War is the most unpleasant of things. But all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to nothing. Gaddafi is evil personified. He was responsible for the greatest mass murder on British soil, the Lockerbie bombings. For years he assassinated opposition leaders that lived overseas, and runs a ruthless centralised regime not so dissimilar to a Soviet model that has bounties placed on the heads of those who write against it. If he is to stay in power he would form an even greater threat to the territorial integrity of the British Isles than before, as a result of predictable terrorist acts as a reaction to the no-fly-zone. Cameron has an opportunity this week to amend the Spring budget to bolster the armed forces, so that any further military action including ground troop deployment is possible.
Britain is a member of the Permanent Five (P5) on the Security Council, thus one of the few states not only responsible for peace and security, but also upholding international law. The latter includes humanitarian law, so that internal civil-matters of states do not move from policing a disturbance to using indiscriminate military force against a mixture of civilian and civilian combatants. The latter is not a legitimate use of state authority in international law, and can only be characterised as mass murder. This is clearly happening in Libya.
To this end Britain has done extremely well, overall, in fulfilling its role as a P5 member over the last two decades. From supporting the territorial integrity of Kuwait, to making up for lost support on humanitarian grounds in the Former Yugoslavia by supporting NATO backed air-strikes. It has backed a war in Iraq in 2003, though the case was disingenuously put by the Government, it was, whatever those that are emotionally charged on this most emotive of issues think, in the spirit of the UN resolutions (689, 1441) and within the spirit of being a P5 member. It ensured that the UN, in dealing with Saddam, did not mirror the League of Nations in dealing with Mussolini in Abyssinia over 60 years earlier. Further Britain has taken action against the evil of the Taliban, who murder women and children for power, in Afghanistan. It is bizarre to see Cameron shrink from the responsibility of being a P5 member, by weakening the armed forces. Our role on these fronts will no doubt continue for the foreseeable future, as the world is a long way off from being one full of peaceful self-governing states. Cameron ought to be able to see this.
Those who oppose military action including ground-troop deployment in Libya fail to see the importance and nature of the exclusive relationship between having a democracy and the building of a modern state. It is only through democratic consensus that a state has the capacity to deal with individual needs and choices. It is the first and important step in ensuring that power works for man and is accountable to him, not vice-versa. It makes mass economic enterprise a thing worth having, not a domination of wealth working against or omitting public interest solely centred in the hand of a few. Only when democracy is fully-functioning in a state does a state fully value peace, as citizens that benefit from self-government put pressure on Governments to act in their interest. To given an example, the British public’s opposition to the Iraq war, in terms of protests and now a public inquiry, is a luxury of democracy, that many in the world simply do not have.
The opposite paradigm to the democratic state, the concentration of power and wealth in a few, has characterised so many North African and Middle Eastern states so far. The case for full military action is strong here at this juncture: should Gaddafi fall, he may be replaced by a similar regime. Further, the security of the region now, not just territorially but also in democratic prosperity, would be more secure by military action supporting people who are not opposed to the very idea of freedom and accountable government. To ensure this, to liberate and to emancipate, we need to follow the paradigmn in Iraq and Afghanistan, learning from post-conflict logistical problems towards self-government. We have already laid the ground-work for a policy of ‘military assisted transition to democracy’. We should seize on this new doctrine and ensure a military backed safe transition to democracy in Libya.
This is not just a question of a moral right, but more importantly of duty. We have a free-press, accountable leadership, and, comparatively, a significantly broad dispersal of economic and political power in our society so that we can manipulate our governments to our benefit through the ballot box. For the life of me, I can’t see why the Libyans deserve less than an opportunity of effective self-government that democracy would bring them.
Britain has always embraced the spirit of battle, and was able to sculpt the modern world to its image through the courage and patriotic endeavour in belligerency. There is no need to forget our history, mask it with irrational complex of colonial guilt, not behold it with pride and follow this spirit into the 21st Century where it can be used in different paradigm for liberating man-kind from autocracy.
To conjure our innate spirit of courage, we should take the example of the greatest Briton of all time: In 1898 a young Lieutenant Winston Spencer Churchill managed to wiggle his way into Kitchener’s army, despite numerous rejections, to fight the power-craven Mahdi’s successor Khalifa Abdullah who had pretension to rule the region as an autocrat, not a million miles off the Gadaffis of today. Churchill literally escaped from the slow life in the 4th Hussars in India, to the 21st Lancers of Kitchener’s army in Sudan. He wanted to be a part of an army that sought to uphold the spirit of Gordon who had fallen three years earlier in Khartoum. Gordon had died holding Khartoum with a few men against an over-whelming force of the Mahdi, a specific sacrifice for the freedom inherent in the Christian way of life.
Kitchener’s eventual victory in the Sudan was a result of adequate supplies and planning, an example that Cameron needs to note. Three years were spent by the British army creating the Sudanese Military Railway, possibly the greatest feat of military engineering the 19th C, so that troops could more easily be deployed to the zone of intended belligerency. There was full support from Salisbury’s Government in London, not the type of vacillating over armed-forces support that characterises the current Government who see international aid as more important than funding the armed forces for global security. Kitchener’s victory was an exemplary display of Britain’s spirit to not give in to the power craven and delusional Khalifa Abdullah.
Today we need to evoke the spirit of Kitchener, we need to go to Libya and do the same.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya March 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society March 2011
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Giving prisoners the vote: Q. The European Court of Human Rights- to whom is it unaccountable for when it behaves illegally? Ans. Member States
Giving prisoners the vote: Q. The European Court of Human Rights- to whom is it unaccountable for when it behaves illegally? Ans. Member States
I have already warned about the European Convention on Human Rights this time last year. Then I said: 'The European Convention on Human Rights is a unique hypocrisy amongst instruments claiming to protect liberty. For all the supposed liberties it grants (which reflect select values of a few lawyers and civil servants and not the people of Europe that its title (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) grandiosely seems to claim), it allows the state to define circumstances in which to take them away. But it is more than this, in classic ‘anti-liberal’ spirit, the Convention also defines the limits of the rights it espouses, through the existence of constrictive provisos upon which they can be relied upon.
An inherent feature of the concept of 'rights' is to have an unlimited number of claims against the state. That it is the duty of the state to provide for them, irrespective of the merit of the individual bringing forward the claim.'
