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.
Tuesday, 25 January 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.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Radical Islam in Britain- Is there ever more of a need of inductive reasoning than when reason has been abandoned into the foray of Multi-Culturalism?
A not so unfamiliar, though still rare and sad tale these days: A young Muslim boy grows-up to become an Islamic terrorist. At some point before he became a terrorist he was a mere Muslim. During the phase of being a Muslim, or before it- if that is relevant, he had occasion to question his faith. Or, if he did not have occasion, he had not been given the fundamental faculties of reason, nor had he knowledge of the benefits of applying to reason to self-assessment. Like so many people of faith, irrespective of type, he failed to realise the fundamentals of human autonomy that renders faith a matter of choice, not absolute decree.
This example may be possible in an orthodox Islamic state, but it is by no means likely. But what if this was done in a modern Western democratic state? What if it was done in say the state that fathered the Enlightenment and fostered democracy around the world? Would at some point there not be a detailed, carefully questioning, inquiry into cause? Would not the rational question of intervention come into play? Further, though not vindicating his actions, could assigning fault of this to the state prevent such similar action in the future? Let us go further into detail of this particular Western democratic state. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it had a national religion that is Christianity. And let’s say for further argument, that it had a Head of state whom was also the Head of this religion. Let’s also say that in the entire stretch of the 20th Century there was no incident of mass religious violence or terrorism between Christian groups in this hypothetical state. Induction would lead us to say that Christianity does not cause violence in this state, in recent times, against other Christians (irrespective of denomination) on the basis of religion. Either it does not permit it and this is sanctionable, or people who perpetrate violence who are Christians against other Christians are not motivated by religion. It would be wise for anyone seeking a correlation between religion and violence to have a look at this case as an example of some accord in this context.
Let us take our inquiry further in our hypothetical state. Let it also be taken as fact that in this place there is no violence between non-religious persons in recent times on the basis of established religion. These three configurations would lead to, perhaps, an unpalatable conclusion: (i) people who are not religious are not generally interested in the propagation of religious violence; (ii) Christians are not generally interested in religious violence against one another on the basis of Christianity; (iii) for some reason people who commit terrorism are latching on to Islam- BUT it is by no means clear whether Islam is causing terrorism.
A detailed analysis of the third would very likely corroborate it. As not all muslims are terrorists, it is not Islam but the supposed believer of it that is likely to be responsible for religious violence. But why would he or she do this? The root answer to this is not in Islam, but rather in something else: ‘Group theory’. The muslim terrorist does not have access to something that other members of society who do not propagate religious violence do. Perhaps, Christians and atheists have access to a context for religion within which Islamic terrorists do not. This context must render religious violence otiose. What could it be? And what should the state do, if anything, to provide it?
To cut an elongating analysis short the context is ‘Not Multiculturalism’. The state must stop encouraging multiculturalism and re-enforcing it. What I am saying in blunt terms is that: Islam is not responsible for Islamic terrorism in Britain BUT multiculturalism is. For the radical Islamist (whose motivations for violence are conviction driven above and beyond the common criminal), the boundaries of the role of religion in the modern world are simply unknown and irrelevant. To the fundamentalist religion is everything. But the last three hundred years of British history have been in exactly the opposite direction: telling us that religion isn’t everything. History tells us that when coupled with reason, religion can reduce its inherent propensities to harm when it is in the hand of a zealous human-being.
‘Multi-culturalism’ in a state with many religions and different cultures will inevitably lead to segregation due to the very nature of religion to denounce, on a non-empirical basis, all others. It also isolates old world theology, from modern world philosophy. Without removing multi-culturalism, which prevents assimilation from orthodox theology to secular pluralism, the main-bulk of us in society who understand that religion is a belief and nothing more (and that this is not related to its validity) will be at risk from the odd zealot. Further, where there are plural religions in play it encourages identity with belief rather than nation state or our common humanity. This enervates the idea that a man can be judged for his actions rather than beliefs (and works to engender the opposite). The former is at the heart of a state that believes in rationalism and modernity.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2010
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2010
This example may be possible in an orthodox Islamic state, but it is by no means likely. But what if this was done in a modern Western democratic state? What if it was done in say the state that fathered the Enlightenment and fostered democracy around the world? Would at some point there not be a detailed, carefully questioning, inquiry into cause? Would not the rational question of intervention come into play? Further, though not vindicating his actions, could assigning fault of this to the state prevent such similar action in the future? Let us go further into detail of this particular Western democratic state. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it had a national religion that is Christianity. And let’s say for further argument, that it had a Head of state whom was also the Head of this religion. Let’s also say that in the entire stretch of the 20th Century there was no incident of mass religious violence or terrorism between Christian groups in this hypothetical state. Induction would lead us to say that Christianity does not cause violence in this state, in recent times, against other Christians (irrespective of denomination) on the basis of religion. Either it does not permit it and this is sanctionable, or people who perpetrate violence who are Christians against other Christians are not motivated by religion. It would be wise for anyone seeking a correlation between religion and violence to have a look at this case as an example of some accord in this context.
