Guantanamo Bay

It seems that the US government has finally realised that holding "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay for an indefinite period might not be such a good idea in the continuing War on Terror. The US justice system has not been cooperating and this has made the situation rather embarrasing for the administration. Unfortunately the solution which the Pentagon wants to implement doesn't seem to have the approval of the courts either.

The BBC report that a US judge blocks Yemeni jail move
The Guardian says Guantánamo prisoners win transfer reprieve

It is not often that I say "Well done that judge!" but it seems appropriate here. I cannot comment about the conditions the detainee's might have faced in Yemen but I do have some knowledge of the Saudi security services (a marginal benefit of having relatives employed in the oil industry). It should go without saying but if you want to occupy the moral high ground you really ought to act in a way which is unquestionable correct. Sending these "enemy combatants", most of whom have never been found guilty of any crime, to countries where they may be tortured doesn't appear to be the best way to achieve this.

Religion in the UK

Atheism
I have to confess first of all that I am an atheist. I should clarify that by stating that I do not deny the possibility that some force or power outside of our knowledge created the universe. I accept this is a possibility. What I mean when I say I am an atheist is that I do not believe that a God exists who takes an interest in the lives of the human beings on our planet. The recent tsunami is a case in point; I cannot see how such a seemingly random event can be explained in a way which encompasses a God who cares about the people he has created. I don't base my opinions on complete ignorance; up to the age of 15 I attended an evangelical Christian church every Sunday (sometimes 3 times per day). I admit that I know only a little about Islam, Hinduism, and other religions. I have recently been reading the teachings of Bhudda which I find very interesting.

I do not claim to be in possession of the truth and I accept that others have different opinions which might be equally, or indeed more, valid than mine. I am happy to discuss religion with anyone and prepared to have my own beliefs challenged as long as I can question the beliefs of those who want to challenge mine. Now that you know what my outlook is I can go on to mention a couple of items of news I came across today.

In the News Today
First up, I see that the Guardian today is reporting Faith the issue as Blair courts Christians
Who said that where America goes the UK will follow? This makes me very uneasy. I don't think that religious beliefs and politics go well together. I was going to write that I didn't think this was appropriate in a secular society but I have genuinely started to doubt whether the UK is a secular society. If it isn't then I think it ought to be, especially given the multicultural nature of our population.

The other story, also from the Guardian, but also widely reported elsewhere is Christians take legal action against BBC
This is, of course, a story about BBC 2's broadcast of Jerry Springer: the Opera. I haven't seen it myself because:
a) I don't like Jerry Springer type programmes.
b) I don't like opera (yes, I am a cultural barbarian).
c) It didn't actually sound very interesting to me.
d) I don't watch that much TV anyway.

The organisation behind the legal action is called The Christian Institute and on their website is a Press Release called BBC to face the High Court following Jerry Springer opera
Even though the programme is not one I watched and I probably wouldn't have liked it if I had I can't help but defend the BBC. The members of The Christian Institute had the same option as I had. If you don't like it switch it off.

"The BBC has a duty to respect the religious beliefs of its viewers. The BBC has special privileges as a result of how it is funded." says Director of the institute, Colin Hart.
Is Mr Hart joking?
Look at this BBC page: Religion and Ethics prorammes on the BBC
As an atheist I find the amount of my money that the BBC spends on religious programming to be offensive to my beliefs (I'm serious, I really don't want kids seeing this stuff). I don't complain about it because I realise that other people hold different opinions and accept that they are entitled to them. When Songs of Praise is on every Sunday for example, I just have to switch it off.

If The Christian Institute is going to persist with it's campaign then I am going to start my own campaign to have all religious programming removed from the BBC schedules. Almost everyone I have asked agrees that such programmes are a waste of the license fee. I don't want to do this. I think the BBC should provide programmes of all types for all people. A tolerance of the beliefs of others is the key to a peaceful society. Mr Hart ought to try to remember that.

Please don't judge me a bad person just because I'm an atheist. I don't judge anyone a bad person just because they have strong religious beliefs.

Diary Post 4

I hate computers!
Yesterday I was feeling quite pleased with myself because I managed to get Trackback installed on my blog. It was pretty easy and once I read the instructions I managed to get it working. I even did a post with a link to another blog and sent a Trackback to the post on the other blog (see the next post down). I think I did this properly but I can't be sure. Anyway, I was feeling like I had learned a bit more and was making some progress in the wonderful world of computers.

