Islamic Imperialism

I am sitting at my desk in Moscow, updating my filing, and listening via podcast to yesterday's interviews on the "Today" programme. For once, the BBC did a good job. The interviewer put questions directly to Omar Bakri Mohammed of al-Muhajiroun and elicited a clear statement of the Islamic view. Those who drew, published and republished the now-infamous cartoons should, he said, be tried under Islamic law and executed. Free speech does not apply to racists, even in our societies, and by analogy it should not extend to those who ridicule the prophet, Mohammed. He was gracious enough to add that the execution should be after due process of Sharia Law and that individual Muslims should not take matters into their own hands. Presumably a "fatwa" (legal opinion) from a suitable authority - a la Salman Rushdie - would constitute sufficient due process for him, but the interviewer did not pursue that point. I think he was embarrassed that the BBC's cosy line on Islam was being so comprehensively shattered.

Asked what should happen if the "offenders" were beyond the reach of Islamic law, he answered that we "live in a global" village and the countries concerned should "take the consequences". The Muslim world does not have to deal with them and "...you don't have to deal with us". In this, I agree with him. We have no right to complain about what is done in the Muslim world provided that it is in accordance with local laws and (where the countries have signed up to them) the UN Charter and other international treaties. That's one reason why my family and I no longer holiday there, as we did for many years. If I don't want to submit to Sharia Law, I should stay away from Sharia jurisdictions. I wish British Muslims understood the corollary of that.

The chairman of the Muslim League, Amr Moussa, was not quite so open but his comments did reveal that he is under the impression that anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and even criticism of Israel are illegal in the West. He seemed to think Islam was only asking for the same protections as Judaism and that we were being hypocritical in claiming the right of "free speech" in relation to Islam.

This is a perfect example of the indivisibility of freedom. Racism is stupid, ignorant and wrong. Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are stupid, ignorant and wrong, but it is a mistake for them to be illegal. If we suppress the expression of some opinions, however repellent and disgusting, we inevitably face demands for the suppression of other opinions. Before the game is over, none of us will be free. All of us will have to live to the standards of the most ignorant, extreme and hypersensitive amongst us. The Muslims in our countries have done us a favour by exposing our errors.

It is time to recognise that the "progressive" thinking of the past 30 years has been anything but. It has in fact been regressive and has lost us many of the gains of the Age of Enlightenment. Given the bloody nature of the 20th Century and the damage done by totalitarian "isms", perhaps it is understandable that we have fallen into these errors. However, it is well past time to recognise that we have over-corrected. It is time to restore full freedom of speech and to laugh at idiotic opinions rather than to fear them. If there are those amongst us who can't hack it in the rowdy bazaar of human thought, then let them find a country where only their ideas, rather than ideas in general, are sacred and leave us modern men in peace.

Doctors 'to report underage sex' | the Daily Mail

One characteristic of a police state is an expectation by the authorities that every loyal citizen will function as a policeman. British lawyers now have a duty to report their clients to the authorities (without "tipping off" the client) if they suspect a crime. British doctors and nurses are now to report their patients to the authorities if they believe they have been engaged in under-age sex. No doubt this duty will be extended in future. The effect in both cases is the same. People who need help and advice will be afraid to seek it. The message is clear; the relationship with the State takes priority over relationships of trust between professionals and those they serve.

Another characteristic of a police state is that the State takes priority over the family. One of the most chilling actions of the Soviet State was to make a Communist saint of Pavlik Morozov, a little boy who supposedly denounced his own father to the authorities. Every day a youngster went home wearing a Young Pioneers badge bearing Morozov's image, he was delivering a threat from the government to his parents. It is therefore interesting to note that Doctors are to be required not to inform the parents, who could then take their own decision in the interests of their child, but the authorities. If, God forbid, I had ever been in that position, I can imagine that I might have taken other steps to protect my child than involving the police.

Every day, little by little, Britain assumes more and more of the characteristics of a police state. A tipping point will be reached - perhaps it already has - when there is no going back.

Doctors 'to report underage sex' | the Daily Mail

Funny Feet

This is not just a very funny article. It is very clever indeed. Well done, Mr. Leith, and welcome to the campaign against predatory victimhood.

Telegraph | Opinion | Commentary

Matthew Parris Times Online

This is a brilliant article. It explains precisely why any attempt to defer to the super-sensitive in society is dangerous for us all. Freedom of speech is not a bourgeois indulgence or luxury, but a necessity.

I think the article also supports my view that all our attempts to defer politely to Islamic opinion is building up hidden resentments which will lead, one day, to violence. By avoiding a confrontation now, we are causing a much worse one later.

Opinion - Matthew Parris Times Online

Dangerous Times

I am very concerned about the BNP. I share none of its wicked ideas, but I can see it is intelligently led and positioning itself well to take advantage of a number of factors in its favour.

The Crown Prosecution Service is making a mistake in pursuing a retrial of the BNP's leader. There is little prospect of a conviction. The further prosecution only seems vindictive and will increase public sympathy for this odious man.

Few native Englishmen bred in our liberal traditions really feel, at an instinctive level, that it is right for the criminal law to interfere in political speech or thought. Many may feel that what Griffin said about Islam is, essentially, correct - or at least worthy of debate. They may not sympathise with his racism or anti-semitism, but they live in daily fear of Islam.

I am certain that no English jury will convict Griffin for saying that Islam is "a vicious, wicked faith", after seeing Islamists marching through London yesterday with such banners as "massacre those who insult the Prophet and "to hell with free speech". The marchers chanted threats of new terrorist attacks. Jury members will have seen a leader of the march calling through a megaphone for those who insult the prophet to be killed.

Incitement to murder seems more serious to most of us than incitement to religious or racial hatred.

The conditions are ripe for the growth of the Far Right in Britain and I fear that. There is a growing sense that Muslims are not held to the same standards of conduct as the rest of us, in Britain and abroad. Griffin says Islam is wicked and vicious. He is prosecuted. British Muslims call for "massacres". They are not. A barman fails to notice a black customer waiting to be served and he will be called a racist. The Muslims of the Janjaweed militia slaughter 300,000 black Africans in the Sudan and racism is not mentioned. European papers publish cartoons of Mohammed and Jack Straw condemns them. The press in the Muslim world routinely publishes viciously anti-semitic cartoons, without a word of comment.

I can imagine a scenario in which the BNP becomes a vehicle for popular protest against double standards which condemn almost everything the white population of Britain does, while excusing everything the Muslim population does. Nick Griffin may be elevated to the status of popular hero. The Crown Prosecution Service, staffed as it is by the weakest products of our law schools, may by its lack of judgement, set him well on the way.

Angry Muslims Stage London Protests

Look at the banners on the picture of Muslims protesting in London. "Massacre those who insult Islam" is legitimate freedom of speech apparently. I am prepared to buy that, but it seems a trifle hypocitical.

Angry Muslims Stage London Protests

Muhammad cartoon row intensifies

Have we not one newspaper editor with the testes to stand with our brave European friends? While we pass stupid laws to protect the delicate sensibilities of primitive fundamentalists, Continental editors are standing up for Western Civilisation.

Speak for England, Murdoch's gutless rabble! Publish and be damned!