Let us take our inquiry further in our hypothetical state. Let it also be taken as fact that in this place there is no violence between non-religious persons in recent times on the basis of established religion. These three configurations would lead to, perhaps, an unpalatable conclusion: (i) people who are not religious are not generally interested in the propagation of religious violence; (ii) Christians are not generally interested in religious violence against one another on the basis of Christianity; (iii) for some reason people who commit terrorism are latching on to Islam- BUT it is by no means clear whether Islam is causing terrorism.
A detailed analysis of the third would very likely corroborate it. As not all muslims are terrorists, it is not Islam but the supposed believer of it that is likely to be responsible for religious violence. But why would he or she do this? The root answer to this is not in Islam, but rather in something else: ‘Group theory’. The muslim terrorist does not have access to something that other members of society who do not propagate religious violence do. Perhaps, Christians and atheists have access to a context for religion within which Islamic terrorists do not. This context must render religious violence otiose. What could it be? And what should the state do, if anything, to provide it?
To cut an elongating analysis short the context is ‘Not Multiculturalism’. The state must stop encouraging multiculturalism and re-enforcing it. What I am saying in blunt terms is that: Islam is not responsible for Islamic terrorism in Britain BUT multiculturalism is. For the radical Islamist (whose motivations for violence are conviction driven above and beyond the common criminal), the boundaries of the role of religion in the modern world are simply unknown and irrelevant. To the fundamentalist religion is everything. But the last three hundred years of British history have been in exactly the opposite direction: telling us that religion isn’t everything. History tells us that when coupled with reason, religion can reduce its inherent propensities to harm when it is in the hand of a zealous human-being.
‘Multi-culturalism’ in a state with many religions and different cultures will inevitably lead to segregation due to the very nature of religion to denounce, on a non-empirical basis, all others. It also isolates old world theology, from modern world philosophy. Without removing multi-culturalism, which prevents assimilation from orthodox theology to secular pluralism, the main-bulk of us in society who understand that religion is a belief and nothing more (and that this is not related to its validity) will be at risk from the odd zealot. Further, where there are plural religions in play it encourages identity with belief rather than nation state or our common humanity. This enervates the idea that a man can be judged for his actions rather than beliefs (and works to engender the opposite). The former is at the heart of a state that believes in rationalism and modernity.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2010
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2010
The European Union’s destructive plan to End bilateralism and the right of States to have trade and investment policy.
The EU’s new investment policy, permitted under the Lisbon Treaty, will end the ability of the UK to negotiate bilateral investment treaties and related trade deals on its own. It will thus stop us from negotiating with other states to lure businesses and services to the UK, and selling the bonus points of the UK as a place to invest. It will thus result in a severe decline of foreign investment, which provides much needed employment in poorer areas of our country.
When this policy becomes an EU Regulation it will prevent any member state having a preferential investment and trade agreement over another. Thus, if the UK has a better investment agreement than Germany with India, it will nullify that advantage. Following the successful passage of the regulation all investment treaties will only be able to be signed by the EU. Bilateral trade agreements will follow suit. All foreign investment policy will then be exclusive competence of the EU.
This is the end of sole control over foreign trade and investment policy for the UK and any related trade advantages it has in the global market over the EU and other states. As these agreements are reciprocal, it will significantly undermine Britain's competitiveness in the global market as the UK will no longer have control over protecting its businesses overseas. This also means that if non-EU states do not sign an investment agreement with the EU, British businesses will have no protection as Britain will not be able to sign any investment treaties on its own. British business will either then avoid those states, resources and markets or go there under serious risk that their business will be nationalised by the state. Thus some businesses may cease to trade overseas as a result of lack of protection that investment treaties provide.
