Vileness appeared today

It had to happen.  The London Metropolitan Police has today protected about 100 protestors who in Grosvenor Square - the location of the US Embassy to the UK - held placards proclaiming "Islam will dominate the world", calling for an Islamic Caliphate for the UK and the US and celebrating that Afghanistan is a graveyard of US soldiers.  They deliberately broke the minute of silence held to commemorate the dead and are now celebrating the same on their website.  They burnt the US flag.

Their website makes it bold:

This is a war between ideologies, namely between those who stand on the side of Islam and those who stand on the side of democracy and freedom. In the West they use different terminologies, they call it a war between freedom and terrorism, it is strange though that all the "terrorists" are Muslim and all those Muslims have as there ideology Islam.

The claim is that the US has lost the ideological war.  They are worshippers of a death cult of slavery and depravity, they openly despise freedom, openly believe laws cannot be created except in the shadow of their misogynistic violent death cult.   They use the freedom of the West to fight against it,

It is worth noting that two groups counter-protested.  A group of Muslims appeared holding placards saying "Muslims against Extremism", "Keep the Silence" and "If you want Sharia, Move to Saudi".  Good for them.  The more British Muslims confront the Islamists the more it will be accepted that the majority of them live in the UK because of freedom, not to destroy it.   According to the Daily Mail one said "If the moderate Muslims all came out and spoke out, that would defeat them..I am proud to be British. I love my country. All these people are doing is breaking Britain apart."

Another group comprised the English Defence League, a group commonly described as fascist/far right, which is largely a bunch of working class men who are loudly and usually rather bluntly against Islamism.  The Police moved them so that the Islamist misogynists could have their protests.  For all of their faults, the EDL is at least NOT against the freedoms and secularism of modern Britain.  Indeed, treating them as being as bad as the Islamists will simply encourage recruitment.

What's most telling is that today, of all days, those who would destroy our way of life were allowed to be unspeakably disgusting and vile.  It makes a profound mockery of so called "human rights" laws that don't allow people to express offensive views based on race, sex, religion and sexuality, when people who hold those very views, are protected by the state to express them.

Now I would not stop people expressing those views, but would also not stop others counter-protesting, and would not move peaceful citizens on to let people protest.   Islamists sought to protest outside the US Embassy, knowing how inflammatory and offensive it would be, and got state protection to do so.  Would anyone who dared go to Muslim majority parts of Britain expect the same protection if they wanted to protest for a secular state, freedom and equal rights for women?

David Cameron tries to defend liberty

It is a debate that wouldn’t be had politically five years ago, couldn’t be had ten years ago, but is now mainstream. It centres around a single point – the response to citizens of a state that wish its downfall, not replacement of one elected government with another, but the destruction of the core foundations of that state and civilisation, and replaced with another.

Today it is about Islamists who seek to undermine liberal democracy with core values of individual rights and freedoms. In the past those who sought revolution have had different philosophical touchstones. Most have also adopted techniques of insidiously inculcating their values and beliefs into the mainstream by gentle steps. However, all have faced end points at which their philosophies rubbed against ill-defined core values that at the end of it all come down to individual liberty in one form or another.

Britain’s problem is both that these values do not have a solid foundation, nor have any solid protection in the constitutional arrangements of state.  It is an "understanding" which is very fluid.  This fundamental weakness serves Britain as poorly today as it has done so with more recent challenges to these “core values”.

Marxists spent much of the 20th century seeking just that kind of profound change, as they had stunning success with the Labour Party in nationalising much of the means of production, distribution and exchange in order to downsize capitalism. This included nationalising key services such as health, and crucially education, the latter important for it provided the means to ensure future generations would share their ethos. The downfall of some of this was that the reality of the crippling inability of the state to respond to changes in demand and supply, when trading with the more fleet of foot, came to pass in the 1970s. Margaret Thatcher wound much of this back, but she could not wind back those successes of Marxists that planted themselves in the psyche of the vast majority – state health and education. In that the seeds for the leviathan like nanny state that came with Tony Blair, that saw the state in “partnership” with business and the voluntary sector, interweaving pervasiveness, whilst letting the capitalism that Thatcher did unlock, continue to prosper.   Yet Marxists still won on the welfare state and in education, and still command the mainstream perceived "moral highground".

Every single infringement on individual liberty that came under Blair (and to be fair, under every British government beforehand) saw little fundamental challenge, for the state is sovereign. Protests within a radius of Parliament were banned. Authors wishing to read books in schools needed to be vetted not just for convictions, but mere suspicions raised by private individuals who would never face challenge. Meanwhile, membership of the European Union saw a new panoply of civil liberties “guaranteed”, such as how Abu Hamza, convicted of soliciting to murder, cannot be deported to the US because he would risk life imprisonment there for his own role in assisting to set up a terrorist training camp. UK prisons have increasing numbers of convicted violent and sex offenders, who as illegal immigrants cannot be deported because they claim they will be persecuted at home. Furthermore, the UK state is legally obliged to force taxpayers to pay for welfare for such criminals and their families. Yet the same state can impose criminal sanctions on people for not having a licence when they own a television set, it can criminalise people who put a recyclable object in a rubbish bin and criminalise a Christian B&B owner who would rather not have a gay couple pay to stay in his own home.

You see there is no consistent philosophical basis for any of this. You do not have private property rights because the state can override them, the council can restrict what you do with your land, the state can tax as it wishes, there being absolutely no restriction at all on the scope of this. Your relationships with others are subject to extensive rules on discrimination that were designed to eradicate old fashioned sexism and racism, but now give cause to a whole host of grievances based on unequal outcomes rather than treatment. Your own actions in terms of speech have always faced some restriction, but be careful of offending others, for that now may give rise to concerns of discrimination. Certainly there remains mountains of laws on businesses, from shop opening and closing times, to property developers needing to provide effectively subsidised accommodation, and the appetite for more remains among politicians seeking to do anything from protect the environment to having more women in management.

The idea that an autonomous adult might interact voluntarily with other adults, do as she wishes with her property as long as it does to infringe upon the right of others to peacefully enjoy their own, and to express as they see fit, as long as it is not incitement to violence, has no foundation bearing anywhere in the British constitution, which of course, does not actually exist beyond convention.

So when the British Prime Minister David Cameron declares “multiculturalism has failed” and “Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty”, he doesn’t do so from a strong grounding in the British state. For past governments have only ever been amorphous and fluid in their defence of liberty. Alan Turing worked hard to protect Britain from the totalitarian terrors of Nazism, only to have the police harass him because his private life was incompatible with laws that were more compatible with Nazism than liberty. It has always been liberty, except when it comes to fleecing citizens of their money for the state. Liberty with your land, except when it comes to grand projects, council planning and wanting to do virtually anything commercial. Say what you wish, unless you offend the wrong peoples. Nothing limited the last government and nothing limits this one, except their own consciences and fear of electoral backlash.  Only concern with treaty based commitments on human rights at the EU level has an impact, but that has most recently shown itself to be able to insist on prisoners getting the vote.  It might discipline totalitarian instincts around democracy and media, but any state that wished to go so far would be unlikely to care much about the EU.

