I tried to show, in an earlier post comething of the variety of opinion amongst Iraqi bloggers. Of these, Iraq The Model may be the most hawkish on the war situation. In his most recent post, he explains some of his reaoning:

One of our biggest problems here is that many of us and of our politicians in particular seem to have lost the ability to strategic vision and allowed themselves to indulge in details and are satisfied by looking at only one corner of the image that they are no longer able to comprehend the magnitude of this critical conflict of our time.

I am an Iraqi so naturally I am only interested in what’s going on within the borders of my country or even the city where I live, just like most people in the third world are, and this is fine and expected.
But what’s neither fine nor acceptable is to see politicians and decision-makers, who are supposed to be the leaders of the new world order, think and behave in the same manner as third world citizens.

All they seem to think about is how to get away from this debilitating conflict in Iraq no matter what the outcome would be. Even worse, few people seem to realize what the amplifications of a defeat in Iraq would be on the Middle East and the rest of our small global village.

Let’s call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.

And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.

We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who’s right and who’s wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.

Post to Twitter

Nick Cohen reviews two post 9/11 books for the New Statesman. In conclusion, he comments:

The failure of [Joschka] Fischer [German Green Party] and so many other 1968 radicals to challenge the neo-conservatives with a left-wing argument that included solidarity with the victims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda astonishes him, and rightly so: it was astonishing.

It still is.

Post to Twitter

I’m not usually a swearblogger, but now I’m cross.

Writing in The Times today, the Archbishop of Canterbury says:

COMING BACK from a fortnight in China at the beginning of this week, into the middle of what felt like a general panic about the role of religion in society, had a slightly surreal feel to it. The proverbial visitor from Mars might have imagined that the greatest immediate threat to British society was religious war, fomented by “faith schools”, cheered on by thousands of veiled women and the Bishops’ Benches in the House of Lords. Commentators were solemnly asking if it were not time for Britain to become a properly secular society.

The odd thing was to come into this straight from a context where people were asking the opposite question. Wasn’t it time that China stopped being a certain kind of secular society?

Rarely has a human being crammed so much dishonesty and self-deceit into so few words.

The greatest immediate threat to British society IS religious war, you cretinous, bearded twat. 7/7 isn’t a fucking convenience store.

Terrorism IS fomented by faith schools.

Headline-grabbing campaigners for the veil ARE activists in mosques that churn out suicide bombers or puppets of supremacist religious cults.

And exactly which “kind of secular society” is China? In case you didn’t notice on your visit it’s a fucking communist dictatorship. A communist dictatorship that killed some 70 million people in the twentieth century (also see next link). All told, communist dictatorships murdered more than 148 million people in the twentieth century.

And Williams has the mendacious, bare-faced duplicitous cheek to characterise China not as a communist tyranny, but as a secular society.

And who the FUCK has mentioned the Bishops’ Bench in the House of Lords? I haven’t seen a single reference to it in the newspapers of the past few weeks. But let me remedy that omission right now. Last year the Fabian society called for:

the Church of England’s preferential status to end and for its bishops to the lose the right to sit in the House of Lords.

The Fabian Society says the change is needed to establish the principle of equal treatment of religions, including Islam, and that it remains the only part of the constitution untouched by reform since 1997.

Damn right. And it can’t be soon enough.

A self-deceiving moron like Rowan Williams, a man who would put the sectional interests of religious partisans above social cohesion and peace, has no place in Parliament.

Post to Twitter

It’s very strange to admire someone as much as I admire Peter Tatchell, while disagreeing with almost all of his politics. While we always disagree with every person about some issues, we rarely find individuals with such courage, integrity and consistency.

Of course, I need to declare an interest, to the extent that he supported and spoke at the Rally for Free Expression last March. But his attitude towards Simon Hughes after the disgusting Lib Dem campaign in Bermondsey in the ‘eighties was that of a saint.

And anybody who had the balls to attempt a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe is a fit subject for anyboby’s admiration.

I know you won’t like a lot of my politics, Peter. But, as you signed your correspondence to me during the build-up to the Rally:

Solidarity!

Post to Twitter

Michael Gove, M.P. and Times columnist as well as author of the book Celsius 7/7 has been asking a series of Commons questions. On the 24th October:

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much (a) financial support and (b) support in kind his Department and its agencies have given to the Muslim Council of Britain in each year since 1997. [96284]

Mr. Hain: The Northern Ireland Office has provided no financial assistance or support in kind to the Muslim Council of Britain.

On the 25th, two question:

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much (a) financial support and (b) support in kind his Department and its agencies have given to the Muslim Council of Britain in each year since 1997. [96283]

David Cairns: The Scotland Office was established in July 1999. Since that date it has incurred no expenditure in cash or in kind in support of the Muslim Council of Britain.

and

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much (a) financial support and (b) support in kind his Department and its agencies have given to the Muslim Council of Britain in each year since 1997. [96282]

Mr. Hain: The Wales Office was established in 1999 and has given neither financial support nor support in kind to the Muslim Council of Britain.

