The View from Number 80

Islamophobia? - a new report in the UK issued by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, a think tank set up by what this BBC news item calls the "anti-racism organization the Runnymede Trust", claims persistent and untackled Islamophobia is rampant in Great Britain. The feeling is that not enough is being done although "schools and hospitals had become much more sensitive to the religious needs of Muslims". The Commission claims that key recommendations in its initial 1997 report have not been implemented and warns that this situation could lead to "could lead to 'time-bombs' of backlash and bitterness". The secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which was one of the groups to make submissions to the Commission, said "We have been witnessing a relentless increase in hostility towards Islam and British Muslims and it is clear that existing race relations bodies have been either unable or unwilling to combat this phenomenon effectively." In a way all of this is dodging the question. Islamophobia (in so far as it exists) is not an example of racism - it may well go hand in hand with racism, but they are not the same thing. People of every race (although in 80's view there is only one race - the human race) are Muslims. The tendency to cry racism, which the MCB has done before, does not address the problem which is more complicated than that. One factor is the number of violent attacks by Islamic militants leading up to the traumatic events of September 11th, 2001 and the steady run of shootings and bombings since then. (These would have been taking place even without Bush's idiotic invasion of Iraq - that just made a bad situation much worse.) Turn on any news channel and you can bet that the first or second item you hear will contain the phrase "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamic militants" or something similar. Stop and ask yourself, how many times a day do I hear these words? The constant drip, drip of such news reporting and the repetition of these stock phrases must surely have an effect akin to brainwashing after a sufficient time. The need to be "much more sensitive to the religious needs of Muslims" comes up against not racism or xenophobia, but plain old British reserve. With very few exceptions the British are not the types to wear their faith on their sleeves, and find overt public discussion or practice of religion (outside of a church of course, the "proper place" for such things) uncomfortable or embarrassing. For example, when Dubya gets all misty-eyed and biblical, the British (and a lot of other people) cringe. (Even the Reverend Blair knows better than to pull this stunt, though he comes close.) This is particularly true when they become aware of the fact that every aspect of life and behavior for a devout Muslim is governed by his religious beliefs. The Brits tend to compartmentalize things, football here, God there, politics there. (In fact most British men are far more fanatical about the first subject than the other two) This is, in the main, nothing more than the British being typically phlegmatic, a trait which has been the butt of the rest of the world's jokes for the last few hundred years. As Islamic immigrants have to adjust to the prevailing culture, so the British, in their turn, will accommodate the newcomers. This is always a slow process at best, which has now been crippled by the constant publicity about the violent elements of Islam. It is more inertia than Islamophobia, and it is part of the British culture. Imperfect though it may well be, life in Britain is most likely preferable to that in many immigrants' countries of origin, something perhaps less obvious to a younger generation, who are now British themselves. This is certainly not to dismiss any of the very real problems people face in a world blighted by religious terrorism and superpower arrogance, and to expect current events not to feed people's fears (phobias) is asking too much of ordinary flesh and blood. For the record, 80 tolerates ALL religions - it is respect that is out of the question. With regard to those who commit violence, the old adage applies "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". That includes anyone else's nose too, regardless of faith, "race", football team or politics, in case you were wondering. Just to nitpick, a phobia is a fear - not a hatred, although they can be close kin - 80 finds the irrationality implicit in any religion frightening. If you wish to know more, just look at practically any page on this site. Religion would seem (as prime cause or handy excuse) to have caused more violence, cruelty, oppression, terror and intolerance throughout history than any other single human activity. It is the same today, plus our technology's much greater destructive potential. Now that is frightening. To put a label on it, 80 suffers from galloping theophobia.  (Islamophobia and the clamor for faith schools is given excellent treatment by Polly Toynbee in "Get Off Your Knees")