Nevertheless, I welcome Cameron's speech, it is about time. It isn’t racist,  despite the vacuous name calling on the left.  Nothing he said is remotely about race or even about demanding adherence to Christianity.  For Hindus and Sikhs (3rd and 4th most popular religion after Christianity and Islam), there is no issue.  Only the far left and sympathisers with Islamism will want to tar it with this cheap slogan. It isn’t just that Islam is not a race, but that the concerns he raises are exactly where those who seek to more fundamentally undermine personal liberties and freedom rub up against the freedom to express ones views. Nobody called damning either communists nor fascists as somehow racist.

Cameron is saying no taxpayers’ money should go to organisations that do not embrace core values of individual liberty. I would go further than that, and not give taxpayers’ money to organisations that promote anything.  That would be truly liberal.  As would removing the vestigial role of the Anglican Church with the state, but this is hardly causing a problem, it is a mere detail.

More important is that he wants to cease access of such organisations to prisons and universities.  It is right to keep proselytising of Islamism from state institutions.   The question of whether religion should be restricted in prisons may remain moot, as many will vouch for its benefits, yet few would want it to come with moral endorsement to do violence.

Yet it shouldn’t just be about money, it should be about a robust defence of secular liberal democracy  built on the foundations of individual rights and freedoms. It means the uncontroversial right of freedom of religion belief and worship, and to live ones life according to these or other beliefs, but also to respect absolutely the right of others to live otherwise. Even more importantly, there is no right to have your religion or secular beliefs treated as greater than those of others. You have no right to be not offended or for your beliefs not to be laughed at.  Allowing humour at the expense of the BNP means allowing humour at the expense of Islam and humour at the expense of environmentalism and humour at the expense of atheism and humour at the expense of social democrats et al.

However, to make that defence robustly the Conservative Party needs more philosophical consistency. It has long ago expunged the sclerotic closet-racism of the past (to the dismay of the left because it was such an easy target) and embraced the leftwing “progressive” agenda of “positive-discrimination”. It has embraced the secular religion of environmentalism and has never looked particularly keen on private property rights. It is without any testicular fortitude on Europe, yet has imposed an absurd ban on new non-EU immigration that is hurting business (including my own employer which has concluded the bureaucracy required to put new expert foreign staff, who would help the UK win export work, through the process is not worth it at the moment). Moreover, it is engaging in fiscal austerity on the basis only of necessity, rather than also claiming that there are simply some things the state shouldn’t do – like pay benefits to people on high incomes. He is trying to draw a line in the sand on liberty, when he himself doesn’t appear to have one or much of a basis for it.

In parallel to this speech was a much feared so-called “far right” protest led by the English Defence League (EDL). It went off peacefully, despite being portrayed as racist fascists by the far-left “Unite Against Fascism” (supported by David Cameron) who countered the protest. The EDL denies this, and its website concentrates on Muslims needing to reform their religion to be compatible with British values.  It is easy to dismiss it as working class English people who are intolerant of difference, yet it is hardly surprising when confronted by Islamists who burn British flags and protest against British soldiers on Remembrance Sunday.

No doubt the EDL contains a fair few racists and, but the fuel for the fire in the bellies of those who join it comes from Islamists. It isn’t helped when so many who are anti-fascist appease Islamist fascists, such as Ken Livingstone undertaking book reviews on Iranian television. For the future of the UK demands that those who belief in the values of individual freedom stand up against Islamists, say that they do not see any role for Islam as a source of philosophy for the state, and that whilst individual citizens are always free to choose whatever religion they wish, they cannot and should not use violence or fear against those who disagree with them.  

No one should fear criticising any religion or any philosophy. The only philosophical basis to defend that position is to believe that the human individual owns his life and has the right to autonomy and self-determination. Sadly the actions of most mainstream politicians and the British constitution do not defend this.   Whilst liberalism in itself can provide a defence against Islamists it is not enough in itself when some use liberalism to wage war against it - then there cannot be tolerance of those who seek to destroy it. 

Why does the left ignore Islamism?

Noticed how so many on the left are, understandably, pleased about the imminent downfall of the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt, but completely nonchalant about whether it becomes an Islamist dictatorship?

How the rhetoric and thinking, almost childlike in its simplicity goes like this:

What government does Egypt have? A dictatorship

Where does most of Egypt's aid come from? US government. 

That means the US supports dictatorship.  Dictatorship is bad.

What should Egyptian have? Democracy, like "we" in the West have.  Egyptians deserve the same rights we do.

Do you believe in human rights?  Yes

Do you believe women, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorities and religious minorities deserve equal rights to everyone else? Yes

OK so far but then...

Does it matter who gets elected? Up to Egyptians.

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against Israel? Silent (but we think Israel deserves it).

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against the West? Yes, but it would be our fault for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, backing Israel.  They will stop when they have justice.

Does it matter if Islamists get elected who then restrict democracy to be the same sham it was under Mubarak?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists suppress free speech, shut down competing media, arrest protestors, use the police and army to suppress dissent?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists execute political opponents, adulterers, rape victims, gay and lesbian people? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists institute laws and enforce laws discriminatory against women? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists get nuclear weapons? America has them, so what?

See in a blind leftwing hatred of the USA, there is a total blindspot about Islamism.  For people who apparently espouse a love for women, desire for equal rights for gay and lesbian people and who hate torture, suppression of free speech and the like, their willingness to tolerate and appease Islamism is absolutely disgusting.  

It is the mindless view that anyone who challenges those they hate (the Republican Party, Israel) are to be thought of generously.

Well no.

I want Egyptians to be free, to have free speech and an open secular society and government.  I want Egypt to progress.  On balance I do not think it will become Islamist, but the risk is there.

For those on the left, whose hatred of the Mubarak regime is so thorough they will accept any alternative, are completely betraying the beliefs they purport to hold.

Want to see why? Look at how often they criticise the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. A socialist Baathist dictatorship, led by a man who got his position through hereditary succession, whose father was a warm friend of the Soviet Union, who runs a secret police and torture network that rivals Hosni Mubarak. Who has invaded Lebanon twice to overthrow liberal secular regimes that were not compliant with it.

No, you wont hear quite the same hatred of Assad as you will Mubarak, because he didn't have US support.  He had Soviet support, so he isn't as bad.  I mean he has not made peace with Israel, he has not promoted peace in Iraq and continues friendly relations with Iran, so who cares?  After all, nothing gets the left more upset that the US backing a dictatorial regime - not because it should know better, but because the US is the embodiment of what they hate.

