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. 

Council bans man from having sex

Yes, it's true.  Classically Liberal writes about this story I saw in the Daily Telegraph.  

A man in the UK has been prohibited from having sex on the grounds of his incapacity to consent, by his council.  

He has not committed any offences.  However he has a low IQ and "moderate learning disability".  It was claimed he doesn't understand enough about sex and that sex education would confuse him.

Now if I apply a simple test about the role of the state, it is to protect people from the initiation of force and fraud by others.

Yes it is 2011.  It is the UK.

Classically Liberal says:

Under a 2005 law judges have the power to declare people mentally incapable of making their own decisions and then take those powers upon themselves. This includes the power to force people to have surgery, to force them to have abortions and force them to use contraception. It also includes, apparently, the ability to force people to never have sex again.

In essence it is the state claiming ownership over the mentally disabled to make life decisions for them, without having them institutionalised.   Forcing people (which means women) to use contraception and have abortions is, of course, a politically correct form of sterilisation (which isn't acceptable, although the effect is the same).  It is possible to understand why reproduction for women who are mentally disabled is problematic, because they are largely incapable of performing the functions of a mother.   Although red flags go up when this is raised. 

However, to prohibit a man having sex appears to be different.  The man has been having a sexual relationship with another man, who hasn't complained.  There are no other examples, although there are accusations of lewd behaviour in two instances, no police action ensued.  Presumably if he has acted criminally the law should step in.

Yet now he is to be banned from having sex, with another, for what end?  What right does the state have to take away this man's legal right to have sex and why? To protect him? 

The man concerned is "now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order". 

Shades of the Stasi in east Germany.

However Classically Liberal makes a key point:

We allow individuals with little understanding of dietary needs to make decisions regarding the foods they eat, though government is trying to strip that right away as well. The consequences of eating a candy bar are relatively trivial. One doesn't need to have some high level of understanding to make that choice.

So what level of understanding is needed in this case. Given that pregnancy is clearly not a threat the only real potential problems might be health risks. But wouldn't a less intrusive—certainly less authoritarian—measure be simply checking Kieron and Alan for any diseases that might be contracted. If both are healthy in these matters, and the implications of the reports I've read indicate they are, then there is negligible risk on the part of Alan. His ability to consent should not be judged merely on the basis of his mental abilities but also as to the risks he is realistically facing. If both men have a clean bill of health then there is virtually no risk and Alan would appear to be capable to consent to something of no risk.

History is littered with example of the state using psychiatry to remove people from society "for their own good".  Thomas Szasz in "The Myth of Mental Illness" warned of how mental illness has been used by the state to mould behaviour rather than represent anything real:

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic"

Now this case is not the same, but it still makes me wary.

I share this conclusion:

"I do not immediately dismiss the necessity of a court to make decisions in those rare cases where a person's individual mental level is so low that they are incapable of informed consent. But informed consent should not be seen in a vacuum but understood in the context of what it is that the person is wishing to consent to. That is something the court failed to do here."

Why appease a thug on Waitangi Day?

I don't need to write much about Waitangi Day, as Peter Cresswell has done such an excellent job of expressing most of my views on the day and the issues it raises.  Looking from afar it is remarkable how petty, narrow and constricting the views of those are who base their judgement on race and history, rather than achievement and ability.  The single biggest negative about New Zealand is the isolation from the world, from history and from being confronted first hand with the destructiveness of chauvinistic nationalism of the kind that is mainstream political thought in Maori circles.  

Take one simple point.  Where else in the free developed world would a thug of a woman, who is a convicted violent criminal, who assaulted a psychiatric patient in her own little house of horrors, would still be treated as someone with standing, status and be worthy of being associated with?  Titewhai Harawira is a vicious, vindictive, vile entity, who should be shunned by anyone with basic morals.  For what sort of person abuses and assaults psychiatric patients, particularly in a Maori unit which is meant to provide special care?

Tony Veitch has, rightly in my mind, been ostracised for his own violent behaviour.  He has paid his dues, and clearly has regrets, but will forever be tainted by his deeds.  Harawira by contrast, has paid her dues, but her deeds are never raised by the same people who excoriate Veitch. 

So why do feminists and those who claim to put Maori first give the time of day to a violent women who has no regrets about beating up some of the most vulnerable Maori when she had power?

What does that really say about their claims to "peace" and "non-violence"?

