Criminalising thoughts

9:30am

This worries me:

Drawings and computer-generated images of child sex abuse would be made illegal under proposals announced by Justice Minister Maria Eagle.

Owners of such images would face up to three years in prison under the plans.

Under the Obscene Publications Act it is illegal to possess photos of child abuse but it is legal to own drawings and computer-generated images.

 

I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this moves us into the realms of legislating against thought crimes.

I have written before that I think there should indeed be zero tolerance shown to those who download images of children being abused. The likes of Chris Langham deserve, in my view, everything they get. But that's based on protecting children. The images downloaded by paedophiles are taken from a child being abused, and the law should do everything possible to stop that.

But on the face it, I can't see how - sick as we may find it - made up images, which are computer generated, should be illegal. Who is the victim if the image isn't real?

Clearly there's one aspect to this which is indeed a 'loophole':  

The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the authorities had "noticed an increase in the existing availability of these images on the internet".

If the proposed change in the law is concerned solely with doctored images which originate from real images of abuse, then it's quite right to legislate. But the reports of what is propsed are ambiguous and seem to be much more sweeping. Concocting a computer generated image is effectively the same thing as imagining such an image in one's mind. As I say, that might be sick, but the law does not legislate - ought not to, anyway - against thoughts which have no bearing on actions. (Hate crimes are a - sort of - exception to that - and I have my reservations about that elevated category of crime anyway.) 

If there is evidence that such thoughs lead directly to child abuse by the person thinking such thoughts, then I'd see how it might indeed be right to criminalise a thought. But I've yet to see such evidence.

Please do comment on this. I want to know why I might be wrong on this.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (8)

al-Qaradawi in his own words

2:38pm

It is a book that promises a battle 'between the collective body of Muslims and the collective body of Jews i.e. all Muslims and all Jews' (p.77), which will hasten the end of days for mankind. This is no political analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, or even a faith-based lament for the Palestinian people; it is a passionate apocalyptic vision of division, war and final triumph.

Qaradawi makes it clear at the beginning of the book that Israel should be removed entirely from what he sees as Muslim land. He discusses his hypothetical reaction to any future peace accord that would leave Israel in control of its pre-1967 territory in the opening chapter:

 

[T]he so-called peace accords involved recognizing the Jews' right to the usurped lands which means that Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, al-Ladd, Ramallah, Beir Sheba and even Jerusalem will be considered as Israeli lands. Such cities that have been part of the Muslim world for more than thirteen hundred years will become part of the Zionist Jewish state. Hence, we will never be able to claim them back and, after being taken by force, such places will be legitimately given to the enemy.

 

Bearing this in mind, we can realize that what happened was not a peace accord being signed; rather, it is an utter recognition of Israel having rights and sovereignty in our Arab Muslim lands. Therefore, we sign a witnessed agreement to lose such lands forever. (p. 3-4)

 

Nor, significantly, does Qaradawi feel that the Palestinians have the authority to make such a peace agreement with Israel:

 

I have always stressed that Palestine is a Muslim land belonging to all generations of the Muslim nation. Therefore, if any of these generations fail to defend and protect this land, it is for the following generations to stand up for this task. If Palestinians neglect their duty of defending this land, the whole Muslim nation is required to take this responsibility and defend the land either by force or word. (p. 5)

 

Hamas, as the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has for many years looked to Qaradawi as a religious authority and relied upon his rulings. The idea that any peace deal made by the Palestinian leadership with Israel should be treated as null and void by successive generations of Palestinians, appears to be echoed in the refusal of the current Hamas government to recognise past agreements made with Israel by its predecessors. There are common principles and ideological positions that run through the policies of Hamas, the writings of Qaradawi and the wider vision of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

...Qaradawi's classification of 'every Jew in the world' (p. 42) as an enemy may refer to contemporary events for its justification, but it has a deep theological purpose. A chapter of the book is devoted to a discussion of the hadith [a record of a saying or deed of Muhammad] that reads:

 

"The last day will not come unless you fight Jews. A Jew will hide himself behind stones and trees and stones and trees will say, 'O servant of Allah – or O Muslim – there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"

 

This hadith is used by many radical Islamist groups to incite conflict between Muslims and Jews. It is quoted in article seven of the Hamas Covenant and its use in the literature of Hizb ut-Tahrir was one of the reasons why that organisation was banned by the National Union of Students. Qaradawi refers to the hadith as 'one of the miracles of our Prophet' (p. 76) and then goes on to describe how this battle between Muslims and Jews is one of the preconditions that needs to be fulfilled before the Day of Judgement can come. He carefully explains, though, that the current fighting between Israel and the Palestinians is a start, but is not sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the hadith:

 

[W]e believe that the battle between us and the Jews is coming … Such a battle is not driven by nationalistic causes or patriotic belonging; it is rather driven by religious incentives. This battle is not going to happen between Arabs and Zionists, or between Jews and Palestinians, or between Jews or anybody else. It is between Muslims and Jews as is clearly stated in the hadith. This battle will occur between the collective body of Muslims and the collective body of Jews i.e. all Muslims and all Jews. (p.77)

 

 

 

...The questioner might have thought that gaining victory over the Jews will be delayed till before the Day of Judgement, but there is no clear evidence to say this. We hope – Insha' Allah – that it shall happen soon. In fact, the introduction of such a victory has occurred and been embodied in the Islamic movement and the revolution of mosques against the oppressor and the occupier. It has also arisen in the activities of those children who carry stones in their hands to defend their lands, in the calls that are spreading everywhere telling Muslims that they have to return to Islam and apply it in every aspect of life. All this brings us nearer to victory and surely victory is near. (p.79)

 

Other Islamists share Qaradawi's messianic interpretation of current events. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) advertised a recent meeting in Manchester with the call:

 

If the leadership is entrusted to those unfit for it, expect the Hour. By Allah the signs of the end of times are all around us, a hundred million Zionists desire with all their hearts to plunge this world into the final battle, and all around the Muslims are betrayed and bewitched. Muslim Leaders in the Mosque concern themselves with the minor points of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] while all around the Ummah cries in pain and fitna [division] and those with hatred in their hearts plan and plot. [2]

 

Qaradawi personifies the combination of theological anti-Judaism, modern European antisemitism and conflict-driven Judeophobia that make up contemporary Islamist attitudes to Jews.  
 

...Fatawa on Palestine includes Qaradawi's standard line on Palestinian suicide bombing, which is now well known. Suicide bombings are, in Qaradawi's words, '[O]ne of the greatest types of Jihad … valid heroic martyrdom operations and very different from suicide.' (p. 6) The suicide bomber '[H]as sold his soul to Allah and placed his heart on gaining martyrdom and purchasing Paradise.' (p. 7) Women suicide bombers '[A]re doing a remarkable deed that is blessed by Almighty Allah and considered an act of Jihad for the sake of Allah.' (p. 21) Qaradawi condemned the suicide bombings in London on 7/7, but it does not appear that this was based on a principled objection to the methods or goals of the global jihadist movement. Qaradawi was one of the first and most consistent supporters of Hamas suicide bombings, when most other high-profile Sunni clerics refused to give the practice their consent. This alone should give pause for thought to those people who cite his condemnation of 9/11 and 7/7 as evidence of his moderation. His promotion of the theology and culture of martyrdom and his eschatological yearnings can only feed the ideology of global jihad. Condemnation of suicide bombings that target civilians should not be contingent on who the victims and perpetrators are, nor on whether the terrorism takes place in one country or another. Qaradawi's way around this is to redefine what a civilian is, by claiming that Israeli society 'is a military society in its totality.' (p. 7) This is not an argument that should be given any serious consideration, and serves only to dehumanise his enemy.

 