It completely robs them of credibility.  Particularly when nobody on the political opposite is saying "save Mubarak, he's good". Nobody is saying that.  All that is being said is that Egyptians deserve the rights and freedoms we all expect.  That is consistent, because it rejects Mubarak and Islamism.

However, for some on the left Islamism is implicitly ok because American is bad.

Where do you get this sort of thought? Try here, here or here for starters.

Arabs stand up, but where will they walk?

Tunisia

Tunisians stood up because they saw the contrast between their own recession (driven in some part by a drop in demand for Tunisian goods and tourism due to the recession in Europe) and the privileged kleptocratic lifestyle of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his thieving bitch of a wife, the gold-digging hairdresser.  Having appointed himself as President for an extra two years, and maintained a tight grip on media, speech and maintaining a personality cult, Tunisians had had enough and rightly turfed him out.  Even when some of his lackeys tried to take over, Tunisians weren't standing for that either.   Ben Ali took over from Tunisia's relatively moderate but dictatorial founding President Habib Bourquiba, a man whose record was described by Christopher Hitchens as follows:

he was strongly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment. His contribution was to cement, in many minds, secularism as a part of self-government. He publicly broke the Ramadan fast, saying that such a long religious holiday was debilitating to the aspirations of a modern economy. He referred with contempt to face-covering and sponsored a series of laws entrenching the rights of women.

Bourquiba was no angel, but he was one of the more moderate of the Arab world's strongmen, look at who he had to the east with Muammar Gaddafi making Libya a personal fiefdom and sponsor of murder worldwide.   He wasn't an economic genius and left Tunisia with mounting inflation and debts.

Ben Ali took over when Bourquiba was pronounced too ill to continue, and resisted an Islamist terrorist campaign to take over the country in 1987.  Ben Ali naturally got extensive US and French support to suppress the Islamists, and Tunisia and its neighbours are no doubt the better for it.

Yet as with all dictators, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Tunisia hosted the PLO for over a decade, and Ben Ali made considerable efforts to encourage it to reach out to Israel and recognise its right to exist.  He opened up the economy and living standards increased, but freedom of expression was not on offer. He hosted multi-party and multi-candidate elections that were for show, and as the economy has waned, and he has appeared aloof from it all, so Tunisians said enough.

However, wherever Tunisia ends up, it is unlikely to be Islamist and it is, after all, a small country.  It is hoped that its largely secularist past will bode well for the future.

Yet Arabs in Algerian, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan have all watched the protests on TV and online, and have seen how easy it is to topple a strongman.  None of the countries have political freedom, all have economic difficulties, but where will they end up?

Algeria

Algeria was born of a bloody civil war against the French, and it went through three Presidents in three years as power struggles and uncontested elections meant a volatile scene.  In 1965, Houari Boumedienne seized power in a coup and ran Algeria on strict socialist principles, with strong allegiances with the Soviet bloc and China, even giving an honorary doctorate in person to Kim Il Sung.  He wasted the country's oil wealth on developing state owned heavy industry which proved uncompetitive and unproductive, and ran a ruthless police state.

Boumedienne's death saw a brief interim Presidency, followed by his protege, Chadli Bendjedid who was unremarkable, as the economy stagnated with falling oil prices.   As debts grew and government spending was cut, protests emerged and Bendjedid liberalised politics to announced the introduction of multi-party elections.  That, as is well known, sparked the rise of Islamism.  Local elections in 1990 saw the Islamic Salvation Front win a majority of positions, and there was every risk it would win the central government election in 1991.  The Islamic Salvation Front was lukewarm towards retaining democracy, with the vice president of the party claiming "If the people vote against the law of God, this is nothing other than blasphemy. In this case, it is necessary to kill the non-believers for the good reason that they wish to substitute their authority for that of God".  The party opposed the widespread coalition of Operation Desert Storm that had UN Security Council endorsement to eject Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Hardly surprising that the military intervened and stopped the election, but what followed was a brutal oppression and civil war.  Thousands were rounded up and locked up, prisons were full, and Islamists took to the countryside with weapons.  Islamists embarked on a policy of deliberate massacres of entire villages if they were not supported, the military responded and over 100,000 were killed in 11 years of war.  The war ending only because so many Algerians were tired of the slaughter.   The military supported Abdelaziz Bouteflika to become President, and an amnesty saw many Islamists give up.  He was elected in 1999 in an election boycotted by opponents, but in 2004 he was re-elected in an election described by the OSCE as free and fair.  He engaged in substantive economic reforms, taking advantage of rising oil and gas prices to rebuild infrastructure, construct housing and the economy recovered considerably.   His amnesty and reconciliation process gained much support domestically, except among militant Islamists.  He engaged in privatisation of heavy industries and the tourism sectors.

However, tensions have risen in the last two year as Bouteflika sought and gained a constitutional change to allow him to run for the Presidency for a third term, meanwhile Islamists have gained support in resistance to his attempts to retain power.  He held an election in 2009 described by Western observers as a sham, as many candidates and voters boycotted it, and he subsequently won.  In essence, Algeria's carefully won peace has been undermined by the hunger for power by a man who started by doing good, but has been unwilling to let free expression and pluralism rise against him.  As a result, those who are not scared of doing violence and unwinding the peace - Islamists - are gaining the upper hand.  Algeria's economy is in reasonably good shape, but tensions with rapidly rising food prices and dissatisfaction with corruption and suppression of dissent, are firing up protests.  None of this is helped by Islamist backing for a revolution. It would be fair to say that the greatest risk in Algeria is a second bloody civil war.

Yemen

Often forgotten is the fact that the Republic of Yemen was only united in 1990, as much of Yemen's post colonial history was spent as two governments and states.  The new united Yemen was promising as it established a multi-party democracy, guaranteeing equality under the law, basic individual rights.  However, the election didn't result in acceptance of all political leaders, as the President and Vice President came from the two former northern and southern republics.  Grievances spilled out into armed conflict between the two sides, not helped by the failure of the two state's armies to integrate.   The unified Yemen acted as if it were two countries, with Saudi Arabia supporting the socialist south because it was opposed to a united Yemen.  The UN Security Council and most other states sought a ceasefire, and the civil war ended quickly with dominance from the north.  Subsequently parliamentary and presidential elections saw dominance achieved by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been President on reunification, and had previously been President of the northern Yemen Arab Republic since 1978.   Although elections have widely been considered to be reasonably free and fair, Saleh has had considerable influence over the media and press.

However, the main challenge to his rule since 2004 has been an Islamist insurgency from the north, which is partly tribal and religious motivated (as it has come from a sub-sect of Islam - the Shia Zaidiyyah).  Terrorism and attacks have persisted in Yemen, with the Yemeni government fighting a continuous campaign against the Islamist rebels.  Both it and the Saudis claims Iran is supporting the Islamists materially.  Saudi Arabia is now backing the Yemeni government, as Al Qaeda Saudi Arabia has shifted its base to Yemen.  The US has since provided direct military support to the Yemeni government to attack its bases in the north, including air combat support.