June 17th 2004

Nonseance - what do you think became the third most complained about TV show in Britain? The first was the screening of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, the second was a spoof documentary on paedophilia. So what did the British viewers find so objectionable as to rank with these sensitive subjects? Derren Brown, is a superb illusionist who on his website is quoted as describing his craft "as a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship". No mumbo-jumbo for him. In keeping with this stance he mounted a seance on Channel 4 for 12 students. He told them the house where this was staged had been the scene of a mass suicide and according to this BBC report they were "terrified". Brown told them at the end the whole thing had been faked. These students must have been a uniquely gullible bunch, one wonders how they were selected and what subject are they studying, Credulity 101? Even so, they were not half as daft as those who complained. It seems the bulk of the complaints came from "church groups" before the show was even broadcast. The nature of these groups is not mentioned, but two words occurred to 80 immediately - whiny and evangelist. Whether this is correct or not, it certainly fits the profile of those people who agonize over the evil implicit in Halloween and Harry Potter books. The result of the whole proceedings, of course, is that Brown has received a load of free publicity, the 12 students are revealed as superstitious idiots, and the "Christian groups" - well, the "Christian groups", they behaved pretty much as usual.

Toytown Nazis - someone has thoughtfully sent 80 an offensive little document. The fact that it arrived on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, the day when a second front was opened up in the war to defeat fascism, was somewhat ironic. The document in question is a European election leaflet issued by the British National Party (BNP). (80 has mentioned these nazi wannabes before - see Not Wanted -Anywhere) and is an example of crude propaganda, playing, as fascists always do, on people's fear of the other, the unknown. For the BNP, the asylum seeker and the immigrant are their equivalent of the Jew in 1930s Germany, a convenient scapegoat on which to pin their hatred and their (forlorn) hopes of political power. They paint a lurid (and surprisingly well-spelled) picture of a Britain under siege from "2 million" of these invaders. But this is mere bagatelle compared to the "75 million potential migrants from Eastern Europe" who "can now walk into Britain and live here at our expense" (But see here) Furthermore, they claim "97% of all asylum applications are bogus". Naturally not one of these ridiculous assertions is backed by any references whatsoever - but then rabblerousing of this type is not dealing in fact, but in emotions, and one in particular, that of fear. One more example of this absurd hyperbole is that "the government is already planning to build five giant new cities, each the size of Birmingham, over the next 30 years to house over 5 million new immigrants." The only thing true here is that Birmingham's population times 5 is about 5 million. So, they have brushed up on their arithmetic as well as their spelling. A source of accurate information on immigration is available here from the Optimum Population Trust. Even a cursory glance is enough to establish that the BNP's propaganda is baseless. But how many people bother to avail themselves of accurate information? This article by Blake Morrison takes an in-depth look at the BNP, including an interview with one of their candidates for local elections, Trevor Dawson. Dawson does not fit the thug stereotype but seems to be a very muddled individual who believes in all manner of unsubstantiated scare stories which he uses to justify his party's policies. He relates "lurid stories of racial disharmony (rape, riots, murder, attacks with baseball bats, gangs of Asian boys grooming white girls for prostitution, etc), with emphasis on the difference between an older generation of immigrants (who worked and fitted in, just like Us) and an uppity new younger one, Them. "They're arrogant." "They've no respect for our laws." "They don't go round in ones or twos like whites do, but only in gangs." " (Here is a piece noting some of the criminal convictions of BNP members) Sad little men like Dawson are the opposite side of the coin to those who scream racism at every opportunity. Both adopt extreme positions based upon ignorance, often wilful ignorance. It is true that there is a danger of making too much of the BNP, as they are not really much of a political threat but they are useful in one way. If nothing else, their campaigning rhetoric reminds us of why D-Day happened, and why millions died to defeat fascists - theirs is an unacceptable, brutish, ignorant vision of the world that is to be rightly despised.