...Qaradawi's attitudes towards all other faith groups are dependent on how their beliefs and their behaviour sit within his own theological interpretations. Part of Qaradawi's political strategy is to build his influence within European Muslim communities by developing a religious framework to guide the lives of Muslim minorities in the West. His visit to London in 2004 was to hold a meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, of which he is President. His focus on Europe is one reason why, in 2004, he turned down the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood when it was offered to him. It is possible to understand why some in the West see him as a potential ally against extremism. He supports democratic elections, for instance, and advises western banks on Islamic finance. This reflects the Muslim Brotherhood's historic openness to Western ideas and Qaradawi's personal pragmatism. On too many issues, though, his views appear inimical to modern European values. Those who are trying to build alliances against violent extremism need to choose their partners carefully, and in an informed way. British and European society should be inclusive, cohesive and diverse; it has no place for the conflict, bigotry and division of Fatawa on Palestine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of Qaradawi's political strategy is to build his influence within European Muslim communities by developing a religious framework to guide the lives of Muslim minorities in the West. His visit to London in 2004 was to hold a meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, of which he is President. His focus on Europe is one reason why, in 2004, he turned down the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood when it was offered to him. It is possible to understand why some in the West see him as a potential ally against extremism. He supports democratic elections, for instance, and advises western banks on Islamic finance. This reflects the Muslim Brotherhood's historic openness to Western ideas and Qaradawi's personal pragmatism. On too many issues, though, his views appear inimical to modern European values. Those who are trying to build alliances against violent extremism need to choose their partners carefully, and in an informed way. British and European society should be inclusive, cohesive and diverse; it has no place for the conflict, bigotry and division of Fatawa on Palestine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of Qaradawi's political strategy is to build his influence within European Muslim communities by developing a religious framework to guide the lives of Muslim minorities in the West. His visit to London in 2004 was to hold a meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, of which he is President. His focus on Europe is one reason why, in 2004, he turned down the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood when it was offered to him. It is possible to understand why some in the West see him as a potential ally against extremism. He supports democratic elections, for instance, and advises western banks on Islamic finance. This reflects the Muslim Brotherhood's historic openness to Western ideas and Qaradawi's personal pragmatism. On too many issues, though, his views appear inimical to modern European values. Those who are trying to build alliances against violent extremism need to choose their partners carefully, and in an informed way. British and European society should be inclusive, cohesive and diverse; it has no place for the conflict, bigotry and division of Fatawa on Palestine.

 

 

 

 

 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

'SUV drivers not subhuman' shock

8:40am

It's difficult to know what's more awful about this article: the headline (which is, of course, the Guardian's rather than the writer's) or the piece itself.

This is the headline:

The good Samaritan - in an SUV

Do the Guardian editors really think it's worthy of note that someone driving an SUV behaved with common humanity? Clearly they do, which says it all about the mindset at large at the paper. They really do think that people who drive SUVs are morally degenerate.  

As for the piece:

Driving home from south London, I ran out of petrol on a speed bump. An enormous 4x4 rolled slowly towards me, and I prepared for verbal abuse. "You need a push into a parking space" the blonde driver noted. She squeezed past me, and I presumed she'd driven off, which is what I would have done. But she parked, helped me push my car to a parking bay and, unprompted, drove me to a petrol station.

In the course of our journey, the driver, Helen, said she'd lived in the area for years, before being made redundant. We agreed that being "let go" was always a blessing in disguise. She'd left London, and divorced her bullyboy husband of 15 months, who she felt was about to turn violent. We talked about the long shadow that a destructive relationship casts. She moved to Portsmouth, and at 41 she'd wondered if she'd left it too late to have kids. She sent a card to her first love. They'd dated when she was 19, but he wasn't sure that he as a black man should be going out with a white woman. He was single, called her, and told her that he'd never forgotten her, and they got together. We talked about how crucial it was to meet the right person at the right time. After six weeks she was pregnant. Which brought us to beautiful little Dilly in the back, who called me "lady" and presented her ice cream to me. We returned to my car, Helen waited until I started the engine. I thanked her, and we parted.

Her random act shocked me because it went against the natural order of modern life. It revealed a direct connection: intimacy, not anonymity. She wanted nothing in return for something. Such generous behaviour isn't represented as the norm, or underpinned by daily statistics and reports. I can't remember when I last felt the comfort of strangers, nor when I was last a good Samaritan: giving tourists directions to Harrods is about my limit. 

It's not often that I turn to CiF commenters for words of wisdom, but these seem to sum it up:

 "I can't remember when I last felt the comfort of strangers, nor when I was last a good Samaritan:" Do you think that there might just be a connection there?

"Her random act shocked me because it went against the natural order of modern life" So , you're saying you would have never had the idea of stopping and giving a hand if it was the other way around ? Why else would you be shocked ?

well good for Helen, what a pity you've chosen to repay her kindness by revealing the intimate details of her life for the sake of a few column inches. And why is the 4x4, or that she's blonde and has a black partner relevant?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)

Car crash singing

8:29am

Oh my sweet Lord. Please forgive me for inflicting this on you, but I have to share it with someone: Andrea Bocelli and Anna Netrebko at the Classical Brits.

Bocelli - essentially a glorified pub singer with fantastic marketing - sounds as if someone is tightening his throat with string and he's gasping for breath, while Netrebko seems to be trying to show that she, too, can do shrieking rather than singing - and that she is as capable as anyone else at ignoring the conductor's tempo.

Car crash singing (via Opera Chic).