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Muhammad cartoon row intensifies

Burning our money: Home Office Whelk Stall Fiasco

As Wat Tyler says, you couldn't make this stuff up. The public servant responsible for misplacing the best part of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money at the Home Office is sent to the Bank of England to be in charge of "financial stability".

If a great Department of State's accounts are "qualified", it seems to me that the least the Minister in question could do is resign. Not in this Government, it seems.

Burning our money: Home Office Whelk Stall Fiasco

Polly Toynbee: What's at stake is the right to insult and cause offence

I never thought I would say this, but Polly Toynbee is right.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Polly Toynbee: What's at stake is the right to insult and cause offence

Religious hate bill changes urged

A man arrives in Heaven and is given the orientation tour by Saint Peter. Muslims mix happily with Jews, Buddhists with Christians. The newcomer is most impressed. One thing puzzles him. A great wall runs the whole length of the place. "What's that for?" he asks. "Ah" says Saint Peter, "behind there are the Catholics. They like to think they are here on their own".

This is a classic Dave Allen joke. Does it insult or abuse Catholics? I doubt many of them would think so. As the popularity of Father Ted showed, most Catholics have a sense of humour. But if you changed the religions around and put the Muslims behind the wall? Would they take offence? Very probably. They certainly objected to a Danish cartoon showing Mohammed waving back suicide bombers from Heaven with the words "Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins".

My Dave Allen joke is a mild example. Modern humour tends to be more aggressive. I am thinking of an Emo Phillips gag with the punchline "Die, heretic, die!" for example. The point of that joke was to mock sectarian divisions and it is quite politically-correct, but other versions could certainly be seen as insulting or abusive.

The fact that such a discussion is even necessary ought to scare the Hell (no offence to Satanists intended) out of all of us. If the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was the end of habeas corpus in Britain, then the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill may prove to be the end of free speech. The bill is the result of a manifesto pledge designed to appease Muslim opinion.

Many British Muslims have historically voted Labour, but were thought likely not to do so because of Tony Blair's role in the Iraq War. So Labour promised them this little piece of Sharia Law to win back their support. You may say that's an unfair characterisation, because the law "protects" all religions, not just Islam. The fact is that other religions didn't want or need such "protection" and will be very unlikely to use it. British Muslims will have no hesitation in doing so. Every person who uses it will, in effect, reveal that he does not subscribe to the British way of life.

This bill, if passed, will make wicked, divisive law. It will alienate non-Muslims and increase racial tensions. It is the duty of every decent parliamentarian to vote against it tomorrow.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Religious hate bill changes urged

Tolerance vs. Victimhood.

Recent political events in Britain have made me think about the notion of "tolerance." Most Brits, asked to define "Britishness" would mention this quality. Having lived in other countries, I am not so sure we are entitled to lay claim to it. Most attempts to create a more tolerant society in Britain seem to lead to new forms of intolerance. I am beginning to think that puritanism is the real defining quality of Britishness.

Take sexuality. When I was a student politician, gay rights were a major issue. But they were an issue on which then twenty-somethings (now forty-somethings) were, and are, completely united. Gay people could no more choose to be straight than straights could choose to be gay. They were entitled to equal respect for their orientation. Society would be healthier if they were allowed to be open about their sexuality. All fine and tolerant. Two decades on, however, "homophobia" is an allegation made far more frequently than it was then. The bar has been raised. To be tolerant, one must now accept that primary school children should be taught about homosexuality. My wife recently met a young teacher who was emigrating to New Zealand because she didn't feel she should have to do that - and was being accused of "homophobia". To be tolerant one must denounce or even try to repress the ancient religions which - understandably - are not able to adapt what they believe to be the word of God, Allah or Whomever to current thinking. We have moved from tolerance to puritanical repression. We have just changed the target. Perhaps it is time to suggest that homosexuals will only truly become equal members of our society when they cease to see themselves as victims.

Take race. The recent unfortunate remarks of Sir Ian Blair have caused a debate. I visited, as I often do, the BBC's "Have your Say" pages on its news website to get a feel for the range of opinion. The comments posted by the public appeared to divide (as far as one can tell from the scant information about people posting comments) on racial lines. White Britain believes that it is discriminated against; that any black person who is attacked is the victim of racist violence, whereas any white victim is merely an unfortunate statistic. Person after person commented that, when an assailant was being hunted, the public could only tell if he was from an ethnic minority if his colour was not mentioned. Black and Asian posters, however, are convinced of entirely the opposite. Whatever else this means, it proves the races are not moving closer together. They are in separate social "silos" holding opinions which cannot be reconciled. Significantly, people of all races now seem to crave the all-important status of victim. Is that surprising? Government spending is systematically skewed, is it not, towards "the most vulnerable members of society?" That is clearly the team to be on.

Take education. My generation was and is, Right and Left, universally hostile to discrimination against the socially-disadvantaged. Those not lucky enough to afford private education should have the opportunity to attend the best universities. We still believe that, but - again - the envelope is being pushed. Truth to tell, there were more State school pupils at Oxbridge in the bad old days of grammar schools, because they gave access to a good education for talented members of the working class. Thatcher's cabinet had more State-educated members than Blair's for the same reason. Nothing has inhibited social mobility in Britain more than Comprehensive Schools. Nothing. Yet they have become, with the NHS, the second sacred cow of British politics. Before speaking about education every politician, from Right or Left, must begin with a ritual denunciation of "academic selection." As educational standards plummet, so politicians seek to force the universities to lower entry standards selectively so that my privately-educated daughters are openly required to achieve higher standards than pupils who went to the sink Comprehensive my wife and I attended. We have moved from being against discrimination to being in favour of discrimination - against someone else. We have moved, again, to reward "victims" so that victimhood becomes a desired status.

This cannot surely be right? If vulnerability is the new aristocracy, how likely is that to promote social and economic progress?

ITN Journalist arrested

Leaving aside for the moment the question of how "Black Information" differs from information, thanks to the "Black Information Network" for this story about Jean Charles de Menezes.

It seems three people are on police bail awaiting news of charges to be brought against them in connection with the case. Not those police officers, you understand, who held the defenceless and innocent Jean Charles down on a London Underground train and fired seven bullets into his head. Nor the two Blairs and a Clarke who ordered the illegal "shoot to kill" policy which was the ultimate cause of his death. Nor those whose negligence in commanding the police death squad was arguably the proximate cause. No-one actually involved in the killing has yet been charged. £100 says no-one ever will be.

No, those facing "justice" are a secretary, a journalist and a television producer. They are the people alleged to have brought to our screens a picture of Jean Charles lying on the train floor in his own blood. The picture was genuine and gave the lie to most of what we had been told about Jean-Charles' death. More than anything so far, it told the truth about the killing of an innocent man for which there was not even the merest scrap of an excuse. So, in effect, the three are on police bail for exposing official untruths.

What are we supposed to infer from this as to the priorities of our police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Black information Link:

'Sting' on middle-class drug use

Having moved in the course of my life from working-class ("educated" at a bog standard comprehensive; the first member of my family with a university degree) to, I suppose, middle class (member of a learned profession, send my offspring to a major public school) I am not much impressed with politics based on class. I saw no reason to despise me when I was a member of the working class. I see no reason to despise me now. I didn't think I should be discriminated against as a prole; I don't see why my children should be discriminated against now (as they undoubtedly are, on university admissions criteria - for example).