This morning when I switched on my PC it doesn't want to connect to the internet. About 3 months ago I moved my PC from my flat to another house. I spend quite a lot of time here and, with permission, I use the broadband connection in the house for access to the internet. I use a wireless network card. I cancelled my own dial-up at the flat and got my BT phone line disconnected so this saves me quite a lot of money. A good thing all round. It is quicker and cheaper.

Today when I tried to connect I got a message saying I had limited connectivity because the IP address couldn't be renewed. I've had this problem once before and got someone else to sort it for me. He's not here at the moment so I'm stuck. I tried manually configuring the IP address but I really don't know enough about how it all works to know whether I am doing the right thing. According to my network connection thingy I am now connected but when I try and access the internet (with Firefox or Explorer) it just doesn't go anywhere. Aaaaaaaaaah! I'm posting this on the other PC in the house which is not mine and which I prefer not to use. At the moment I don't have any other option. If any kind and knowledgable person reads this and wants to help out please email me. I don't want to hate computers but this just doesn't make sense to me. It was working OK yesterday. What the flump is going on?
bhl_yoda AT postmaster.co.uk

I'm not sure that I've chosen the best day to try to quit smoking. I'm starting to think that my computer hates me. Why? Why today? I stuck my first patch on this morning and already I want to rip it off and light a fag. I'll try to resist.

Anti-Terror Bill (yet again)

I'm a bit late with this as I've been busy with other stuff. I was going to write about what happened to the bill between the Commons and the Lords in my own clumsy way. Instead I found a blog post which says it all much better than I can. I found it while looking through Tim Worstall's BritBlog Roundup.

It is by Nosemonkey on Europhobia and it is Thank the Lords for the Lords
Well said Nosemonkey. I suppose this is kind of what I was trying to say when I quoted A very clever man.
The bill is still not ideal but it's a sight better than the first effort proposed by the Home Secretary.

Novice at work
I just got Trackback installed so this is my first link to another blog. Hopefully I can get the Trackback to work OK.

Trackback installed!

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

This is very clever. Even a novice like me can get it to work (I think).

Economic Immigration, UK (part 2)

If you want to read part 1 it is here. I'm sticking with the Conservatives for part 2. Labour can be accused of much the same as I said before.

I have looked up the speach Michael Howard gave to announce his new tough policy on immigration. The full text can be read on the Conservative Party website:
Howard: Firm but fair immigration controls

Here are some highlights and my own responses to them.

"Nearly 160,000 people now settle in Britain each year - that is a city the size of Peterborough.I think most people would agree that Britain has reached a turning point.They know that our communities cannot successfully absorb newcomers at today's pace."

Seems reasonable enough until you consider the problem from another perspective.
"In truth no one really knows Lagos's population. But local research suggests 300,000 people a year are flooding in."
'People wake up angry at being alive in a society like this' Guardian, 05:03:05

That's 300,000 people a year moving to Lagos, Nigeria's largest city. Not a country, a city. There is also a link to John Vidal's photo journal at the bottom of the article which shows pictures of what overcrowding can really be like. It is difficult to agree that Britain has reached a "turning point" after viewing these photos.

Mr Howard offered 4 proposals in his speach.
1 "We will set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers."
So if you come to the UK to escape death or torture in your own country and the quota has already been met the Tories will refuse to give you asylum. How very civilized. Does Mr Howard sleep well at night?

2 "We will put in place 24-hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration."
Don't we already have the tightest border controls in the EU? I for one don't want to live inside a barbed wire prison compound, even one the size of the UK.

3 "We will introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits - giving priority to people with the skills Britain needs."
This one really makes me angry. The UK under the Tories is going to be happy to take only the skilled workers which developing countries so desperately need. How is that going to help to decrease the huge gap between rich and poor countries? This is just plain stupidity and selfishness of the highest order.

4 "And we will tighten the immigration rules to stop sham marriages."
Perhaps if the gap between the have's and have not's was not so enormous people wouldn't feel the need to take part in sham marriages. I can't imagine many people really want to participate in such affairs.

As I said in part 1, I really can't see how the Conservatives can justify their policies. To me it seems to be a manipulation designed to exploit the worst aspects of UK public opinion. The party who loves the "invisible hand" of the market must surely see that only by decreasing the gap between rich and poor nations can economic immigration be controlled in a reasonable and morally sound manner. Please email me if you can explain how Mr Howard's proposals can be seen as fair and decent. I'm afraid I can't see how it can be done.
bhl_yoda AT postmaster.co.uk

Economic Immigration, UK (part 1)

In the UK there is a lot of talk about the problem of economic immigration. The Conservative Party have started posturing in the run up to the coming general election. "Immigration is out of control under Labour" is the thrust of their strategy. For me there is a fundamental problem with this approach. I haven't studied economics for a long time so I am quite prepared to be corrected on this if I'm speaking nonsense. I should also say that I believe the Labour Party are almost as guilty of this inconsistency. The Conservatives started the latest round of "We're tougher than you on immigration" so they get the blame here.