And just to make it worse, there's three seconds of  the awful Mylene Klass to endure at the start.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (5)

Labour's loser (Wall Street Journal)

6:49am

I have a piecein today's Wall Street Journal on Gordon Brown, and how it's not necessarily all over for Labour. Here's an extract:

To misquote Oscar Wilde, you would have to have a heart of stone not to smile at the slow political death of Gordon Brown. For over a decade he waged a war of attrition against Tony Blair, based on a bitter, resentful anger that he should have been the occupant of 10 Downing Street. He undermined Mr. Blair at every opportunity, ruining any chance that the then-prime minister could introduce full-on reform of the British public sector.

And now, within a year of taking over, Mr. Brown is almost universally written off, revealed as a lightweight posing in a heavyweight's clothing. He suffers scornful political obituaries that make John Major's demise seem almost pleasant in comparison.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

...But nothing is ever certain in politics. We have been here before, not that long ago, and the result was very different.

In March 1990, the Conservatives were defeated in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election after a 21% swing to Labour. Margaret Thatcher's government was enduring abysmal opinion poll ratings as public anger at the poll tax raged. The Conservatives hovered around 30%, with Labour regularly hitting over 50%. Just as commentators today describe a Conservative victory as certain, so in 1990 a Labour victory was taken as read.

Yet just two years later, the Conservatives won with 42% of the vote to Labour's 34%. So much for inevitability.

What changed, of course, was that the governing party ditched its leader and started afresh. Baroness Thatcher was replaced with the barely known and thus untainted John Major.

...As the emergence of John Major showed, replacing a hated prime minister can transform a party's fortunes. This is precisely why Gordon Brown's initial poll ratings were so good when he took over last July: Labour was scoring around 42%, at least 10 points higher than the Conservatives. Tony Blair's departure was like a boil being lanced, and the public greeted his successor with open arms. It was almost irrelevant that it was Mr. Brown who took over; the electorate would have greeted almost any successor similarly. But once the initial sense of relief had passed, the results started to reflect the true regard in which Mr. Brown was held.

As Gordon Brown's sudden collapse also shows, it's not changing leaders per se that is the secret; it's changing to the sort of leader who suits the public's mood. Through most of the 1980s that was Margaret Thatcher. By 1990, a new leader in the Thatcher style would have been disastrous; the mood required a Major. And even though Britons were tired of Tony Blair by last year, the change they sought was not to a man such as Brown: domineering, arrogant, robotic, brooding. They wanted a leader who, like Mr. Blair, was at ease with himself -- just without the foreign-policy baggage. They wanted someone with whom they could identify. Mr. Brown is as far from that ideal as it is possible to be.

...That is why the removal of Mr. Brown is a prerequisite to a Labour revival. If Conservative support is built on Labour's being led by Gordon Brown, then the picture would be very different if he were replaced by a leader who can match David Cameron's appeal. That means Labour's best chance of recovery rests not with the most widely touted names: David Miliband, the 43-year-old foreign secretary who comes across as a political geek; and Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has been in the Cabinet since Labour took power in 1997 and would hardly mark a fresh start. Labour needs to repeat the Conservatives' trick in 1990 and give voters the impression that the new leader represents effectively a change of government. The man who leaps out is Alan Johnson, the current health secretary, who is eloquent and capable.

 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

A suggestion for fighting knife crime (The Times)

12:05am

I have a piece in today's Times on knife crime. Here's an extract:

Over the past decade, the number of convictions for carrying a knife has risen from 3,360 in 1997 to 6,314 in 2006. Of those convicted in 1997, 482 were teenagers, rising in 2006 to 1,256. That near trebling in the number of teenagers convicted is bad enough. Worse, however, are surveys showing that about one in five teenagers say that they carry a knife with them.

Given the rapid development of a teenage culture in which carrying a knife is seen as normal, not to say essential for self-defence, it is understandable that there have been calls to toughen the relevant laws. The current maximum sentence for knife carrying is two years, or four years if the knife is carried to school.

But since we do not enforce the existing laws properly, it is fatuous to suggest that tougher maximum penalties would serve any useful purpose. They would be ignored just like the existing maximum penalties.

In 2006, only nine of the 6,314 people convicted of carrying a knife were handed down a maximum sentence. Most were given a caution. And I would bet a small fortune on not one of those nine criminals - 0.14 per cent of those convicted - actually being made to serve the full sentence they were given.

Despite the penalties available, the authorities treat this potentially deadly crime as an infringement of the law akin to pilfering an apple from a grocer. This has to change. The courts must use the punishments available to them. Children need to understand that, if caught, their childhood will effectively be over and they will suffer severe punishment.