Yemenite discontent is from a combination of disenchantment with the almost continuous rule by one President since 1978, but also an economy which has performed poorly.  This was not helped by the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni workers during the 1991 Gulf War because the regime supported Saddam Hussein.  Yemen's economy has been dependent on subsistance agriculture and modest oil and gas reserves, of which revenue is used to offset high subsidies for domestic petroleum.  Tourism is virtually non-existent, and the civil war has dissuaded foreign investors as well as driving more skilled Yemenis overseas.  In short, the country has been seriously hamstrung by ongoing conflict.

The great fear is that protests in Aden will be taken advantage of by Al Qaeda and its associated Islamist rebels, particularly as Yemen is in a strategic position on the approach to Suez.

As for Egypt? The news is unfolding... the consequences could be far reaching.... and I will write on it later.

However, the common theme amongst all of these state is resistance to political power, to absolute rule, to those who have used the state to enrich themselves and not ever been accountable for what they have done.  In short, Arabs in these states have wanted political freedom.

Yet more than a few have seen it as a chance not just to throw off the shackles of existing regimes, but to introduce a new order.  Akin to how Iranians threw off the authoritarian corrupt Shah, and supported the most well organised alternative - who has since proven to be more authoritarian and despicable.

The Western support for the likes of Hosni Mubarak has been because the apparent alternative would be far worse - yet the truth is nobody knows what will happen, and maintaining dictatorship and one man rule simply provides fodder for the Islamists, promotes hatred of Western values and civilisation as Islamists can say the West supports political freedom for all, except Arabs.   So support must be given for these regimes to change, to let people have their say, and for freedom to emerge in secular modern republics.  Yet if any look like becoming Islamist states that will harbour and promote terrorism and war, then it is a different story, for it risks the national security of the targets of that terror and war.  Hopefully most Arabs in these countries, having lived under relatively secular rule for some time, have little appetite for a new form of tyranny - but, one might have said the same of Iran in 1979.

Pakistan sadly spirals towards theocracy

The assassination of Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, Pakistan, should send shivers down the spines of all within and outside Pakistan who do not wish to see that country become another Iran.  You see Taseer was a secularist, he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state that allowed citizens to choose not to be Muslims.  He himself was a Muslim.  His most recent campaign has been to oppose laws on blasphemy, as he defended Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, from being convicted and executed.  Not only it is a crime to blaspheme against Islam in Pakistan, but it carries a mandatory death sentence.

He was murdered by one of his own security guards, Malik Mumtaz Qadri.  He aimed at AK-47 at Taseer and shot him 27 times. Notably, his other guards didn't shoot and kill Qadri, who is now under arrest.  

As is to be expected, Facebook pages have emerged for Taseer AND for his murderer.  Yes, his murderer has much support among Islamist violence peddlers across the world.  

The whole idea of Pakistan was a mistake, it was a recipe for disaster from the start and the blood of hundreds of thousands have been spilt because of this mindless religious sectarianism in what was India (and Hindus are not innocent of this either).  The contrast today is palpable between an outward looking growing liberalising India, and a poor, backward, terrorist ridden Pakistan.  If only Pakistan could shed Islamism it could join with its fast growing neighbour and be a country that didn't chase its best and brightest overseas to flee violence and seek opportunity.  

Have little doubt, the war in Afghanistan is as much about keeping Islamism from overrunning Pakistan as it is about keeping the Taliban confined in Afghanistan.  A Western-Indian strategy to keep Pakistan from becoming Islamist is essential to ensure the worst possible outcome does not arise.  For if it does, then prepare for blood to be spilt on a grand scale.  India knows this too well, it would be good if the Obama Administration, NATO and others did so as well.

Morally bankrupt feminists

It's awfully nice to sit in Cambridge, England as a female academic. You can enjoy a comfortable upper middle-class lifestyle, choose to study as you wish, travel as you wish. You don't need to rely on men to defend your rights, indeed you can associate with whomever men and women as you wish (and who wish to associate with you). You can be unmarried, married, a mother, childless, heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, chaste, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. You can pose nude, or live the life of a hermit. You have a range of freedoms delivered through law, but more importantly culture and modern social norms that are the envy of many in the world.

So why does Priyamvada Gopal writing in the Guardian think that what the West offers women in Afghanistan is

"little to offer Afghans other than bikini waxes and Oprah-imitators"

because..

In the affluent west itself, modernity is now about dismantling welfare systems, increasing inequality (disproportionately disenfranchising women in the process), and subsidising corporate profits.

You see she opposes the military intervention in Afghanistan, whilst also opposing "misogynistic violence". Yet she offers the women of Afghanistan absolutely nothing in return.

Her claim is that "The real effects of the Nato occupation, including the worsening of many women's lives under the lethally violent combination of old patriarchal feudalism and new corporate militarism are rarely discussed."

Her evidence for this is patchy. Besides scorning a single book about something called "Kabul Beauty School", she trots out the usual Marxist/new-left rhetoric which is more about language than substance.

The patriarchal feudalism of Afghanistan is appalling, but the Taliban was the codification of it as law - with all women and girls effectively property of fathers and brothers The phrase "corporate militarism" implies a sinister profit-driven military mission, an assertion which has little substance when there are now substantive efforts to extricate national armies from Afghanistan.

However, it is party of this privileged academic's view that the West is not worth her pissing on, in comparison to Taliban run Afghanistan.

Her hyperbole continues:

"The truth is that the US and allied regimes do not have anything substantial to offer Afghanistan beyond feeding the gargantuan war machine they have unleashed."

Gargantuan? By what measure? By the fact that much of Afghanistan remains outside allied control?

What does she have to offer?

The usual vacuous bleeting "social justice, economic fairness, peace, all of which would enfranchise Afghan women".

Nonsense. Peace existed IN Afghanistan when the Taliban was in charge. It enfranchised no Afghan women. "Economic fairness" is the typical Marxist platitude which means "give the people I support more money by taking off those I don't support". Quite how this is meant to happen spontaneously is curious, but since she doesn't have to say what it is (and you'll be accused of being foolish for not knowing what the hell "fairness" is), then it doesn't matter of course.

Finally "social justice"? Does she expect that if Afghanistan is left well alone, that the culture and traditions of that society, with the heavy dose of Islam than runs through it, will produce "social justice"?

Is she just stupid and naive, or is she simply part of the cadre of leftwing feminists who hate the relatively free and open West that grants them unparalleled choice, economic opportunity and individual freedoms who overly romanticise cultures that have none of it?

