Mystery candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn

Interesting story in Ham&High today about a mystery candidate entering the race on a direct democracy platform. Could the tea party movement be coming to London? Just hope they left Sarah Palin behind stateside.

Islam4UK should not be banned from marching in Wootton Bassett

It is a strange day when the defence of civil liberties in Britain is left to the police, but that is exactly what happened today. As government ministers, civic leaders and 400,000 facebook members combined to call for Islam4UK to be banned from carrying out their planned demonstration in Wootton Bassett to protest against the war in Afghanistan, only Sir Hugh Orde, President on the Association of Chief Police Officers, has stepped in to defend the group’s right to protest, however "unpleasant and offensive" their views.

Much has been written about the views of the organisation and its leader, Anjem Choudary, designed to emphasise their most controversial standpoints which many find to be extreme and abhorrent. I quite agree that even free speech must have its limits – the incitement of violence against a person or group of people being the best example of where to draw the line. However, I do not see how one’s views can be cited as a reason to deny them their right to free speech at all. This is the case with Islam4UK.

No one is saying that it is wrong to question the continued presence of UK soldiers in Afghanistan or that lamenting the human cost of the conflict, particularly to Muslim civilians in the region, is an illegitimate grievance. Indeed, only a few people complained when the BBC staged a Question Time debate on the war in Wootton Bassett just a few months ago. So, what the opponents of Islam4UK are essentially arguing is that it is not what you say that matters, but who you are.

If we take their argument to its logical conclusion, that those with ‘acceptable’ views should be allowed to speak freely while those who offend should be denied the same right, then we will surely find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to ban extremist organisations of all persuasions, including political parties such as the BNP, or effectively endorse their views with our silence. It is not hard to anticipate how the British Muslim community, whose co-operation in defending ourselves from violent extremists is so crucial, would respond to such a declaration.

So, does this mean that I actively support Islam4UK’s parade through Wootton Bassett? Absolutely not: the headlines the next day will not be dominated by stories of innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan dying for a war we may yet walk away from – stories that do need to be told. Rather, the newspapers will write about how the march has inflamed racial intentions in this country (even though I suspect you could count on one hand the number of British Muslims who had heard of Islam4UK before, let alone supported them). That is of course unless the English Defence League shows up, in which case we will have a quite different story on our hands.

Needless to say, the real victims of this whole debacle are the families of the soldiers whose bodies are passing through the town on a disturbingly regular basis. Not only do they have to deal with the heartbreaking loss of yet another husband, or another wife, or another son, but they have to endure these moving ceremonies being used as a political punch bag by anyone who has anything to say about Afghanistan. That didn’t start with the announcement of Islam4UK’s parade, nor even with the equally insensitive staging of a politically charged Question Time debate. It started when television cameras and photo journalists were allowed in to broadcast the ceremonies in the first place.

Incitement of violence and hatred aside, we can either have free speech for everyone or free speech for no one, but we cannot have it for some and not others without first passing judgement on their views.

Does Rod Liddle have the right to offend the African-Caribbean community?

Type in Rod Liddle's name into Google news and the first headline that comes up is "Rod Liddle accused of racism". The reason? On Saturday he posted a short, but nonetheless explosive comment on the conviction of two African-Caribbean teenagers for the attempted murder of a pregnant schoolgirl who they believed threatened their music careers. In it, he described the two culprits as 'human filth', no argument there, but then he went on to say this:

"The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks."

Those comments prompted outrage from all quarters with Diane Abbott and Bonnie Greer accusing him of twisting the figures and his colleague at the Spectator, Alex Massie, threatening to resign over Liddle's invocation of the "stale prejudice you can find in thousands of boozers across the country, or at any BNP meeting for that matter." However, Liddle was defended by his editor, Fraser Nelson, who said: "The Spectator stands up for the right to offend; our blogs often say things that people find offensive but that's part of our right of free expression."

So, who's right? In short, both are.

Bonnie Greer definitely had a point when she responded to Liddle's blog post by saying: "that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles, murderers, war-mongers and football hooligans are white males", althought she somewhat sullied her higher moral ground by adding: "and all we got in return was beans on toast and Top Gear." What she was getting at though is that if you cherry-pick your stats, it's possible to make them fit pretty much any argument.

Alex Massie was also right to expose what Liddle tried to defend as an attack on gang culture as nothing more than thinly veiled racism. If Liddle's prime target really was culture and not race, he would have gone to greater pains to explain how one transcends the other (for every African-Caribbean wannabe gangster-rapper, there is a white public school kid from Harrow attempting to emulate his wannabe gangster-rapper heroes). Instead, he held a single race solely responsible for the importation and spread of a culture that he claimed bred murderers and rapists. It does not take a great leap of logic to see what he was really trying to say.