This has now been show by the absurd issue of prisoner's votes. Bentham, one of the great 19th Century Liberals, reflected on the history of liberty in England and noted that abuse of power occurs when power is in a few hands. Though the tyranny of monarchy had gone, what he feared then was a tyranny of unelected judges. That it was vital that Parliament develop itself constitutionally to have clear supremacy, under positive law, to protect democracy from hyperactive judges. No one would have thought we would have signed up to a treaty that did exactly the opposite: to gave a clear licence to judges to be politicians. Alas, only if the Government in the 1950s had consulted that expert on treaties (the world expert), the British lawyer, Lord McNair. He would have pointed out how the text was open to abuse. This possible expansive approach to treaty interpretation is superbly expostulated in his masterly work on the law of treaties. (Oddly McNair was later the President of the Strasbourg court, though a very refrained and thoughtful judge).
This was not done. What we now have is foreign elected judges, from significantly diverse legal backgrounds (many from states that have no rule of law)making political decisions, for our country, through legal means. There is little to suggest that David Cameron will do anything but voice a meager, and quiet, personal opinion on this.
What then is to hold this unelected court to account? Or are we seeing a new era of divine law, as in medieval times, that we cannot question or subject to reason? And does anyone get the more damning point, that European Court of Human Rights is making sentencing and criminal justice policy by making such a decision- thus clearly violating the text of the treaty?
Wake up Mr. Cameron, and wake up Britain.
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011
Birkenhead Society Copyright 2011.
I have already warned about the European Convention on Human Rights this time last year. Then I said: 'The European Convention on Human Rights is a unique hypocrisy amongst instruments claiming to protect liberty. For all the supposed liberties it grants (which reflect select values of a few lawyers and civil servants and not the people of Europe that its title (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) grandiosely seems to claim), it allows the state to define circumstances in which to take them away. But it is more than this, in classic ‘anti-liberal’ spirit, the Convention also defines the limits of the rights it espouses, through the existence of constrictive provisos upon which they can be relied upon.
An inherent feature of the concept of 'rights' is to have an unlimited number of claims against the state. That it is the duty of the state to provide for them, irrespective of the merit of the individual bringing forward the claim.'
This has now been show by the absurd issue of prisoner's votes. Bentham, one of the great 19th Century Liberals, reflected on the history of liberty in England and noted that abuse of power occurs when power is in a few hands. Though the tyranny of monarchy had gone, what he feared then was a tyranny of unelected judges. That it was vital that Parliament develop itself constitutionally to have clear supremacy, under positive law, to protect democracy from hyperactive judges. No one would have thought we would have signed up to a treaty that did exactly the opposite: to gave a clear licence to judges to be politicians. Alas, only if the Government in the 1950s had consulted that expert on treaties (the world expert), the British lawyer, Lord McNair. He would have pointed out how the text was open to abuse. This possible expansive approach to treaty interpretation is superbly expostulated in his masterly work on the law of treaties. (Oddly McNair was later the President of the Strasbourg court, though a very refrained and thoughtful judge).
This was not done. What we now have is foreign elected judges, from significantly diverse legal backgrounds (many from states that have no rule of law)making political decisions, for our country, through legal means. There is little to suggest that David Cameron will do anything but voice a meager, and quiet, personal opinion on this.
What then is to hold this unelected court to account? Or are we seeing a new era of divine law, as in medieval times, that we cannot question or subject to reason? And does anyone get the more damning point, that European Court of Human Rights is making sentencing and criminal justice policy by making such a decision- thus clearly violating the text of the treaty?
Wake up Mr. Cameron, and wake up Britain.
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011
Birkenhead Society Copyright 2011.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
The danger of the EU hedge fund directive, is to enervate the hedge fund market itself.
The danger of regulation is that it can destroy the very market it is trying to regulate. Please indulge me in using a hypothetical. Imagine that you are a regulator who wishes to regulate haulage companies for the emissions of their vehicles. You use scientific data on pollution to construct an ideal quanta requirement. You then pass regulation to deal with this. You are not too bothered, sadly, that there will be some haulage companies that will go bust as they will not be able to afford the appropriate vehicles. What you are further, and in some ways more worryingly, blind to is that haulage companies have a specific range of vehicles for the needs of their customers. Further that maintenance of a specific range is directly related to their profitability, growth, and to meet rising costs such as fuel. This is only discovered years later, when it is only shown that unemployment (a more interesting thing for politicians to throw around) in the haulage industry is serious.
Now have a look at the arbitrary way the capital adequacy requirements in the hedge funds directive were formed. The very notion of regulation here is designed to militate against the products themselves. The difference between the hypothetical, above, and the hedge-fund market makes an even stronger case for non-regulation. This is that the hedge-fund market is itself a risk based market, thus profitability is entirely based on the allocation of risks itself. This must depend, as my hypothetical suggests, on the knowledge of the market agent, who is best able to assess it. Thus to regulate a base line of capital adequacy does not, in itself, obviate risk as the real risk is the choice of investment, not the absence of collateral. The regulation of the collateral may only slow down transactions, thus increasing their costs, but will not eviscerate risk itself. Further, these requirements may make transactions costs so high that viable investing may no longer be on the cards. This may harm certain sectors of the economy who depend on high risk investment, and play an important role in the economy such as the provision of infrastructure. Further this regulation may not be a solution. For some it was only the off-shore banks that were largely unregulated that kept better capital adequacy requirements. Perhaps it is time to reiterate that old adage that the market knows best.
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright Birkenhead Society
Now have a look at the arbitrary way the capital adequacy requirements in the hedge funds directive were formed. The very notion of regulation here is designed to militate against the products themselves. The difference between the hypothetical, above, and the hedge-fund market makes an even stronger case for non-regulation. This is that the hedge-fund market is itself a risk based market, thus profitability is entirely based on the allocation of risks itself. This must depend, as my hypothetical suggests, on the knowledge of the market agent, who is best able to assess it. Thus to regulate a base line of capital adequacy does not, in itself, obviate risk as the real risk is the choice of investment, not the absence of collateral. The regulation of the collateral may only slow down transactions, thus increasing their costs, but will not eviscerate risk itself. Further, these requirements may make transactions costs so high that viable investing may no longer be on the cards. This may harm certain sectors of the economy who depend on high risk investment, and play an important role in the economy such as the provision of infrastructure. Further this regulation may not be a solution. For some it was only the off-shore banks that were largely unregulated that kept better capital adequacy requirements. Perhaps it is time to reiterate that old adage that the market knows best.