She believes in "radical modernity", and with the exception of her neo-Marxist buzzwords, says nothing about what this looks like or how to get there. However that's ok. Like all of the West's critics you can damn what is happening, claim the West is, in effect, little different to stoneage patriarchal tribalism, and feel you've done your bit to spit on the USA and carry a torch for Afghan women.

It's morally bankrupt. Bankrupt because without major intervention, the prospects for serious change in the lives of Afghan women are glacial. Bankrupt because with intervention there have been positive changes, but nothing remotely on a scale necessary to make Afghanistan a haven for basic individual rights.

However, anti-Western fifth-columnists like Gopal would reject that. She would damn a wholescale military and political occupation that, as in 1945 Japan, would instigate a constitution, government and laws that would explicitly protect the individual freedoms of Afghan women, girls AND men and boys, and create a secular state. Her interest in Afghan women is exactly the type of tokenism that she accuses Western nations of applying. She believes Western powers treat the plight of women in Afghanistan as a way of gaining sympathy for continued military action. She is not entirely wrong, but the motive is not a mythical "corporate militarism", but part in parcel with the need to defeat the Taliban. It is one of the clearest examples of the Taliban's moral bankruptcy.

No, you see for her the plight of Afghan women is part in parcel of her being able to blame the West for it, and not only that but to deny the blatant differences in the rights and freedoms of women in the West with those in pre-modern societies.

Toby Young in the Daily Telegraph goes a step further, in claiming that the very same feminists remain muted about the treatment of women in Iran. They don't want to join what they see as "racist" or "far-right" criticism of Islam, so the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani gets neglected. Young says that with few exceptions, notable Western feminists keep their mouths shut:

"We’ve heard nothing from Germaine Greer, nothing from Gloria Steinem, nothing from Jane Fonda, nothing from Naomi Wolf, nothing from Clare Short, nothing from Harriet Harmen."

Another case is now that a 14 year old girl in Abu Dhabi is now in prison for "consensual sex" with her school bus driver. She claimed rape, and in much of the Western world the issue of consent would be irrelevant, but this is the UAE. A stone's throw from Iran and similar moral standards.

You'll notice that the standard leftwing feminist blogs are silent on all of these cases.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil makes it better does it?

What is this silence about?

Is it fear that damning Islamists will result in retribution? In which case these feminists are like the meek little girls they never wanted to be treated as, and don't deserve to hold their heads up as defenders of the rights of women.

Is it the very racism they may accuse others of? That is, that women in "those" countries live in different cultures and it would be wrong to judge their torture and abuse by "our" standards. "Exhibit A" in moral bankruptcy.

Is it the fear that damning systems or countries that are not Western aligns them with the very West they all live in, enjoy the advantages of, but continue to criticise? Maybe so. However, is this not just childish political tribalism that keeps one morally blind to the seriousness of what is being ignored?

Or is the more honest point that none of them know what to offer? Without the use of force to overthrow tyranny, it isn't obvious how to confront brutal well-armed dictatorships of one kind or another. Yet if thousands or millions of women in the West confronted the embassies, politicians, companies and media of those regimes that have warped moral standards around women surely it would make a difference. Would the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have quite as much moral fortitude if most of the Western feminists weren't docile in the face of his butchering clericocracy?

As Toby Young says, we don't know, but if would be nice if those who claim to care would speak up:

"Could the West’s self-appointed defenders of women’s rights have done anything to prevent the wholesale slaughter of their sisters in the developing world if they’d taken up their cause? Could a feminist outcry today about the plight of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani do anything to prevent her death? We will never know, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their continuing silence reveals the moral bankruptcy of their movement."

Ban the niqab?

With France moving to ban the niqab in public, it has proven more difficult than was first thought. It looks more like it will be a ban on specific public premises, rather than all public spaces. However, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is now supporting the idea. No doubt knowing that in doing so, it will have the support of more than a few Conservative voters, but also tap interest from the great unwashed who see something in the BNP.

You can see women wearing the niqab regularly in London. It provokes fear in some, seeing someone completely concealed. Others see it as representing repression of women, that a woman would be required by a man to only go out in public so shrouded. It is highly likely those that wear the niqab, especially in a Western liberal democracy, and those who support women wearing them, are unlikely to be supportive of liberal capital Western society. No doubt many shopkeepers and others would prefer that people enter their property not wearing the niqab.

So is it the right response to ban it?

No.

All shopkeepers and indeed all owners of private property should rightfully be able to set rules on what clothes people can and can't wear on their property without fear of so called "human rights" legislation deeming it "discriminatory". It isn't. If I don't want people wearing certain items of clothing on my property then it is fundamental to me exercising private property rights.

However, to criminalise those who wear the niqab in public is to say the state has the right to criminalise what anyone can wear in public. That is fundamentally contrary to having a free open liberal democratic society. To criminalise it may mean some women are effectively kept at home, which is not to their advantage. Moreso, it criminalises those some who deem to be the victims, not those who enforce this ludicrous tradition.

Freedom includes the freedom of others to offend you, it includes the right to hold silly beliefs and to wear ridiculous clothes in a public place. To surrender this is to ask the question "what next" and it is to hand to Islamists demonstrable proof to them that freedom is not to be embraced, because those who purport to believe in it will abandon it when they are offended. Like banning the vile Islam4UK, banning the niqab wont reduce the presence of Islamism in the UK.

Islamism in the UK will only be confronted when central and local government agencies stop funding or supporting any non-government bodies with a religious affiliation, but most of all when all major political parties, and the general public, stop fearing declaring their utmost support for free open liberal secular British society. Britain allows all citizens to choose whether or not they want religion and to live their lives as they see fit according to those beliefs, but by no means does it tolerate those who seek to use force to change that.

In Britain it should be clear there is a very simple deal - you have freedom to choose how you live your life, and that freedom includes a right to disseminate your point of view, but not to use or threaten force to change the views or lifestyles of others.

One of those freedoms is to wear a niqab, but it is also the freedom of others to ban you from their property if you do so, and to criticise you for doing so, and to call for others to stop wearing it.

Sadly not one of the major or even secondary political parties in Britain really does believe in a free liberal capitalist society.

Islam 4 UK driven underground

The pro sharia law organisation "Islam 4 UK" has now been declared a terrorist organisation by the UK government, banning it, which of course simply means it will regroup under a new name, and re-emerge. The move is unsurprising, but also shows the emptiness of New Labour, which like most things it doesn't like, thinks that a law banning it will make it better - this being the same government that has embraced funding Islamic groups, and has passed laws against "hate speech".

Islam4UK has responded by saying: "what is clear is that if you differ with the Brown regime and those who advocate freedom and democracy and whose citizens are supposedly dying for these ideals abroad, then freedom quickly dissipates to be replaced by dictatorship... Today's ban is another nail in the coffin of capitalism and another sign of the revival of Islam and Muslims. "

Islam4Uk openly admits it opposes freedom and democracy, and is celebrating being banned. Islam4UK after all envisages a world where you'd be imprisoned or worse for "insulting" Islam.