So, how can Fraser Nelson also be right then? Because the only way I know I will always be free to write and say what I want is if I know that someone as extreme as Liddle is free to write and say what he wants. The only alternative is censorship, where we allow a government with a political agenda to decide what we can and cannot say, resulting in a bizarre and inconsistent application of the law that sees one man, Rowan Laxton whose crime was to make a racist remark while exercising in his local gym, arrested for inciting religious hatred, just as another, Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, runs for public office.

But be warned, Rod Liddle, for as long you reserve the right to be intolerant of fellow British citizens from the African-Caribbean community (or any community for that matter), I will reserve the right to be intolerant of you - and say so loudly. Just ask Jan Moir. To quote your esteemed colleague, Mr Massie: "This isn't a matter of being 'politically correct', it's just a matter of behaving in a decent fashion".

Is Harriet Harman the enemy of feminism?

Harriet Harman has had a distinguished career as one of this country’s most outspoken female MPs. She is well known across the land for her vigorous campaigns against the sex industry, for which she has my wholehearted support, and her open endorsement of positive discrimination in the workplace, for which she does not. Now she is calling on Angela Merkel and Hilary Clinton to join her in an international coalition to enable women to take a leading role in rebuilding the economy after the recession and “bring about change“. However, the Minister for women and equality, with all the Orwellian overtones her departmental title brings with it (think Animal Farm’s “some are more equal than others“), is in grave danger of undermining feminism in this country through her approach to women’s issues.

First things first; where do I, a man, get off lecturing Harriet Harman, one of this country’s most prominent female public figures, on women’s issues? To start with because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, cousins and friends, not to mention a girlfriend to whom I am very much devoted. Women’s issues are their issues which means I care a great deal about them too. Also, many issues singled out as being specific to women such as abortion, childcare, divorce and domestic violence actually affect men as well and as a result they have just as much right to be included in public discussions on such matters. Most importantly though, to determine an individual’s qualifications to talk about any given issue, or in Harman’s case to hold any given office, on the basis of their sex alone fundamentally misses the point.

For as long as feminism as an ideology and a movement has existed, its leading mantra (as like any belief there are of course many different strands) has always been that discrimination is not ok and that women will only be equal to men in both the private and public spheres of life when an individual’s sex becomes irrelvant to determining their place in society. Yet Harriet Harman’s position seems to be that discrimination is ok just as long as you’re discriminating against the right people i.e. men. The Equality Bill she introduced into Parliament this year says as much, formally legalising positive discrimination by granting employers “greater freedom to ‘fast-track’ or select recruits from under-represented groups, as long as they are equally suitable”. How the government would enforce this is beyond me, especially when an applicant’s sex suddenly becomes a legal criterion of their suitability for a role.

Discrimination is an ugly practice no matter who the offender is. Nobody benefits from it. Furthermore, it reinforces the stigma that women are the weaker sex who need protection and should be treated differently and as a result undermines the credibility of those who do feel themselves to be genuine victims of prejudice. Just ask Jordan Wimmer, a marketing executive who is suing her former employer, millionaire financier Mark Lowe, for sexual discrimination. She alleges that her ex boss placed her under impossible strain at work with his crude humour and objectification of women, citing his invitation of a scantily clad Malaysian woman, whom she described as an escort girl, to a formal business meeting. We cannot presume to know anything close to the full story, but consider Ms Wimmer’s claim that she was hired because of Lowe’s infatuation with girls who looked like Charlie’s Angels, suggesting she has no problem with sexual discrimination if it can land her a £577,000 a year job, and that said Malaysian woman turned out to be a qualified banker, and her case swiftly begins to evaporate.

Alternatively, consider the case of Conservative PPC for South West Norfolk, Elizabeth Truss. One of leader David Cameron’s preferred candidates, or ‘A-list’ member, Truss was targeted by members of the Conservative old guard railing against Cameron’s support for all women lists for selecting candidates in the run up to the next general election after she was exposed for having an affair with a Tory MP five years ago. In what can only be described as a shameless act of prejudice, party members lined up to call for her head saying they would not have supported her initial candidacy if they had known about her illict affair. To Cameron’s credit he has supported her through this turbulent time, but how many people will believe that his support stems from his faith in her ability to serve as an MP as opposed to her sex?

Women in this country and round the world still have many hurdles to overcome from patronising press coverage to an indefensible pay gap. However, as I no doubt expect the ever sensible German chancellor will inform the self-aggrandising UK minister for women and equality, the very fact that they hold such positions of power, voted in by men and women alike to resolve the issues that affect us all from unemployment to international terrorism, is a testament to the success of the sexual revolution. They don’t need to now huddle in a room plotting the overthrow of ‘man’-kind: they need to get on with their jobs and show their electorates that they made the right decision.

Is peace with Iran possible?