On average I thought the members of the working-classes I grew up with were more sensible and less likely to get carried away with daft ideas than the middle-class people I know now. But I can't work up an ideology from that generalisation. Both sets of people seem equally vulnerable to State pressure to modify their thinking - which is rather scary. Yeomen of England types who are resistant to such pressure seem to be in short supply.

Sir Ian Blair's class-based approach to policing therefore doesn't impress me any more than his race-based approach propounded earlier this week. I don't think either is heartfelt. I think he's just an appalling, unprincipled careerist, truffling for favours from his political masters; those well-known providers of drug money to the "most vulnerable" members of society.

There is, however, one member of the white, Oxbridge-educated, upper middle classes that I would like to see targetted by the Metropolitan Police. He is a man who issued illegal orders to his employees to "shoot to kill" in circumstances where those employees would have no defence to a charge of murder. He is a man who, when his employees killed an innocent man in execution of his orders, set about denigrating that innocent man in an attempt to justify his illegal actions. He is a man who, caught out in these actions, has not even had the decency to resign, let alone to turn himself in.

Unfortunately, any hope that this man may face justice is utterly vain. For, as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, he is the man who would have to give the order.

BBC NEWS | UK | 'Sting' on middle-class drug use

Met chief: Why the fuss over Soham murders?

Is there any chance that Sir Ian Blair might actually get around to some policing? We have enough politicians, surely?

Telegraph | News | Met chief: Why the fuss over Soham murders?

Hamas sweeps to election victory

The Palestinian people have spoken. No more can we fool ourselves that the brutal murderers of "Hamas" are untypical extremists. They speak for the Palestinians and the world must adapt its view on the Palestinian question to that fact. There is a widespread view in the Arab world that Iran is further along the path to a nuclear bomb than even the West fears. I suspect that has emboldened the Palestinians to spit on the peace process.

Israel, leaderless, faces dark choices and the world is a more dangerous place than before.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hamas sweeps to election victory

Google move 'black day' for China

What Google do in China is a matter for the Chinese. What worries me is what would they do if the British or US Governments asked them "for anti-terrorism reasons" (or whatever) to manipulate search results.

I guess I already know the answer. Lenin said that a capitalist would sell you the rope with which to hang him. It seems that in this respect, if no other, he was right.

For a company with the motto "do no evil", this is not a good day. Anyone know how to fix Safari so that the search window takes me somewhere other than Google - somewhere not involved in keeping the truth from a quarter of mankind?

BBC NEWS | Technology | Google move 'black day' for China

The Celtic canary in the UK's coal mine

The Telegraph's opinion piece on Scotland this morning might make beleaguered English taxpayers smile, but it shouldn't. Scotland's population is declining. Its Socialist paradise needs immigrants. The Telegraph explains that its demographic time bomb is at the point where Bond film directors make the countdown timer a key part of the action and asks:

"Where are the immigrants going to come from? The birth rate is falling everywhere but the pre-modern world, ie, Africa and large swaths of Islam. Assuming that a talented Indian wished to leave his own land, which has the fastest-growing middle class in the world, why would he eschew America or Australia in order to go to Aberdeen and spend his working life supporting the elderly unsackable hordes of superfluous primary-school teachers?"

If the leader writer assumes the Scots care, he is wrong. The English will support those people for them. Failing that, they expect the Germans and Austrians to do so, via the EU. The one nation they don't plan to support them is Scotland.

Telegraph | Opinion | The Celtic canary in the UK's coal mine

Death to the Scottish Raj

As long as the Act of Union remains in force, we have no basis to complain about being ruled by Scots, as illustrated here (hat tip to Drinking from Home).

Scotland is now a voter farm for Socialism. Some estimate that half its population are clients of the Welfare State; whether living on benefits, dishing them out or administering other State organs of the British Peoples' Republic. Is it any wonder that the Scots are more political? Most of them are more likely to catch a glimpse of the Loch Ness monster than they are of private sector production. For most countrymen of Adam Smith the wealth of their nation is now more likely to come from the British Treasury than the invisible hand of the market.

The English naively focus on wealth generation only to watch the fruits of their labours baked into ever more unsavoury Socialist pies by Scottish chefs. More than half of mankind lived under Socialism in the 20th Century. Everywhere it was tried it failed. Where men are not led by the invisible hand, they must eventually be coerced by State power. The growth of such power in Britain is no accident, but the necessary consequence of the Socialism imposed and led by the Celtic fringe.

It is time to accept that the Act of Union has failed. Let England quit the United Kingdom (and with it the EU of which the UK is a member). Let the English people drive their oppressors north of Hadrian's Wall. Let the Scottish people teach us Socialism by making it work within their own boundaries - and good luck to them.

Drinking From Home: The Scottish Raj

Oaten resigns over rent boy claim

It seems that God has a sense of humour after all. The po-faced puritans of the Liberal Democrats knifed cheerful Charlie in the back over his drinking, only to have the Party's Homo Home Affairs spokesman resign from the leadership race over a sex scandal. Brilliant!

BBC NEWS | Politics | Oaten resigns over rent boy claim

Fate of 'stressed' whale lies in the balance

Watching the British satellite coverage of this whale story from Russia has been almost as weird as watching the aftermath of Princess Diana's death. Whatever happened to the stiff upper lip and rational detachment for which the English were once known around the world?

It was obvious this whale was sick and disoriented. Non-English experts were saying yesterday that it should be left in peace to die. The British popular media, however, were crying out for the whale to be "saved". So to appease the ignorant, the poor creature was tormented in its final hours.

This contemptible semi-educated sentimentality is what passes for compassion in "caring" post-Thatcher Britain; it's about as genuine as a politician's conscience.

Telegraph | News | Fate of 'stressed' whale lies in the balance

Something smells very fishy about the 'Leo kidnap plot'

As I said earlier. This is a very good piece by Tom Utley, making a serious point in a light-hearted way. Manipulation of (or conspiracy with) the news media is not the hallmark of good democratic government.

Telegraph | Opinion | Something smells very fishy about the 'Leo kidnap plot'

Kelly announces tighter controls on sex offenders

Our government is entirely without principles or backbone. The witch hunt over paedophiles has uncovered what, exactly? One middle-aged man who fell in love a with a 15 year 25 years ago, married her when she was of age and stayed with her for 19 years, raising three children. This hapless, perhaps misguided, soul was the origin of the foul tabloid hue and cry.

Now the Minister announced that there are precisely 10 further people on the sex offenders register cleared to teach. None of them are currently working in schools. So no story then. Just emotional claptrap. Yet did the Minister stand by what seemed to be perfectly rational procedures? No, she caved in to tabloid pressure.

Meanwhile, having had their pictures and names published, some sad specimens of humanity who constitute precisely no threat to anyone are in need of police protection from a baying mob of ignorant and emotional chavs.

One of the names published was that of a former colleague of my wife. We know his sad story. He is no threat to children and was an excellent teacher. Falsely accused, he had no backing from an employer and a trade union anxious not to be thought to defend a supposed pervert. He accepted a caution, rather than be dragged through the courts to the distress of his family. That was supposed to be the end of it. Not now. His life may be in danger. Where is the justice in that?