Is a ban helpful? No. It just shows weakness and plays into the hands of the organisation.

What would be a preferable response? A direct, open and loud declaration by all political parties that believe in it that Sharia law will not be implemented in the UK, that Western capitalist liberal democracy has survived threats from fascism and communism and wont tolerate stone age theocrats seeking to undermine it and the rights of individual citizens to live their lives peacefully as they see fit.

Oh and when Islam4UK does ever utter justification for the use of force to advance its politics, then it should be treated as a terrorist organisation (not banned), and its members and associates treated as such by law enforcement agencies.

UK taxpayers fund Islamist enemy

Anjem Choudhary leads Islam4UK, an Islamist group that wants UK residents to embrace Islam and the UK government to submit to it, and for the UK to become an Islamist state.

He has received much publicity lately for organising a protest march in the town of Wootton Bassett, which holds unofficial public mourning events when the coffins of soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan arrive from the nearby RAF Lineham base.

Choudhary wants a counter protest to represent the "Muslims who have died" implicitly due to UK involvement in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims they are the true victims.

Choudhary has long expressed views contrary to that of Western civilisation, celebrating the 9/11 terrorists as "martyrs", he refused to condemn the 2005 bombings in London and has long called for Sharia law to be implemented in the UK.

Now it is discovered that this enemy of the British political system and way of life is being funded by the taxpayer. He is a welfare parasite according to Guido Fawkes, getting around £25,000 a year from the taxpayer. The beloved welfare state funding, feeding, clothing, housing a man who effectively incites terrorism (but dances delicately along the line of not breaking the law as he does). He can't be deported as he was born here, but he gives a damned good reason for why the welfare state should be abolished.

Meanwhile, the appropriate response is to counter the views he expresses, to damn Islamism and damn the idea of an Islamic state for the UK. His views need to be confronted, his lies about what British troops are doing in Afghanistan exposed for what they are, and it's a good enough reason for serious questions to be asked as to why this man can claim so much on welfare.

British Muslims for secular democracy

Yes, you read correctly. British Muslims now organised to defend the interests of the British constitutional system and freedoms.

On Saturday 31 October an Islamist group called Islam4UK had planned a demonstration to promote applying Shariah law in the UK. Its express purpose being the Islamification of British society. The group cancelled at the last minute, but a counter demonstration went ahead from British Muslims for Secular Democracy. More images of this can be seen here.

BMSD (don't get those letters round the wrong way!) expressly believes in the separation of religion and state, and for religions to flourish in the private voluntary sphere. While it intends to promote Islam and information about Islam, it strongly defends secular democracy, free speech, tolerance of other beliefs including atheists, and strong opposition to Islamism.

So if you wondered if British Muslims were predominantly either quietly acquiescent or secretly all wanting Shariah, this group aims to prove this wrong. May it grow and prosper and become the overwhelming voice for British citizens and residents who are proud of what the British legal-political system offers, and who happen to be practising Muslims in their private lives.

It is about time, and the posters that you can see come from images from the counter-demonstration on 31 October in London. In contrast to those who call for death to those who insult Islam, BMSD calls for debate and discussion.

Take this statement from Shaaz Mahboob, BMSD Vice Chair:

Our counter-demonstration is based on our belief in, and commitment to, those liberal values that define the British state, including legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and religious freedom, including the right to be free of faith. We are turning out to defend all of these virtues of a secular democracy that Islam4UK so despises and daydream of taking away from the British public.

Be nice if the British government believed in them too.

30 years on, some Iranians are standing up

Every year on this day the Iranian Islamist dictatorship organises gangs of locals to shout "death to America" as they celebrate when, against all diplomatic convention, Islamist students stormed the US embassy and held its employees as hostages.

Even during war, embassies are either maintained or closed and staff/diplomats allowed to leave with some dignity. However no, the Iranian fanatics had "god" on their side and ransacked the place, and kept 52 terrified hostages for 444 days, helping to bring down the Carter Administration as a result of its weak response.

This year the same spectacle has been orchestrated by military dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but this time CNN reports 2,000 people protesting against the government:

At least 2,000 opposition supporters, sternly warned by authorities to stay home, marched defiantly at Haft-e-Tir Square, witnesses said. Many held up their hands in a V sign. Others shouted "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," a slogan of protest. Police blocked all roads leading to the square, prompting massive traffic jams.

The Iranian Islamists have not cowered the population yet.

Karadzic planned eradication of Bosnian Muslims

The Times reports evidence at the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of phone taps when he said in 1991:

They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.

Charming.

The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.

Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.

Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.

British government funds Islamist schools

So whilst the Police chase up grandmothers who don't like gay pride marches, £113,411 was paid by taxpayers to an education foundation run by Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir according to the Sunday Telegraph.

Hizb ut-Tahrir believes democracy is corrupt, that Muslims should be separate from non-believers and promotes a global Islamist state. It presents several faces to the public. It condemned the July 2005 bombings, but has published anti-semitic literature, and been banned in Germany as a result.

The schools teach Arabic from age three, and promote a strictly Islamist view of history and education.

Whilst it is all very well promoting diversity in education, the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation runs three schools and it is not exactly teaching respect for the constitutional arrangements or fundamental freedoms of British society:

"At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the "corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom".

On their website, the schools say their "ultimate goal" and "foremost work" is the creation of an "Islamic personality" in children The creation of an "Islamic personality" is a key tenet of Hizb's ideology."

The Centre for Social Cohesion is concerned, indeed whilst much attention is paid to the destructive nature of the BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir should be at least as disconcerting. It is releasing a report next week outlining its concerns.

"Hizb is a fringe group but it is being given a public platform, legitimacy and funding by the very institutions it wishes to destroy," said Houriya Ahmed, one of the authors of the report.

Whilst most British Muslims do not align themselves with Hizb ut-Tahrir's views, this sort of direct state support for an organisation that is completely contrary to the British political system, effectively producing recruits to hate liberal democratic capitalist free society SHOULD frighten.

For it is exactly this sort of activity, and mainstream political absence of criticism, that leaves the BNP room for a constituency. Indeed, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not deserve their respective names if they wont raise questions about this.

Protect certain ghost worshippers from insult

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent says:

"Muslims, Asians and Black people are human, too – experiencing the pain of gratuitous invective piled on us, day after day, by toffs like Martin Amis and Wilder and racists like the BNP. Words do violence to humans, more sometimes than sticks and stones. They can disable you to the point of insanity"

Of course she's right about racism and the BNP. However, Martin Amis and Wilder have not expressed racist views, as far as I am aware. Race is not something one can choose, and racism is demonstrably irrational and abominable.