The problem for me is that the Tories are the party who's ideology is based on the power of market forces. The quest to make the UK more like a "perfect market" has been a driving force in Conservative economic policy for as long as I can remember. Rather than drone on about economic theory I offer this example from the 1980's. When Mrs Thatcher wanted to restructure the UK economy she encouraged (some would say forced) workers, especially in manufacturing industries, to move to where the jobs were. Many miners, shipbuilders, and others had to move from their homes and relocate to wherever they could find alternative employment. This is good for the economy and should lead to better economic growth. The theory behind this is not controversial. If workers move from place to place easily to get a suitable job then the job market is more likely to operate efficiently. This is why citizens from EU member states can work in any other member state if they wish.

The problem is that this same theory should lead the Tories to encourage more economic immigration into the UK if they genuinely want to promote global economic growth. The Tories certainly do not seem inclined to argue this point. Perhaps they feel that somehow the theory can only be applied to white Europeans. This is my problem. Does the Conservative Party still believe that making the labour market more flexible leads to greater economic growth? Does the theory only apply inside countries or just to white Europeans? Or do the Conservatives just not care that much about global economic growth?

As I said I am prepared to be corrected on my logic or theory. Mr Howard says that the UK is full up and we have to limit the number of immigrants coming to Britain. My next post argues that this is not true and provides some quotes and links. If you want to correct my hopeless naivety you can comment on this post or email me at bhl_yoda AT postmaster.co.uk (Don't forget to change AT to @).

Diary Post 3

I've not had much time to comment on the news in the last couple of days because I've been busy. This is a quick diary post of some of the things I've been up to. If you want to know why I do these posts you might want to read this or this. In short I'm trying to record my attempt to try and learn how to be a bit nicer to people. I'm not looking to boast. In fact I know that I've still got a great deal to learn.

Anyway, yesterday I did a wee walk for Comic Relief. See yesterdays post if you're interested. Today I did something rather dramatic; I sold my car. It wouldn't be entirely honest to blame Mr Bush and his buddies in the oil industry for this turn of events. I've only had a car for 1 of the last 5 years anyway. I'm glad it's gone because I was using it far to often and was putting on weight. When I don't have a car I normally cycle although I have to admit that it's just a tiny bit too cold to make this seem like a good idea at the moment. I'll just have to look out the waterproofs and thermals and get the bike back on the road anyway.

I've also put my PlayStation 2 up for sale on Ebay because I'm trying to use my spare time more productively and because the cash won't go amiss (see, I told you I wasn't a leftie, I own a PS2). The family house also recieved a delivery of FairTrade cookies which I ordered from the Traidcraft website. They are Double Chocolate Chip and very tasty indeed. And I am still resisting buying any chocolate apart from 2 FairTrade bars which I bought from the Coop. I can't give up chocolate completely because I don't have the willpower so I'm buying FairTrade and nothing else. I have given up my favourite fizzy drink and this is going well.

I've done one other thing which I'm going to mention in order to help with my motivation. I bought Nicotine patches. I'm going to quit as of Monday. When I click the Publish button I am committed. If you have never smoked you are:
a) smarter than me.
b) probably financially better off than me.
c) not likely to fully appreciate how difficult quitting can be.

I'm determined though. I'll update with my success/failure as the days pass.

My wee bit for RND '05

This is almost certainly the only picture of me which will ever appear on these pages. Today is Red Nose Day '05 and I walked 9 miles and raised £84 for Comic Relief. I've still got a few people to bother for money so hopefully I'll get over £100 in the end. I should also say that it was a tiny bit cold so my own nose was actually redder than this when the photo was taken.

Unrelated News

A Very Clever Man
I have looked up something written by one of my all time favourite authors, Douglas Adams. I wish he was still with us. I remember reading this for the first time probably 15 years ago. It stuck in my mind as a succinct analysis of the problems inherent in a democratic system. It seems to me to be particularly appropriate to the current political climate both here and in the US. After a period of searching (I couldn't remember which book it was in) I have tracked it down. Here it is:

"To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Ch 28.

If you don't know what Douglas offers as an alternative I highly recommend that you read the book. In fact, read the trilogy of five. I can't offer a better solution myself, I'm just not that clever.