Last June the papers carried the story of an exuberant and perhaps drunken young man accused of patting a girl's behind in a nightclub. She objected and the police were called. Anxious to bring an embarrassing (and frankly entirely unnecessary) incident to an end, he accepted a caution - only to find that meant being placed on the sex offenders' register.

One thing is clear. No innocent person should ever submit to a caution for anything. Faced with a police officer who tells you that will be the end of it, tell him to "prosecute and be damned."

Telegraph | News | Kelly announces tighter controls on sex offenders

Menezes shooting probe completed | the Daily Mail

One wonders how the IPCC can have properly investigated this case without interviewing the Metropoliitan Police Commissioner, the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. It seems that the "shoot to kill" policy (which could only have been legalised by Parliament enacting, in effect, a new defence to murder) was endorsed by all three.

Government does not make the laws; Parliament does. True, it has pretty much done what it was told in recent years, but this time it was not even asked for its rubber stamp.

If the policemen who killed Jean Charles de Menezes are to be charged, then they should not stand in the dock alone. They killed him on standing orders from above. Orders from a gang boss are no excuse for the actions of a hit man, but the gang boss is responsible too.

Menezes shooting probe completed | the Daily Mail

Pair face death penalty over student's murder

Personally, as long as all defendants have a right to representation and a fair trial, I have no problem with the death penalty in suitably serious cases. So much for libertarians being soft on crime.

However, this Thai case smells badly.

The outcome is far too convenient for the Thai government and tourist industry, it seems to turn on a confession, albeit then supported by (untested by the defence) DNA evidence. The trial lasted less than a day.

The defendants pleaded guilty (which almost never happens in murder trials) and the only logical reason for them to do so was the prospect of clemency. Now they are to be executed. As Tony Soprano would say, what the ****?

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pair face death penalty over student's murder

Police aware of 'Leo kidnap plot'

I don't believe a word of this story. It breaks in the still-New Labour Murdoch media; presents opportunities for "our glorious leader" to be shown repeatedly on news bulletins with his much-exploited children, and conveniently trashes the name of a protest group which has repeatedly embarrassed the Government.

It is all just too convenient. What on earth was the anti-terrorist squad doing investigating men who dress up in silly costumes to protest being denied access to their children? What next? The Women's Institute? The Church of England?

Why is our press so damned gullible?

BBC NEWS | UK | Police aware of 'Leo kidnap plot'

Thieves no longer have to appear in court

If sentencing is put into the hands of police and prosecutors, plea bargaining will begin on arrest. "Do you want to put your hands up for [lesser crime], in which case I can offer you [sentence A], or shall we prosecute you for [greater crime] and risk [sentence B]?" will become a more common question in Britain than "What would you like to drink?"

If the policeman arresting you can influence your sentence, the temptation for him to take bribes will become even greater too. This is an undemocratic, illiberal and potentially corrupt proposal.

Telegraph | News | Thieves no longer have to appear in court

Comprehensively wrong

In explaining so clearly that academic selection helps social mobility, the Telegraph misses the point. I believe Labour loves comprehensive schools - which by any rational measure are a failure - precisely because they inhibit social mobility.

As a class-based socialist party, Labour needs intelligent working-class people to be prevented from advancing. It needs such people to be embittered, frustrated and open to left-wing ideology. It wants them to fail, because Labour is the losers' party.

Telegraph | Opinion | Comprehensively wrong

UKIP seeks out Conservative voters with domestic agenda

This is interesting. I am the certainly the kind of person UKIP is setting out to target. As well as being libertarian, I don't believe that Britain belongs in the European Union (although as a cosmopolitan expatriate whose friends are mainly continentals, I wish all the other member nations the best of luck with it).

I confess I was briefly a UKIP member, after resigning from the Conservative Party in the wake of its shameful betrayal of Margaret Thatcher. Although I think it's unfair that the left-wing media lump it together with the BNP, I let my membership lapse because its internal publications suggested I was in, to put it mildly, some rather eccentric company. Like all single issue fanatics, UKIP members seemed to blame everything on their chosen focus of hate; in their case, the EU.

I am fairly sure UKIP will benefit from Cameron's apparent lurch to the left. It will be obvious to any reader that he is making me very uncomfortable and I am sure many liberal-minded, "small State", Conservatives feel the same. However, while we must argue our corner, I think we must also give him the benefit of the doubt. Tony Blair was so successful in convincing people that he was "Thatcher's true heir" that there are left-wingers in Labour who still hate him for it. This, despite the fact that his actions in government have been as Socialist as they could reasonably have hoped for. He has built the British State to unprecedented levels and criminalised class enemies to what should have been their heart's content.

There is a chance that, in a similar way, Cameron is "waving the Red Flag to oppose the Red Flag". I will reserve judgement until the New Tories come up with real policies. And while I will follow the Campbell-Bannerman policy review with interest, UKIP can whistle for my vote.

UKIP seeks out Conservative voters with domestic agenda
>> .:thebusinessonline.com:.

Who is this man?

Our NHS

It is very disappointing that David Cameron will not speak the truth about the National Health Service, Britain's centrally-planned Socialist medical system. There is no reason to suppose that Socialism works for health care any more than it does for any other productive endeavour. As someone who has experienced the tail end of socialised health care in Poland and Russia, I am certain it does not.

Two stories in my own recent experience, affecting a family member and a colleague, illustrate the point. The family member was called in for a knee operation this Christmas, having had problems for some time from a work-related injury. When opened up, the NHS surgeon decided it was more serious than he thought and did not proceed. As the patient came round, he was told by a nurse that the surgeon would come to explain. He then saw the surgeon walk by. The nurse stopped him and reminded him of the patient waiting. The surgeon, coat and backpack on, said impatiently "tomorrow". The patient was kept in pointlessly overnight (further ruining his Christmas) to be told that he needed an artificial knee joint; that these lasted only 10 years and that the NHS rationing policy was not to fit them to younger people as they would only need replacing. He could come back when he was 60. Asked about 15 years of pain and disability, he was told "we will give you painkillers." Naturally, my family member has decided to "go private" and we are looking into the possibility of flying him to Poland to get it done more cheaply.

The second story is in course of happening now. A colleague presented to hospital in Britain while on Christmas holiday, having injured a rib. She was in serious pain and concerned that somehow the injury might have affected her lung, having suffered last year from pneumonia. She asked for an x-ray and was curtly told - "That's for us to decide, not you". She was given painkillers and went home. Determined to return to work and encouraged by my comment that she would get better healthcare in Russia, she flew back. Presenting to a clinic today, having run out of painkillers and finding herself still in serious trouble, she was immediately x-rayed and told she has water on her lung and is in danger. The private clinic here is arranging urgent treatment. I have my fingers crossed for her. In one sense she should never have travelled to Russia in such a condition. On the other hand, had she relied on the NHS, I don't like to think what trouble she might have been in.

Socialism sucks. It has caused nothing but chaos, political opression and economic degeneration wherever it has been tried. No Conservative leader should be advocating it, in whatever circumstances, however limited. Far from being the "envy of the world", as Britons are brought up to believe, the NHS is a filthy Socialist shambles which is costing many British lives and impairing many more.