Because the UK will no longer be able to have a bilateral investment treaty (this is a reciprocal agreement for both states to encourage and protect investments) the same investments that would normally come to the UK would now go anywhere in the EU. We would not be allowed to give any preferential treatment to lure businesses here, and as a result it would mean the end of the policy of foreign businesses to come in to deal with unemployment.
It is likely that the EU will then legislative to send these businesses to the more needy or other parts where it is cheaper to make the EU to attract them.
A definite loss for the UK as our unemployment does not match those of other parts of the EU nor do we have the cheapest platform from which businesses can operate. The foreign direct investment economic stimulus will be done on an EU wide basis and not on a national level.
It remains extraordinary that so many members of the leading political parties were blind to the enlargement of EU competence in Lisbon to investment and what the effects were likely to be.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 21.12. 2010
Copyright Birkenhead Society 21.12.2010.
When this policy becomes an EU Regulation it will prevent any member state having a preferential investment and trade agreement over another. Thus, if the UK has a better investment agreement than Germany with India, it will nullify that advantage. Following the successful passage of the regulation all investment treaties will only be able to be signed by the EU. Bilateral trade agreements will follow suit. All foreign investment policy will then be exclusive competence of the EU.
This is the end of sole control over foreign trade and investment policy for the UK and any related trade advantages it has in the global market over the EU and other states. As these agreements are reciprocal, it will significantly undermine Britain's competitiveness in the global market as the UK will no longer have control over protecting its businesses overseas. This also means that if non-EU states do not sign an investment agreement with the EU, British businesses will have no protection as Britain will not be able to sign any investment treaties on its own. British business will either then avoid those states, resources and markets or go there under serious risk that their business will be nationalised by the state. Thus some businesses may cease to trade overseas as a result of lack of protection that investment treaties provide.
Because the UK will no longer be able to have a bilateral investment treaty (this is a reciprocal agreement for both states to encourage and protect investments) the same investments that would normally come to the UK would now go anywhere in the EU. We would not be allowed to give any preferential treatment to lure businesses here, and as a result it would mean the end of the policy of foreign businesses to come in to deal with unemployment.
It is likely that the EU will then legislative to send these businesses to the more needy or other parts where it is cheaper to make the EU to attract them.
A definite loss for the UK as our unemployment does not match those of other parts of the EU nor do we have the cheapest platform from which businesses can operate. The foreign direct investment economic stimulus will be done on an EU wide basis and not on a national level.
It remains extraordinary that so many members of the leading political parties were blind to the enlargement of EU competence in Lisbon to investment and what the effects were likely to be.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 21.12. 2010
Copyright Birkenhead Society 21.12.2010.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
If you don’t believe water-boarding convicted terrorists is right; then you simply haven’t joined the real world.
Professor Sir Nigel Rodley argued on BBC News this evening that President Bush’s admission of torture should be followed by a criminal prosecution. That torture is quite simply wrong and ‘they will torture us if we torture them’. Excuse me Professor, I think you haven’t quite grasped the situation: They want to kill us. Whatever their reasons for killing us or torturing us, it’s not to do with our water-boarding them (in fact the perceived barbarity of the enemy is to be respected and honoured historically in some warlike/terrorist perpetuating cultures). This demonstrates how far the human rights dreamers are away from the reality of the war. They want to kill us for being Western, economically successful and believing in democracy. This jealousy and often base hate is masked in all sorts of dissimulations (it is both the prerogative and habit of evil to deceive), E.g. Israel’s acts in Gaza, the war in Iraq, the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan. Unfortunately it is often the courage to do brutal acts that perpetuates the survival of civilisation over barbarity. While evil exists, preservation of the greater good is paramount through often visceral courage. President Bush, thank god, had the courage to do this and not live in a dangerous subjective utopia that leads to elimination.
Professor Rodley, sitting in his warm room in his university (like many a human rights lawyer) needs to understand a few very fundamental things:
1. The world is very horrible place with lots of nasty people that want to destroy his way of life. His ability to sit there warm and safe to dream and abstractly pontificate in his office is based on the existence of the nation state.
2. The nation state has to be protected, without it we can’t dream of the non-sense of human rights or the commonsense of liberty.
3. That human rights can destroy the nation-state, by giving unmeritorious people rights through being universal and thus economically crippling Governments. It can also do so by weakening us in the face of those who are our enemies.