US and Iran
Several websites have reported that Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector in Iraq, has said that Mr Bush has signed off on orders to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities in June. I don't know if there is any truth to these reports but given what has happened in Iraq it certainly seems possible. Considering the abject failure of the US intelligence community with regard to WMD in Iraq it might be reasonable to assume that a more cautious approach would be in order. I found a report on Al Jazeera Online which seems a suitable link to post with this in mind.

An Edit on 27:03:05 - http://english.aljazeera.net/ is the official Aljazeera online site. The link below may not be. I'm not sure what it is. I'd look at the site above and leave the one below well alone for now. Edit over.

U.S. panel faults intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons
I suppose only time will tell what the truth of all this is.

Agent Orange
It is well known that the US military used Agent Orange as a defoliant during the Vietnam war. The Guardian website is reporting a story from AP that a US judge has dismissed a lawsuit on behalf of 4 million Vietnamese citizens affected by this chemical. The story can be found in full at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4856325,00.html
along with a web address for further information on Agent Orange. On this site I found a US government poster which can be viewed at:
http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/docs/AOPoster.pdf
(Not links, I'm apprehensive about too many links, especially to US sites.)
If you've looked these up you might notice a variation in attitude which is difficult to explain.

Gladiator was 'al-Qaeda Target

I was about to do a diary post but I just can't resist this one. I'm sure lots of other people have noticed this as well but here is my slightly edited version of the story as reported by the BBC.

Actor Crowe was 'al-Qaeda target'

Actor Russell Crowe has revealed he was told he was being targeted by suspected al-Qaeda terrorists who wanted to kidnap him...The threat led to him being tailed by FBI agents during the filming of two of his movies. The plot involved "taking iconographic Americans out of the picture"

The report goes on to say that "the FBI eventually thought the kidnap threat had been "overstated"."

Quite.

The full BBC report can be seen at Actor Crowe was 'al-Qaeda target

I've also just been watching Comic Relief does Fame Academy. The Comic Relief part just about makes the Fame Academy part bearable. Vote for Edith I tell you! She's a good singer, she's from round my way, and she's not bothered about being on TV without her make up. What a woman!

Anti-Terror Bill (again)

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is being voted on in the House of Commons as I write this. It looks like Mr Blair's majority will ensure that he gets what he wants as usual. In an attempt to justify the bill Mr Blair has been widely quoted as saying "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack". I have two issues with his position.

1. Why is the possibility of citizens being killed in a terrorist attack of such overwhelming importance to the government? UK citizens are sadly being killed in other indescriminate ways on a regular basis.
The Office of National Statistics website shows that "In 2002 there were a total of 3,431 deaths of road users in accidents". National Statistics
UK traffic laws are designed to reduce such deaths but still over 3,000 people a year are dying on our roads. Each one of these deaths is a tragedy which might have been avoided. Mr Blair has signalled no intention to impose control orders on potentially dangerous drivers.

2. How many terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out in the UK since the start of the "War on Terror"?

This is undoubtedly a simplification of the issues but I believe the rationale is valid all the same. Mr Blair says the terrorists threaten our way of life. This Bill appears to prove him right.

Uzbekistan; A Good Ally

I first heard of the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan when I saw the former UK ambassador to the country, Mr Craig Murray, being interviewed on the BBC News 24 programme Hardtalk. I was shocked by the situation he portrayed. The Uzbek government systematically uses torture to extract intelligence and the US and UK governments knowingly accept and use information gained in this way. It seems that Mr Bush is reluctant to air critisicms of the regime because it is an ally in the war on terror and allows the US to maintain a military base in the country.

In an effort to publicise the human rights abuses committed by the Uzbek government (with the implicit support of the US and the UK), Mr Murray has decided to stand against his former employer Jack Straw in the upcoming general election. If you would like to support Mr Murray or just find out more you can get further information on his website. It can be found at www.craigmurray.co.uk/

Anti-Terrorism Bill, UK

Winston Churchill is considered by many to have been a great British PM. His leadership inspired the citizens of the UK through the early years of WWII when the US government preferred not to go to war against Hitler's Nazis. He undoubtedly made some truly remarkable speaches throughout the war. There are other parts of Churchill's life which are less well celebrated however. The current war in Iraq has brought to prominence a chapter in his history which many would rather forget.

"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment" ".
Source: Our last occupation
Guardian 19:04:2003

Nevertheless I can't help wishing that he was still in the House of Commons to repeat to Mr Blair the following:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist."
Winston Churchill, cited by Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p27.

My Labour MP, Anne Begg voted against the ammendment to limit the power of the Home Secretary to impose control orders on terrorist suspects. I have emailed her to express my disappointment. I hope to recieve an answer as to why she believes these government proposals are necessary. I'll try to read her response with an open mind.