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power and the subsequent potential to develop atomic weapons is a problem that just refuses to go away. In spite of President Obama’s attempts to normalise relations between the United States and Iran and the persistent activism of the United Nations and the EU to broker a deal, a viable solution remains far off. As we speak, the International Atomic Energy Agency is pressing the regime for access to inspect its nuclear sites.

Six years ago, then President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were successful in persuading Libya to abandon its nuclear programme, leading to a gradual thaw in relations between the three nations. So, why has striking a similar agreement with Iran proved so impossible? Simply put, Iran boasts far greater power and influence, in what is probably the most volatile region in the world, than Libya ever did. Specifically, the Iranians possess a weapon potentially just as devastating as the nuclear bombs they are accused of developing: oil. More to the point, they have the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf: their territorial waters through which, it is estimated, over 16m barrels of oil are transported every day.

Furthermore, Iran is not your typical adversary in the military sense. Its available arsenal doesn’t just include conventional weapons. Rather, it is their unprecedented influence in post-Saddam Iraq, their domination of the fragile Afghan economy and their support for Hezbollah in Lebanon that, combined with their nuclear programme, pose such a serious threat to the regional interests of the United States and perhaps most notably, Israel.

Much has been written on the potential for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, and while American support for military action appears less likely under the Obama administration, it cannot be ruled out. Economic sanctions are the weapon of choice for now though; both a realistic alternative and more likely to secure wide international support. This has been compounded by regular joint American and Israeli war games in the Gulf, presumably to show the Iranians what they’re capable of.

Yet such sabre-rattling appears fruitless when compared with each country’s record on actual conflict with Iran, indirectly or otherwise. Israel’s war with Lebanon in 2006, largely seen as a dress rehearsal for a potential showdown with the Islamic Republic, as a well as a test-run for Israel’s US-made ‘bunker busting’ weapons, resulted in a humbling withdrawal. Similarly, the US invasion of Iraq was seen by many neo-cons in Washington as an ideal opportunity to topple the Ayatollah by establishing a secular democracy on the Iranians’ doorstep. However, if any country was infiltrated and re-modelled from the inside, it was Iraq. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), that swept the board in the country’s first federal and provincial elections after the invasion, was created by Ayatollah Khomeini himself in 1982.

Nevertheless, the Iranians have little cause for complacency. They are not invincible and there is only so much provocation the United States and Israel will tolerate before they conclude that military action is their only option. Iran’s ‘oil weapon’ may be potentially devastating to the US, but it would seriously hamper its own economy too. International opinion is not on their side either, with even their trusted Russian allies appearing more open to the idea of sanctions following Obama’s rapprochement with the old enemy.

Diplomacy is still an option, but there are many sticking points. According to Ephraim Kam of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, in order for a Libya-style deal to satisfy the West, Iran would have to give up its nuclear programme, end its involvement in terrorism, cease its disruption of the Arab-Israeli peace process and improve human rights in Iran. In turn, the Iranians want guarantees for their security, large-scale technological assistance and greater influence in the region.

The problem is that the United States have refused to put any of the other issues on the table until they secure a concession on the nuclear question, while the Iranians have been understandably reluctant to give away their biggest bargaining chip before any real negotiations begin. The Europeans have attempted to address this by proposing a ‘comprehensive dialogue’ agreement, but without an American commitment to talk, it is worthless.

However, there is another way. A bilateral agreement with Israel to halt all uranium enrichment in return for total nuclear disarmament (surely Iran’s biggest motivating factor for going nuclear in the first place), subject to the supervision of the IAEA could end the standoff and prevent the imminent proliferation of atomic weapons throughout the rest of the Middle East. There was even a fleeting report in the press last week of secret meetings taking place between Israeli and Iranian officials to this end. How accurate those reports are and how viable such a plan would be, however, remains to be seen.

Europe - the great missed opportunity

When the historians come to write the obituary of the outgoing Labour government what will they say was the greatest missed opportunity of their 13 year reign? According to the New Statesman, Tony Blair told his friends, upon leaving office, that the greatest regret of his premiership was abandoning what his one-time mentor Roy Jenkins called the “breaking the mould” options open to him in the wake of new Labour's landslide victory in 1997.

Several of these options still remain open to Labour in its final months under Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, including: the introduction of proportional representation for the Commons, a fully elected second chamber and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. However, the single greatest missed opportunity that may never come by again, and by far Blair’s biggest regret, is the failure to overturn decades of British hostility to the EU.

In 2001, Tony Blair appeared to have successfully cemented Britain’s position at the heart of Europe. The Kosovo war had brought with it a mutual recognition by leading EU member states of the need for a single European foreign and defence policy to prevent the horrors of ethnic cleansing on their doorstep from ever happening again. Britain’s entry into the new single currency also seemed highly probable, if not inevitable, while the euroscpetic Conservatives were in disarray and languishing in the polls. So what went wrong?