Labour allegiance to Mubarak's party

Having read the vituperative and somewhat nonsensical hatred expressed by a couple on the left about John Key's comments on the situation in Egypt, I thought I'd do a little digging and found a slightly more substantive link between the New Zealand Labour Party, Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party, with the ruling (at time of writing) National Democratic Party (NDP) in Egypt.

You see as much as the left now rage against Hosni Mubarak, the truth is that the NDP has been aligned with all three Labour Parties since the NDP was allowed to join Socialist International in 1989.

You see, until 30 January 2011, they all shared membership of Socialist International, the international non-government organisation that allows socialists to network.  It is dominated by leftwing parties from democracies (it doesn't have Chinese or North Korean membership), but they are all expected to share philosophies and political alignment.  So there you go, time to label Phil Goff, Ed Miliband and Julia Gillard as all leading parties that have provided warm camaraderie between Egypt's dictatorial ruling party and themselves, for it is true.

Time for a loud rant about how disgusting and despicable it has been that these parties have all provided succour to the NDP?  Philosophical comrades for over 21 years.

Of course that doesn't fit the leftwing monologue about Mubarak being a dictatorial tool of neo-cons, when his politics have actually been aligned with centre-left parties.  

Now a bit of rational reflection will tell you that this link is rather tenuous, but if you belonged to a political party, which belonged to an international organisation that invited the NDP to speak, what would YOU think?

Maybe Lianne Dalziel needs to be asked, since she attended Socialist International's last Congress in Athens in 2008, with Mohamed Abdellah of the NDP of Egypt.

The NDP being expelled from Socialist International 30 January doesn't make up for the 21 years of friendship, during which time Egyptians were getting imprisoned, tortured and harassed for objecting to this party.

The simple truth is that the parties of Socialist International can't begin to claim the moral highground given they were parties to giving the Egyptian NDP and effective one-party state legitimacy and moral authority, by allowing it to be associated with them.

Stepping back from this you need to look at the history of the NDP, which was created by President Anwar Sadat, but was essentially a partial reformation of the previous Arab Socialist Union, Nasser's own party which has its origins in the third world anti-colonialist philosophy that developing countries only need one political party to unify the people - in other words a ruse for dictatorship.

The philosophical parent for Egypt's dictatorial and corrupt ruling party is socialism.  It was embraced by liberal democratic socialist parties across the world.  So let's not pretend that Mubarak, the NDP and indeed Egypt's entire post-colonial political history are all nothing to do with the left and socialism, when they most decidedly are, as inconvenient as that truth is.

Left reaches new heights of hysteria on Egypt- NZ relations

Various commentaries I have seen from those not on the left have expressed either cautious optimism or cautious concern about the events in Egypt.  Either Egypt will unshackle itself from its authoritarian leadership and be more free, or it will walk from one largely secular authoritarian regime into an Islamist one.

I have yet to see anyone who has anything particularly good to say about Hosni Mubarak,  more a case of "he kept the peace" which for those with long memories, is worth something. Certainly the utterings from the US and UK governments have been calling on the Mubarak to move towards liberal democracy and political freedom for Egyptians.

Let's bear in mind a little of Egypt's post-colonial political history.  With independence in 1922 Egypt had a monarchy with an elected Parliament, but still had considerable British influences.  However between 1922 and 1952 it would be difficult to say it was liberal, secular and free, although it probably was more free than any other time in modern history.  Of course in 1952 Nasser and the military staged a coup, and with his combination of nationalism and "Arab socialism", he ruled with an iron fist.  He forcibly nationalised the Suez Canal, waged a wholly unsuccessful war against Israel (not called the Six Day War for nothing), and imprisoned, tortured and executed thousands of political prisoners.  He had extensive Soviet backing because the US refused to sell him arms to wage war with.  In 1971 he was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, who also waged a largely unsuccessful war against Israel (Yom Kippur War) and then made peace famously at Camp David.  Sadat engaged in economic liberalisation, abandoning many of Nasser's failed socialist policies, and banned torture and extrajudicial arrests, until a significant break down of law and order saw authoritarian methods return.   Still, he was far more liberal than Nasser.  Sadat paid for peace with Israel with his life, and was succeeded by his deputy, Hosni Mubarak.  Egypt was rewarded by the US for effectively switching sides, with significant amounts of aid.  It became the new intermediary between the US/Israel and the other Arab states/PLO.  Mubarak engaged in further economic reforms, liberalising the economy and staging heavily slanted elections.   Political freedom was limited though, as Mubarak focused on suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood, which for some years waged a terrorist campaign against tourist sites, and locations frequented by US and British tourists that damaged the Egyptian economy.