Cameron's defence of "our" NHS and promise to adhere to its founding principles is a farce.

Backpacker murder trial ends

Am I alone in finding this story strange? In Britain no-one pleads guilty to murder. The life sentence is mandatory, so there is no deal to be done. Even a one in a thousand chance of an acquittal is worth a try.

Not only did these defendants plead guilty, they seem to have been remarkably willing to tell the police the full story without hesitation. No evidence was presented in their defence, or even in mitigation. What kind of pressure would it take for someone meekly to submit in this way? The speedy arrest and conviction is suspiciously convenient for a Thai government keen to protect its damaged tourist industry.

In Thailand, maybe a defendant can escape the death sentence by pleading guilty? If so, and if the two convicted fishermen are not sentenced to death next Wednesday, then maybe the story makes sense. Otherwise, one has to wonder at the level of remorse required for these men to act against their survival instincts. Not to mention the impressive friendship required for each of them not, as any British chav would have done, to accuse the other of commiting rape and murder while he looked on in horror.

Telegraph | News | Backpacker murder trial ends

Telegraph | News | Unruly home owners face eviction

Whatever happened to "an Englishman's home is his castle?"

Once again, the ladies and gentlemen of the press are missing the point. They may think "who cares if a yob is punished?" but they fail to understand what it means that these punishments are summary - i.e. without trial. This means a policeman or social worker can expel you from your house or send you for parenting classes because he or she *says* you are a yob. It will be up to you to prove otherwise, if you dare to make something of it.

There is always a danger that police and social workers will concentrate their fire on respectable people. Why? Because such people have something to lose and are therefore prepared to cooperate. The members of the underclass are too much like hard work and, often, too dangerous.

With the burden of proof turned against the accused, many innocent people will have to take the parenting classes or suffer the punishment rather than incur the expense of going to court - just as many now reluctantly submit to driver re-education to save points on their licence. Our society loses because the more respectable we are, the more we must fear offending a policeman or social worker. The less respectable we are, the more we can spit in their eye. That situation, whatever headlines Blair is winning today, is unlikely to lead to more "respect" in British society.

Two fellow-solicitors of my acquaintance suffered the stress and indignity of fighting for months to win back custody of their children because they were falsely accused of child abuse. The social workers were all over them precisely because they were white, middle class, highly-paid members of a respectable profession. They were clean, polite and pleasant to deal with. Everyone wanted that job. Compare and contrast with the case of Victoria Climbie. No-one in Social Services wanted to handle that case, for fear of being accused of harassing "vulnerable members of society".

All the new powers being given to the authorities have already led to a situation where I would be afraid to tell a policeman that he was out of order. If I annoy him, he has summary powers he can use against me which can make my life difficult and cost me money to deal with. 25 years ago, I asked for the badge number of a belligerent Yorkshire traffic cop with a bad attitude and a serious case of car envy. I threatened to call his Chief Constable. He backed down. I wouldn't dare do it now.

A society in which the people are afraid of their "public servants" is a police state. It is a smaller step than we all want to believe from where Tony Blair has brought us in the last decade, to the streets of Moscow in the days of Beria and his "flower game".

My advice to you is don't upset any policemen or social workers. If you live near one, move away. And don't be surprised when giving public servants these powers leads to corruption.

Telegraph | News | Unruly home owners face eviction

Tories to rule out new grammars

If Cameron's Conservatives win, how exactly will Britain be different?

As a victim of comprehensive education, I am inclined to see attitudes to selection in education as a key "sanity test" for politicians. In no other country in which I have lived can anyone comprehend Britain's Marxist approach to the issue. No policy is more damaging, both to individuals and to the nation's competitive position. The sheer waste of talent is incredible. No nation can hope to compete as a high wage economy if most of its intelligent young people have no access to decent education.

If education is to be tailored to academic ability, ability must be tested. If you disagree with this proposition, you are an ideologue not an educator.

BBC NEWS | Education | Tories to rule out new grammars

Telegraph | News | No identity card? You could be fined £2,500

One might ask, given the supposed benefits to citizens of the new ID Card/National Database system, why large fines are needed to enforce them. If the system will be as wonderful as Ministers say, perhaps the Government should pay compensation of £2,500 to those not lucky enough to enjoy the benefits?

Telegraph | News | No identity card? You could be fined £2,500

ABD

The Russian holidays are coming to an end and I have been luxuriating in my leisure. Browsing the web for things that interest me, I came across this little satirical piece on the Association of British Drivers website. Enjoy.

ABD

Melanie Phillips's Diary

Melanie Phillips is not my kind of person. She is not libertarian, or even liberal, by nature. Like most British journalists, she cannot usually distinguish between having and mandating an opinion.

On this occasion however, she makes a telling point. We all know people like the Burtons. It's ironic they should be criticised on this occasion by the representatives of a Government which is riddled with them.

For a time, I was like them. At Kate Burton's age, I would have refused to cooperate with the authorities too. Come to that, there are many ways in which I would refuse to cooperate now. After all, giving information to intelligence services with a black record of twisting it for political ends is not an obvious thing for an intelligent Briton to do.

At Kate's age, I sympathised with the Palestinians. I was suspended from school for selling "Free Palestine" (the Al Fatah newspaper) on school grounds. I remember the worst thing about being a supporter of the Palestinians was the company one kept. Fascists, anti-semites, primitive Middle Eastern rulers, communists - those of every foul persuasion were to be found lined up behind them. It made me feel increasingly uneasy. But I was too young to understand the importance of such feelings.

I retained some sympathy for the Palestinian cause until 9/11 when they made perfectly clear on the streets that they have lost because they are lost. Injustice is not a licence to be foul. It is a test of humanity. The Palestinians failed.

While we can debate the rights and wrongs of the foundation of Israel, it is a better nation than the Palestinians or their black band of supporters would ever have built. Israel exists, it is democratic, it is friendly and its people are instinctively on the right side of every international debate. Two wrongs do not make a right, but neither do three.

Melanie Phillips's Diary

Political Correctness kills

My blog is subtitled "the death of liberty", but it could just as easily read "the death of truth". Here is a good example.

Stephen Pollard %u2022 PC kills

Sex for visas: the Brazilian girls only had to smile and lean forward

No-one with experience of the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe (or memories of pre-Thatcher Britain) will be surprised by these stories. If valuable privileges can be given or witheld by officials, corruption is inevitable.

In 1970's London, developers could wait months for telephone connections to their new office buildings, or they could pay off the Post Office engineers. The choice was to lose hundreds of thousands in rent, or tens of thousands in bribes.

When we lived in Poland, the police threatened to strike for higher pay. The government chose instead to give them discretion over the amount of fines, depending on the value of the car. Stopped for speeding in your Mercedes you were inevitably offered the choice of being fined as a FIAT, if you would just dispense with the receipt.

In today's Moscow every time-saving illegal turn in a city jammed with traffic has a price. Wind the window down, hold the banknote out for the policeman and he will deftly snatch it; you don't even need to stop. I am told you can buy "season tickets", priced according to the laws you want to break.