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright Birkenhead Society
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Monnet, Schuman and the myth that it was the avoidance of war that motivated the founding fathers of Europe
A significant fallacy that surrounds theories as to the founding of Europe is that it was done by its chief architects to avoid war. Quite on the contrary, Monet (left) was an amateur economic theorist who, for most of his life, believed that co-operation led to a more effective production capacity at the time of war, not peace. He learned, during his time as a traveling salesman, of benefits of getting access to resources of other states for the benefit of France. Robert Schuman, the other key figure in the founding of the European project, was an analyst of corruption and efficiency in the French steel industry. Both men, particularly Schuman, would have been aware of the lagging of French industrial growth in comparison to both Britain and Germany by the start of the 20th C. Hence economic co-operation for the mutual benefit of both Germany and France, but particularly the latter, seemed like an interesting concept and one worth pursuing. The benefits of raw materials for the production of steel, and steel itself are useful in the stimulation of a manufacturing center to provide economic growth and employment. This was particularly so in an era where developed economies were not significantly service industry driven.
The Second World War gave the opportunity, and the catalyst, to realise these nascent ideas of economic co-operation to re-engage manufacture based industrial growth. The sentiment of avoiding war, was a useful political and rhetorical device for selling the project. Neither man would have been daft enough to believe that the mere signing of a treaty (of co-operation) would avoid war, in fact everything that had occurred during their lives would have lead to the opposite being true. Political support from other capitalist states was extant to avoid the spread of communism.
The reversal of purpose by pro-European integrationists, that political integration in Europe has been designed to avoid war, is one of the greatest lies both in our times and in the times of our recent forefathers. Those economic integrationists who also wish for a Federal system, must look at the U.S. Civil War for an example of conflict that can arise. The biggest admonition here comes from the fact that the U.S. Civil War occurred despite a common constitutional settlement existing, one that does not exist for Europe. Common consensus of political values is still a lie propagated at the start of each successive re-drafting of European Treaties.
So why do pro-integrationists and Federalists continue to propagate the lie of the avoidance of war? It is not immediately clear. There was no war in Europe from 1945 to set-up of the European Economic Community in 1957. Thus the existence of peace cannot be co-dependent on the existence of a political Union or a common market. Yet this simple fact is ignored on so many European politics courses at Universities, for the sake of furthering ideology based on personal sentiment of the course convener. Many of these are quasi-socialists, who understand that if the all the states of Europe were to shift to significantly to the left, the possibility of a quasi-socialist overlord based on redistributionist economics would be possible. The supposed virtue of this is based on an economically blind belief that the best way for a society or person to become wealthy is to be given the wealth of others rather than to create it for itself or himself. This is why there was the creation of the social chapter for the European Union, and the welfare competence granted to the EU under Lisbon. This is to pave the way for control of EU law-making by a redistributive consensus, being very feasible considering that this is the predominant political ideal in most European states.
The usefulness of this lie of avoidance of war is clear. It engages one of the worst parts of our psyche: fear. We have to stay in the project for the fear of our lives, and the numerous emotionally susceptible and politically misled fall for it. It is also a common currency for lazy thinking, amongst both undergraduates and post-graduates, at Universities I have taught in. A broader reading of history suggests that what really is to fear is continued integration without consent. To realise that the entering into of Lisbon with a false second referendum in Ireland, and the absence of one in the UK, is an affront to democratic decency. In 1648 a political device was created to free men from the tyranny of a supra-national overlord, constituted primarily by the diet regime of the Papacy. This device was the nation-state, a vehicle for expression of identity, which is not only linked to but as important as individual liberty. Three-hundred and fifty years later it is at threat from disingenuous machinations of those in search for power and control based on their personal ideology as much as that which dogged the Catholic church and the Hapsburgs in their lust for European power centuries earlier. Those political machinations, including lack of local representation and closed door decision-making, led to the bloodiest war in human history (the Thirty Years War) through which almost 70% of the population of Europe was wiped out.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Muslims who can’t take a joke are ‘cultural terrorists’ – Shame on those that have attacked Mr Donnelly
What are two of the finest things about British culture? Yes we have so many to choose from, but to sample a couple let me tell you about (i) our humour and (ii) freedom of speech. Yes, for several hundred years the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh and the English all got along, despite their differences, in small part due to their ability to poke fun, demonise and ridicule one another. And they did this without taking offence and realising, whatever one might say, that being insensitive to quips and insults is a sign of maturity. Then came Islam and we find that no small minority of it has a serious grudge to bear with these key two aspects of our culture, to the point of trying to destroy them.
Let me give you a ludicrous example. A few days ago AV voting campaigner Ben Donnelly was dismissed from his campaigning post for a statement on the internet site twitter that said: ‘Says in the Holy Qu’ran the Prophet used to get his neighbours to vote by AV which of his 4 wives he’d shag each night’. One may have to pause at this point to smirk (assuming one is not being watched). Now here is the interesting part: Labour MP Khalid Mahmood called for Donnelly to be referred to the police. Yes, the Labour MP has a job in the mother of all Parliaments in Britain. The Parliament that supposedly embodies the spirit of freedom through which it was formed in the 17th C, by Parliamentarians fighting against a tyrant King. Doesn’t this incident not just show what sort of imbeciles now line its green benches? Another Mr. Shafiq, the Chief Executive of the Ramadan foundation, described the joke as ‘disgusting’ . A spokesman for the Yes campaign joined in saying that these comments will not be accepted. So the ‘cultural terrorism’ begins. This term being used to signify an unjustifiable, arbitrary, interference and curbing of key aspects of our own culture, by these cultural terrorists who have no idea how important free-speech (and related humour and mockery) is to the functioning of a tolerant free society. The latter, with no irony, is so important for minority groups to live and contribute to life here. This, of course, is not the first of this sort of incident.
If there is any action to be taken it is to defend our culture against this small band of minority cultural terrorists who seek to use their own individual sensitivities to silence us all, that time is now. This is before this gets any worse and this non-physical violence against our values is permitted to continue to grow. As Karl Popper pointed out in one of his books (The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato):‘Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them’.
