Zadehamin

Clare Short’s call for Democracy

Clare Short MP, has been threatened with expulsion from the Labour Party for the following statement:

“My conclusion is that the key to the change we need is a hung parliament which will bring in electoral reform. Then we would have a second election. Labour – with existing levels of support – would have one-third of the seats in the Commons, the Tories something similar, and we would be likely to see some Greens and others added, creating a plurality of voices and power centres in the Commons. British politics would then change profoundly. Parliament, and in turn the people, would have to be listened to, Cabinet government would return, the error-prone arrogance of Number 10 would end, and we would have a chance of creating a new politics, a more civilised country and a more honourable role in the world.”

Just so that there is no doubt, what she is advocating is democratic reform. For Tony Blair was not elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nor was her Majesty’s Government democratically elected.

The Labour party, was invited to form the government by the Queen, it was not elected to do so. Constituency elections are just that, Members of Parliament are elected to represent a constituency, nothing more. Of course, the majority of voters vote for the political party not the candidate, since we are denied any legal mechanism for us to elect the Head of State, the Prime Minister or the government.

However it is palpable nonsense to suggest that this is democratic: our constituencies are not equal in population or land mass; and have they been manufactured to give an electoral advantage to the incumbent Labour government. This is not democracy; it is election rigging. The Labour Party has a majority in Parliament, yet failed to win the support of even a quarter of the electorate. They achieved a third of cast votes, less than the number of abstentions.

Whatever one thinks of Clare Short and her motives; any political party that would expel a member for urging democratic reform, is itself undemocratic.

The First Casualty of War

I highlighted in my last post that the Washington Post, et. al., wilfully misrepresented the election of Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani as a success for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and deceitfully implied that al-Bolani was al-Maliki’s preferred choice; and by failing to mention that Farouk al-Araji, the other Shia Alliance nominee for this position and al-Maliki’s preferred candidate, was emphatically rejected. This is as rather obvious example of Western media publications putting out disinformation. This is but the tip of the iceberg.

Many on the Left of the political spectrum will not be surprised by this; yet it is not just the Right Wing pro war news publications that engage in this sort of disinformation and misrepresentation: it is the Left wing media too. In part, this can be explained by the well reported difficulty of non-Iraqi journalists to report outside the Green Zone. Thus the Western media is not so much reporting this war as reporting the reports they receive.

Yet, with some notable exceptions, Western journalists writing or broadcasting about the Iraq war for the mainstream media (MSM), are complicit in propagating a deception on the public. Firstly, due to their uncritical reception of obviously fraudulent or suspect information; and secondly due to their frequent failure to qualify the suspect nature of both the source and the information they are putting out. Even the caveat that the outlet cannot verify the report is not enough when they have good reason for disbelieving its veracity.

This is exemplified in the Western MSM coverage of factionalism and paramilitary violence in Iraq. Read the article The Western Misrepresentation of Iraqi Factionalism

Rewarding Academic Failure

Denbigh High School, is famous for the legal dispute with a former student, Shabina Begum, who was denied the right to wear the Hijab to school. Throughout this controversy the school was presented as a success story and the Head Teacher, Yasmin Bevan, was lionised and credited with turning what was a failing school around. However, this is far from the truth; the school is an academic failure and has been so since 1991, when Bevan first took up her post as Head Teacher.

The latest Ofsted report was written in full knowledge of the legal case, yet it conspicuously fails to mention it or the fallout with the local and national Muslim community; in what is clearly an attempt to buttress the school’s legal case, it draws the conclusion that the school enjoys good community relations. Indeed, it is quite apparent that the report is a work of fiction, praising the school were previously it has been criticised, so as to present it in the best possible light.

However, I doubt that Denbigh High School is the only failing school to receive a good Ofsted report. Whilst I fully accept that there is more to education than academic achievement, it is the most important factor in any meritocracy. It is therefore bizarre in the extreme that a school in which 63% of the pupils leave without having obtained a standard level education, should be considered a success. Rank failure might be a more appropriate description.

Denbigh High School exam results for 2005 are available here. Out of a 197 year 11 pupils, 121 (61%) obtained five or more GCSEs, although only 72 (37%) obtained five or more GCSEs, including Maths and English – the benchmark for a standard education. What is also notable is that 99 pupils (50%) failed to pass English Language and 108 (54%) failed to pass Maths, and between 82-99 (41-50%) failed to pass either subject. Hence, 50% of the pupils are illiterate, 54% innumerate and between 41-50% are both illiterate and innumerate. It is small wonder when the word leisure is spelt “Leasure” on the school homepage. Even 49 of those who passed five GCSEs failed to pass English and Maths, 6-49 (5-40%) failed both. This alone ought to be sufficient reason for any parent to be loath to send their child to this school.