June 19th 2004

Hubbard's Minions - are at it again. On June 9th there appeared a worrying article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the Narconon Drug Prevention & Education program active in many schools. It turns out the program in the Bay area and elsewhere "teaches concepts straight out of the Church of Scientology, including medical theories that some addiction experts described as "irresponsible" and "pseudoscience."". It seems the creepy yet clownish "Church" is using the program as a conduit to propagate their nonsense among youngsters, under the guise of drug abuse prevention, a jesuitic stratagem if ever there was one. The destructive effects of Scientology are exhaustively detailed elsewhere (see Operation Clambake) and the idea of them pumping their particular brand of pseudoscience into kid's minds is chilling. It is claimed that Narconon, founded by L Ron Hubbard, who also gave the world Scientology/Dianetics, is " secular and that a firewall exists between it and the Church of Scientology". This is obviously a pretty leaky firewall as much that is taught by Narconon is based upon the sect's loony ideas. "Narconon speakers tell students that the body stores drugs indefinitely in fat, where they cause drug cravings and flashbacks. Students are told that sweating through exercise or sauna rids the body of these "poisons." And, some teachers said, the speakers tell students that the drug residues produce a colored ooze when exiting the body." This is utter baloney and typical of Scientologist claptrap. It is obviously a policy of theirs to infiltrate society in various ways by misrepresenting themselves. A comparatively recent example was the attempt to pass themselves off as "National Mental Health Assistance" at the scene of the 9/11 atrocity in New York, in a disgusting attempt to take advantage of that tragedy. Now a follow-up to the Chronicle report informs us, "A popular anti-drug program with ties to the Church of Scientology will be ousted after 13 years in the San Francisco schools unless it agrees to stop teaching what the district calls inaccurate and misleading information" Narconon has until June 24th to revise parts of its curriculum. Narconon has yet to say whether it will do so, although its education director, Tony Bylsma, managed to put a weaselly spin on things "We don't want to desert the kids, I'm going to decide how we're going to respond." "Desertion" by these cultists would be doing the kids a favor. In 80's view it is amazing the San Francisco authorities don't boot Narconon out altogether, on the grounds that their hidden Scientologist agenda has tainted utterly any project involving them, even peripherally. Is the SF schools district so bereft of ideas for drug abuse education that they would still entertain the thought of these people having access to vulnerable young people? Any undertakings Narconon may announce about their future conduct are worthless - deceit is a standard, and well documented, Scientology ploy. (Also see Hubbard's Bare Cupboard and click here for a free online book on Hubbard, his lies and his "Church")

Update - to the above. It seems the Scientology tactic of preying on victims of disasters, whether natural or terrorist, is now being applied to Europe. This unpleasant development will bear close monitoring. Tip, should you come across any "Volunteer Ministers" just ask them what they can tell you about Scientology's involvement in the death of Lisa McPherson.

Scientology in a nutshell - courtesy of Wired
"Hubbard's secret scriptures teach that 75 million years ago, an evil galactic overlord named Xenu solved the galaxy's overpopulation problem by freezing excess people and transporting the bodies to Teegeeack, now called Earth. After the hapless travelers were defrosted, they were chained to volcanoes that were blown up by hydrogen bombs -- and their disembodied spirits continue to haunt mankind today."

Reagan's Heir? - if you have a moment here is an insightful piece from Maureen Dowd, writing in the New York Times (reg rqd) on the efforts of Bush and pals to benefit in some way from the wave of emotion triggered by the death of Ronald Reagan. Whether one approved or disapproved of Reagan's policies, Bush is not in the same league. Attempts to portray him as in some way Reagan's modern day counterpart merely appear ridiculous and cynically opportunistic. To quote Dowd "At every opportunity, as the extraordinary procession solemnly wended its way from California to the Capitol, W. was peeping out from behind the majestic Reagan mantle, trying to claim the Gipper as his true political father. Finally, there's a flag-draped coffin and military funeral that President Bush wants to be associated with, and wants us to see." Also see Mark Fiore's animated cartoon Reaganesque - bang on target. Here is more on the same theme from Philip James writing in the Guardian "Since Bush is inviting the comparison to Reagan, lets indulge him further. The results are not favourable when you stand the great communicator next to Mr Malaprop. Reagan's one-liners are legendary; they filled a book with Bush's garbled utterances."

