Exciting!

Tariq Ramadan comments on Swiss election

2009-11-29T12:47:00.000-08:00

Tariq Ramadan writes in the Guardian about the referendum in which the people of Switzerland voted to ban the building of minarets in their country:

At the very moment Europeans find themselves asking, in a globalising, migratory world, "What are our roots?", "Who are we?", "What will our future look like?", they see around them new citizens, new skin colours, new symbols to which they are unaccustomed.
Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates – violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few – it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor.

I agree that some people in Europe are finally asking themselves what values they stand for and what they can accept in their countries from immigrants. Furthermore, I agree that this introspection is fuelled by the kind of controversies that have come with the introduction of large numbers of Muslims into Europe: violence, discrimination, honor killings, forced marriages, opposition to freedom of speech, etc.

Now I don't know if Tariq Ramadan has a sense of humor but I find it to be the understatement of the century to say that the reaction is merely one of confusion or 'being unaccustomed'. It is not. It is a question of outright opposition.

I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective western societies. (...)
They (Muslims and political parties, in Europe as in Switzerland) fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely "integrated". (...)
We cannot blame the populists alone – it is a wider failure, a lack of courage, a terrible and narrow-minded lack of trust in their new Muslim citizens.

So basically he is asking Europe to just bite it. He knows full well that Islam is seen in terms of human rights abuses and violence, but does not deny it or try to explain it. He is simply stating a fact and offers no positive alternative spin. He only asks that everyone else accepts it as it is. We are here - violence, bigotry and all - we are not going away - so deal with it. He even has the gall to ask for trust.

He doesn't even frame the violence, forced marriages, opposition to freedom of speech, etc. as something negative in itself. Rather, he focuses on the fact that Europeans have this impression as that which is unfortunate - not the acts themselves. No denial, excuse or anything like that. No, no. The real problem is in those people not willing to cede Europe to Islam.

His only call for action or concrete advice is this:

Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists

What about the actual flames from Jihadi attacks, embassy burnings, suicide bombings? That is what the people of Switzerland stood up against- and I applaud them.

Multiculturalist mechanics

2009-08-15T03:19:00.000-07:00

Robert Spencer speaks about the power to define terms such as Islamism or Jihad. And what the consequences are to free societies when they lose that power. Check it out by clicking the link.

Below Pat Condell covers a lot of ground in explaining how it is possible to oppose an ideology and yet not be a racist at the same time. Who would have thunk it?

Salman Rushdie basically speaks about the same as Pat Condell above but does it in a lower tone of voice. Same amount of sarcasm, however. Fast forward to 2:50 into the file to get to the important parts about multiculturalism:

You can find the entire interview with Salman Rushdie and Irshad Manji here. Exciting and important stuff.

This past Thursday at least 12.000 Danes went on the streets of Copenhagen to protest the denial of asylum to some 200 asylum seekers who were unable to explain why they should have asylum here, other than living in their own country of Iraq was not as pleasant as living in Denmark.

Of course that is just my version of the story. One of the organizers (whose name I forget) of the Copenhagen protests said to TV2 NEWS that "they don't stand a chance" (if they are sent).

Well, currently almost 30 million other Iraqis are living just fine in Iraq. Furthermore, each week hundreds of Iraqis living in Denmark go back there on vacation. Once they secure legal stay here, going back isn't all of a sudden so dangerous after all.

If some parts of Iraq are safe and some are unsafe, what is then wrong with going back to live in the safe parts? These people are obviously willing to live far from "home". Why is a different province of their home country so utterly wrong when a different part of the world, such as Denmark, is so right? I don't think anyone is telling them to go live on top of a bomb factory. Not to their faces anyway.

The Iraqis in question had occupied a Danish church, Brorsons Kirke, for several months, possibly thinking that normal laws don't apply there. For the record: they do. When the police came and talked them into leaving the church a couple of hundred activists showed up and tried to block the police cars from leaving - mostly by sitting down in front of it but the bus did also leave with a broken front window. When the police used force to remove them they appeared to be shocked and appalled and now complaints over the police are flying like cobble stones in the air.

