The UK Government should thank the European Court of Human Rights

Frederick Cowell

Image © ex_libris_gul

Following the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling about Abu Qatada’s extradition the anti-Human Rights Act (HRA) brigade have been out in force. In his recent speech about the ECHR David Cameron claimed that the ECHR was in danger of undermining public support for civil liberties. This claim was accurate in large part because the same right wing newspapers that support him have been busy whipping themselves up into a self-righteous rage about the EHRA.

The UK government has received good results from the ECHR recently (not that you would know it) as they ruled that the system of whole life tariffs was not a form of torture. Forty six prisoners in the UK are currently serving whole life sentences and following an application from Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter (who are between them guilty of murdering nearly a dozen murders) the ECHR ruled that it was not “inhuman and degrading” for them to die in jail. The ECHR also approved the UK’s policy of deportation with assurances (assuming reliable guarantees against torture are given) in spite of the policy being strongly criticised by Amnesty International.  Needless to say these cases are nowhere to be found in the anti-HRA pieces from Michael Burleigh in the Daily Mail, Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph and Douglas Murray in the Daily Express. Instead the ECHR is presented as a judicial factory producing ‘outrages’ to be inflicted on the UK, even though the government wins the vast majority of applications to the court. Additionally these critics do not mention that Abu Qatada has not been convicted, let alone faced a criminal trial, in the UK. Whilst he is definitely unpleasant and has been involved with terrorist organisations, the fact that neither the Crown Prosecution Service nor the Director of Public Prosecution has been able to bring him to trial over a ten year period, despite numerous changes in the law, is illustrative of how the problem is much wider than ‘activist judges’ at the ECHR.

Read more of this post

Marx out of 10 for Page 3’s apologists?

Sam Fowles

Image © OBJECT

The Page 3 debate shows how the left, as well as the right, must stop clinging to old ideologies and address the problems of today.

“It was a breath of fresh air”, writes Ellie Mae O’Haggen in the New Statesman, “to see four articulate women at the Leveson inquiry spelling out the sexism most feminists knew was there all along… without being ridiculed or interrupted.” How short the sudden silence.

Oddly, it was from writers on the left that one heard the loudest rebuttal of the submission from Object and “Turn Your Back on Page 3”.  Roy Greenslade was quick to question the veracity of their evidence in the Evening Standard, while Brendan O’Neill launched a telling broadside against the “bevy of feminists” and their “shrill chorus” on this website.

This issue presents a problem for many on the left. For once we’re facing a major societal issue that wasn’t caused by faceless bankers or privileged Tories. The 99% are just as culpable. We have, by the implicit consent of the consumer, created the gutter press. Tabloids print what sells and we’re all buying.

Read more of this post

The political discourse of America in recent history has been driven by a narrative – a durable myth

 John Shammas

Image © Michael Noirot

Reagan’s voice commanded a receptive audience during a period of economic stagnation with his talk of values, responsibilities and duty prevailing over a worn and laboured liberal rhetoric which lost itself in almost-exclusively discussing rights and entitlement schemes. Even today, Reagan’s critics fall so easily into playing the role of an apologist for the out-of-touch, tax-and-spend stereotype – a stereotype of which the conservative media sell to their demographic at a rate similar to that with which Apple shift iPhones. Meanwhile, the key contemporary GOP field today – the Bachmans, the Palins and the Gingrichs of this world do not have to function as stand-alone politicians: instead their key occupation is to merely serve as apparatus to the echo-chamber of the Reagan myth.

Reaganism constitutes a politics of post-modern structuralism which has such obvious and explicit endurance today. It is driven by a mythology that highlights the fact that the key battleground issues of the 1960’s have never been fully resolved. The disputes, shifts and changes of the era cannot be solely defined and dictated by political or partisan preference. Crucially, the durability of the Reagan myth feasts of the evanescence of a counterculture informed by individual choices, moral standing and personal identity which has dissipated into consumerism, materialism and ideological separation.