However, on closer inspection, it is apparent that the failure does not end there, only 50% of the exams entered were passed, which drops to 43% in core exams. The pass rate in English Literature and science is lower than in maths and English Language: in English Literature out of 194 entries, 86 passes (44%) and in Science out of 413 entries, 152 passes (37%).

The school achieves its best results in languages, although even a cursory inspection reveals that this is not all it seems either. The school achieves 100% pass rates in Chinese, Dutch and German, yet none of the pupils would have learned these subjects as the school as only one pupils was entered into Chinese and German and six into Dutch. Even the passes in Bengali and Urdu are the result of education at home; only 31 pupils were entered into Bengali, of which 26 (83%) passed and 38 into Urdu, of which 27 (71%) passed. The results for French and Spanish, were far from impressive. Only 61 pupils were entered into French and just 20 were entered into Spanish. So at the very least 39 pupils (20%) were not entered into a language at all, that is of course assuming that those who sat one language did not sit another, although I would rather fancy that all those that sat Spanish also sat French. In any event, the school obtained 113 GCSEs in languages of which only 35 were in French and 17 were in Spanish. Hence a 162 pupils (82%) failed to get French, the principle modern language taught in the school, which is a truer reflection of the school’s lack of attainment in modern languages.

The Head Teacher boasts that results have consistently improved over the last five years, yet she has been there for fifteen years and the academic standard is still deplorable, plenty of time one would have thought to turn the school around. It is quite perverse that such an incompetent Head Teacher should receive accolades, when her school has failed 63% of the pupils. This is symptomatic of the the sophistry deployed to veil the evident deterioration of the standard of education in secondary schools: the worse it gets the better we are told it is. Whereas 40% of the pupils in Denbigh High that pass five or more GCSEs, do so without passing English and Maths, there is no such disparity in Thomas Telford, where 100% of the pupils achieved five GCSEs or more and 98% with both English and Maths. I m sure that Denbigh High is not the only failing school to manipulate its results at the expense of its pupils by neglecting Maths and English for softer subjects, which is positively encouraged in the DfSE’s school league tables.

What lies behind the Hyperbole, Malediction, Irascibility?

At the heart of the Iranian nuclear energy issue, behind the transparent veil of hyperbole, malediction, irascibility, truculence, sophistry and paradox; illuminated for all to see, lies a moral malaise that so affects the United States and its vassals. The Empire that is utterly incapable of introspection or moral validation; it denounces tyranny, oppression, poverty, prejudice and war, yet is a purveyor of the same.

The United States talks of a policy of regime change (the strategic objective) in Iran and threatens regime termination (the tactical objective). Yet despite this belligerent posturing, to the imperialist mind, clouded by occidental colonial arrogance, this is seen as defensive. Yet when Iran suggests that the Zionist dream is in terminal decline and that the “Zionist occupier regime” will be “eliminated from the surface of the Earth” by the Palestinians, yet makes no aggressive threat against this regime; this becomes akin to an intent to perpetrate genocide. However, it is not Iran that is is perpetrating genocide in the Middle East; rather it is the United States and the Zionist occupier regime. Hence it is projecting, or characterising Iran by its own behaviour and intent.

It is curious indeed that the United States and her vassals would use international consensus as its casus belli, the corollary of which is that any coalition of states has a de facto justification for attacking any other state. It is even more curious, or perhaps perverse, that the United States should forward the advancement of freedom and democracy as pretexts; the United States has shown precious little regard for either within it own borders let alone throughout the rest of the World. Unless the freedom of which they speak, is qualified as the freedom of a select elite to oppress, subjugate, plunder, impoverish, kill and do whatever, to whomsoever they please.

The we are left with two pertinent questions why should Iran not be afforded its rights to use Nuclear Energy as freely as the permanent five members of the UN Security Council and why should it be subject to the caprices of the United States? The two questions get to the crux of this moral malaise, the United States and its vassals are an imperialist entity that loathes Iran and Islam in equal measure. The discontent with Iran’s prominence amongst the Islamic nations owes to the fact that Iran is a truly independent indigenous Islamic state. It is the strength and independence of both Islam and Iran that troubles the United States and its vassals.

The United States, is an empire in terminal decline; lost in its own delusions; it is verging on economic collapse, yet more now than ever, it resorts to form issuing unrealistic threats of violence. Hence relying on its one true asset: military power. Although its military is over-committed and has all but been defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The moral malaise that affects the United states and its vassals, is founded on its colonial supremacist mentality, which it tries to deny. Its case is inarguable outside the parameters of overt xenophobia, religious bigotry and millenarianism.