However, Amis and Wilder have both condemned Islam. Islam is a choice, or rather it should be (the "crime" of apostasy makes it anything but a choice in some countries), so criticising it should be like criticising Christianity, or Hinduism, or Shintoism or indeed any non-religious based philosophy. Objectivists and supporters of capitalism know this too well, but indeed so do socialists, conservatives or environmentalists. When you decide a particular philosophy is for you, you will inevitably encounter criticism from some, and derision from others. It is part of being in a free society.

Now I don't believe in gratuitously seeking to insult people for the sake of it, but I do believe that people should take direct criticism about their chosen philosophy. If you want to do violence to those who criticise it, it demonstrates your own lack of self control and your own inability to justify your position through persuasion.

However while Alibhai-Brown decries the condemnation of Islam, she also says "Only libertarian fools and fanatics would give set-piece answers" to issues of free speech. Whether she refers to all libertarians as fools or just the ones who are fools is unclear, but it certainly looks offensive to me.

So is she saying if I am an atheist believer in a small state she can call me a fool, but if I believe in a ghost and the words of a long dead prophet who had sex with a preteen child, I should be protected from insult?

No she is a fool. She doesn't understand that free speech means the state getting out of the way, and allowing people to express themselves as they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the right of others to do the same, or result in infringement of private property rights (including the rights of crime victims and the right to one's reputation).

Indeed, she cannot even accurately describe the events around the Wilders visit saying "I was proud Muslims responded with good sense". Not all, surely?

Islamists threaten Dutch MP

Geert Wilders entered the UK today, finally permitted to do so thanks as described earlier by myself.

What does he encounter? The very thing he describes. Militant freedom hating Muslims.

According to The Times:

"around thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting, "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK""

"Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen."

These lowlifes hate Britain, they hate the values of free speech, freedom of religion and individual rights, and they seek to destroy it. They, not Wilders, should be the focus of the government.

No. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary is seeking to protect these flowers of hatred from being offended because Wilders "would threaten community security and therefore public security".

No. The Islamists threaten me, they threaten most residents of the UK who live here because it offers the freedoms available to practice the religion you wish (including none), free speech, and live your life by and large as you see fit (notwithstanding the Nanny State around many activities).

Make it fundamentally clear, the vision these Islamists have for the UK would make New Labour's Nanny State look like a holiday in comparison.

Wilders expressed his opinion “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”. He's right of course, given the separation of religion and state is rare indeed in Muslim majority countries (only Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania have this). He justified comments that Islam is retarded by saying that in some Islamic dominated countries "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."

In response, a spokesman from "Islam for UK" said "because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride". No, the war is on Islamists. Your misuse of language shows you're uninterested in confronting the Islamist threat. He continued "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists." No, it is HOW you defend your faith. Calling for violence against those who disagree with you is the problem. Calling to overthrow the constitutional structure and fundamental values of British society, is the problem.

Mr Wilders is NOT like the BNP. However, the BNP rides on the wave of snivelling pussy footing around Islamists that is seen in the likes of the attempt to ban Mr Wilders. Wilders supports individual freedom, the BNP supports a big intrusive fascist state.

The UK government has for far too long been concerned about "offending Muslims", when in fact the freedom and right to offend whoever you wish is fundamental to British society. It is not racism, it is criticism of a philosophy, a point of view. Being Muslim is not something you have that is inate, it is, or should be, a conscious choice. If you say "freedom go to hell" then I say "to hell with you and your ideas". You are then the enemy.

If you cannot stand a society that criticises your strongly held beliefs and allows debate and derision of them, if you would rather threaten and use force to stop others offending you, then there is a better answer that should make you happier, and would make most Britons happier...

leave.

Fascists shouldn't be forced to be politically correct

The British National Party, a far-right nationalist racist socialist party (socialist? Just look at its economic policy, health policy and education policy), has been told by the Central London County Court that it must not prohibit membership on the grounds of race and religion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission brought the case. Why? Because it wanted to embarrass the BNP.

It is incredibly unlikely that anyone who isn't a white British chav bigot at least nominally Christian person would seek to join this gang of malcontents, so it isn't as if it was a real issue for any individual. Not as if it would be legitimate anyway.

The real issue is that it should be nobody else's business. If the BNP wants to be racist, so it should have that freedom. Stripping this right helps to make the party seem more mainstream, more acceptable. Exposing its own braindead irrationality is GOOD for those seeking to keep it far from power.

However, to say it cannot restrict by religion is more insidious. Race is not a matter of choice, religion is. Religion is, like politics, a set of deeply held views. You may as well say the BNP can't prohibit Marxist members. Are political parties going to be forced to allow anyone to be a member, including those actively opposed to what they stand for?

The BNP is a private organisation. Its membership is voluntary. If you don't like the rules, don't join. It should not be the state's business who is allowed or banned from joining political parties, regardless of the philosophy behind him.

All this does is play into the BNP's hands, helps it become more mainstream, and strips another layer of freedom away that can be used against others.

Will Mosques be required to admit Jews? Will the Conservative Party be forced to admit communists? Will the Green Party be forced to admit laissez-faire capitalists?

Fascists should be allowed to be fascists, exclude whoever they like and be the knuckle dragging vermin they are. For they are no more offensive than the finger pointing parasites who create such absurd laws because non-existent people have non-existent offence over self-defined pseudo-rights.

Iran or Israel, how are they equals?

I fully agree with the sentiments of Not PC on the simply brilliant speech by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The video is here (in 4 parts)

However, the text is here.

He refutes the ridiculous Holocaust denial claims of the dictator buffoon Ahmadinejad, he describes the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran correctly as follows:

"Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

He points out the wonder of human achievement, the application of free minds to the world:

"The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet."

He describes how Israel withdrew, unilaterally from Gaza, in the hope it would bring the advancement of peace but:

"In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent."

Meanwhile, far too many think Iran can't be pursuing nuclear weapons, or if it is, it is "ok", because Israel has them. Israel has had them for some years, but hasn't threatened to ever use them, except in retaliation for use against Israel. Iran's recent military coup and election rigging is "ok", because after all, it has to be better than the USA, what with George Bush invading Iraq (another "legitimate" state perhaps) and Afghanistan. The very same cover their eyes when told of the execution of political prisoners in Iran, the second highest execution rate in the world after China, and ignore the execution of homosexuals or minors for sex crimes - being consensual sex. The very same people ignore the persecution of those who want to choose to reject Islam, and ignore the systematic oppression of free press and media.

The same who claim to give a damn about freedom of speech, about womens' rights, supporting gay and lesbian rights, but are happy to let Iranians live with none of the above.

It reminds me of the wilful blindness of the old left who wanted to "listen" to the men who rewarded snipers who shot desperate East Germans trying to cross the Berlin Wall, or "understand" what Nicolae Ceausescu's new way for Romania, without Soviet troops, or recognise the advantages that the Soviet Union brought for education, employment and in housing. The same lickspittles and sycophants who regard Western claims of militarism and human rights abuses with disdain, so denying the victims of dictatorial regimes the legitimacy of their experiences.

