Friday, October 29, 2004
'War on terror' has only strengthened Bin Laden
Link
See also BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Bin Laden threatens new attacks Nobody knows the right answer to international terrorism, but we now have proof positive of what one of the wrong answers is. 'War on terror' has done nothing but strengthen Bin Laden - he has refined his public relations machine, and, buoyed by the example of Spain, is making a play to be seen by the Arab world as the crucial factor in the choice of US president.
He said in a video aired on al-Jazeera television today: "Despite entering the fourth year after 11 September, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."
Bin Laden's pronouncements may seem as off keel as 'comical' Ali's to Western audiences. But to many Arabic speaking viewers, his comments make eminent sense. This difference of perception is not because Arabic speakers are naive. It is because their world view is fundamentally different from the Western secular view, and because we in the West have never bothered to try to understand it.
It was instructive that during the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was able to put up a minister every day who could make statements in English. We were unable to put up a single elected politician from anywhere in the coalition who could speak Arabic.
'War on terror' has strengthened Bin Laden because it has elevated him to the status of Official Opposition to the Western world. What is more, it has enabled him to lump us in the minds of his adherents with what he describes as corrupt Arab regimes.
Nobody is so foolish as to be able to claim they have the answer to international terror. But we are clearly not working hard enough at identifying the issues, pointing the questions and working towards the answers.
We continue in this course at our peril. Genuinely, at our peril.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Showdown in the air between elected politicians and the media
BBC NEWS | Politics | Guardian 'could support Lib Dems'
So, the Guardian could support the Liberal-Democrats. The Guardian! Actually, I always had the impression that the Guardian tried not to sell its soul to any party. Never mind. This of course follows the (to newish Labour) rather more alarming prospect of the Express switching back to the Tories. BBC NEWS | Politics | Express switches after Euro shift.
It's a well-known - or at least, frequently asserted - fact that it was the Sun (and friends) wot won it for New Labour in 1997 and 2001. In 1997 The Guardian, The Mirror, the Sun, the Independent and the Daily Star all supported New Labour. Only The Daily Express, the Telegraph and the Times stood against them. By 2001 both the Times and the Express had climbed into Labour's bed.
But another perspective is that Labour was going to win in 1997 and 2001 anyway, and the papers were savvy enough to go with the winner.
Which leaves us with the question, how powerful are the media really when it comes to influencing elections? We are still facing the repurcussions of Mohammed Karzai's media-propelled victory in Afghanistan. Are we really in the same position with the print media in Britain?
Let's hope not. But perhaps this time we will actually find out.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Why Israel is back on the right track, despite the prevailing mood
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Knesset votes to back Gaza plan
We don't negotiate with terrorists. We don't negotiate with terrorists. We don't negotiate with terrorists... In these days of internet MPEG downloads, there has to be a new metaphore for what used to be called a broken record.
Sharon's opponents - previously his allies - have argued forcibly that to pull out of Gaza would be to give the terrorists what they want. It would prove that Israel was weak. That Israel could be worn down.
The mood of the moment is to be tough on the terrorists. War on terror, as George W has put it.
Haven't we been paying attention for the last two hundred years? As Buffy the Vampire Slayer put it, 'Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them in summer school.'
We all recognise that no-one yet has the right answer to terrorism. But we should at least have learned what some of the wrong answers are. In any community that feels itself oppressed, there are a range of opinions. Some people want to make the best of the world they are in. Some want to work to improve the lot of all the oppressed. Some will want to protest peacefully. Some will resort to direct action. Some may resort to terror.
'Getting tough on terror' sounds fine in principle, but it usually results in getting tough on the whole population. 'Surgical' strikes kill more bystanders than they do terrorists. War on terror solidifies opinion. It pushes the whole population towards resistance, direct action, terror.
'Getting tough on terrorr' sounds fine in principle. But it is the wrong answer. And, knowing this, it is time that we realise that we need to peal off moderate elements, encourage them, negotiate with them.
This is a hard thing to do if you have taught your population to believe that they are all terrorists.
Sharon has taken a brave step. His allies - formerly his enemies - have done well to put the past behind to support him.