The same day police was chased out of the notorius Muslim ghetto of Vollsmose by automatic weapons' fire.

Yes, let's add another 200 immigrants to these ghettos... That'll help :-P

It's not about the tools

2009-07-26T08:42:00.000-07:00

I like taking pictures. But just like everyone is a f*cking comedian when you don’t need it so, it seems, everyone is a professional photographer-wannabe these days. With quality digital cameras having come within the price range of normal people now, more and more go out and buy decent equipment. Good for them.

What annoys me, however, is the prevailing notion that the more expensive equipment you have, the better photographer you are. Good equipment gives the photographer more options and usually the chance of taking a decent shot in poor lighting conditions where cheap equipment would give up. What makes a good photograph depends, however, not on the number of extra features switched to ON but rather the sensibility, vision, technique of the photographer and of course to chance. Don't underestimate chance and don't rely on your equipment to produce art.

Of course it bothers me that photos I took with my old 2 mega pixel FujiFilm camera are too shitty to blow up on a wall. Better and more expensive equipment would have made a definitive difference there but I dare say that better equipment alone would not have produced those photos. Machinery needs someone to operate it and those photos are a product of me - not FujiFilm Corp..

I couldn’t be bothered registering to leave a comment but I quite agree with this blog post .

Obviously he is trying to come to grips with his gadget craving withdrawal symptoms but he is on to the right thing:

I am not going to pretend that having good equipment doesn't matter in photography, much as I often wish otherwise; to compete commercially at the very top ranks of game one will need to be able to stand up to the best in every technical aspect, and that means spending eye-watering sums of money. Having said that much, however, the top photographers did not get to where they are by spending small fortunes at the beginning of their careers, but by working their way up the food chain, and the most important ingredient in doing this is to have a clear, unique aesthetic vision of what one wishes to accomplish: with this in place, even a tiny, highly-compressed image can grasp a viewer's attention

A second point I want to make about photography is the Japanese obsession with taking pictures of sakura flowers. I just don’t think it is healthy or normal for a guy to spend that much money, time and effort on taking pictures of small pink flowers. It’s not like it’s a novel subject either. Every year sites like Flickr is flooded with pictures of the damned things.

When I constantly have to listen to speeches of how weak, childish or feminine I am for eating the occasional Danish pastry I just can’t help but finding it ironic and ridiculous the amount of energy being put into immortalizing the same pink flowers by Japanese men year after year. With all that equipment you would think that people would come up with other subjects to focus on as well. But the sakura season is the only time a year I see Japanese come out in full force like this:

Links

2009-07-16T03:43:00.001-07:00

Ok so I finally got around to updating my links. With an average life-span of a year and a half for most blogs it's no wonder that many of them had been dead for a while.

R.I.P. expecially to North Korea Zone, which was always a joy to read.
Respect especially to EastWestSouthNorth. I have no idea how he keeps up the pace and quality. His site may not be visually pretty but content-wise it is out of this world.

I put in a few "new" ones that appear to be as solid as most commercial sites are.
I also tried to put in Gates of Vienna and Centre for Social Cohesion but for some reason they just won't pop up.

Turkey Has No Place in EU

2009-05-02T07:33:00.000-07:00

As part of his campaign leading up to the EU Parliament elections June 7^th the former vice prime minister and frontrunner for the conservatives Bendt Bendtsen (cons.) told media that he did not think that Turkey should ever achieve full membership of EU. Instead he would offer Turkey a privileged partnership. He is cited in the media mostly as referring to the German CDU for justification. Himself neither very brave nor a great thinker it may actually be true that he has to hide behind the Germans instead of just sticking to his guns.

CDU’s point is something along the lines that since Turkey is Muslim they have different values than Christian Europe. A point also commonly cited in France for opposing Turkish membership.

This blogger seems to know that Bendtsen is actually thinking about Turkey’s actions under the Mohammad cartoon crisis; general problems with freedom of speech and Turkey’s vehement resistance to Anders Fogh Rasmussen becoming the next secretary general of NATO.