4. That the people whom we torture are fighting to end all talk of human rights and liberty, and if they win the human rights lawyers will either be censored or, most likely as the Taliban have shown with respect to dissent, killed.
The obvious advice for Professor Rodley is to follow President Bush and self-preserve. It is self-evident, to all but those who have lost touch with common-sense and reality, that preserving life and liberty has to come before the ability to dream.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2010.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2010.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
David Cameron failed in Brussels on Friday because he doesn’t realise that they need us more than we need them.
In Prime Ministers’ Questions on Wednesday (27/11/10) David Cameron arrogantly affused a brief narrative regarding Lady Thatcher’s extraordinary EU rebate negotiations in 1984. After hours of heated posturing European leaders then gave in to Lady Thatcher’s simple argument that Britain’s economic contribution to the Common Agricultural Policy was disproportionate to the benefits brought home by the EEC. So Cameron had set himself for his Lady Thatcher moment, forcing us to find an assessment of whether his self-drawn comparison was justified. He came home after Friday evening in Brussels not just empty handed (he mitigated loss rather than acquired benefit) but also without discernible intended impact of reducing the increase to the EU budget.
I don’t know who was briefing the Prime Minister, but in the last few weeks when Europe was working out how to entrench a huge deposit scheme for national bail-outs, how off the wall his thinking of reducing a budget increase of 6% next year was- and simply how hard he would have to fight in this climate to get it. In simple terms while we are cutting costs back home, Europe is looking for increased contributions for its new monolith insurance policy, which like so many other self-proposed schemes carries with it no Treaty based mandate. The Prime Minister, without being able to effectively understand the eminence of Britain’s position in Europe and the importance of our current contributions to any of these causes, failed to go in there with a plan of reduced exposure to Europe in line with cuts that many domestic areas were facing. He thus did not play the old; ‘we would like to do this, but it is not sitting with what are doing domestically- hence my hands are tied’. Unfortunately, even this evaded the PM.
Lady Thatcher, of course, would have been far fiercer and stronger than that: I suspect she would still be in Brussels this evening, bullish if she had not got what she had wanted. As a result of this the Prime Minister has left a gaping disparity in the Comprehensive Spending Review set out by his Chancellor. I, for one, am still not convinced that those that will lose their public sector jobs at home will be happy that their jobs will be paying for policy development for bailouts for the future debt mismanaged Greeces of this world.
In the end the P.M. got the increase halved, yet an increase it still is. The policy disparity between domestic cuts and international expenditure caused by the upcoming UK contributions to the EU is no longer tenable. The EU expenditure is not negligible. UK’s net EU contributions will increase to £6.9 billion next year, roughly 6.5% of the NHS budget (the equivalent cost of prescriptions for the entire population for over a year or the cost of cancer treatment for the entire population for two years (Source: OHE 2009)). This makes reassessment of benefits of membership timely, as it genuinely affects life-style choices at home due its cost. The arguments thus move beyond self-government and preservation of democracy, to social needs of the UK population including national tax policy which impacts upon economic autonomy of the individual.
This self-assessment is particularly needed given the Lisbon Treaty endows the EU with the capacity to make treaties, making withdrawal now easier than ever. With the end of the Cold-war and growing global privatisation now bringing more and more sectors (and states) into the global market, Britain must branch its export/import circle far above and beyond the Eurozone. After all the Indians don’t speak French but English, and the advantage of bilateral trade increasingly moves us away from multilateralism into the bilateral realm of foreign economic policy. But beyond all this, the EU’s role in promoting global free trade is now questionably ‘redundant’. When the UK entered the EEC global tariffs were significantly high, and the GATT had yet to expand the areas of reduced tariffs now seen within the WTO. (The subsequent Tokyo and Uruguay rounds of world trade negotiations in the late 1970s and 1980s moved the world significantly towards global free trade in an unprecedented way). Now cost of exports and imports vis-à-vis tariffs are negligible, so that most areas of the world no longer have effective barriers to prevent trade. The rise of investment treaties in the last two decades (from over 50 to several thousand) has virtually ended the concept of market barriers. This renders benefits of exclusivity or preference to the Euro-zone for trade and investment dubious, and frees states from being ensconced in international institutions for trade to more global choices in line with global market liberalisation.