Within this statement of Popper’s is the rationale to fight anyone who behaves like a tyrant, curbing the freedoms of others for his own individual comfort. We must stop that most intolerant of beings who can’t stand others poking fun at him, his football club, his religion or the way he fries his eggs by telling him that we won’t put with his childish sensitivities. So many intolerant bullies get away with this, often playing the victim card for themselves. We must have the courage to say please, please grow up and join the 21st Century and be free. If our MP’s and Government won’t do this- we have little chance of preserving this salami slicing of our freedom and culture by these cultural terrorists.
Can the public please wake-up and stand-up for our freedom of speech and humour before accusations using that most broadest and Gestapoeque term ‘Islamophobia’ turn our country into a police-state from a free tolerant society? Wake-up and support us in UKIP, who will go where the other political idiots can’t due to their appeasement and myopia on this most pressing of issues.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011 (3rd Feb 2011)
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Let me give you a ludicrous example. A few days ago AV voting campaigner Ben Donnelly was dismissed from his campaigning post for a statement on the internet site twitter that said: ‘Says in the Holy Qu’ran the Prophet used to get his neighbours to vote by AV which of his 4 wives he’d shag each night’. One may have to pause at this point to smirk (assuming one is not being watched). Now here is the interesting part: Labour MP Khalid Mahmood called for Donnelly to be referred to the police. Yes, the Labour MP has a job in the mother of all Parliaments in Britain. The Parliament that supposedly embodies the spirit of freedom through which it was formed in the 17th C, by Parliamentarians fighting against a tyrant King. Doesn’t this incident not just show what sort of imbeciles now line its green benches? Another Mr. Shafiq, the Chief Executive of the Ramadan foundation, described the joke as ‘disgusting’ . A spokesman for the Yes campaign joined in saying that these comments will not be accepted. So the ‘cultural terrorism’ begins. This term being used to signify an unjustifiable, arbitrary, interference and curbing of key aspects of our own culture, by these cultural terrorists who have no idea how important free-speech (and related humour and mockery) is to the functioning of a tolerant free society. The latter, with no irony, is so important for minority groups to live and contribute to life here. This, of course, is not the first of this sort of incident.
If there is any action to be taken it is to defend our culture against this small band of minority cultural terrorists who seek to use their own individual sensitivities to silence us all, that time is now. This is before this gets any worse and this non-physical violence against our values is permitted to continue to grow. As Karl Popper pointed out in one of his books (The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato):‘Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them’.
Within this statement of Popper’s is the rationale to fight anyone who behaves like a tyrant, curbing the freedoms of others for his own individual comfort. We must stop that most intolerant of beings who can’t stand others poking fun at him, his football club, his religion or the way he fries his eggs by telling him that we won’t put with his childish sensitivities. So many intolerant bullies get away with this, often playing the victim card for themselves. We must have the courage to say please, please grow up and join the 21st Century and be free. If our MP’s and Government won’t do this- we have little chance of preserving this salami slicing of our freedom and culture by these cultural terrorists.
Can the public please wake-up and stand-up for our freedom of speech and humour before accusations using that most broadest and Gestapoeque term ‘Islamophobia’ turn our country into a police-state from a free tolerant society? Wake-up and support us in UKIP, who will go where the other political idiots can’t due to their appeasement and myopia on this most pressing of issues.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011 (3rd Feb 2011)
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Consecutive Conservative and Labour Governments betrayed Britain’s young Muslims when they chose segregation over assimilation.
It is not in the national interest, nor in the interest of minority groups to encourage victimisation in the manner Baroness Warsi did last week. Young Muslims particularly, though not exclusively, of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent have it difficult enough to integrate and assimilate without Warsi making them feel like victims, for political gain. To encourage victimisation comes at the cost of precluding important self-fault finding, in this instance, for both individuals and the state. Without this it is not possible to deal with the plight of isolation that exists amongst some Muslim youths and a chunk of Britain’s Muslim’s community.
Some of us have been fortunate enough to go to a school where we have had to go to chapel everyday, including formally for an elongated service on Sundays. This may not ,necessarily, have given one concrete faith, but it may grant an intuitive insight into the history and culture of England. That religion has shaped national life for centuries is a historical understatement. Even a simple appreciation of ecclesiastical history can facilitate one to understand that it was a unique occurrence both in England, and the West, that political liberty came about on the back of religious liberty. Unfortunately, some young Muslims, confined to areas where they can only meet other isolated members of the same faith there are few opportunities for insight into the world beyond their uni-cultural communes. (The huge irony of multiculturalism is that it creates large areas where only one foreign culture persists. It is also an amazingly coincidental and useful structure for Labour Party campaigning!). For many young Muslims the opportunity to grasp and learn more about the terrific history of this Isles is left to an improbable outcome, particularly now that schools no longer teach British history and culture. This will no doubt persist ethnic minority isolation for the foreseeable future. With the disparity in knowledge of history and culture some young Muslims are ill-equipped to face the world, having being put at a disadvantage to those from other social backgrounds. With this lack of knowledge go so many related opportunities in employment and social life. It is no wonder that so many have no sense of belonging or affiliation, when marginalisation has occurred through the simple omission of knowledge.
There is no irony in the fact that Enoch Powell noted this possibility in the 1960s. After all, he had a profound understanding of subcontinent culture and languages. It is not difficult to be moved by the passage in Simon Heffer’s biography that describes Powell’s Indian attendees in tears when he is leaving the sub-continent. Few had gone so to such lengths to understand so deeply its variances and similarities with Britain (Warren Hastings is the only name that springs immediately to mind- but there are others). It is a sign of the mediocrity of human judgment that Powell has become so demonised (often out of political necessity, than pure malice). This, worryingly persistent, misjudgement demonstrates how far British politic has yet to mature on dealing with truths that for unreasoned and meagre minds seem subconsciously so unpalatable. The lack of leadership away from emotional sentimentalism only further clouds judgment. Our capacity to misjudge Powell, is almost equalled to our misjudgement of the isolationist tendencies that multiculturalism can foster. The plight of many migrants today that Powell was so palpably concerned with is a direct result of failures to actively assimilate and the consistent indifference to the relationship between numbers and the rate of integration. Without a clear method to integrate, rather than isolate, the problems continue to exacerbate as their numbers grow in many parts of the country. Alas, so few people actually know that Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ was about discrimination to immigrants, as opposed to sectarian strife.