And the emphasis here must ultimately arrive at that last point: ideological separation. So often, in his election campaign in 2008 and even in last week’s State of the Union address, Obama idealistically speaks of bi-partisanship, cooperation and ideological synthesis. However, he has been wholesomely defeated in his campaign. The essential legacy that Reaganism has engrained upon our politics is displayed in how viscerally and unapologetically we define ourselves in ideological terms. Partisanship is not an issue. Partisanship is the issue.  Read more of this post

Bellow’s History

Nik Williams

Bosnian widows grieving at a mass funeral in 2010

‘To forget a Holocaust is to kill twice’, uttered by Elie Wiesel. This phrase haunts the legacy of the Holocaust, it leaks into every remembered tale, every history book, every elderly relative drawing at the twines of their memories, every town square and every memorial. To kill twice, to condemn not the already condemned body nor the mind, but the memory is a crime we can all become culpable in, as we let the shape of the Holocaust and its horrors dissolve into nothingness. When something is hidden from view, withdrawn from circulation, its outline becomes hazy and indefinite. Soon you redraw the image in your mind, but it is never the same. Lengths have shortened, curves emerged and proportions are tinkered with and soon you have in your mind, the last navigatory tool, a caricature of what was. But is the Holocaust trapped under the weight of our collective history, bound up in twine shunted against the wall in the room coddled with cobwebs, to be missed, to be obstructed from view by the miscellany and knickknacks of modern life?

You think history is the history of loving hearts? You fool! Look at these millions of dead. Can you pity them, feel for them? You can nothing! There were too many. We burned them to ashes, we buried them with bulldozers. History is the history of cruelty, not love as soft men think.

Saul Bellow wrote this in Herzog and when thinking about the Holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity, how can history be anything but cruel? To think of Bellow’s cruel history is to think of a long and continuous thread tying us to the camps at Dachau, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno, Majdanek, Belzec, Stutthof; the brutal war of independence in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan); Khmer Rouge’s utopic view of a ‘purer’ sense of communism that saw around 2 million people killed; the widespread murder and cannibalism of pygmy tribes in the DRC; inter-tribal violence in Rwanda that pitted Hutu and Tutsi against each other, severing villages and families; the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia and the list goes on. Reciting the list, part of me wants to call out to Wiesel: ‘how can we forget, it still happens, it is occurring around the world to remind us!’ But to remember a face, an individual instance, in such a sizable crowd, a mass of people where the edges of the crowd cannot be seen, is impossible. But how have we let such a crowd of the dead amass threatening to make the voices of each case inaudible above the din of the screams, yelps and sobs? Read more of this post

Is the holocaust still relevant in today’s climate?

Louisa Pawsey

Image © Matt Brown

Holocaust Memorial Day brings with it the knowledge that there are still people who remember suffering at the hands of the Nazis. It also brings pain to people whose families will never be complete because there is someone or multiple someones missing from the dinner table.  But for the rest of us exactly how important is the 27th of January? Just another day in the calendar?  Another day for you to live your life?  Have you even noticed that Holocaust Memorial Day is now printed in every diary and on every calendar? Is anyone interested?

As a military historian, I should be shouting from the rooftops about the importance and relevance of Holocaust Memorial Day – but I just can’t.  In fact, the more I study, the more I realise how little people care and how little relevance the holocaust has to anybody that wasn’t affected or involved.  Of course it’s not just the holocaust that has this effect, every year the amount of people wearing a poppy in November has seemed to dwindle and it is fashionable to protest against the armed forces.  As a historian, the first thing you learn is that the further back in history you go, the less interest people have and there will come a time when all the Holocaust survivors will have disappeared.  Read more of this post

The issues that shall really determine Scottish independence

Scott Hill

Image © Saul Gordillo

So, we now know the all-important question: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yesterday, the Scottish government published its consultation paper[1] on an independence referendum to be staged in the autumn of 2014. Within the document, which outlined a path similar to what many would have predicted, it was stated that 16 and 17 year-olds should gain the right to vote, those voting should be residents of Scotland and, crucially, the possibility of a multi-option ballot was left open, meaning that Scots may get the opportunity to vote for full-fiscal autonomy; an option they seem to prefer[2].

Whilst the document remained largely controversy-free, a few troubling queries could be forthcoming. It seems odd that the majority of sportsmen representing Scotland in rugby and football, for example, will not be permitted to vote on the future of their country. However, this is an awkward issue for which there appears to be no easy way round. Either way, somebody out there with a strong affiliation for Scotland shall miss out on the vote. Perhaps by making eligible all those who can prove that they were born in Scotland would be the best solution. Others will point to the fact, in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds voting, that individuals not permitted by law to enjoy an alcoholic beverage or puff on a cigarette have no plausible right to vote. I, however, am quite relaxed about the proposition put forward by the SNP. Read more of this post

100 years of the War on Drugs

 Oliver Hotham

Image © World Economic Forum


100 years ago today, as the opium trade reached new levels of notoriety for its criminal activity, the USA and 12 other countries signed the 1912 International Opium Convention, which stated that:

The contracting Powers shall use their best endeavours to control, or to cause to be controlled, all persons manufacturing, importing, selling, distributing, and exporting morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as well as the buildings in which these persons carry such an industry or trade.