We can all learn from his example.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Why tinkering with justice should alarm us all
BBC NEWS | UK | Juries learn sex offenders' past
An election is coming up. By all accounts it will be on May 5 2005. So we now face the cyclical clamour of the Tories and nearly-new Labour trying to prove that they are tougher on crime and kinder on health. Usually this comes down to promises for building more prisons, giving more money to the police, short, sharp shocks, and other repackagings of the same old solutions.
But this time one-careful-owner Labour has surpassed itself. Juries in trials for theft and for child sex abuse will soon be told of the offender's previous convictions.
Mm. Interesting choice, that. Theft and Child Sex Abuse. Why not Car-jacking and Internet Scamming? There's a strong whiff of which crimes the public is most cross about in this policy decision. More government by polling, but we will let it pass.
We will let it pass, because the core of my complaint against this particular popularity stunt is not that it is a typical second-hand Labour random act of policy, but that it is tinkering with the core of justice itself.
Figure it any way you like. If you've been fingered before, the police will already have you marked as a potential suspect. Fine. This is necessary for proper investigation. 'Form' as the coppers say. But when juries are told as well, your past convictions are, as it were, fed into the system twice.
If there is genuinely reasonable doubt about the evidence presented in a trial, the accused should go free. This is fundamental to justice. Can the quality of the evidence be improved by providing details of previous convictions? Surely not. But the jury's mind might be swayed. Suddenly we are looking at a system where other considerations are influencing the jury's mind about a question of fact.
And suddenly we are staring at the face of a completely different kind of justice.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Do MPs cost too much?
Link
BBC NEWS | Politics | Most expensive MP defends record
Journalists have rushed out stories on what MPs cost with some glee. After all, the basic salary for a regional newspaper journalist is a fraction of the basic salary for the local MP. Now that the full expenses have been declared, the media feels it has landed on a very firm piece of moral high ground.
But is this fair? Anyone who has been in business, or who has managed anything substantial in the public or voluntary sector, knows that what it costs to employ someone is a great deal more than their straight salary.
Even if we compared the MP figures with salary + expense account costs, we would not be comparing like with like. The 'expense' figures announced this week include the employment of staff, office expenses, and mandatory residence in one of Europe's most expensive cities. Equally - as John Thurso pointed out on Radio 4's PM programme - MPs are not issued with a wodge of used bank notes and told to go off and spend it. Money is only handed over after receipts are produced - the MP foots the bill in the meantime.
The public does not stand to gain from a clamp-down on MP expenses - though increased transparency is in all our interests. But a clamp-down would benefit just two groups - the party in power, which has access to the trillions of pounds government expenditure, and professional lobbyists. As we see in other parts of the world, where the state does not pay for its politicians, others are only too willing to step into the funding gap.
Apologies all round for the Tories?
Link
In the same week as Boris Johnson's ill-fated journey to Liverpool, Jonathan Sayeed MP has been forced to apologise to Trevor MacDonald for suggesting that he got where he is because of positive discrimination.
Is apology the flavour of the month? A quick glance at the BBC News headlines tells us: No Harry apology to photographer, Mrs Kerry sorry for Mrs Bush slur, Buttiglione regrets slur on gays, Slapped Nigerian senator forgives, Papers cheered by sorry Boris, Tory apologises to ITN's Trevor, Church wants gay bishop apology.
In real life, of course, an apology proffered without excuses can do a lot to repair a damaged relationship. But the spate of public apologies - or demands for them - carries with it a whiff of something not altogether wholesome. Are they really apologising for something they now feel bad about, or, ultimately, are they expressing regret for getting caught?
Rory Bremner to back the Lib-Dems?
I went to see Rory Bremner last week at the Cheltenham Literary
Festival. The place was packed of course. Bremner is hugely funny, and
is probably better live where he can flit between persona and back to
himself without the trammels of make-up and scenery than he is on
television. Great fun on Blair, Kennedy, Bush ('the problem with the
French is they don't have a word for "entrepreneur"), and Howard ('far
from being dead, the Tory party is undead'). But, most interestingly,
did we detect a transfer of his loyalties towards LIberal-Democracy?
Perhaps. Time will tell. Or perhaps it won't.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Blogging Begins
This is the first test blog for MartinTurner.org.uk
Previous news
 Â