June 21st 2004

Fatuous Statement - of the week award goes to the book club blurb about a new title, Beyond Coincidence. This volume explores coincidences of many types from the banal to the downright odd, citing over 200 instances. The book club writer ends the usual enthusiastic description of the contents with this, "But while there have been numerous scientific studies into coincidence the book concludes that science doesn't really have the magic answer." This is because there is no "answer" - with the sheer number of people on the planet some unusual or "spooky" interactions are bound to happen - particularly when we tend to remember things selectively. The times you have thought of long lost cousin Fred that were not followed by his sudden appearance at your door are obviously far less memorable than the one time when he did. This is similar to the way a person's memories of a psychic who employs cold reading concentrate on apparent hits and not the many guesses that had no resonance or meaning for that person. Coincidences do not "mean" anything - humans are good at seeing patterns and significance in random events - especially when they are not there. The only real description of coincidences comes down to the eminently sensible "shit happens - live with it" - that is the "magic answer". (A review of Beyond Coincidence by Martin Plimmer and Brian King can be found here For more on the subject of coincidences take a look here and here.)

Is Blair Next - for the Michael Moore treatment? Even before Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is out on general release he is talking about the possible subject of his next effort. The man described in the Guardian as the "cinematic equivalent of a rottweiler" is thinking about a documentary on Blair's, and Britain's, role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Reuters, Moore said "I personally hold Blair more responsible for this war in Iraq than I do George W. Bush, and the reason is Blair knows better. Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around this guy?" It would appear from the "kicking" administered by voters to Blair's Labour party in recent local and European elections that many Brits feel the same way, as even Blair and others in his party acknowledge. Whether this will alter Tony's cosy relationship with Dubya remains to be seen. Meanwhile, contacts between Blair and the possible next Whitehouse incumbent, John Kerry, are conspicuous by their absence. This is in spite of Labour's ideology being much closer to the Democrats' than the Republicans'. Whether Blair will manage to disassociate himself from Bush in the event of a Kerry win is the subject of much speculation - as is the question of whether Blair will still be in office by then. There are many in his party and the country that believe Iraq has irrevocably tainted Blair, rendering him a liability in a General Election. It may be that when Michael Moore turns his sights on Tony Blair he will find that the quarry is no longer worth pursuing.

Quote - "A church school is a church where the congregation is - as school-children are - captive. I've been asleep to this creeping indoctrination. I'm awake now." David Aaronovitch's somewhat belated  realization of the danger to British society inherent in faith-based state schooling, from the Guardian. Belated he may be, but his contribution to the debate is most welcome.

Smokin' Euro 2004 - if you were a Portuguese police officer faced by large crowds of English soccer fans at Euro 2004, which would you prefer them to have been imbibing? Beer or dope? The cops have pragmatically "decided that a stoned crowd is easier to control than a drunk one." According to this Guardian article, "Lisbon police confirmed yesterday that England fans will not be arrested for puffing on joints on the streets of the Portuguese capital, following a recommendation from the Dutch authorities responsible for policing the English during Euro 2000" It is well known that crowds fueled by alcohol can turn to violence, whereas stoners are more likely to giggle. A drunk would use a broken bottle as a weapon but a doper would prefer to turn it into a bong. Oddly enough, it is western society's legal drug of choice that is considered more of a threat to public order than a drug that is still deemed illegal. A police spokesperson summed it up thus, "If you are quietly smoking and a police officer is 10 metres away, what's the big risk in your behaviour? I'm not going to tap you on the shoulder and ask 'What are you smoking?' if you are posing no menace to others. Our priority is alcohol." This is in tune with the Dutch view that "cannabis was a positive influence on public order at Euro 2000. "Cannabis ... was part of the conditions which meant everyone had a good time." " If the police already know this, how long will it take the legislators to catch up?

Additional - to the above. It may make for a more docile soccer fan, but there is a great deal of concern about the risks of addiction to the stronger varieties of dope and also the possibility of cannabis induced psychosis. See this somewhat alarming piece from The Observer.