In which case I say this.

If you think Iran has a legitimate government with rights, then why do you not endorse a similar government for your own country? If it is good enough for Iranians to get political candidates chosen for them by a theocratic council, to have election results gerrymandered by the incumbent, for political protests to be put down by a state security agency that arrests and imprisons, for newspapers, radio and TV to be fully state controlled to prevent messages "unwelcome" to the regime being distributed, and for bloggers and others online to be persecuted and arrested for criticising the regime, then why not for YOUR country?

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons, then presumably you embrace widespread nuclear proliferation.

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to call for Israel to be erased from the map, then presumably you think so too. So go on, explain how you'd propose that be achieved? Explain how little bloodshed that would entail and how that would promote freedom, human rights and secularism in the Middle East? How would it be compatible with your opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

Islam vs who?

The recent clashes between Muslims of south Asian extraction and what looks like a group of angry young white British men have been portrayed as fascism vs Islam. My own view is that it isn't really clear what is going on here.

There are certainly elements of "go home" neo-fascist thuggery going on, but the organisers of the protest against the Harrow mosque appear to be a more mixed lot. I don't have a problem with there being mosques. Just going along to harass Muslims is wrong, but the key problem is what goes on inside. This is former Islamist Ed Husain's point in the Sunday Telegraph talking about his organisation Quilliam:

"When Quilliam's researchers revealed that Abu Qatada, "al-Qaeda's ambassador to Europe", was smuggling propaganda letters from inside a British prison, the then justice minister turned up on the BBC to dismiss our findings and say such work was "unhelpful". Boris Johnson recently called for greater understanding and tolerance of Islam at the East London Mosque – the same place where I and many others were introduced to radical Islamist ideology, and whose Saudi-trained imam is a signatory to a document that many say calls for attacks on the Royal Navy."

Indeed. If it were clear that mosques were places where Muslims were NOT being fed propaganda to undermine the British liberal secular democracy, there would be no fear. However, we know that the truth is different. Islam in Britain is different from the US and France as Husain says:

"When I visit America, I see Muslims who are free, vibrant, dynamic, and fully American. In France, too, there are greater rates of inter-religious marriages: Muslims marrying people of other faiths, and negotiating how we coexist. In Britain, rates of Muslims marrying outside their faith community are woefully low, and the numbers returning to the villages of Pakistan and Bangladesh for a spouse worryingly high."

So while tolerance of the right of Muslims to peacefully live their lives as they see fit matters, so does demanding tolerance by Muslim migrants (and indeed all migrants) for the British political system, and rejecting calls to use violence to change society. It also means respecting the rule of law, the equality of women before the law and respecting the right of free speech of others.

It means confronting the tendency of some young Muslim men to blame Western society for when they drink, are promiscuous and then feel guilty and want to turn to something "bigger than themselves".

This is why I am sceptical about news reports that simply portray street clashes as ones between fascists and Muslims, there is fascism on both sides, and fear of Islamism is a legitimate concern.

Hamas kids TV praises suicide bombing mother

CNN reports that al Aqsa TV (run by Hamas) has broadcast a children's show (Tomorrow's Pioneers) where it glorifies that a mother blowing herself up in a suicide bombing is doing more for her children than anything else. It is designed to convince children that if their mother gets ready for such a "mission" then it is for their good. In other words, Hamas is promoting a death cult to children.

None of this is new. Al Aqsa TV has used this childrens' programme variously to promote "wiping out the Jews" and promoting martyrdom as a good thing for children.

Want a summary of the episodes? Try this Wiki article, and see for yourself how to have childrens' programming that worships death, murder and suicide. Think how much this puts back any efforts at peace with Israel, and why so many Israelis think so little of Palestinians when some of them elect these sorts of people to government.

Prepared to treat Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent still?

What Obama could say

President Obama thinks saying anything will backfire, than Iranians would rather the USA just keep quiet and see what happens.

He's wrong. While I understand the initial hesitancy, the fear that a country where thousands can be rallied for anti-USA rallies, it shows a surprising reluctance to openly embrace and project the principle that the USA should be able to expound globally.

Freedom.

So he's just an idea as a speech for Obama:

The United States and Iran have many differences, but today I want to talk not of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the people of Iran who want what we in the United States take for granted.

Freedom.

Clearly many Iranians are concerned about the conditions of the recent general election, concerns that I and many others share across the world. Free, fair and open elections are one way that people can hold governments to account and select governments, but in and of themselves they are not enough. A majority must never be allowed to vote for tyranny over a minority. You see, whatever the outcome of the election, the flame burning in the hearts and minds of many Iranians is freedom, and it is one they are risking their lives for.

Freedom to live your life as you see fit, to not be harassed by the state for your beliefs, what you wear, what books you want to read or for criticising the state. Freedom to be a human being, to think, express your thoughts, to own your life and live it, while respecting the same in others.

It is this simple basic and fundamental idea that drove millions of people across eastern Europe twenty years ago to unshackle themselves from governments that treated their people as subjects to plan, push around and run over in the pursuit of their own narrow vision. In far too many countries, government still do treat citizens as their property and a means to their own ends, rather than ends in themselves.

Iranians, like East Germans, Poles, Romanians, Indonesians, South Africans, Ukrainians, Cubans, Iraqis, Georgians and millions of others worldwide, share the desire for this basic fundamental right – to be free people. Free to be Muslims, Christians, atheists, entrepreneurs, teachers, journalists, scientists, parents or whatsoever they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone else.

It is this vision that I believe is shared by most people across the world, a common bond of humanity, for people to be themselves, not what some politician or preacher wants them to be.

So today, I say to those people in Iran who are bravely standing up, where the state is suppressing freedom of assembly or freedom of speech, that the United States supports you, and all peoples of the world that wish to break the shackles of authoritarianism from their wrists, minds, hearts and dreams.

Not because we want to control you, or make you one of us, but because we know what freedom means – our ancestors fought for freedom in this great country over 200 years ago. We know how precious it is, understand the sacrifices of those who fought for it before, as we value it as much as you do. It should be beyond debates over religion or politics.

For freedom is not simply an American value, it is a human one. The Iranian authorities clearly have the power to do great violence to those protesting for freedom, I urge them not to do so, for history tells us that the more that freedom is suppressed, the more the desire for it builds, and the harder it is for those who fall.

So while the Iranian government seeks to crudely shut down speech, debate, protest and thoughts, the means for communicating freely will remain open, with the internet, with satellite television and shortwave radio broadcasts all providing access to uncensored and open news and debate. The Iranian people will find their own way to freedom, and no violence should be done to them as they do so. History is littered with tyrants who wanted things their way – enough is enough. Let the Iranian people be.