A common reaction among commentators here in Denmark has been that Bendt Bendtsen’s statement was a cheap populist shot aimed only at creating publicity. The chance that he actually holds the opinion that Turkey does not belong in EU is brushed off as ridiculous. Especially since the official opinion of the government that he was a member of not so long ago was that EU should work towards full membership for Turkey.

Lord knows I am not a big fan of mr. Bendtsen but his remarks did spark a discussion here which I think is important. Several other members of the governing parties have come out in full support of this opinion. Others express understanding. Front runner for the Liberals Jens Rohde says he understands the opposition to Turkish membership: “everyone in the world – except perhaps Obama – can see that the Turkey of today does not have a chance in hell of gaining membership. (...) I too am sceptical of their style of government when for instance a writer is put on trial for writing a book critical of Islam. In that sense they are moving further and further away from membership”. He continues, however, that he is confident that Turkey will not become a member until they live up to the formal criteria.

This too is a common way to try and silence critique: "They won't join until they live up to the criteria, which by the way wont be until far into the future."

The problems as I see them are two: Experience shows that in EU 1) popular opinion does not carry any value; 2) neither do formal accession criteria.

What matters is expansion.

70 percent of both Europeans and of the Turkish population oppose Turkish membership. Shouldn’t that mean something? When a popularly held opinion is voiced against the grand plans that EU has scheming it is brushed off as irrelevant and the train just keeps on steaming ahead.

We saw this particularly bad tendency at the Dutch, French and finally Irish no-votes to the paper called the EU Constitution, when it was still called that, and then again when it had changed name to the Lisbon treaty. All that EU politicians did the first time around was to fake concern and then just change the name. When it was rejected again they told Ireland to take their time and come back when they had changed their mind. The lack of respect that EU politicians have for public opinion is deeply concerning to me. You may even say that I am personally offended.

Just like Turkey today, Bulgaria and Rumania were also nowhere near compliance with accession criteria when they were acceded to EU. But we were told that EU had already “promised” that the two countries would become members at a certain date and so the criteria were all of a sudden not so important after all.

So, what happens in 20 years when Turkey is still a fucked up country and no where near living up to the criteria? Are we going to hear the same drill: "Well, we promised them membership so they are just going to have to catch up later"?

My main concerns as regards Turkey in EU are mostly immaterial such as the political and religious culture and ethics of Turkey and the fact that Turkey willingly acts as messenger for OIC in their efforts to curb human rights and freedoms. Concerns that are easy to ignore if expansion is all you care about.

Turkey has signed the Cairo Declaration, which states such ridiculous things as: “(art. 2,a) it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah-prescribed reason”; “(art. 2,d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right … and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.” “(art. 9,a) The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to … be acquainted with the religion of Islam”; (art. 10) “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism”; “(art. 12) The country of refuge shall ensure his (the refugee’s) protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.” (such as homosexuality or religious conversion); “(art. 19,d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah”; “(art. 24) All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.”; and “(art. 25) The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration”.

Any country, which is signatory to the Cairo Declaration is, in my opinion, unfit to become a member of EU.

Durban Review Conference still a sham

2009-04-20T02:27:00.000-07:00

So Denmark participates in the Durban Review Conference set to last April 20-24^th 2009. Yesterday the Foreign Ministry announced that Denmark would go along with the majority of nations in EU and apparently that means we are going. Not a very principled stance if you ask me.

Whereas EU unity on any kind of foreign policy issue would be preferable, weighing that illusion over the very real prospect of giving in to various oppressive regimes’ idea of human rights is very worrying indeed.

This sheepish notion that it is more important to stick together than the contents of the issue being discussed is unfortunately a common one. We see it not only in comments deploring the inability of EU to make up its mind but also in the voting patterns of 3rd world countries in the UN: "there is a solidarity that people will maintain, even in the face of that which is manifestly not in their interest or even manifestly wrong. The larger value, for a lot of countries, is to stick together because they feel weak and powerless. They largely are, but… they seem to feel that if they can stick together, they at least have some kind of clout vis-à-vis the United States and the other powerful countries".

Leader of Centre for European Politics at the University of Copenhagen Marlene Wind in one sense has the right idea when she says: “EU not attending and leaving it all to more or less fundamentalist regimes is undermining the entire UN system and the credibility of UN”.