The provenance of that speech lies in the story of difficulties of immigration; how hard it was for one foreigner, at the heart of the quoted story, arriving in Ancient Rome, to fit in. Powell was, perhaps, a little selfish- he could have elaborated more rather than leaving the point to be unravelled by only the most cerebral. Though his message was clear, it was also pessimistic (unsurprisingly so as Powell was Nietzchean in outlook), and realistic as to what could and could not be achieved through a Christian spirit of warmth and welcome; even if this could be summoned on mass. The fact that our Isles have not quite been able to do this, mitigates only very partially the failed policies of consecutive Labour and Conservative governments to ensure restriction of numbers and even distribution of new-comers to ensure assimilation. Going back on this front now is almost improbable. However the remedy for isolation of young Muslims still exists: this is to encourage integration. But who, barring perhaps UKIP, would dare say this in the current political climate? The approach at present is to waive the problem; to use that ultimate laissez-faire abdication of responsibility word: ‘multiculturalism’. The word is not just a disincentive to assimilate- it makes it a right to isolate oneself in another land without even attempting to learn its history and culture. How can one then get on with and even be as one with its people? Of all people, Powell understood the daftness of this as he sat in India, sweating, in the midday sun some eighty years ago, mastering his Urdu and rendering local theology comprehensible to himself.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Some of us have been fortunate enough to go to a school where we have had to go to chapel everyday, including formally for an elongated service on Sundays. This may not ,necessarily, have given one concrete faith, but it may grant an intuitive insight into the history and culture of England. That religion has shaped national life for centuries is a historical understatement. Even a simple appreciation of ecclesiastical history can facilitate one to understand that it was a unique occurrence both in England, and the West, that political liberty came about on the back of religious liberty. Unfortunately, some young Muslims, confined to areas where they can only meet other isolated members of the same faith there are few opportunities for insight into the world beyond their uni-cultural communes. (The huge irony of multiculturalism is that it creates large areas where only one foreign culture persists. It is also an amazingly coincidental and useful structure for Labour Party campaigning!). For many young Muslims the opportunity to grasp and learn more about the terrific history of this Isles is left to an improbable outcome, particularly now that schools no longer teach British history and culture. This will no doubt persist ethnic minority isolation for the foreseeable future. With the disparity in knowledge of history and culture some young Muslims are ill-equipped to face the world, having being put at a disadvantage to those from other social backgrounds. With this lack of knowledge go so many related opportunities in employment and social life. It is no wonder that so many have no sense of belonging or affiliation, when marginalisation has occurred through the simple omission of knowledge.
There is no irony in the fact that Enoch Powell noted this possibility in the 1960s. After all, he had a profound understanding of subcontinent culture and languages. It is not difficult to be moved by the passage in Simon Heffer’s biography that describes Powell’s Indian attendees in tears when he is leaving the sub-continent. Few had gone so to such lengths to understand so deeply its variances and similarities with Britain (Warren Hastings is the only name that springs immediately to mind- but there are others). It is a sign of the mediocrity of human judgment that Powell has become so demonised (often out of political necessity, than pure malice). This, worryingly persistent, misjudgement demonstrates how far British politic has yet to mature on dealing with truths that for unreasoned and meagre minds seem subconsciously so unpalatable. The lack of leadership away from emotional sentimentalism only further clouds judgment. Our capacity to misjudge Powell, is almost equalled to our misjudgement of the isolationist tendencies that multiculturalism can foster. The plight of many migrants today that Powell was so palpably concerned with is a direct result of failures to actively assimilate and the consistent indifference to the relationship between numbers and the rate of integration. Without a clear method to integrate, rather than isolate, the problems continue to exacerbate as their numbers grow in many parts of the country. Alas, so few people actually know that Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ was about discrimination to immigrants, as opposed to sectarian strife.
The provenance of that speech lies in the story of difficulties of immigration; how hard it was for one foreigner, at the heart of the quoted story, arriving in Ancient Rome, to fit in. Powell was, perhaps, a little selfish- he could have elaborated more rather than leaving the point to be unravelled by only the most cerebral. Though his message was clear, it was also pessimistic (unsurprisingly so as Powell was Nietzchean in outlook), and realistic as to what could and could not be achieved through a Christian spirit of warmth and welcome; even if this could be summoned on mass. The fact that our Isles have not quite been able to do this, mitigates only very partially the failed policies of consecutive Labour and Conservative governments to ensure restriction of numbers and even distribution of new-comers to ensure assimilation. Going back on this front now is almost improbable. However the remedy for isolation of young Muslims still exists: this is to encourage integration. But who, barring perhaps UKIP, would dare say this in the current political climate? The approach at present is to waive the problem; to use that ultimate laissez-faire abdication of responsibility word: ‘multiculturalism’. The word is not just a disincentive to assimilate- it makes it a right to isolate oneself in another land without even attempting to learn its history and culture. How can one then get on with and even be as one with its people? Of all people, Powell understood the daftness of this as he sat in India, sweating, in the midday sun some eighty years ago, mastering his Urdu and rendering local theology comprehensible to himself.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
My dear Baroness Warsi- Is it hightime to revive the Medieval Starchamber?
Let us assume that Baroness Warsi's comments, last night, are not gratituitous aLet us assume that Baroness Warsi's comments, last night, are not gratituitous piffle, but of real substance. Afterall, why make such statements from the altar of authority if you are not going to act upon them? It is all too rare thesedays too see politicians goading the public, accusing them of imaginary prejudices- particularly on issues of race or creed. So what ought the Baroness to do next? If you are willing to accuse the public of an imaginary prejudice, go further act upon it and put an end to it Baroness, please. The use of the Starchamber in the Medieval period was one of our darkest periods of history. Secretly facts and inquisitions would be read about persons unbeknown to them, and sentences passed until only at the last moment the person convicted would find himself burnt, hung or quartered.
Baroness Warsi's comments yesterday demonstrates that she, or the Conservative Party, perhaps, might find it tempting to turn the Select Committee on Islamophobia into a secret inquistorial process reminiscient of the, thankfully, abolished medieval court. In a period of time in our country where Muslim terrorists have allowed Governments to create secret tribunals why not this further erosion of our civil liberties? One must, of course, begin with some common-sense to help her. So my first question is how does a bunch of politicians and their aides demonstrate what a 'phobia' is? Are they psychiatrists? No of course not, but they will somehow discuss persons who are and instances where some intangible form of prejudice has occurred to demonstrate this phobia.
