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.

How Copenhagen discriminates against the West

Now let's make a series of jumps, and say the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is about a problem, attributable to human emissions of CO2 and that the best way to solve it is through agreeing by international convention, for nation states to restrict emissions.

Bear with me on this, just assume this is all true.

Let's look at what countries would be bound by this. So called "industrialised economies and economies in transition" are the ones expected to shoulder most of the burden, on the basis that they have already "benefited" from using fossil fuels, emitting CO2 and clearing forests for habitation. So called "developing countries" are expected to should a far smaller burden. They were expected to do nothing under the Kyoto Agreement. This time they are expected to contribute to emission reduction targets, but should not have "their development" hindered.

The philosophy being that it is "unfair" for developing countries to not undertake the sort of economic development that industrialised countries have.

Bear with me further, and just assume this principle is fair.

What should define industrialised vs developing countries? A reasonable measure is GDP per capita, or rather what is produced in a country in goods and services divided by the population, converted into a standard currency such as the US$. There are variants using Purchasing Power Parity, but for the sake of simplicity, let's talk about GDP per Capita. A country with double the GDP per capita than New Zealand must surely be classified industrialised, right?

The countries listed as industrialised and in transition are (geographically broadly from west to east):
Canada, USA, all European Union member states (except Malta and Cyprus), Iceland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, that's it. Almost all of Europe, the two wealthy North American states, rich Australasia and Japan.

The GDP per capita range of these countries (using the IMF listings in Wikipedia for 2008) would be from US$133,044 per person in Luxembourg to US$3,910 per person in Ukraine. A very wide range indeed. Now it would be fair to argue Ukraine, Belarus, both having GDP per capita well under US$10,000 should not be in this category, but probably are due to Russia not wanting to be disadvantaged, but that is besides the point.

New Zealand, by the way, is at US$30,030 per person, above 14 others, but beneath 21

What's a developing country?

That is far more interesting. You see the developing country with the highest GDP per capita is Qatar. A country that has benefited hugely from exporting fossil fuels. It has a GDP per capita of US$93,204. More than THREE times that of New Zealand, yet will be expected to have a fraction of the obligations New Zealand will be signing up to. Some might say Qatar is still developing. Maybe, but then who gets the US$93,204 per annum per person if many Qataris aren't wealthy already?

It isn't the only one. Here's a list of other "developing countries" that will not have their economies hindered by the forthcoming Copenhagen agreement, all of which are wealthier per person per annum than New Zealand:

United Arab Emirates US$55,028 (oil in Abu Dhabi and a couple of fast growing airlines)
Kuwait US$45,290 (oil)
Singapore US$38,972 (just quietly keeps "developing country" status)
Brunei US$37,053 (oil)

All of these countries, all of which either make a lot of money from others emitting CO2, or running businesses that do so, a lot (like airlines).

However, that's not all. There are umpteen others that also are "developing" but are still within the ballpark of industrialised countries' wealth per head that are EU member states:

Israel US$28,409
Bahrain US27,248
Bahamas US$22,359
Oman US$21,646
Trinidad and Tobago US$19,870
South Korea US$19,136
Saudi Arabia US$18,855
Taiwan US$16,988
Equatorial Guinea US$14,941 (one guess that per capita isn't helpful in this place)
Antigua and Barbuda US$14,556
Libya US$14,479
Barbados US$13,314
Venezuela US$11,388

So why is this so? Why do a bunch of oil rich Arab states and what were once the "tiger" economies of East Asia get left out?

Why do environmentalists not call for those states to be treated as "industrialised" given they have per capita wealth similar to those that are classified as such, and indeed are often profligate users of oil, with subsidised domestic fuel and the like?

Could it just simply be that this whole agenda carries with it the old fashioned anti-colonial view that "the West must pay", and so even those who are much wealthier than many in the West can do nothing in return?