Beyond Credulity

The Terrorism 2006 Act which came into effect yesterday, is so pernicious and subjective that it quite beyond credulity. There are several criminal offences relating to terrorism, yet the word terrorism is not defined in the act. Consequently, it is not clear what it is or is not unlawful conduct; one might presume that terrorism refers only to political violence, yet this has not been the case with previous terrorism legislation, where the defintion has been far more pervasive. In fact, any public expressions of political dissent could conceivably be construed as terrorism under this act.

It is left to the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, judges and ultimately a jury to do what this act conspicuously does not: define terrorism. Decision to prosecute and convictions will be highly subjective and politically motivated.

The whole act is befuddling: it is a criminal offence to glorify or incite terrorism, yet within this Act these definitions also prove elusive. So we are left with questions but no answers. Is it for instance unlawful to endorse the right of Palestinians to resist occupation and genocide by all means necessary or to suggest that Hamas is a legitimate and praiseworthy resistance organisation and that the killing of occupiers is a moral, legally and logically justified? What about to suggest that the Madrid and London bombings were reciprocity for the slaughter in Iraq and that therefore are morally more justifiable since they were defensive acts and the invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression?

There is of course an issue to this law that has not been discussed, Britain is ruled by a balance of Royal Prerogative and Parliament, with the balance firmly in favour of the Royal Prerogative. The reigning monarch is the official head of State, head of the established Church, head of the judiciary and head of the armed forces, yet she is unelected as is the Prime Minister (the de facto head of State), ministers, privy councilors, the Government and even Parliament is only partially elected. Despite claims of democracy there is nothing remotely democratic about the British system of governance, to suggest otherwise is fallacious. Furthermore, in the 2005 General Election, candidates for the ruling Labour party were unable to muster more than 22% of the potential vote, less than the total number of abstentions.

Thus, given the complete lack of a political mandate and a complete lack of a democratic process or participation; it is not unreasonable to argue that the right of an individual to defend themselves against State is an essential counterbalance to authority of the state. For the state to outlaw the right to advocate this principle is in effect a denial of this right and a blueprint to tyranny.

What is History?

What is History? This is a question that is rarely if at all asked outside of first year undergraduate history classes and even then the question is given scant attention. Yet this is far more than a abstract philosophical question; history is what defines us and how we defines ourselves and relate to others. Thus it is a question that needs to be addressed, if we our to better understand ourselves and our surroundings; that is to say, our preconditions and our preconceptions.

George Orwell famously said “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” Orwell’s observation abounds with clarity, it is exactly so. History is on one level a political construct (or propaganda). This does not entail that history is necessarily falsified or Machiavellian, although often this is the case. Rather it is an interpretation of the past, used to mirror the present, to some political end. This we might call politically engineered history. Such representations of history have a profound affect on the present.

Another form of history is collective history; that which a society or nation believes to be true and defines cultural and societal attitudes. This is somewhat different form politically engineered history, in that it is not an artificial construct; it is an existential reality. Something which is pervasively believed. There is an interdependent relationship between the two, which of course is what Orwell is alluding to.

Then there is our personal history, that which we recall of our past and that which we have been taught about our past. In short, our perception of who and what we are and the foundation of our beliefs and values. Just as collective history goes to the heart of who we are as a society, personal history goes to the heart of who we are as individuals.

The academic discipline of history, a somewhat dryer form, can subdivided into scientific history and interpretative history, although the two are inextricably linked – scientific history alone is usually to vague to be meaningful. Scientific history is based upon inference from empirical evidence and logically deductible conjecture, whereas interpretative history goes beyond this and seeks to makes sense of history. Only a fool would believe history, as an academic discipline to be a truth. Hence it differs from personal history and collective history, which are perceived truths or accepted truths.

This brings us to our penultimate form of history: folklore or myth. History has always existed not only to inform but to entertain. The noble art of oral story telling is in decline in the West but the art remains alive in the cinema. More people in Britain will have watched Oliver Stone’s Alexander than have read Arrian’s “Anabasis Alexandri”.

Finally, we come to the most important aspect of history, the essential nature of history; its raison d’être; history that remains obscured and is perceived through faith not reason. Regardless of whether one believes in the inherent truth of such history, one cannot escape that many of us do believe history to have such a design and nature, and furthermore that this has profound influence upon humanity.

Inching towards war on a false prospectus

In his article “Of Iran, bombs and geography” Nadiya Aamer suggests, that it is not Iran that seeks confrontation; rather “America likes to bully”. Responding to the Times Magazines jingoistic anti-Iranian article he note that Ahmadinejad, is not even close to a confrontational, and posits, “the United States is having a monologue with itself which is what it best does in situations such as these”.

This misrepresentation of Iran in the British media, et. al., goes far beyond a foreign affairs spat; it is xenophobic and chauvinistic. However, this is not new, Britain not only occupied, oppressed and raped Iran, it committed arguably the largest genocide of the 20th century. The Islamic revolution marked an end to a hundred years of foreign tyranny. However, with its partner in crime, the United States, Britain has behaved ever afterward behaved in a fanatical, petulant, belligerent, dishonest and xenophobic manner towards Iran.

