of belief in the afterlife or a supreme being must open the doors to hell on earth.
Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but is there not a vast increase in taxation for the middle classes in HM Government’s legislative programme? Mysteriously it was one of those measures left out of the Queen’s Speech, but there it is, plainly, in the list of Bills:
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Would harmonise the upper earnings limit (UEL) for national insurance contributions with the higher rate income tax threshold. The UEL will rise in phases, to match the higher rate income tax threshold by April 2009. The measure would extend across the UK.
Since this will not be part of the Finance Bill, either, so not caught by the media feeding frenzy round The Budget, when will it be covered? But it is a rise in the marginal income tax rate for the employed middle classes of 10% (or 20% if you look at the impact on their employers wages bill, which really determines what they can get paid). Since there are no other details currently, who knows what other effects on other groups might be?
It is a classic example of the bureaucratic governmental stealth technique. Announce things nominally openly but in circumstances when you hope no-one will pay any attention. Execute them in silence, by stages, as if inevitable, to minimise resistance. If people later squawk at all, they can be told, “It was announced; there was a consultation; the vast majority of consultation responses were favourable; it went through parliament where there was an opportunity* for debate; it is now the democratically decided law.”
The only cure for this is media attention. Where are the Capitoline geese?
–
* Of course there is always opportunity for debate in Parliament, but since 1997 the Party has steadily, increasingly, chosen to restrict debate.
“The evidence is that when tariffs come down, tariff revenue tends to go up.”
– Peter Mandelson, EU trade commissioner, on why poor countries should liberalise trade
It is hard sometimes for someone who lives in what might be called the “Westminster village” to understand how monumentally boring are all the commentaries in the political press about Which Cabinet Minister is In and Who is the Favoured One of Gordon, etc. In the Daily Telegraph today, Rachel Sylvester ponders the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alisdair Darling, is a puppet of Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. Oh, the horror.
To be honest though, much that I despise this government, it seems to show a lack of historical perspective to complain about the sheer dominance of a Prime Minister over Treasury affairs. I have been reading Douglas Hurd’s rather good biography of Sir Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of the mid-19th Century. As premier, Peel delivered budgets himself rather than get his Chancellor to do so. The budgets, which overthrew the Corn Laws – a system of trade tariffs – split the Tories at the time between the old landed gentry (who wanted tariffs) and the ‘Peelites’ (who wanted laissez faire). But Peel was using his old prerogative as ‘First Lord of the Treasury’ as the Prime Minister is known, to take the lead in economic and financial affairs. In the late 1980s, the same happened when Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor of the time, tried and failed to persuade Mrs Thatcher to accede to his demand that Britain join the European exchange rate mechanism (we did eventually join it, and a right disaster that turned out to be).
Gordon Brown is guilty of many sins, but leading economic policy is not one of them. The problem is not the personnel, but the policies themselves. None of the major figures in the current government favour a more modest role for the state; everything else, my dears, is pure detail.
Only Musharraf could have made lawyers popular. No law, no liberty.
Further to my recent post about new measures from our Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Foreign readers may be surprised that we have a department for children schools and families (sic). I, on the other hand, am alarmed: even the name indicates the totalitarian intent of the New British state.
Prompted by a clip on TV news, I have now found the full text of Ed Balls’s speech given to the Fabian Society yesterday. Didn’t the resolution to announce new policy to parliament, not outside bodies – in this case a para-Party body – last a long time? It bears close reading:
Excerpt I:
Our ambition must be that all of our young people will continue in education or training.
That is what our Bill sets out to achieve – new rights for young people to take up opportunities for education and training, and the support they need to take up these opportunities; alongside new responsibilities for all young people – and a new partnership between young people and parents, schools and colleges, local government and employers. ….
But it is important to make clear that this is not a Bill to force young people to stay on at school or college full-time. They will be able to participate in a wide range of different ways through:
* full-time education, for example, at school or college
* work-based learning, such as an apprenticeship
* or one day a week part-time education or training, if they are employed, self-employed or volunteering more than 20 hours a week.
But the Education and Skills Bill is a bill of responsibilities as well as a bill of rights.
Because if young people fail to take up these opportunities, there will be a system of enforcement – very much a last resort – but necessary to strike the right balance between new rights and new responsibilities.
Phew – not necessarily locked up in schools then, but on probation otherwise (as will of course any employers be – they’ll have to have enhanced CRB checks, of course). This is enlightening as to what Mr Brown means when he talks about a Bill of Rights and Duties, “building upon existing rights and freedoms but not diluting them – but also make more explicit the responsibilities that implicitly accompany rights…”. It confirms what many listeners will have guessed: you have the right and freedom to do exactly what the big G tells you to. This is the traditional line of Calvinism and Islam, is it not?
Don’t you love that “our young people”? Völkisch, nicht wahr?
Excerpt II:
The second building block [after mucking around with exams and the curriculum some more – GH] is advice and guidance – so that young people know and understand what is out there, and can be confident that they can make choices that will work for them.
First, this means local authorities taking clear responsibility for advice and guidance as part of the integrated support they offer to young people – making sure that youth services, Connexions and others who provide personal support to young people come together in a coherent way.
Second, clear new national standards for advice and guidance.
Last week my colleague Beverley Hughes set out clearly what we expect of local authorities as they take responsibility for the services provided by Connexions.
Third, a new local area prospectus available online, already available from this September in every area – setting out the full range of opportunities available, so that young people can see the choices available to them clearly in one place.
So not only will whether you do something state-approved be checked, but what you do will be subject to state advice and monitoring and made from a menu provided by the state. For the uninitiated Connexions is a formerly semi-independent, and notionally voluntary, database surveillance scheme for teenagers set up under the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