So Egypt has little tradition of serious political freedom and individual rights.  What Mubarak has today is not a situation he created, but one he inherited and did rather little to reform.  He inherited it from Sadat, who inherited it from Nasser.

Not that you'll hear much of that, because Nasser was a great hero of the left.  Taking the Suez Canal from the British, instituting socialist economics and waging war to destroy Israel.  His hardline police state and Soviet style repression of the press are mere details.  

Yet the best that can be said about Mubarak is that he kept the peace between two countries that had four wars in less than thirty years.  Not that the so-called peace movement cares about peace when it is with a country that it hates.  He came to power when Egypt was under risk of being overrun by Islamists who would have wrecked that peace, and would have sought to oppress Egyptians still further.  Now I would never be one to be an apologist for the oppression, use of torture, political imprisonment and media censorship under Mubarak's regime.  All of that should and must go.  Yet, Mubarak is not the only one who should go.

Libya's Gaddafi has spent much of his career not only suppressing and brutalising his own people, but also arming and funding terrorism, murdering innocent civilians across Europe. Syria's Assad also runs a brutal police state, has invaded Lebanon and provided arms and funding for terrorists in the Middle East.  All of oil-rich sheikhdoms maintain strict political oppression, Saudi Arabia has a brutal police state, all of these regimes are also sexist and not without a strong thread of racism as well.

In other words, Arab politics are full of autocrats, men who will imprison, torture and execute opponents, who will suppress free speech, and in some cases flagrantly apply sexist and racist laws or practices in their regimes.  Mubarak is no different, except in making peace with Israel, he was rewarded by the US.

Arab politics are a sclerotic brand of paternalism. I'm of the cautiously optimistic school that says that there can be a peaceful transition to secular liberal democracy in Egypt, but that it will require forces of secularism, freedom and support for peace to fire themselves up more than the Muslim Brotherhood.  That is the challenge, and it is that freedom supporters of all shades should be promoting for Egypt.  The Mubarak regime is nearly over, but the new fight is just beginning - and it is the serious one.  For Egypt to remain at peace with Israel, to not sponsor terrorism and to allow its people to be free.

Who in the West disagrees?  Well some on the left are constructing a different dialogue.  A false belief that the "right" is somehow protecting Mubarak, by not openly calling for his resignation.  The same left that tends to want the West to withdraw from the affairs of other countries, wants it to actively demand the overthrow of a President.  Of course if it did say so, and then the Mubarak regime started mowing people down in their hundreds, then the West would be to blame for not providing military cover.  Then the West would be accused by some of occupying a country.  In other words, there is really little out from the criticism of the haters of liberal free open capitalist democracies.

Take some of the comments on the left in NZ.

Bomber on Tumeke and Eddie on the Standard says John Key supports Mubarak.  Why? Because he said on TV "no" to whether he was calling on Mubarak to go.  

The Standard says "I wonder who he has been talking with to form this view – presumably some American far right-wingers, no-one else is so reflexively pro-Israel and paranoid about Muslims.

I would have hoped we had a Prime Minister who supported democracy and the overthrow of dictators first and foremost. It seems we don’t."

Really? So the Prime Minister should be in the business of calling for leaders of distant countries to step down when it isn't clear what is going on?  

Bomber says it more crudely "We are supporting a Dictator that the people of Egypt are trying to over throw.."

Well no. There is a difference between expressing support and simply saying New Zealand is not calling for Mubarak to step down.  Not calling for something is not support, it is merely neutrality about the outcome.  To have said yes would have been decidedly non-neutral, but what could it have meant?  If Mubarak remains in the short term, it will have harmed relations and trade, but the implications are well beyond Egypt.  It suggests New Zealand provides support to those wishing to overthrow regimes.  The implications of that are not inconsiderable.

The subtlely on this is lost on Bomber:

"This Government have sold out our independent foreign policy to side with our 'allies' at any given moment, even when siding with our 'allies' now puts as at odds with the rest of the world.

Apparently NZ only supports freedom and democracy when our Dictator wins."