Diary Post 2

When I started this blog I didn't intend to say much about myself. I've been shown the error of my ways and so I've started doing these diary posts. I don't want to blow my own trumpet. I realise that many people have been living their lives in a far more considerate way than I have ever managed. I am trying to record my own attempts to live better mostly for my own benefit. It helps to motivate me when I am tempted by something I know I shouldn't want. So bearing all that in mind here is what I've done today.

Today I bought my first ever item of clothing from a charity shop. It is a blue jumper from Oxfam and very nice it is too. As a bonus it only cost £6 which I would say is a result all round.

I'd also been struggling but managing to resist buying my favourite brand of white chocolate. Oxfam sells Fairtrade "Divine" white chocolate so I bought some of that as well. I can now say with confidence that the name is most apt; it is very tasty and comes without the guilty aftertaste.

I've managed to keep away from other temptations. I still need to quit the cancer sticks but this will need some preparation if I am going to succeed. Updates to follow.

New Peer Agrees With Tony

I don't think there is much I can add to this story. Mr Blair is having trouble getting his new Prevention of Terrorism Act through parliament. Sir John Stevens to the rescue.

Stevens says there are 200 'Bin Ladens' loose in Britain
The Independent 07:03:05

Link taken from The Independent Online Edition

Mr Bush versus the World

I have read a number of books regarding the current US administration's policies in recent months and would like to mention one which had a significant impact on me personally.

The book is Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky. This book was one of the reasons why I started to write this blog. Much of the book is concerned with the dangers inherent in the policies of the current US administration but it also gave me hope that the world could change for the better. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what is really going on.

US Cotton Subsidies

No Surprises

The WTO has ruled that the US is illegally subsidising it's cotton farmers. The BBC reported the story on Friday 4th March: US must act quickly on cotton

I hope that the US government do act quickly on this but I'm not optimistic.

In the spirit of fairness I should also say that the member states of the EU are equally guilty of subsidising agriculture to the detrement of farmers in developing countries. The US cotton subsidies are just one more example of how rich countries stay rich.

Iraqi Prime Minister

On 12:02:05 I read this article by Naomi Klien in the Guardian newspaper:
Sorry George, but Iraq has given you the purple finger

A previous post relating to this article can be found here.

Today I noticed that the BBC and others were reporting that Iraq sets day for assembly meet. The first meeting will be on 16th March.

I don't have an detailed knowledge of Iraqi politics and realise that many complex isues need to be resolved. All the same I can't help but note that the decision on who will be the next Prime Minister has still not been made. It will continue to be discussed in the assembly if necessary. The report states that "Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whose party got 40 seats, is also bidding to keep his job." This is a bid against Mr Jaafari who's UIA party got 140 seats.

At the risk of sounding simplistic I just have to repeat that Mr Allawi and his party got 14% of the vote at the election. To me this doesn't seem like a great mandate for a bid to retain the most powerful job in the new democratic Iraq. Mr Allawi would appear to disagree.

Mr Kennedy goes missing

I don't like two party politics. I just don't think that two choices are good enough. Last years election in the US is a good illustration of how narrow the debate can become under such a system. In the UK we have more than two parties but only two realistic outcomes for the coming general election. Either a Labour or Conservative government will be in power after the votes are counted. It seems to me that this is not a great advertisement for democracy and I'm sure that many other UK citizens would agree. Many have said just this long before I started getting interested in politics. The Liberal Democrats as the third party stand to gain the most from this discontent with the current system. Opinion Polls suggest that they are likely to gain more seat in this election than they have for a very long time and if they do I will be one of those cheering as the results come in.

But
Something happened on Monday which I've only just understood the significance of (I've been busy, give me a break). The governments new anti-terrorism laws with all the controversial proposals for house arrest, tagging and so forth were voted on in the House of Commons. The vote was carried by 14 votes and sent on to the House of Lords for scrutiny. The Liberals are opposed to this bill and this seems entirely sensible to me. What was not sensible was having 17 Lib Dem MP's not bothering to vote against the bill when those 17 votes would have defeated the government proposals. If I wanted to land a low blow I might suggest that Mr Kennedy had been sipping a fine malt when he should have been making sure his party was properly organised. I wouldn't be so unkind; I'm trying to learn how to be a bit nicer to people.

To his credit Mr Kennedy has already admitted that this was a misjudgement on his part. This is something that Mr Blair and Mr Howard appear almost entirely incapable of saying about themselves on any issue. I hope Mr Kennedy has learned from his mistake. I believe that the country needs a third party desperately. Don't blow it Charles, your country needs you like never before.