The current anti-Iranian hyperbole and hysteria, epidemic in the State regulated British media are cancerous; in that it leads to a perception that Iran is an existential threat to the West and therefore to Britain. This is not so Iran is not a threat to the West; quite the reverse it is the West, or the United States and its subordinate vassals, that are an existential threat to Iran and the Middle East. Iran has not threatened, invaded or occupied any other state this century. Iran has no nuclear weapons. The real existential threat to the West is the United State and it proxy in occupied Palestine. However, it is perception that counts, if the public is persuaded of the existential threat of Iran, military action is inevitable. Even if the policiticans are aware that it is a war that cannot be won, just as they were in Iraq.

U.S. Human Rights Propaganda

The United States, State department has released it 2005 Human Rights report was nothing more than an excise in propaganda, hence it was to be expected that Iran should feature prominently despite the absence of credible evidence in the States Departments report. In fact, the report states in a footnote that the “United States does not have an embassy in Iran. This report draws heavily on non-U.S. Government sources.” In other words it is made up – HRW and AI that are heavily critical of Iran due to their well documented pro-Zionist and Islamophobic political leanings, also have no offices or sources in Iran.

“Exiles and human rights monitors alleged that many of those supposedly executed for criminal offenses, such as narcotics trafficking, actually were political dissidents.”

The exiles here refer to the MKO, a proscribed terrorist organisation that has is notorious for fabricating stories regarding Iran and is responsible for war crimes in Iraq. The MOK has never substantiated any of these claims. HRW and AI rely on MKO or its front organisation NCRI, also a proscribed organisation in the United States for these reports. The United Claims to have reports from human rights monitors are entirely bogus, as none of these Human Rights organisation, actually monitor human rights inside Iran.

“On April 15, there were violent protests in the ethnically Arab province of Khuzestan (see section 5). The protests followed publication of a letter (denounced as a forgery by the government) that allegedly discussed government policies to reduce the percentage of ethnic Arabs in the province. A government official said clashes with security services resulted in 3 or 4 deaths, but Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported at least 50 deaths.”

Again HRW would have no way of independently verifying this, the mere fact that they would make such claims demonstrates there hostility towards Iran, it should be noted that HRW is funded in part by the U.S. Gov, so it is not an NGO.

“On December 16, the UN General Assembly adopted a human rights resolution on Iran that expressed, among other points, serious concern at the continuing use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, such as floggings and amputations, as well as public executions. It also called on the country to uphold the moratorium on executions by stoning and legally abolish the practice.”

This is of course the real issue, the United States which dominates the United Nations despises non-Western civilisation in general and Islamic civilisation in particular; it therefore uses its own very narrow view of Human Rights, as a means to try and demonstrate that other nations, particularly Islamic ones are barbaric and less civilised. Of course the centres on the doctrine of universality of Human Rights: either these rights are inalienable and undeniable as Americans are keen to venture or they are not.

If it is the former, then there is some merit in the Human Rights advocates claim to universality; if however the latter were true, then what we are really talking of is civil rights, that is to say, rights granted by civil society, in suck circumstances it is for each society to establish its own civil rights in accordance with it own religious or secular ethos. It is quite obvious that, for Human Rights to be inalienable, there is a dependence upon God, otherwise human rights are but a societal whim of no enduring relevance. If it is dependent upon God, one assumes that this would be revealed, otherwise these rights would be self-evident to every human in every age, which clearly is not the case.

Thus Human Rights, as a secular notion are a view prevalent in a particular society at a given time. Hence, the question is not whether Iran violates the United States interpretation of Human Rights but whether it violates it own societal Human Rights ethos. Therefore, punishment such as as hanging, stoning, amputations and flogging, which are endorsed in the Quran are not violations of Human Rights; rather they fit into the Islamic model of Human Rights, which is different from the American model but certainly not lesser, indeed from the Iranian perspective it is superior.

Brzezinski rejects comparison between "Islamic Radicalism" and communism

Do These Two Have Anything in Common?
President Bush has equated Islamic radicalism with communism. Is the comparison sound? Is it wise?

Zbigniew Brzezinski in an article in the Washington Post, Sunday, December 4, 2005 argues that what he defines as Islamic radicalism has no commonality with communism and that U.S. President George W. Bush is unwise to make such a comparison.

“By asserting that Islamic extremism, “like the ideology of communism . . . is the great challenge of our new century,” Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden’s stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. And that suggests, in turn, that the fugitive Saudi dissident hiding in some cave (or perhaps even deceased) has been articulating a doctrine of universal significance. Underlying the president’s analogy is the proposition that bin Laden’s “jihad” has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn’t justified. The “Islamic” jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world.”