What allies is New Zealand siding with? Hilary Clinton has said "We want to see an orderly transition to a democratic government" and

"the people, who have legitimate grievances and are seeking greater political freedom, a real path to democracy, and economic opportunity"

"We also don’t want to see some takeover that would lead not to democracy, but to oppression and the end of the aspirations of the Egyptian people"

Fair enough I would have thought, but as I said before, the left couldn't care less if Egypt became an Islamist dictatorship because it would be anti-US and anti-Israeli. The blood of apostate Egyptians, Jewish Egyptians, Christian Egyptians and secular Egyptians who oppose this are besides the point.  Supportive of Mubarak? Not really.  However, the US knows if it did call for his overthrow that it may be counter-productive, because so many opponents of the US would see it as weakness, and interference in Egyptian politics.  The US could never win if it was more interventionist.

The UK has been similar, with Foreign Secretary William Hague saying "genuine reforms [are] needed and [a] clear path towards an open society based on democratic values."

The only country calling for Mubarak to be overthrown is Iran.  However, the NZ left bloggers just think NZ foreign policy should be about blatantly telling leaders of other countries to stand down if they face mass protests.  Did they call for that when Iran blatantly forged the results of its elections? No.


Funny how only US backed dictatorships really get the blood boiling about the need for, um Western intervention.

Finally, Idiot Savant not only parrots the "John Key supports dictatorship" fabrication, but claims "Mubarak is a dictator and a torturer. The only difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he's (still) a US ally, and pro-Israel"

The only difference?  This sort of statement demonstrates either a wilful disregard of history or the rather disgustingly cheap view that Mubarak must be as bad "because the US backed him".

Let's look at some facts.

Hussein waged war against Iran and Kuwait, Mubarak has maintained peace with its neighbours under his entire Presidency (yes I know the US supported Hussein invading Iran, but that's hardly Mubarak's fault).  Hussein used chemical weapons against his own population, Mubarak's Egypt has never had chemical weapons, let alone used them on its population.  Hussein banned all foreign media and the internet, making it criminal to receive foreign broadcasts.  Mubarak restricted domestic media, but never banned satellite dishes, shortwave radio listening or the internet (until the past week).  Hussein ran a personality cult on a grand scale, following the model of Stalin.  Mubarak can barely be said to have had one, largely consisting of his image and the occasional quote being seen in streets.  Hussein was personally (as was his family) a megalomaniacal killer, who purged his colleagues, those surrounding him in murderous style, who let his sons engage in rape, murder and theft, and who ruthlessly staged brutal executions.  Whilst Mubarak's regime has engaged in political executions and has had poor accountability for police brutality and torture, there have not been reports of him being sadistic or engaging brutality for the sake of it.

It is pure dishonesty to equate the two.  Mubarak is a dictator, but on the light end of the scale, Hussein is full blown war-mongering, sadistic, murdering, megalomaniac.  It is like equating Castro with Pol Pot. 

Finally, Mubarak is not pro-Israel by any means.  He took a harder line with Israel than Sadat, he has often criticised Israel.  Egypt has annual military exercise in the Sinai, aimed at defence against Israel.  Domestic Egyptian media has had little restrictions on criticising Israel, with anti-Israeli sentiment freely expressed.  The term "cold-peace" is not being friendly, just tolerating and recognising each other.

Such nonsense, such hysteria, spouting venom and hatred, filled with exaggerated fabrications.

However, anything is on if you're trying to smear your political opponents isn't it?  

UPDATE:  Syria's Ba'athist dictator, Bashar al Assad has said that the events in Egypt wont be repeated in Syria.  Why?  Because "he maintained his own country was stable because of its "cause", opposition to the pro-Israeli agenda followed by the US and its regional allies, such as Cairo and Amman".  It wouldn't be because his father, Hafez al Assad (note the hereditary succession) bequeathed him a brutal police state that was only rivalled by Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran.  No.  It wouldn't be because Syria has been under "emergency rule" or martial law since 1963. It's because his people are united, in hatred at a common enemy.  Nothing Orwellian about that in a one-party police state with an all encompassing personality cult at all is there?  Of course, there are regular tirades about Syria,  its torture practices, executions and how children are abused in its schools from those who damn Mubarak.... or maybe that's just been neglected given how Syria has always been anti-Western and anti-Israeli?  Funny that...