I predict there will be more and more such stories in Britain as Blair's New Labour and now, sadly, Cameron's New New Labour, take us further down the path of an over-mighty State. Every time we assume the moral superiority of the State; every time we propose new regulation so that its guardians can prevent this or that abuse, we need to ask Juvenal's ancient question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Telegraph | News | Sex for visas: the Brazilian girls only had to smile and lean forward

World dispatch | A failure of purpose

This little article expresses gently, in Guardian-speak, what I have thought for years about aid to Africa. Bob Geldof and Bono get off on their sense of saintliness, but they - and the 40,000 western agencies now condescending to Africans with funds garnered from the well-meaning and guilt-ridden - are doing active damage. All the money spent has not improved the situation at all - except for the thieving dictators.

Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | A failure of purpose

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2006

John Brockman, the New York-based literary agent and publisher of The Edge website posed the question: what is your dangerous idea? The essays submitted in response by academics and thinkers make fascinating reading. My favourite is from Daniel Gilbert, a psychologist at Harvard University, who said that it is a dangerous idea that ideas can be dangerous;

"Dangerous does not mean exciting or bold. It means likely to cause great harm. The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea: The idea that ideas can be dangerous. We live in a world in which people are beheaded, imprisoned, demoted, and censured simply because they have opened their mouths, flapped their lips, and vibrated some air. Yes, those vibrations can make us feel sad or stupid or alienated. Tough shit. That's the price of admission to the marketplace of ideas. Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we're in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it's time to make a run for the fence."

I wish I had said that.

Lennon beats Beatles in song poll

I was there when the Beatles were new. As a small boy, I nagged for Beatles wallpaper and had my own copy of "She Loves You." In the school playground, we divided over whether our favourite Beatle was Paul or John as easily as the boys divided into Liverpool and Everton fans. My favourite was, and is, John.

There is no doubt John Lennon was a great songwriter. In his way he changed the world. There is something rather sad, however, about his "Imagine" topping the poll as the "Nation's favourite song". Think about it. The lyrics are ridiculous. A multimillionaire urging us to "imagine no possessions" even as he acquired an entire apartment building in New York, piece by piece, to give him space and privacy. The same multimillionaire who had urged us to "give peace a chance" even as he funded the IRA's terrorist campaign.

John had talent, but he was not very bright. In the 1930's, perhaps idealistic socialism was justifiable. But by the time "Imagine" was written, more than half of mankind was living under socialist regimes of various kinds. It was the largest political experiment in history, and the empirical evidence was clear that socialism sucked. People were prepared to risk the Berlin Wall death run or to face Carribean sharks to escape it. If the Berlin Wall had fallen down, there was no doubt which way the human tide would flow. Lennon was either exploiting the naievity of his young audience (including me) or he was stupid. I would prefer to think he was stupid.

That we still fall for this nonsense, decades on, does not fill me with hope for our immediate political prospects. A nation of dreamers will lead us all into a nightmare.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Lennon beats Beatles in song poll

Restore trust in crime figures, urges watchdog

How many times can one Government be caught lying before paying the democratic price?

The Statistics Commission cagily observes that Home Office presentation of crime figures "...creates an environment in which the media and the public assume they are receiving a filtered, government-friendly version of the truth, even though the statistical message may not be either of these things.."

"Creates an environment?" Yeah, right.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Restore trust in crime figures, urges watchdog

Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in coordinated exposé of UK government lie

Help us beat the British government's gagging order by mirroring this information on your own site or blog!

Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?"

"Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this clear... the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use."

- Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, election hustings, Blackburn, April 2005

"I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture... On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood."

- Ambassador Craig Murray, memo to the Foreign Office, July 2004

With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition, the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign torturers.

The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig Murray remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

Craig Murray is refusing to do this. Instead, the documents are today being published simultaneously on blogs all around the world.

The first document contains the text of several telegrams that Craig Murray sent back to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that the information being passed on by the Uzbek security services was torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was nonetheless "useful".

The second document is the text of a legal opinion from the Foreign Office's Michael Wood, arguing that the use by intelligence services of information extracted through torture does not constitute a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Craig Murray says:

In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkent specifically for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. I was told specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtain and to use intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers.

After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minute from Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that has become public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutable evidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I was attempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is trying to suppress this.

First document: Confidential letters from Uzbekistan

Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts

16 September 02

SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY

US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.

DETAIL

The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.

Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.

This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.

Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.

MURRAY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent
To FCO

18 March 2003

SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY

1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL

2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).

6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
MURRAY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3

CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT
TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04

INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK

SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

SUMMARY

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL

4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights." While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguing that it is legal to use information extracted under torture:

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor

Date: 13 March 2003

CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD

Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.

[signed]

M C Wood
Legal Adviser

Telegraph | Opinion | It's official: Britain is run by bureaucrats

The Telegraph dare not mention the other costs of bureaucrats. To my personal knowledge, some Health & Safety inspectors demand money not to close down construction sites. Fail to pay and some imagined infringement will be found. I know someone who is thinking of closing down his small business because he can't sustain those bribes.

Massive discretion in the use of enforcement powers is likely to lead to such abuse. For example, if the competition authorities launch a "dawn raid" on a business they will, among other things, seize the company's computers to search them for evidence. That is enough to put most companies out of business, guilty or not. In dealing with the bureaucrats who wield such power, companies are well advised to be craven and subservient.

Function creep is another cost. You now need planning permission to change your window frames in Britain. How can that conceivably be of interest to the State? It isn't, but it creates non-jobs. I wrote to my local council more than two months ago about installing Continental-style security shutters on my ground floor windows and doors (following an incident I blogged about, in which intruders frightened my wife). So far, I have received only an acknowledgement and a promise that "an officer will be in contact". The windows in question are not even overlooked. They are of no interest to my neighbours. I am reduced from being an Englishman in his castle, to a supplicant of the State.

Margaret Thatcher's programme of council house sales was largely driven by tenants' desires to have choices about their own homes. They were misled. Under Labour, we have about as much freedom in such matters as if we all lived in 1970's council houses. The only difference is that we have put up our own capital for the privilege.

Telegraph | Opinion | It's official: Britain is run by bureaucrats

Waiting for real aid

Mark Steyn says most things so well that I wonder why I bother to blog at all.

Waiting for real aid - Commentary- The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Met home page

Can I be the only person who has noticed that the Met website offers only two choices under "Report a Crime"? The first is "Hate crime" and the second is "Non-emergency"!

So is anything that is not a thought crime now not an emergency? Being murdered by someone who quite likes you, for example? Or by someone of the same race and/or sexual orientation? Is being hurt by someone who hates you for your race or sexual orientation really so much more painful than being hurt by someone who just doesn't like your face? Or is the Met simply signalling submissiveness to its political masters?

Only a few days to go before the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gives the boys in blue discretion to arrest us for virtually anything. I have always believed most policemen were decent, well-meaning sorts. Now my freedom, at least when visiting my home country, depends on that being true.

Metropolitan Police Service - Homepage

Independent Online Edition > Transport

What Stalin would have given for such power, eh?

Independent Online Edition > Transport

A Blogger's Christmas

The season of goodwill is upon us. It is not an easy time for a political blogger. All year we make sour comments on the world’s evils. They are many, but they are not the whole story.

