Nosemonkey's EUtopia

A new post over at The Sharpener.

Time to start being suspicious of Chinese people on the tube/bus: A man dying of lung cancer set off a homemade bomb aboard a bus in downtown Fuzhou, capital of Fujian Province, this afternoon, killing himself and injuring 23 others.

But wait – that can’t be right… I thought it was supposed to be only Muslims who did the whole suicide bombing thing? And that they were all meant to be “Asian-looking”? (Well, apart from that Somalian one. And the Jamaican…). “Huang Maojin” doesn’t sound especially Muslim/Somalian/Jamaican to me… And presumably he was “Asian-looking” only in the American sense…

Update: More info – “Pictures from the scene showed the side of the bus ripped apart and debris strewn across the floor of the vehicle. The injured were shown being stretchered out of windows… Attacks of this kind are common in China, often carried out by angry residents who feel wronged by society or the communist party government.”

Terrorism common in a communist country, eh? Maybe all those people who accuse the Socialist Workers’ Party of being terrorist fellow travellers for criticising the war and stuff have got a point after all…

Turkish diplomat in charge of EU accession talks resigns – cites “personal reasons”, but speculation is that he had got pissed off not only at the slow pace of the talks (especially thanks to French reluctance to even consider the prospect of Turkey joining) but also at the slow pace of reform within Turkey itself, necessary before it signs up.

This could screw a few things up. Either for good or ill, depending on your point of view – and opinion is split among the pro-EU camp as much as the anti. Because, let’s face it, Turkey’s position is pretty much unique, and it’s bloody tricky to work out what would be best – for them, for the EU, or for every other member state. Will it invite more problems – thanks to an EU border with Iraq, for example – or enable renewed dialogue with the Islamic world? Will it boost the EU’s economy, or lead to an influx of Turkish organised crime? Either way, the carrot of EU membership has prompted a number of reforms in Turkey which are long overdue – withdrawing it now could reverse the gains in human rights seen in recent years. Which can’t be a good thing, surely?

What Would Juvenal Do? – a potentially promising new current affairs type blog with the added benefit of words of wisdom from some guy who lived 2,000 odd years ago. So kind of like those weird Christian ones you find all over the US blogosphere, but without the self-righteousness or the all-powerful beardy bloke on a cloud:

Whate�er men do, or say, or think, or dream,
Our motley paper seizes for its theme.

(Juvenal, as translated by Pope in Tatler, 1709)

Well that was unexpected. I didn’t always agree with Cook. But I did meet him once, while he was Leader of the House and I was a but a lowly researcher for an opposition MP. And he was thoroughly nice. I’m rather shocked, and rather saddened. Even though he may have been marginalised in the Labour party of recent years, it is a loss to them and a loss to the country.

Today we commemorate the “just” bombing of civilians because – hey – it was for the greater good, you know? (Well, greater good for the Allies at any rate. But if you wanted to see an Imperial Japan stretching over the whole of Southern Asia, it was a bit of a pisser really.)

Sixty years ago this morning thousands of people were obliterated in less than a second. By the end of 1945 140,000 were dead out of a population of 350,000 – and thousands more died of radiation sickness over the following years. The official figure now stands at 242,437. From one bomb. Makes the Iraq death toll look like nothing. And in three days time we’ll remember Nagasaki, nuked basically for the hell of it, as Japan was already in negotiations for surrender.

These days, of course, the Japanese would probably be called quislings and be accused of giving in to terror. But hey, that’s probably moral equivalence or something, right? Because – you know – killing loads of innocent civilians to achieve your own political ends and defeat an ideology to which you are opposed, that’s NOTHING like what our terrorist chums are doing, is it?

Hardly an original thought, and likely to piss off a few people to boot, but I’m genuinely finding it very, very hard to see the difference. Can someone explain why it’s not simply because we did it to someone else and we won that Hirosima and Nagasaki are OK? If it’s a means to an end and to prevent greater loss of life through invasion, wouldn’t the same be said of the London terror attacks by an Islamic government if the Caliphate is established here, and of 9/11 if they managed to take over America? Wouldn’t they then be able to point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and say “hey – we managed to do it with far less loss of life”?

How many deaths does it take before it becomes unacceptable?

Either way, you’d have thought the US could have spared SOMEONE to go to the ceremony.

Wikipedia has a good page on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Uzbek blog campaign day – not a bad idea, and well worth supporting. Count me in.

Blair’s statement on anti-terrorism measures. Mostly fairly typical, platitudinous stuff, and all to be expected. A few bits stand out for confusion, however. But I’ll keep this brief as I’m knackered and have work to do.

First up, people will now be able to be deported for “fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person’s beliefs or justifying or validating such violence”. All very well and good. But considering the government’s line over the last few weeks has been “if you say Iraq is a reason for why London was attacked, you’re giving excuses for and justifying the attacks” it’s a tad worrying. What, exactly, counts as “justifying” these days? Although I seem to be getting into trouble every time I link to Talk Politics these days, this post may help to point the way to some of my concerns.