June 23rd 2004

Different View - two items from the BBC news pages make for an unusual picture of opinion in what is called the Islamic world. The first is a selection  of excerpts from the Arab press roundly condemning al Qaeda and its murderous activities in stronger terms than you would often read in the western newspapers. Take this example in al Bayan, from the United Arab Emirates, "It is impossible for those whose hands have been soiled by the blood of innocents to be propagators of truth and jihad, as they claim. They are propagators of falsehood, destruction and havoc." and from al Jazirah "No-one knows what is in the minds of those addicted to cold blooded murder. Their evil terrorist acts have added to the negative portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in the whole world." This is a facet of Arab opinion that does not receive anything like enough attention in the western media, in 80's view. Second is a report of the Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Abdelwahed Belkeziz, who "denounced what he called the extensive backwardness of the Islamic world." He attributed the rise and spread of violent fundamentalism to a feeling of powerlessness in Muslim countries and a look at at this page "How democratic is the Middle East?" helps us understand why. (80 will be looking at the question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy in the next View) This is not to say that a lot of these unrepresentative governments have not been helped by the collusion of an oil-addicted  Western world in keeping them in power. Belkeziz told the assembled foreign ministers that their countries had a poor record in vital areas such as "education and health to economic development." and called for reform. At first glance this would seem to conform with George W Bush's call for a move to democracy in the Middle East. The problem is that in many, if not most, Muslim eyes, Bush and his administration are irrevocably tainted by the invasion and subsequent chaotic occupation of Iraq. It is likely only a new government in the US will lead to any improvement in this situation but to undo the harm Bush has done to America's standing in the world (and not just with Muslims) will be a herculean task. It is an open question whether John Kerry will be up to the job but he would have to be astoundingly incompetent to make matters worse than they are already.

Johnny B Worst - Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times (reg rqd) about US attorney general John Ashcroft has a couple of interesting points to make, backing up his assertion that Ashcroft is the worst holder of that post in history. This may or may not be true, but Krugman does point out that Ashcroft has yet to achieve any "major successful prosecutions" in the war on terror. He also finds a pattern in that whenever Ashcroft suffers a reverse of some kind it is followed a few days later by a high profile "dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat" in order to divert attention. While this idea is not new (see Crying Wolf and Little Fish) Krugman's presentation of the case is certainly more convincing than anything Ashcroft has managed to come up with so far against alleged terrorists and "enemy combatants". The attorney general would do better to apply the kind of effort he currently uses to subpoena women's private medical records, or finding ways around the rules banning torture of prisoners, in the "effective pursuit of the war on terror." Perhaps it all comes down to the fact he is clearly not up to the job, promoted beyond his limited ability, allowing his personal obsessions and prejudices to get in the way of what he should be doing.

Satanic Superhero - this news story sounds like an episode straight out of a Marvel comic. It happened at Groena Lund amusement park in Stockholm, when a boy fell out of the gondola on a Ferris wheel and was left dangling there, 30 feet up. By a strange quirk of fate (as they say) nearby was an employee of the "Ghost House", fetchingly dressed up as a devil. More to the point, the exotically monikered Ben-Hur Pereira's other identity, when not frightening the punters with his "black body suit with flecks of red, a goatee and a silver stud in his lower lip", is that of a trained acrobat. He climbed the Ferris wheel and pushed the hapless boy back inside the gondola. (The boy was later found to be unhurt.) The episode conjured up for 80 the vision of a devout fundagelical in the same precarious position, white-knuckled and desperate, yet steadfastly refusing assistance from the Evil One at any costs. But of course, this was secular Sweden, not Bush's America.

Still Waiting - a while back 80 asked what was Boykin's role in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse affair. Lieutenant-General William G Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, you will recall, was the one who addressed church groups dressed in his uniform, claiming the war on terror was in fact a war against Satan. Al Kamen, writing in the Washington Post, (scroll down to Rewinding the Tape) is also wondering why it has been seven months since the Pentagon announced an investigation into into Boykin's speaking engagements but nothing has been heard since - and that is without an inquiry into any possible role in Abu Ghraib.................