Yes… but you say it like it’s a bad thing??!?!? Her next comment reveals her misunderstanding: “This is a UN conference and if countries that think like the free western world no longer dominate those values and norms then the long prospect is very unpleasant indeed.”

What she apparently doesn’t know is that the cards in the UN Human Rights Council are already stacked in favour of countries that want to attack the West. As I wrote about here, studies by both the Canadian government and the European Council on Foreign Relations are clear in their analysis:

“The Committee is concerned that, faced with these bloc politics, there is little that human rights defenders such as Canada can currently do on the Human Rights Council. The Western Europe and other states group of members is effectively outnumbered.”

“The trend away from the Europeans is markedly worse on the new Human Rights Council (HRC) where EU positions have been defeated in over half the votes.”

In other words EU boycotting the UN is not a question of handing anything over to dictatorships and thus unfortunately undermining the UN. It is a question of undermining the UN because you accept the fact that various oppressive regimes and enemies of the West already control the UN Human Rights Council and have made it into a vehicle for attacks on the West. And yes that is very unpleasant indeed.

In a perfect world EU would agree on how to oppose limitations on our hard-won freedoms and present a united front till the very end. Unfortunately that is far from realistic. Germany’s withdrawal yesterday is in clear acknowledgement that amendments to the final documents at UN conferences may occur up to the very last moment leaving no time for EU to discuss that and achieve a common stance (as if that ever happens anyway). Looking at the people involved and the draft declaration as it was presented one day before the conference Germany therefore wisely opted not to grace this mockery of a human rights conference with her presence.

Among other nations the US has also wisely backed out of Durban II. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has this comment: "Some media have interpreted the US withdrawal as based on the continued retention of language on defamation of religion and anti-semitism in the outcome document, when in fact no such language exists in the text adopted last week," Pillay noted. "In addition, the draft outcome document clearly states that ‘the Holocaust must never be forgotten’ and deplores all forms of racism including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism."

This is exactly the problem: the draft outcome document clearly (…) ‘deplores all forms of racism including Islamophobia.

First of all I object to the word Islamophobia. As if it is a disease to disagree with stoning as a reasonable reaction to homosexuality. It is not. Secondly disagreeing with Islam is not racism. Islam is an ideology, a set of ideas - not a race.

This part of the document is fully sufficient to warrant a boycott of Durban II. If criticizing a set of ideas amounts to racism then we might as well dismantle democracy altogether right away. Or we might acknowledge that people disagree with each other and learn to live with it.

Apart from India, bringing western ideas of right and wrong to the colonies did not create a whole lot of good things. Rather, the project ended in a large number of wars and hatred towards the West. For the OIC to try and bring their ideas of right and wrong into the West now is bound to not create a whole lot of good things either.

End the Obama Hysteria

2009-01-28T04:17:00.000-08:00

Ok, so there is a new American president and no one may be worse off for that. Hoorah, congratulations and so on. What I don’t understand, however, is the level of hysteria accompanying his candidacy and inauguration. Please stop it.

A few examples:

CNN reports:

"My fervent prayer is that there will be peace on Earth in all nations, and let all countries unite together to make this dream come true," said iReporter Shari Atukorala of Kandy, Sri Lanka. "To the President-elect Barack Obama: Sir, you can do this for all of us."

In Chicago

"at least five people were arrested across the city after Barack Obama's rally in Grant Park, including a woman who slapped a Chicago police officer, saying police couldn't arrest her anymore, prosecutors said today.
Most of the others celebrated the historic occasion with gunfire.
Celita Hart, 19, stood silently in court today when she appeared for a bond hearing.
Prosecutors said Hart, who is black, yelled " 'White , McCain--you white police can't do nothing anymore.'" With that, she reached through the window of a squad car and slapped a white male officer in the face, according to Assistant State's Atty. Lorraine Scaduto."

Click the above link. The title of the story is “Some mayhem, arrests after Obama rally”. I love that. Some mayhem … that’s grand.