So what is his point? Surely there are public accounts from which he could get this information.

Well, not exactly. The MCB has a very unusual structure(pdf):

7. Legal Status

The MCB shall be an unincorporated association.

a) The MCB shall cause title to all property, land and investments held by or on behalf of the MCB, to be vested in not less than five individuals appointed by the MCB as Holding Trustees.

I have been unable to find a page on the MCB website that lists who these holding trustees might be. And they have had a fair chunk of public money. I have a copy of a letter from the Home Office that confirms

1.I am writing to make you a formal offer of a grant for this financial year ending 31 March 2005.

2.This offer is subject to the terms and conditions set out below and in the enclosed Standard Terms and Conditions of Grant (1 April 2004). Please read these conditions, and this letter, carefully.

3.The purpose of the grant is to fund 5 projects that you proposed. These are 1) MCB Leadership Development programme 2) MCB Leadership mentoring programme 3) MCB Direct 4) British Citizenship Programme 5) British Muslim Equality programme. You may regard the money as restricted funds for accounting purposes.

4.The sum offered for the financial year ending 31 March 2005 is £148160.00 This will be a single payment and will be made on a one off basis.

There have been other grants – for website development and other specific projects.

There is a registered charity, The Muslim Council of Britain Charitable Foundation but this handles more modest sums:

Financial Year Start Financial Year End Gross Income TotalExpenditure
01 Apr 2001 31 Mar 2002 £27,146 £9,376
01 Apr 2002 31 Mar 2003 £27,848 £17,263
01 Apr 2003 31 Mar 2004 £2,215 £4,877
01 Apr 2004 31 Mar 2005 £13,401 £7,926

Small potatoes, compared to the grants flowing from the public purse to an apparently entirely unaccountable body. Their annual reports show no financial information whatsoever, just the Chairman’s speeches.

I have no idea what reason Mr Gove has for his questions. But I cannot see any justification for giving taxpayers’ money to such an opaque organisation as the MCB. Until they adopt a proper structure with filed public accounts, they should receive no more public money.

UPDATE: On reflection, my reaction was far too calm. I suppose I’m so used to seeing public money being poured into unaccountable and positively destructive holes that I just grunt and move on.

Of course the MCB should be compelled to provide audited financial statements for every year in which they have received any grants whatsoever from public sources of any kind, including the National Lottery. This is MY money and I want to know how it is being spent. As things stand, I am aware of no mechanism whereby it can be established that the MCB have spent money on the purposes for which it was awarded.

This is a disgrace.

UPDATE 2: 26th October 2006:

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much (a) financial support and (b) support in kind his Department and its agencies have given to the Muslim Council of Britain in each year since 1997. [96280]

Hilary Benn: To date no financial support has been given to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

MCB were successful in securing the commitment of funding for a development awareness project among the Muslim community through the 2005-06 Development Awareness Fund which is a competitive funding scheme. The programme has not yet begun and DFID has not given any funding for activity yet.

DFID has had dealings with the MCB on occasions, including co-chairing a seminar for Islamic NGOs in 2005, and in 2001 publishing its fourth Target 2015 booklet, in association with the Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief. These activities did not involve direct funding of MCB.

Post to Twitter

I had to nip in and post this.

Argentinian prosecutors are seeking the arrest of former Iranian president Rafsanjani in connection with the 1993 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre that left 85 dead and injured more than 200.

They also were asking the judge to detain several other former Iranian officials, including a former intelligence chief, Ali Fallahijan, and former Foreign Minister Ali Ar Velayati.

They also said they were urging the judge to order the arrest of two former commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, two former Iranian diplomats and a former Hezbollah security chief for external affairs.

Nisman and fellow prosecutor Marcelo Martinez Burgo said they suspected that Hezbollah undertook activities outside Lebanon only “under orders directly emanating from the regime in Tehran.”

This a very welcome initiative, and is based on a very important principle – the rule of Law.

While all complicity in terrorist actions should be prosecuted, and every tyrant should know that a court awaits them unlessd they peacefully relinquish power, the principle should be extended beyond actions to include words. The only valid exceptions to freedom of expression are incitement to violence and treason, neither of which is actually a free speech issue at all. When a cleric in, say, Pakistan offers a bountry for the murder of a cartoonist they should be extradited, tried and if convicted imprisoned for a term commensurate with an incitement to murder.

Post to Twitter

I’m misting up.

Australian religious seer, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, has compassionately described rape victims thus:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

The uncovered meat is the problem

If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred

Via Tim Blair (yet again). It seems this follows another Australian Sheikh, Feiz Muhammad’s gentle suggestion last year that rape victims deserve to be raped.

UPDATE – The Sheik apologised, saying he certainly didn’t mean to offend anybody. What he really meant was it’s OK to rape prostitutes.

UPDATE 2 – The Sheik apologised for his apology…(cont. p.94)

Post to Twitter