This was the first international agreement to limit the trafficking of narcotics, and while the intentions of the “War on Drugs” seemed noble and right, it has implicated the United States and its allies in innumerable crimes against humanity.

The War on Drugs would be, to a certain degree, acceptable, at least morally consistent, if it were not mired in hypocrisy. We support, for example, the corrupt government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as part of the war against the Taliban, but the president’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has been implicated in the Afghan heroin and opium trade, the products of which fuel heroin addiction around the world. Read more of this post

A Marxist defence of Page 3 girls

Brendan O’Neill

Image © Kip Voytek

Proving that the Leveson Inquiry has become a magnet for every campaigner who wants to tame or censor the tabloids, yesterday’s line-up before his lordship included a bevy of feminists angrily railing against Page 3 in The Sun.

For some women’s rights activists, Page 3, with its scantily clad ladies making philosophical comments in speech bubbles, represents everything that is wrong with tabloid culture.

It is sexist and offensive, they say, and it contributes to a climate in which women are looked upon as fleshy objects to be ogled by goggle-eyed blokes. It must be banned, they demand.

Harriet Harman has joined this shrill chorus calling either for the outright banning of Page 3 or for The Sun at least to be put on the top shelf in newsagents, next to porno mags. And yet in her next breath, Harman has the gall to declare: “I am going to be a champion of press freedom.”

That she cannot see any contradiction between campaigning to crush Page 3 and claiming to be a defender of freedom of speech not only highlights the severe irony deficit in New Labour – it also says a lot about the weird politics of the anti-Page 3 lobby.

The fact is that shutting down Page 3 would be an assault on press freedom. If you are committed to true freedom of the press, to the age-old idea that newspapers should be free to publish what they believe to be true or interesting or fun, you can’t then add the caveat “Oh, except for Page 3 in The Sun – that page has got to go.” Read more of this post

Newt Gingrich and the Moral Heist of South Carolina

John Shammas

Image © Gage Skidmore

Predicting the future is a job for clairvoyants – not political commentators, and thank God. Summoning a reactionary whim as a legitimate claim is often tempting, especially when on the eve of such a crucial primary, in the buckle of the Bible belt that is South Carolina, Newt Gingrich’s ex-Wife came forward with a damaging (and particularly timely) revelation that must of had Romney’s 2012 campaign popping open some premature champagne. However, what commentators learnt from the South Carolina primary is that the archaic circus that is the race for the Republican nomination is more akin to a Machiavellian episode of Twin Peaks than a political race. It cannot be envisioned, calculated, analyzed or even discussed in the same way as other political races because time and time again we are reminded that whilst intellectuals like to belittle the Republican field of nominees and those who support them as callow, simplistic and reactionary, as a demographic they are curiously unpredictable.

Mitt Romney, the “former” front runner as we now must call him (check back next week), came under such scrutiny with regard to his involvement in Bain Capital that he was labelled by his fellow free-market-loving Republicans as a “vulture capitalist”, signalling a civil war within the GOP field. It seemed that such a civil war would be coming to an abrupt end on Friday night when the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife, an allegation that would surely tear the umbilical cord between Newt and his passionate, evangelical Christian base for good. You could almost envision what would consequentially transpire in the coming days. Santorum would surge from recruiting the disenfranchised Gingirch voters to his cause, Gingirch would drop out, begrudgingly endorsing Santorum but ultimately Romney would prevail and secure his candidacy. It was all so clear-cut. So inevitable. Signed, sealed, and all we had to do was wait for it to be delivered. Read more of this post

The Object of Torture is Torture:10 years of Guantanamo Bay

Dominic Turner

Image © U.S. Army

In the South-Eastern periphery of Cuba lies the province of Bahía de Guantánamo. Unlike the rest of the Caribbean island, its vegetation does not grow green and abundant. If only the signs of American imperialism were limited to the Cuban mainland’s only McDonalds and Starbucks. If only the crimes perpetrated in this naval base concerned the validity of the United States’ occupying lease, obtained under the threat of force.

Ten years ago, Guantanamo Bay received its first detainees and began an unending tale of human suffering and degradation for children as young as 13 and men as old as 98. Eye witness accounts detail a nightmarish existence of systematic beatings, torture, and humiliating treatment. But its not just the physical abuse that destroys the victims of Guantanamo. Its in every spiteful action, in every callous deed, the breaking up of families by denying prisoners even the right to exchange letters. By desecrating copies of the Quran and imposing unimaginable periods of solitary confinement.
Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,300 other followers