Danish media and the public have been not been exemplary either. During the campaign Obama was portrayed as a kind of social democratic black Jesus-figure who would magically transform the state of the world into peace and happiness. Danish social democrats have hardly been able to contain themselves with joy.

And the wishful thinking continues. On a Danish web-site for communication professionals professor Christian Kock wrote this “analysis” of Obama’s inaugural address (my translation):

“it was surprising that following only a recognition of George Bush and his “service to the nation” Obama was extremely concise about all the political subjects where his administration would do something completely different than the predecessor and make right the mistakes of the past: “we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics” ... ” the time has come to set aside childish things” ... ”stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply”.”

End paragraph.

Christian Kock is a professor at the University of Copenhagen. More so than in other countries, achieving the title of full professor in Denmark is extremely difficult. It’s expensive for the universities and they tend to prefer associate professors instead. The job they do is more or less the same anyway. The fact that Christian Kock is a full professor shows that he is extremely qualified within an area the university finds important. In this case, Christian Kock names his main research areas, interests and competencies as: theory of rhetoric, history of rhetoric, reception aesthetics, argumentation, political debate, theory of presentation, written presentation and pedagogy.

All those qualification and yet he finds that “an end to petty grievances”, “false promises”, “worn out dogmas”, “childish things” and “stale political arguments” accurately describe Obama’s political focal points. Those terms can mean absolutely anything you want them to mean. Tellingly professor Kock is unable to describe exactly what it is Obama wants to do other than: “do something completely different”. Great!

This is embarrassing.

Foreign policy is driven by events. I predict that some serious event will come along and test Obama’s resolve and backbone. Having to deal with the threat of being portrayed as weak by his critics in the US he will opt for a tough military response. This will strengthen him internally but the enemies of the West will be confirmed that nothing has changed.

Besides, who in their right mind actually believes that just because Obama is president, Iran will not continue developing nuclear arms? That North Korea will end its blackmailing of the world with nukes and long-range missiles? That China will halt the build-up of force projection capabilities, threatening Taiwan and expanding its sphere of influence into South Asia and the Indian Ocean? That Hamas and Hezbollah will stop hating and launching attacks against Israel? That the genocide in Sudan will stop? That African leaders will pull themselves together and finally deal with Mugabe? That Hugo Chavez will suddenly come to his senses and give up his dream of becoming a dictator for life?

Pull yourselves together people.

Hamas supporters envoke Hitler in fight against Israel

2009-01-24T13:59:00.000-08:00

2009-01-10

”Heil Hitler”, ”we want to kill all Jews”, ”give us some Jews”, ”down, down, Denmark”, “down, down, democracy” were among the slogans chanted at this Palestinian pro-Hamas, anti-Israel demonstration in central Copenhagen. Watch the footage below. Demonstration also attended by a handful of left-wingers.

Imagine if a pro-Israeli demonstration had chanted "kill all Palestinians"... There would have been no end to the media-hysteria.

Saudi norms make way into Holland

2009-01-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

Wall Street Journal op-ed (quoted in full):

JANUARY 22, 2009

Silencing Islam's Critics

A Dutch court imports Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe.

The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.

Mr. Wilders made world news last year with the short film "Fitna." In the 15-minute video, he juxtaposes Koranic verses calling for jihad with clips of Islamic hate preachers and terror attacks. He has compared the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and urged Muslims to tear out "hate-filled" verses from their scripture. This is a frontal assault on Islam -- but, as Mr. Wilders points out, he's targeting the religion, not its followers. "Fitna," in fact, sparked a refreshing debate between moderate Muslims and non-Muslims in the Netherlands, and beyond.

There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn't need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn't crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.

This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable," the prosecutors said in a statement. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

The court yesterday overruled this decision, arguing that the lawmaker should be prosecuted for "inciting hatred and discrimination" and also "for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism." This is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside. But the successful integration of Muslims in Europe will require that immigrants adapt to Western norms, not vice versa. Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders's argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties.

First Annual CEPOS Conference on Human Rights

2008-12-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

Fresh back from the first annual CEPOS conference on human rights I just want to upload some pictures from the event where I duly noted that the introductory programme contained quotes from a report I had supplied chief legal officer Jacob Mchangama with a few days ago.
The topic: Should the UN continue to be liberal democracies primary forum for the protection and propagation of human rights?
Occasion: OIC's full frontal attack on freedom of speech at the Human Rights Council.