Following Baroness Warsi's example, perhaps, the committee ought to further justify its proper use of tax-payer's money to bug dinner tables up and down the country. It may decided to address the so called 'Isamophobia' too- Why not do this properly with the use of modern science? Or would this make this ridiculous select committee even less Kafaseque/Starchamber-like? On one reading a phobia is an irrational fear. Is it right to irrationally fear muslims, considering that it is the only faith from which terrorists have propogated terror, in the recent times, for the sake of religion itself? If that is not a 'phobia' then classifying such feelings as such must be secretly inquisitorial or star-chamber esque- surely? Further some aspects of Sharia law include wife-beating that are directly opposed to our understanding of a woman's equal standing in society. It is also clear that the idea of a liberal society, (i.e. one that drinks, procreates freely, values choice and autonomy without the decree of theocractic supersition) is wrong in some Islamic eyes. Does this mean that libertarians (of which I am not one) should also have a phobia of Islam? Or is this a natural, justified, fear to their way of life?
And who justifies this- some unelected select committee, or some moronic Chairwoman of the Conservative Party who feels that it is wrong to have a phobia of a faith that aspects of which are so fundamentally opposed to the British way of life (and I don't mean here just munching on an odd bit of bacon sandwich) that people ought not to be concerned. One might make the case the otherway. One might say that only unpatriotic dimwits are not concerned by the rise of some Islamic practices in the country. That this no different from being concerned about Hindu wishes for open-air cremations, that coat the countryside with hazardous ash. But my dear countrymen and women, think not this. Or the Gestapo in the form of Baroness Warsi will be out to get you. Watch your tongue at supper tonight. Dare not say, whilst supping your wine, wouldn't Muslims enjoy this rather fine, though possibly on the turn, Merlot? There are pressing questions here for the Baroness too:
From where does the search for Islamophobes begin and the inquisition of traditional culturally minded patriots end? And what is, as far this preposterous select committee is concerned, the boundary between two intangible terms: 'phobia' and 'paranoia'? I don't know, but I do defer to the Baroness's ability to read people's minds. She, I am sure, will be most useful to both Committee and Country. I am sure that her comments won't encourage, for example, the victim culture in, a few, Muslims that can be so shallow and a so easlily overreached barrier to integration, if only they could be helped with the right leadership. It is time for our Baroness to go back to the drawing-board, think-again, and wonder if the best-way for those Muslims that feel ostracised, that can't assimilate, to integrate is to encourage proactive integration into mainstream national culture, heritage and values-rather than mindless apologetics. These include that most of British of things: *Not to make unsubstantiated incriminations, as her statement has. Those values have been here, on our Island, far longer than her or any form of Islam.
Copyright Abhijit P.G.Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011iffle, but of real substance. Afterall, why make such statements from the altar of authority if you are not going to act upon them? It is all too rare thesedays too see politicians goading the public, accusing them of imaginary prejudices- particularly on issues of race or creed. So what ought the Baroness to do next? If you are willing to accuse the public of an imaginary prejudice, go further act upon it and put an end to it Baroness, please. The use of the Starchamber in the Medieval period was one of our darkest periods of history. Secretly facts and inquisitions would be read about persons unbeknown to them, and sentences passed until only at the last moment the person convicted would find himself burnt, hung or quartered.
Baroness Warsi's comments yesterday demonstrates that she, or the Conservative Party, perhaps, might find it tempting to turn the Select Committee on Islamophobia into a secret inquistorial process reminiscient of the, thankfully, abolished medieval court. In a period of time in our country where Muslim terrorists have allowed Governments to create secret tribunals why not this further erosion of our civil liberties? One must, of course, begin with some common-sense to help her. So my first question is how does a bunch of politicians and their aides demonstrate what a 'phobia' is? Are they psychiatrists? No of course not, but they will somehow discuss persons who are and instances where some intangible form of prejudice has occurred to demonstrate this phobia.
Following Baroness Warsi's example, perhaps, the committee ought to further justify its proper use of tax-payer's money to bug dinner tables up and down the country. It may decided to address the so called 'Isamophobia' too- Why not do this properly with the use of modern science? Or would this make this ridiculous select committee even less Kafaseque/Starchamber-like? On one reading a phobia is an irrational fear. Is it right to irrationally fear muslims, considering that it is the only faith from which terrorists have propogated terror, in the recent times, for the sake of religion itself? If that is not a 'phobia' then classifying such feelings as such must be secretly inquisitorial or star-chamber esque- surely? Further some aspects of Sharia law include wife-beating that are directly opposed to our understanding of a woman's equal standing in society. It is also clear that the idea of a liberal society, (i.e. one that drinks, procreates freely, values choice and autonomy without the decree of theocractic supersition) is wrong in some Islamic eyes. Does this mean that libertarians (of which I am not one) should also have a phobia of Islam? Or is this a natural, justified, fear to their way of life?
And who justifies this- some unelected select committee, or some moronic Chairwoman of the Conservative Party who feels that it is wrong to have a phobia of a faith that aspects of which are so fundamentally opposed to the British way of life (and I don't mean here just munching on an odd bit of bacon sandwich) that people ought not to be concerned. One might make the case the otherway. One might say that only unpatriotic dimwits are not concerned by the rise of some Islamic practices in the country. That this no different from being concerned about Hindu wishes for open-air cremations, that coat the countryside with hazardous ash. But my dear countrymen and women, think not this. Or the Gestapo in the form of Baroness Warsi will be out to get you. Watch your tongue at supper tonight. Dare not say, whilst supping your wine, wouldn't Muslim's enjoy this rather fine, though possibly on the turn, Merlot? There are pressing questions here for the Baroness too:
From where does the search for Islamophobes begin and the inquisition of traditional culturally minded patriots end? And what is, as far this preposterous select committee is concerned, the boundary between two intangible terms: 'phobia' and 'paranoia'? I don't know, but I do defer to the Baroness's ability to read people's minds. She, I am sure, will be most useful to both Committee and Country. I am sure that her comments won't encourage, for example, the victim culture in, a few, Muslims that can be so shallow and a so easlily overreached barrier to integration, if only they could be helped with the right leadership. It is time for our Baroness to go back to the drawing-board, think-again, and wonder if the best-way for those Muslims that feel ostracised, that can't assimilate, to integrate is to encourage proactive integration into mainstream national culture, heritage and values. These include that most of British of things: *Not to make unsubstantiated incriminations, as her statement has. Those values have been here, on our Island, far longer than her or any form of Islam.