Blair’s hesitation over the Euro was initially stymied by a lack of support from his then chancellor, Gordon Brown, and a threat to withdraw public support altogether by the Sun newspaper. Nevertheless, he planned to force the issue in a speech to the Trades Union Congress on September 11th 2001. However, his speech was never delivered as two airplanes were flown into the Twin Towers in New York with dramatic ramifications for British foreign policy thereafter.

9/11 similarly affected plans for a single European foreign and defence policy as the invasion of Iraq that followed led to the biggest rift in transatlantic relations since the fall of the Soviet Union as Britain prioritised its alliance with America over its relationship with Europe. However, it was additionally hampered by, amongst other things, a chronic underinvestment in defence by the big EU 3, Britain, Germany and France, and concerns in Washington over a potential threat to the remit of NATO.

However, the election of a multilateralist President in the United States and the onset of the Great Recession have gone a long way to mending relations between Britain and Europe. Indeed, as the world faces up to the grim reality that the biggest challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change, regulating the global economy and tackling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, cannot be combated by any nation state alone, there has never been a more important time for the UK to take a leading role in European integration.

Yet just as the conditions for rapprochement fall into place, a Labour government that for so long took the European Union for granted looks set to be replaced by a Conservative one that wants little or nothing to do with it. As a result, Britain will be consigning itself to isolation at the very moment it cannot afford to stand alone. What’s more, the rest of Europe will not wait forever.

How important is the Prime Minister's health?

The blogosphere is alive with rumour of a new government conspiracy, that Gordon Brown is hiding a serious illness and is no longer fit to govern. Although the queue of people waiting to deride the Prime Minister as unfit to lead the country (most of them within his own party) grow longer by the day, this rumour, it would appear, has legs. What started as a random blog post by journalist John Ward has now escalated into widespread media speculation, drawing in the likes of Paul ‘Guido’ Staines, Matthew Norman of the Independent, Simon Heffer of the Telegraph, and even Andrew Marr.

The rumours started when an absent minded civil servant allegedly disclosed to Ward a long list of food items that the Prime Minister was strictly forbidden from eating on doctor’s orders. Ward ran a check on the list and quickly discovered that doctors commonly forbid their patients from eating such foods whenever they administer a certain type of anti-depressant known as Monoamine Oxide Inhibitors or MAOIs. These are among the strongest anti-depressants available and are so potent that if combined with the forbidden foods, they can be fatal. Ward also suggested that Brown was losing the sight in his right eye (he is already blind in the left).

As a result, Brown of late has found himself bombarded with questions on his health with many speculating –or hoping- that he might resign before the next election due to health reasons. Brown has promptly denied all charges, insisting that he is not depressed and not on any medication and also that the sight in his right eye is as good as ever. While his sight is unlikely to remain a big source of contention as, let’s face it, total blindness is neither an easy ailment to hide, nor a reasonable disqualification for office, media interest in his mental health is unlikely to go away.

Only Gordon Brown’s doctor, and perhaps his family, knows whether he is genuinely suffering from an illness of any sort, mental or physical, and I don’t intend to join the ranks of bloggers and journalists who have decided they won’t let the absence of medical expert opinion stop them from making wild accusations of a government conspiracy to hide the true state of the PM’s health. However, the story has undoubtedly raised the question, and not for the first time in British politics, of whether democratic accountability should extend to the health of our elected representatives, even at the expense of doctor patient confidentiality.

David Owen, who was a neurologist before he became a Labour MP and eventually foreign secretary in the 1970s, recently published an intriguing book, ‘In Sickness and in Power’, in which he catalogued all the most notable cases of world leaders who have covered up their health problems over the last hundred years, from David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson to Francois Mitterand and Tony Blair. He clearly identified many cases in which a leader’s failure to disclose the true state of their health had seriously affected their ability to govern, often with wide-ranging ramifications for international affairs too. The problem, he further argued, was that the absence of any law formally requiring them to undergo an independent medical assessment during their time in office, meant any decisions to disclose any illnesses were ultimately left down to the discretion of power-hungry politicians alone.

I couldn’t agree more with Owen and, while some may reasonably argue that the popular stigma associated with mental health issues in particular would mean that no politician would ever be fairly judged, I contend that the public interest (including national security) must ultimately outweigh any leader’s right to patient confidentiality. Moreover, I believe that the only way to counter the kind of stigmatisation that led Guido Fawkes to lead with the title ‘Is Brown Bonkers’ for his story, is for the detailed nature of such illnesses to be openly presented to the public for what they really are – treatable medical conditions. More importantly, a Prime Minister with nothing to hide will not hesitate to bring in the best medical professionals for treatment whenever necessary. One with a secret illness, fearful of drawing public attention, would be more likely to pretend nothing was wrong leading to the worst case scenario of their health deteriorating in the middle of a crisis.