If so, why is New Zealand signing up to something that does not demand the reclassification of all countries that are within the GDP per capita range of "industrialised countries" as no longer being "developing"? Mexico, for example, has a higher per capita GDP than Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. So why are the former communist bloc countries being expected to change far more radically than Mexico?

Will any industrialised countries blast open this blatantly anti-Western (and Japanese and Turkish) nonsense?

Simon Mann released from Equatorial Guinea

Simon Mann was part of a group of plotters planning to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea before the Mugabe regime caught them and handed them over. He had been sentenced to 34 years, with a £12 million fine, and has been released apparently on "humanitarian grounds".

It's a shame the coup hadn't succeeded. Equatorial Guinea is an appalling dictatorship. Its current leader is only good by comparison to his insane drug addled uncle, and there is little doubt its enormous oil riches are being pocketed by the President and his family.

UPDATE: Simon Mann is a two-faced prick, demanding his co-conspirators face "justice". He may have promised the regime to wage war against them, but to now be actively assisting for their arrest is just vile. Sir Mark Thatcher and Ely Calil are now under investigation in the UK under the Terrorism Act after the dictatorship sent a dossier from Malabo. Mann is assisting Scotland Yard. In other words, legislation designed to protect the UK may be used to protect a kleptocratic dictatorship instead.

Simon Mann. I'm glad you weren't killed, but now, you can go to hell.

Air NZ abandons Boeing for domestic routes

Just to show Air NZ's predominantly state ownership does not stop it from applying good commercial acumen, the NZ Herald reports that it has wisely chosen now to order replacements for its Boeing 737-300 fleet, which is almost exclusively used on main trunk domestic flights. Wise, because the global recession has meant deals are easier to get from the two main suppliers of replacements, Boeing and Airbus.

What it will mean is an end to the long history of Boeing 737s on domestic routes, which started in 1967 when the then NAC ordered them to replace the turboprop Vickers Viscount. That first generation set of 737s was at a time when 737s were not popular internationally, and there was a hard sell from a British delegation to order the now virtually forgotten BAC 1-11. Boeing proved its 737 was more promising, despite much British lobbying, and it was right. The Boeing 737, and its second and third generation derivatives has been the most successful airliner made ever, with over 6,000 produced and another 2,000 on order.

The BAC 1-11 sold 244, including bizarrely 22 built in Ceaucescu's Romania. A legacy of a deal signed in the late 1970s. NAC made the right choice.

Since then, the original fleet of 3 has expanded to 15 today, and has been renewed twice. Although Air NZ has tended to order the last of the line of versions about to go out of production. In 1985 the original Boeing 737-200 fleet bought under NAC were replaced with the updated Boeing 737-200 Advanced series (around the last ever made). In 1999 these in turn were replaced with the last Boeing 737-300 series ever made, which saw an end to the noisy 1960s generation turbofan engines well remembered by those living in Wellington's Eastern Suburbs because conversations would need to stop whilst they would take off.

The Boeing 737-300s remain in service today.

Boeing undoubtedly offered its "next generation" 737 series 700, 800 and 900, Airbus had an advantage in Air NZ already having A320s largely used to fly services across the Tasman and to Pacific Islands.

The choice of the A320 was made on price, and it enables economies to be made in having one type of aircraft. The A320 has two other advantages, it has a slightly wider cabin so enables slightly wider seats and aisle, but also carries standard cargo containers in its belly. The "next generation" 737 cannot do that, as its fuselage is still essentially based on the long out of production Boeing 707.

So good for Air NZ, new aircraft, with a lot more seats, more cargo capacity, at a good price, and economies of scale of having one small jet type.

Bad luck for Boeing having lost a sale for a loyal customer of over 40 years for its most successful type.

For passengers it should mean more seats that are slightly wider, perhaps a common fleet that may all have personal TV installed at seats and business class once more domestically perhaps (unless there will be domestic and international configuration A320s). Overall it means that in a few years time, Air NZ's entire jet fleet will be comparatively very young as the 747s and 767s are phased out over the next 5 years as well.