That also means that the police must be given full powers to stop and search children. But instead, not only do the courts and CPS treat children found with knives with kid gloves, dangerous idiots such as Sir Al Aynsley-Green, to whom we pay £130,000 a year for his wisdom as the Children's Commissioner for England, warn that allowing police the power to search children might antagonise them. That just about sums up how the whole edifice works: God forbid that a potential murderer is upset by having his coat examined.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

My world turned upside down

9:05pm

I am in a state of utter bewildered incomprehension. I don't understand how I can have read what I have just read. It is beyond my ken. It throws into chaos everything I thought I knew about the world.

It is this:

The boom/bust in oil and house prices is, quite simply, good news, whatever the tangential pain. It shows that the good ship Gaia, planet Earth, is traumatising its passengers into husbanding its scarce resources. Above all they must ration living space, for which the West has been appallingly greedy, and carbon fuel, of which the same is true.

The fall in house prices follows a classic inflationary bubble induced by cheap borrowing. Prices soared not (as the government claimed) because of an excess of “need”. Need is not an economic concept, only demand. Prices soared because the lowest interest rates in a generation made houses, however expensive on paper, cheap to buy. Millions who could not realistically afford to borrow did so and prices soared in consequence of their unsustainable debts. The bubble duly burst. House sales in Britain are down on a year ago by some 35%, prices by almost 4%.

The market has delivered in a matter of months what the Treasury and its pundit, Kate Barker, claimed that only flooding the market with “new land” could achieve, a surplus of housing supply for both sale and rent, signified by a fall in price. With no loss of green belt and no “eco-towns”, house-buying has been brought within the range of millions of new buyers, albeit under a more disciplined mortgage regime. Only builders and estate agents get hurt.

...The same laws of economics apply to the price of oil – and, for that matter, wheat. These are scarce resources. The fact that more people want them is why they are more expensive. When a Labour MP last week cried that petrol should be made cheaper by the government “because it is a necessity”, he might as well have said two plus two equals five. When will these fools be sent for compulsory re-education before they do more damage?

That's from a piece by Sir Simon Jenkins, and is not just entirely right but hugely, critically and importantly right, and right where so many idiots are wrong. 

How on earth did this happen? Sir Simon has long been one of my surest guides to knowing what is right and wrong in this world. Whatever he writes, I can bet I'll think the absolute opposite.

And now this. My world has been turned upside down.

 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

Spaghetti plant

7:01pm

We're just back from the garden centre. It seems Richard Dimbleby wasn't hoaxing anyone, after all.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

Brown is deluded.

7:25pm

Apologies for the absence of posts on this - probably - historic day.
I've just seen Brown being interviewed on Channel 4 News. The most striking thing was that he really does seem to live in a make-believe world in which we, the people, have chosen him carefully to lead us through troubled times.

"I have been entrusted", he said, of leading the country.

Eh? When? Who entrusted you, Gordon? Apart from the Labour Party, which only had one candidate to choose from. Not one voter has entrusted him with anything.

He then went on talk about how the message of the people was clear: that we wanted him to listen to us, blah, blah, blah.

No, it isn't. The message is certainly clear, but it's rather more stark than that. How else would you characterise a 17.6 per cent swing than 'F off'? No one has said they want him to listen. What they've done whenever they've had the chance is boot out anyone with the appelation 'Labour', for no more obscure or hidden reason than because they want to boot them out.

Brown is not only willing to do anything to stay in office - such as splurging £2.7 billion and  fighting elections as if his party was the BNP -  he is also, quite literally, deluded. And the longer he remains, the worse and more lingering Labour's defeat will be.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (16)

Boris' salaries

8:48am

Boris yesterday kept another promise when he published the full list of his advisers' salariies.

The big message appears to be that there are some people who deserve immense praise for refusing to sup from the public purse: Kit Malthouse, for instance, who is taking his Assembly Member's salary but no more for his role as Deputy Mayor for policing - a job which, I imagine, will be unrelenting. Sir Simon Milton, too, and, at first sight, Kate Hoey (although I'm unclear if her role is as real as the title makes it seem).  

As for the others: the money they are taking from us for their services is huge. Don't get me wrong: if people are doing tough jobs which would in another walk of life command a large salary then they should be properly compensated. But attacks on the public sector gravy train are that much more convincing from a party which is not itself part of that gravy train.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)