Copyright Abhijit P.G.Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011
Baroness Warsi's comments yesterday demonstrates that she, or the Conservative Party, perhaps, might find it tempting to turn the Select Committee on Islamophobia into a secret inquistorial process reminiscient of the, thankfully, abolished medieval court. In a period of time in our country where Muslim terrorists have allowed Governments to create secret tribunals why not this further erosion of our civil liberties? One must, of course, begin with some common-sense to help her. So my first question is how does a bunch of politicians and their aides demonstrate what a 'phobia' is? Are they psychiatrists? No of course not, but they will somehow discuss persons who are and instances where some intangible form of prejudice has occurred to demonstrate this phobia.
Following Baroness Warsi's example, perhaps, the committee ought to further justify its proper use of tax-payer's money to bug dinner tables up and down the country. It may decided to address the so called 'Isamophobia' too- Why not do this properly with the use of modern science? Or would this make this ridiculous select committee even less Kafaseque/Starchamber-like? On one reading a phobia is an irrational fear. Is it right to irrationally fear muslims, considering that it is the only faith from which terrorists have propogated terror, in the recent times, for the sake of religion itself? If that is not a 'phobia' then classifying such feelings as such must be secretly inquisitorial or star-chamber esque- surely? Further some aspects of Sharia law include wife-beating that are directly opposed to our understanding of a woman's equal standing in society. It is also clear that the idea of a liberal society, (i.e. one that drinks, procreates freely, values choice and autonomy without the decree of theocractic supersition) is wrong in some Islamic eyes. Does this mean that libertarians (of which I am not one) should also have a phobia of Islam? Or is this a natural, justified, fear to their way of life?
And who justifies this- some unelected select committee, or some moronic Chairwoman of the Conservative Party who feels that it is wrong to have a phobia of a faith that aspects of which are so fundamentally opposed to the British way of life (and I don't mean here just munching on an odd bit of bacon sandwich) that people ought not to be concerned. One might make the case the otherway. One might say that only unpatriotic dimwits are not concerned by the rise of some Islamic practices in the country. That this no different from being concerned about Hindu wishes for open-air cremations, that coat the countryside with hazardous ash. But my dear countrymen and women, think not this. Or the Gestapo in the form of Baroness Warsi will be out to get you. Watch your tongue at supper tonight. Dare not say, whilst supping your wine, wouldn't Muslims enjoy this rather fine, though possibly on the turn, Merlot? There are pressing questions here for the Baroness too:
From where does the search for Islamophobes begin and the inquisition of traditional culturally minded patriots end? And what is, as far this preposterous select committee is concerned, the boundary between two intangible terms: 'phobia' and 'paranoia'? I don't know, but I do defer to the Baroness's ability to read people's minds. She, I am sure, will be most useful to both Committee and Country. I am sure that her comments won't encourage, for example, the victim culture in, a few, Muslims that can be so shallow and a so easlily overreached barrier to integration, if only they could be helped with the right leadership. It is time for our Baroness to go back to the drawing-board, think-again, and wonder if the best-way for those Muslims that feel ostracised, that can't assimilate, to integrate is to encourage proactive integration into mainstream national culture, heritage and values-rather than mindless apologetics. These include that most of British of things: *Not to make unsubstantiated incriminations, as her statement has. Those values have been here, on our Island, far longer than her or any form of Islam.
Copyright Abhijit P.G.Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011iffle, but of real substance. Afterall, why make such statements from the altar of authority if you are not going to act upon them? It is all too rare thesedays too see politicians goading the public, accusing them of imaginary prejudices- particularly on issues of race or creed. So what ought the Baroness to do next? If you are willing to accuse the public of an imaginary prejudice, go further act upon it and put an end to it Baroness, please. The use of the Starchamber in the Medieval period was one of our darkest periods of history. Secretly facts and inquisitions would be read about persons unbeknown to them, and sentences passed until only at the last moment the person convicted would find himself burnt, hung or quartered.
Baroness Warsi's comments yesterday demonstrates that she, or the Conservative Party, perhaps, might find it tempting to turn the Select Committee on Islamophobia into a secret inquistorial process reminiscient of the, thankfully, abolished medieval court. In a period of time in our country where Muslim terrorists have allowed Governments to create secret tribunals why not this further erosion of our civil liberties? One must, of course, begin with some common-sense to help her. So my first question is how does a bunch of politicians and their aides demonstrate what a 'phobia' is? Are they psychiatrists? No of course not, but they will somehow discuss persons who are and instances where some intangible form of prejudice has occurred to demonstrate this phobia.
Following Baroness Warsi's example, perhaps, the committee ought to further justify its proper use of tax-payer's money to bug dinner tables up and down the country. It may decided to address the so called 'Isamophobia' too- Why not do this properly with the use of modern science? Or would this make this ridiculous select committee even less Kafaseque/Starchamber-like? On one reading a phobia is an irrational fear. Is it right to irrationally fear muslims, considering that it is the only faith from which terrorists have propogated terror, in the recent times, for the sake of religion itself? If that is not a 'phobia' then classifying such feelings as such must be secretly inquisitorial or star-chamber esque- surely? Further some aspects of Sharia law include wife-beating that are directly opposed to our understanding of a woman's equal standing in society. It is also clear that the idea of a liberal society, (i.e. one that drinks, procreates freely, values choice and autonomy without the decree of theocractic supersition) is wrong in some Islamic eyes. Does this mean that libertarians (of which I am not one) should also have a phobia of Islam? Or is this a natural, justified, fear to their way of life?