Perhaps the least appropriate question posed on TV this Christmas, is “The Tsunami – where was God?” One does not have to be a practising Christian to answer that He was to be found in the kind hearts moved to help the victims. Nor does one have to be religious to feel that the Devil was in the heart of local officials who levied “taxes” of various kinds on the West’s generosity.

Our television news programmes have been as trivial as ever, but at least this week there was good news. The story of 700 "gay weddings" is touching, not only for the spirit of tolerance so different from my not-so-distant youth, but also for the evident craving to establish and celebrate stable, loving relationships. God bless them, every one.

There are three more democracies than there were this time last year; all in poor, benighted Africa, the spiritual home of pessimism. This gleam of hope should not be overlooked. Old, jaded democracies have politicians self-serving in inverse proportion to voter turnout, but there are new democracies emerging. We should pause a second from our critique to wish them well.

It is also very easy to be cynical about Iraq. George W. Bush has made many mistakes, that’s true. His planning was poor and his political analysis naive. However, the idea that it’s “all about oil” is self-evidently ridiculous. If the Allies wanted oil, they could have simply ended sanctions. Saddam Hussein would have sold to them as willingly as to the French and Russian “businessmen” happily circumventing the UN regime their leaders so stoutly "defended".

If there is any justice in this sad world, we should hope the valour of our troops and the good intentions that sent them to Iraq meet with a reward their political leaders’ incompetence does not deserve.

And if nothing else, the turn-out at Iraq's election should make all us old cynics ashamed. Iraqis evidently have more self-belief than the Guardianistas who thought them unready for a democracy that was "contrary to their traditions".

Of course there are some grounds for pessimism about the year to come. The quality of our mass media continues to be dispiriting. Analysis is as thin as it is partisan. Every story is spun to suit the supposed prejudices of the target audience. But the people are not as stupid as journalists or politicians think.

This week Mrs Paine served on an English jury. It was an excellent, cynicism-busting, experience. Twelve ordinary people, variously endowed with intelligence and wisdom, came together to do justice. They took it seriously. They did their best and justice was done, just as it has been for centuries. Those twelve random citizens were neither baying for blood, as Blunkett or the editor of the Daily Mail might expect, nor as anxious about the "causes of crime", as Blair or the editor of the Guardian might think. They just did their honest best. In 2006, our politicians could do worse than to follow their example. In the blessed spirit of Christmas, let’s hope they can succeed.

Merry Christmas to you all.

EU giveaway will cost taxpayer double

The great mystery of New Labour has been this; what would it take for a Minister to resign? Blair's administration has been characterised by a complete absence of shame, almost as much as by a complete absence of weapons of mass destruction.

The Prime Minister, it seems, either lied to us this week about the financial impact of his historic capitulation on the EU budget, or he misunderstood the scale of that capitulation by a factor of almost 100%. He is therefore a knave or a fool on an unparalleled scale. No Prime Minister cost his nation so much since Harold Wilson drunkenly conceded British North Sea oil fields to his Norwegian colleague at a meeting of European Socialists.

We only find this out because he committed lese majeste in failing to consult Gordon Brown before cutting the shameful deal. Now the Treasury is briefing against him. Their figures are no more to be trusted than his, to be fair, but this much is clear; he has dumped on Gordon Brown from an enormous height - leaving him to handle the consequences of the budget deal while, no doubt, Blair swans off to Brussels for his forty pieces of silver.

It is hard to feel sorry for our odious and miserable Chancellor, but today we must do the best we can. Blair's "legacy", as we might have expected, consists of spin and treachery, not reform.

Telegraph | News

'Time is ripe' for reviving constitution, say Britain's EU partners

Was there ever a less democratic body politic than the EU? The voters of two nations rejected the pompous and wordy draft constitution this year, yet here is the new president proposing to revive it.

All you need to know about the EU Constitution is that, while the US Constitution famously begins, "We, the people..." the EU version begins "His Majesty the King of the Belgians..."

Estimates suggest that Britons will have to pay as much as two pennies in the pound extra income tax to finance Tony Blair's betrayal of the nation over the EU budget. Let him call the British referendum on the EU Constitution today, so that we, the people of this United Kingdom can say what we think about the corrupt, barbarous conspiracy against the nations of the Third World that is the European Union.

Telegraph | News | 'Time is ripe' for reviving constitution, say Britain's EU partners

New powers to tackle unruly pupils | the Daily Mail

The only power needed is for a head teacher to expel, at his or her discretion, any pupil. If a given child's parents are not able to control his behaviour, they should have no legal right to force the school to accept him day after day.

The alternative, as the last thirty years have shown, is for other children in the school to lose their "right" to education.

New powers to tackle unruly pupils | the Daily Mail

Blair's return of EU rebate will force spending cuts at home

On the face of it, this story makes no sense. There is nothing for Britain in the deal. The French are laughing at our further gift to their pampered farmers. We already, before reducing the rebate, contributed five times as much to the EU as France.

Why would a British Prime Minister do this? He had a veto right. He could have used it. Who in Britain would care that the EU was not able to agree a budget? He would have been very popular, in fact. His successor will now have to make cuts in British public spending (or raise taxes) to fund the additional payments to Brussels. Either could cost Labour the next election. Economically and politically, there was no reason to do this.

If a story makes no sense there is always an unknown factor. Perhaps it is this; Mr Blair is scheduled to retire before the end of this Parliament. He has already said he will not serve in the House of Lords. Who will take a £100 bet that Mr Blair is offered a prestigious role in Brussels?

Telegraph | News | Blair's return of EU rebate will force spending cuts at home

'High turnout' in Iraqi election

If one could type through clenched teeth, this is what it would look like. The high turnout - among both Shia and Sunni - in Iraq is a vindication of the Allies' efforts. The pro-insurgent BBC, which famously won't apply the word "terrorist" to Muslims, even those who bombed the London Underground, struggles here to acknowledge good news. There is none of the relish to its reporting that has accompanied every failure, setback and Allied casualty in Iraq.

There is no doubt we were misled into war by Bush and Blair. There is no doubt that they were monumentally incompetent in planning to win the peace. It is clear that the Rumsfeld approach of committing the minimum number of troops has cost lives. Perhaps it is also true that the war was unjustified. Saddam Hussein, barbarian scumbag though he is, posed no threat to anyone but his hapless people. But having made all those mistakes, the Allied forces have worked hard to achieve positive results. Thanks to their gallantry, Bush and Blair have done good by accident.

If the BBC's thesis that the Iraqis did not want democracy were true, this story would make no sense. Neither Britain nor America can hope for such high turnouts in elections. If they had such enthusiastic voters, one wonders how long Bush or Blair could survive.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'High turnout' in Iraqi election

Blair defiant on education plans

What kind of idiot thinks "a return to academic selection" is a bad idea? Would you ask every child to wear the same size clothes? Would you ask every child to read the same books, listen to the same music or play the same sports? Would you treat every sick child with the same medicine? Why would it be different with their studies?

To get the maximum benefit from schooling, children need to work at a pace and a level consistent with their abilities. How do you do that without evaluating those abilities? That is all the 11-plus exam (or its equivalent in every civilised country) was ever designed to do. Having lived in ex-Communist countries, I can assure you they were never so daft, however Marxist they were in theory, as to destroy the educational opportunities of their working classes. But then they were never as Socialist as Britain is today.