It is with this in mind, and with some developed choices in foreign economic policy that the P.M. should have faced the Brussels crowd on Friday evening. The most important thing that the PM should have noted: the UK contributes 13% of the EU budget (£13 billion 700 million Euros) –however, there are 27 member states. Some states contribute nothing. (Romania contributes nothing but still has 35 MEPs sitting in the European Parliament; Bulgaria contributes nothing but still has 18 MEPs sitting in the European Parliament- all able to vote on fiscal policy and expenditure which is based on the contributions of other states). The conclusion, my dear P.M., is simple: they need us more than we need them.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2010.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2010.
I don’t know who was briefing the Prime Minister, but in the last few weeks when Europe was working out how to entrench a huge deposit scheme for national bail-outs, how off the wall his thinking of reducing a budget increase of 6% next year was- and simply how hard he would have to fight in this climate to get it. In simple terms while we are cutting costs back home, Europe is looking for increased contributions for its new monolith insurance policy, which like so many other self-proposed schemes carries with it no Treaty based mandate. The Prime Minister, without being able to effectively understand the eminence of Britain’s position in Europe and the importance of our current contributions to any of these causes, failed to go in there with a plan of reduced exposure to Europe in line with cuts that many domestic areas were facing. He thus did not play the old; ‘we would like to do this, but it is not sitting with what are doing domestically- hence my hands are tied’. Unfortunately, even this evaded the PM.
Lady Thatcher, of course, would have been far fiercer and stronger than that: I suspect she would still be in Brussels this evening, bullish if she had not got what she had wanted. As a result of this the Prime Minister has left a gaping disparity in the Comprehensive Spending Review set out by his Chancellor. I, for one, am still not convinced that those that will lose their public sector jobs at home will be happy that their jobs will be paying for policy development for bailouts for the future debt mismanaged Greeces of this world.
In the end the P.M. got the increase halved, yet an increase it still is. The policy disparity between domestic cuts and international expenditure caused by the upcoming UK contributions to the EU is no longer tenable. The EU expenditure is not negligible. UK’s net EU contributions will increase to £6.9 billion next year, roughly 6.5% of the NHS budget (the equivalent cost of prescriptions for the entire population for over a year or the cost of cancer treatment for the entire population for two years (Source: OHE 2009)). This makes reassessment of benefits of membership timely, as it genuinely affects life-style choices at home due its cost. The arguments thus move beyond self-government and preservation of democracy, to social needs of the UK population including national tax policy which impacts upon economic autonomy of the individual.
This self-assessment is particularly needed given the Lisbon Treaty endows the EU with the capacity to make treaties, making withdrawal now easier than ever. With the end of the Cold-war and growing global privatisation now bringing more and more sectors (and states) into the global market, Britain must branch its export/import circle far above and beyond the Eurozone. After all the Indians don’t speak French but English, and the advantage of bilateral trade increasingly moves us away from multilateralism into the bilateral realm of foreign economic policy. But beyond all this, the EU’s role in promoting global free trade is now questionably ‘redundant’. When the UK entered the EEC global tariffs were significantly high, and the GATT had yet to expand the areas of reduced tariffs now seen within the WTO. (The subsequent Tokyo and Uruguay rounds of world trade negotiations in the late 1970s and 1980s moved the world significantly towards global free trade in an unprecedented way). Now cost of exports and imports vis-à-vis tariffs are negligible, so that most areas of the world no longer have effective barriers to prevent trade. The rise of investment treaties in the last two decades (from over 50 to several thousand) has virtually ended the concept of market barriers. This renders benefits of exclusivity or preference to the Euro-zone for trade and investment dubious, and frees states from being ensconced in international institutions for trade to more global choices in line with global market liberalisation.
It is with this in mind, and with some developed choices in foreign economic policy that the P.M. should have faced the Brussels crowd on Friday evening. The most important thing that the PM should have noted: the UK contributes 13% of the EU budget (£13 billion 700 million Euros) –however, there are 27 member states. Some states contribute nothing. (Romania contributes nothing but still has 35 MEPs sitting in the European Parliament; Bulgaria contributes nothing but still has 18 MEPs sitting in the European Parliament- all able to vote on fiscal policy and expenditure which is based on the contributions of other states). The conclusion, my dear P.M., is simple: they need us more than we need them.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya 2010.
Copyright Birkenhead Society 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)