And who justifies this- some unelected select committee, or some moronic Chairwoman of the Conservative Party who feels that it is wrong to have a phobia of a faith that aspects of which are so fundamentally opposed to the British way of life (and I don't mean here just munching on an odd bit of bacon sandwich) that people ought not to be concerned. One might make the case the otherway. One might say that only unpatriotic dimwits are not concerned by the rise of some Islamic practices in the country. That this no different from being concerned about Hindu wishes for open-air cremations, that coat the countryside with hazardous ash. But my dear countrymen and women, think not this. Or the Gestapo in the form of Baroness Warsi will be out to get you. Watch your tongue at supper tonight. Dare not say, whilst supping your wine, wouldn't Muslim's enjoy this rather fine, though possibly on the turn, Merlot? There are pressing questions here for the Baroness too:
From where does the search for Islamophobes begin and the inquisition of traditional culturally minded patriots end? And what is, as far this preposterous select committee is concerned, the boundary between two intangible terms: 'phobia' and 'paranoia'? I don't know, but I do defer to the Baroness's ability to read people's minds. She, I am sure, will be most useful to both Committee and Country. I am sure that her comments won't encourage, for example, the victim culture in, a few, Muslims that can be so shallow and a so easlily overreached barrier to integration, if only they could be helped with the right leadership. It is time for our Baroness to go back to the drawing-board, think-again, and wonder if the best-way for those Muslims that feel ostracised, that can't assimilate, to integrate is to encourage proactive integration into mainstream national culture, heritage and values. These include that most of British of things: *Not to make unsubstantiated incriminations, as her statement has. Those values have been here, on our Island, far longer than her or any form of Islam.
Copyright Abhijit P.G.Pandya 2011
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Does Anthony Blunt make the case to pull out of 'Additional Protocol 13' of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Mrs. Thatcher was an extraordinary Prime Minister for a number of reasons. Perhaps signs were already there at the start of her reign as Prime Minister when she uncovered the acts of one of Britain’s greatest all-time villains to the public and removed his knighthood and privileges. One of her first acts was the unmasking of Anthony Blunt, whose wartime treachery was deliberately kept hidden from the public to prevent outcry, more in relation to the sustained cover-up than treachery, by an institutional establishment that was too embarrassed to reveal the misfits of one of their own. For years Anthony Blunt, traitor and devil incarnate, sat in Somerset House in knowledge that he got away with the help of tacit connivance of friends in higher places. He sat in the old navy office, never once recanting his treachery, as Surveyor’s of the King’s Pictures (the man in charge of the Royal Family’s art collection). He had at his fingertips one of the most mesmerising art collections in the country. This collection includes some fantastic period pieces such as Canaletto’s 18th Century portrait of Venice, with its remarkable gaunt and thinly laden depiction of key architecture posturing amicably behind a vast encompass of river. Other highlights include a Rembrandt self-portrait, and the ‘Adoration of the Magi’ by Ricci and Lorrain’s exquisite capturing of Italian countryside in the late evening.
Prior to enjoying such delights and preserving them for the nation, during the Second World War Mr. Blunt, a distant cousin of the Queen, was into far more insidious schemes. His main activity was passing off a significant quantity of secret information about military and confidential activity to the Soviets. He was engaged in this prior to the Nazi breach of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. Thus, in essence, assisting Germany following Britain declaration of war against her later that year. Following this he passed significant British intelligence regarding German army and navy codes to the Russians during his time as an MI5 officer from 1940 onwards. All these activities would placed him in the clear possibility of prosecution, and the death sentence, had they been fully revealed at the time. That he did this during a time when not only Britain was under threat from invasion, but losing lives at war is wholly disgusting. Yet despite knowledge of all this no full investigation was undertaken, nor any prosecution pursued that might have lead to an appropriate
(death) sentence for almost four decades following the end of the war.
This issue, of national betrayal and the death sentence, is just as pressing today. Until Tony Blair removed Britain’s right to exercise the death penalty for traitors in the time of war by signing up to a specific part of the European Convention for Human Rights in 1997 (Additional Protocol 13) it was still possible for us to execute national traitors who put the lives of many, if not all of us, at risk. Young British Islamic radicals so often finding their real homes, thanks to multiculturalism, fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan could have all received the chop. The death penalty could have acted as a disincentive and deterrent for crazy British nationals to wage war against their own soldiers when they are fighting against a foreign state. However, it seems quite bizarre that this optional part of European Legislation would be voluntarily signed up to without adequate ascertainment of the restrictions it would place on the ability of states to protect themselves in a time of war. Nor is it clear what benefits to foreign policy ratifying the Additional Protocol 13 will serve. More bizarre is the current silence from Conservative back-benchers, stolen into silence by their power craven leader to force a limping coalition to walk, at present on this issue.
Can anyone in the House of Commons dare to open the debate on Additional Protocol 13? Or have we all bayed into the silence by thinking that the death penalty is always, under all circumstances, a nasty thing AND that it ok for European Law to curtail our right to have it during war?
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Prior to enjoying such delights and preserving them for the nation, during the Second World War Mr. Blunt, a distant cousin of the Queen, was into far more insidious schemes. His main activity was passing off a significant quantity of secret information about military and confidential activity to the Soviets. He was engaged in this prior to the Nazi breach of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. Thus, in essence, assisting Germany following Britain declaration of war against her later that year. Following this he passed significant British intelligence regarding German army and navy codes to the Russians during his time as an MI5 officer from 1940 onwards. All these activities would placed him in the clear possibility of prosecution, and the death sentence, had they been fully revealed at the time. That he did this during a time when not only Britain was under threat from invasion, but losing lives at war is wholly disgusting. Yet despite knowledge of all this no full investigation was undertaken, nor any prosecution pursued that might have lead to an appropriate
(death) sentence for almost four decades following the end of the war.
This issue, of national betrayal and the death sentence, is just as pressing today. Until Tony Blair removed Britain’s right to exercise the death penalty for traitors in the time of war by signing up to a specific part of the European Convention for Human Rights in 1997 (Additional Protocol 13) it was still possible for us to execute national traitors who put the lives of many, if not all of us, at risk. Young British Islamic radicals so often finding their real homes, thanks to multiculturalism, fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan could have all received the chop. The death penalty could have acted as a disincentive and deterrent for crazy British nationals to wage war against their own soldiers when they are fighting against a foreign state. However, it seems quite bizarre that this optional part of European Legislation would be voluntarily signed up to without adequate ascertainment of the restrictions it would place on the ability of states to protect themselves in a time of war. Nor is it clear what benefits to foreign policy ratifying the Additional Protocol 13 will serve. More bizarre is the current silence from Conservative back-benchers, stolen into silence by their power craven leader to force a limping coalition to walk, at present on this issue.
Can anyone in the House of Commons dare to open the debate on Additional Protocol 13? Or have we all bayed into the silence by thinking that the death penalty is always, under all circumstances, a nasty thing AND that it ok for European Law to curtail our right to have it during war?
Abhijit P.G. Pandya Copyright 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)