To give children the same education regardless of ability is a waste of their time. To ask bright children to wait while slower ones keep up is boring. To ask slower ones to sit around while bright kids race ahead is just as boring. The "least able" (stupidest) member of our French class used to climb out of the window during our lessons. Who could blame him? He couldn't cope. Better that he ran away than disrupt our work. Better still that he spent the time learning something consistent with his abilities.

To ask anyone who has actually attended such a school to believe that any teacher is superhuman enough to tailor all lessons on an individual basis is about as plausible as the Marxist theories behind comprehensive education. To ask such a person to believe that streaming within a massive school full of bored anti-intellectuals (and that's just the teachers in many cases) can work as well as separate schools for academically-able and less able children is equally bizarre. Only someone as genuinely stupid as John Prescott, or as cut off from reality as Tony Blair can actually believe that.

Labour has only just succeeded in abolishing selection in Northern Ireland. That Province has enjoyed higher educational attainment because it retained grammar schools. What is Labour trying to do? Destroy embarrassing evidence?

Bright kids in comprehensives are under constant peer pressure not to progress. I was stoned by the ignorant chavs at mine, God rot them. If, like me, our hypocritical s.o.b. of a Prime Minister had actually attended a "bog standard comprehensive" (instead of Fettes, the "Scottish Eton") he would not hesitate openly to demand selection.

Every day I compare the marvellous education my children are getting at their private school and I regret all the time I wasted as a guinea pig for Marxist theory. We all suspect Blair's instincts on this are right. If "education, education, education" was ever more than a meaningless mantra to him, he should have the courage to let the Tories support him in genuine reform.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Blair defiant on education plans

Mobs riot again as Sydney race tensions explode

Friendly, liberal Australia is now suffering violent clashes between different ethnic groups. The media and Australian politicians have no hesitation in condemning white participants in those clashes as "racists" and "thugs" without considering whether they have legitimate grievances. The same commentators leap to the defence of Muslim Australians without even considering whether some of them may be to blame for the problems they are now experiencing. Isn't that knee-jerk reaction racist?

The liberties exported from Europe and further developed in the United States and elsewhere are everywhere under threat because of the barbarous actions of extremist Muslims. We have now had suicide attacks in London, street riots in France, a train bombing in Madrid, and - of course - the horrors of 9/ll. My most abiding memory of that day is of my horror at the celebrations on "the Arab street". What a large minority the "extremists" seemed to be.

Our media and politicians are quick to excuse, if not actually to justify, such actions because of the supposed alienation of Muslim communities. Thought pieces in the press invariably focus on what the rest of us can do to overcome that alienation. It is taken as read that the alienation is justified. It is also taken as read that no amount of alienation would justify similar conduct by the white community. Aren't the Guardianistas being racist in expecting a higher ethical standard from whites?

No-one ever seems to consider that a majority population can become alienated too. Australia, to the surprise of its leaders, seems to be proving the point. Of course, nothing can justify assaulting innocent individuals because they belong to a particular ethnic or religious group. If we applied that standard consistently, not least to Muslims, we might have less difficulty in explaining it to aggrieved Australians.

Telegraph | News | Mobs riot again as Sydney race tensions explode

Mocking idiots is no job for a grown-up

This country increasingly resembles China during the Cultural Revolution. Why is the story recounted in this obscure Telegraph opinion piece not headline news? What was the point of the police calling someone to say that her views had been "noted", if not political intimidation? What else are we to understand from the conviction of a protester for quietly reading out the names of our war dead in Iraq at the Cenotaph, but that we are not permitted contrary views?

David Cameron is good news for the image of the Conservative Party, but the jury is out on whether he will stop the rot in terms of free speech. The token Conservative on Andrew Marr's Sunday am yesterday, Giles Brandreth, was incongruously (for him) not wearing a tie - under orders from his leader. If Cameron is down to that level of detail, can there be doubt that he has also given orders as to the range of opinions to be expressed by his troops?

Telegraph | Opinion | Mocking idiots is no job for a grown-up

Police 'may be charged over tube shooting'

How could the police officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes NOT be charged? If the Crown Prosecution Service fails to do so, it will be clear that another "independent" arm of the British State has fallen under political control.

I feel sorry for the officers. They were given illegal orders and they probably acted on them in good faith. However, they have no available defence to a charge of murder. They were not provoked. They did not have reasonable cause to apprehend any danger to them or anyone around them, so there was no question of self defence. The innocent young man was carrying nothing that could have been a bomb and did nothing to make the police suspicious. It was a cock-up, apparently beginning with a surveillance officer taking a slash in the bushes when he should have been ID'ing the "suspect". He only saw de Menezes in his peripheral vision while otherwise engaged. His snap judgement at that moment, seems to have cost an innocent life.

The problem is that the killers are criminally responsible. Following orders was no excuse for them. They should have refused to fire. The real issue is the responsibility of those who gave them the orders. There is no legislative sanction for a shoot to kill policy. If we need one, Parliament must change the law. Therefore the orders given by the PM, the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the superior officers of the shooters were ALL illegal. They are as guilty as the poor schmoes in uniform who will take the rap. Who will charge them?

Telegraph | News | Police 'may be charged over tube shooting'

George Orwell estate to sue Government over breach of copyright

I love this!! Do visit and read it. Hat tip to "Attempting Escape" at http://attemptingescape.blogspot.com/

NHS may not treat smokers, drinkers or obese

This is fine, I guess, if the Government ensures that all taxes paid by the individuals concerned and applied to the NHS are repaid. By taxing them in the first place, the Government denied them the chance to make their own health care provision. To deny them treatment now is outrageous, unless they are given their money back to buy private service.

Personally, I would be more than happy to take up smoking or whatever if I could get back my taxes and pay for proper, non-socialised, health care myself.

Telegraph News NHS may not treat smokers, drinkers or obese

Extremists 'could take over our schools' | the Daily Mail

With great respect to the teachers' unions, extremists took over our schools over 30 years ago. Their communist doctrines of "one size fits all" education have blighted the lives of millions of people in Britain, causing a decline in literacy and numeracy which is - from the point of view of employers - quite startling.

As our schools have become unpleasant theatres of class war, the quality of those prepared to work in them has declined. At one point the head of modern languages at my old school was the class dunce at French in the year above me when I was there. The man could barely string a sentence together in his own language, and he was teaching French and supervising the work of other teachers.

We are losing our capacity to teach any subject which requires skills marketable elsewhere. Hence we are increasingly unable to provide science and language education at all. This is impairing the life chances of millions of students and destroying our economic competitiveness. Blair is right to try to take on the Leftist dinosaurs of education, and Cameron is right to back him.

In a well-run society, teachers are the most important and respected of all professionals, not whingeing unionised public-sector workers. The National Union of Teachers disgraces Britain's teachers by its very existence. let alone by its ludicrous and outdated pronouncements.

Extremists 'could take over our schools' | the Daily Mail

The Joy of Curmudgeonry: White with Loathing

Here is some advanced taurocoprology from my favourite blog. If I had not followed the links, I would have thought he was making it up.

The Joy of Curmudgeonry: White with Loathing