Is suggesting that an action – which has led to Al Quaeda’s second in command and one of the 21st July bombers explicitly listing it as a reason for their terrorism – may be a contributing cause of the terrorist attacks a justification or validation? According to the rhetoric of the government and some of its supporters, it would appear so. So should we start deporting everyone who suggests a link between Iraq and the London attacks? Again, from the rhetoric of the government it would appear so.

There’s also the specific reference to “The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK.”

Does that include George Galloway? How about Gerry Adams, who Blair had a chat with just the other day? Is it going to become illegal to say that you can understand that in the Israel/Palestine conflict Israel has the military advantage, so Palestinian methods are understandable, as Ken Livingstone (a member of Blair’s own party) did not long ago? (A statement which did not, despite it’s rapid spinning by his critics, actually condone Palestinian terror tactics, but as that spinning proved could be interpreted as such.) Considering the part which states “For those who are British nationals and who cannot be deported, we will extend the use of control orders. Any breach can mean imprisonment” will Livingstone and Galloway find themselves presented with control orders?

I surely can’t also be the only one to find “Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary amending the Human Rights Act” a cause for concern? We all know what happened the last time the Law Lords pointed out the flaws of some Blairite terrorism legislation – rather than just lock up foreigners without trial, we can now ALL be locked up without trial. (Something which could get worse with the mention of “a way of meeting the police and security service request that detention pre-charge of terrorist suspects be significantly extended.”)

Then there’s the clampdown on freedom of speech, which could also lead to innocent people getting screwed: “Once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, centres, networks and particular organisations of concern. Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the home secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national.” So if you have, in your browser’s history, a visit to an Islamic fundamentalist website, does that count as “active engagement”? Could following a blog link to a statement from a terror cell count? How about unwittingly visiting a proscribed bookshop, or reading a proscribed book (an idea I find fundamentally abhorrent)? Or will we all be able to take the Pete Townsend “research” defence?

You’ve also got to wonder, when you read things like “the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office are compiling an international database of those individuals whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain’s security” why on earth they hadn’t done that years ago. How can you defend the country if you don’t even know who our enemies are? If they don’t know who our enemies are, this surely means that they’ve been able to enter the country with valid passports for years – making all the guff about both ID cards and illegal immigration sound even more like a load of bollocks.

There are naturally also some valid statements, like “Cases such as Rashid Ramda wanted for the Paris metro bombing 10 years ago and who is still in the UK whilst France seeks extradition, are completely unacceptable”, and a good part of what Blair says can’t really be denied as being relatively sensible anti-terror measures. The thing about recalling parliament in September is also welcome (although the qualifier “[if] the right consensus is achieved” has slightly sinister undertones…) Even bits some people may not expect me to welcome I do think need to be said, namely “coming to Britain is not a right. And even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people, have no place here.”

Nonetheless, there is also a lot to cause concern. A lot of vagueness which needs to be made specific. A lot of things which could easily be turned to political ends, rather than to security means.

As for the statement that “The rules of the game are changing”, it’s understandable (which is not to say that I condone it, please note) – it’s just rather disappointing. What happened to “We will not allow violence to change our society and values”?

I know, let’s ban the buggers and drive them underground (pun not necessarily intended) – that’ll make it easier to keep tabs on ’em…

And no, I have no knowledge of or interest in either of those groups – but they should be allowed to spout whatever nonsense they like as long as they don’t incite violence, just as should the BNP and their ilk. Banning them achieves nothing especially useful beyond restricting the freedom of people in this country to form and hold repellant views. Which is a restriction on all of us.

And – honest, sincere question – can someone explain to me the logic of the government’s apparent position whereby Iraq (a very prominent war going on for two years and in the papers and on telly every day, being seen and heard about by millions) has no influence on our terrorist buddies, yet a few small groups of nutty preachers (behind closed doors, monitored by the security services, and being seen and heard by mere tens of people) have such an immense impact that we have to proscribe their tinpot organisations and boot them out the country?

Way to keep the moral high ground there guys! The full research paper on the United States’ apparent plans to re-start production of antipersonnel landmines can be found here.

(And yes, the US is indeed one of the few countries left which hasn’t signed up to the 1997 Ottawa Convention – the Mine Ban Treaty – a distinguished list of 41 nations that includes such bastions of democracy and freedom as Burma, China, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Vietnam, as well as a bunch of other dodgy buggers.)

I like the US. I genuinely do. But it really is very hard to argue against its critics sometimes…

Missed this earlier – the New York Police Department also agree with my assessment of the 7th July bombers. It’s like I’m some kind of terrorism expert or something. Which would be an even more worrying thought…

Have just had a call from the St John Ambulance lot, and it’s a go to give their volunteers who were on the scene on the 7th a nice piss-up. Should have date/venue confirmed early next week.

I knew there was a reason I didn’t sign that “Unite against Terror” thing…

And just to keep those who continually read the worst into everything I write happy – George Galloway is a dangerous idiot for spouting this kind of abject shite.