(Above) Line Barfod and Søren Pind

(Above: Morten Messerschmidt and Naser Khader)

Key note speakers:

Anne Bayefski. Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Former member of the Canadian delegation to the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Commission. Senior editor at the Eye on the UN

Morten Kjærum (In the picture behind MP Naser Khader:

Founder of the Danish Center for Human Rights (now, Danish Institute for Human Rights ) and current head of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.

Also present in the panel debates were MP Morten Messerschmidt (Danish People’s Party), MP Naser Khader (Liberal Alliance), MP Line Barfod (Red-Green Alliance) and MP Søren Pind (Liberal Party).

The talks did not give a lot of new information but I was relieved to experience the seriousness with which everyone except Morten Kjærum and Line Barfod discussed the idea of creating a union/club/whatever of democracies around the world. I don’t know why John Mcain is always mentioned in this context. To my knowledge he did not come up with the idea but is just another –albeit prominent - supporter of it.

Coming from the far left of the political spectrum it was not surprising that Line Barfod is of the opinion that the primary objective of any international body is to talk. Irrespective of what the subject of the conversation is or who the partners are or what else is going on – so long as we keep talking there is hope. And THAT is what is important, she thinks. Although a strong supporter for democracy as such, she was not too happy about supporting a club for democracies if that could in any way be construed as rain on UN’s parade. Yay for the dictators’ talking club.

In the minds of Line Barfod's tree-hugging segment of the political spectrum it is of the highest importance to show solidarity with the oppressed masses of the world by not speaking too harshly to their oppressors – lest they take it out on the innocent populace.

Morten Kjærum is deeply involved with, not to speak of employed by, the current system providing a forum and funding for the world’s dictators to come and give lectures on racism and how the truth hurts religious feelings. He could hardly be expected to support the idea of creating a competitor to the UN. Irrespective of the fact that no one proposed leaving the UN altogether he felt that creating a forum for the world’s democracies would be like ‘leaving the oppressed behind’.

Morten Kjærum chose to base his optimism and support for the current UN system on the fact that ‘at least human rights conditions are better in many parts of the world today than they were 60 years ago’. Secondly he placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that ‘things are moving, an office has been established and the ICC is in place’.

I always did think that the Danish Institute for Human Rights was living in fantasy-land. Morten Kjærum’s lofty speech, which did not even touch on the question on today’s programme: what to do in the face of OIC’s attack on freedom of speech, just confirmed my opinion. Who cares if things ‘are moving’ if the reality is that it is the OIC pushing and succeeding with the agenda that religions (read: Islam) must have rights and that they most come before individuals’ rights. If dictatorships manage time and time again to use the UN body to attack their enemies and shelter each other from criticism. A human rights body that can put Libya in the chairman’s seat is not worth spending time on.

Morten Kjærum was disappointed by the fact that the West today seems to have no human rights’ agenda. At least, he said, the rest of the world did. Especially the US’ passivity was disappointing.

As Anne Bayefsky rightly pointed out that the West is voted down time and again on anything that matters. Any support by the US for a proposal is the kiss of death because everyone else will vote against it just for the heck of it. Secondly, she said that the only way we are ‘turning our backs on the oppressed’ is by giving legitimacy to dictators in forums such as the UN.

The Danish Institute for Human Rights had compromised themselves in my eyes long ago. Today that opinion was confirmed.

Showtime for Turkey

2008-11-28T13:04:00.001-08:00

In relation to my previous post I want to point out an important issue playing out in the shadow of that conflict.
Turkey is trying to gain membership to the EU using among other arguments the claim that, as a member, Turkey would be in a better position to act as a mediator between the West and the Islamic countries.
I am personally strongly against Turkey's membership but if there is ONE place where Turkey actually could prove that there is a shadow of truth in their claim then this mess with the Durban II conference is it. Because:

Turkey is a member of OIC
Turkey is a member of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference.
Turkey was not prominent in the Mohammed Cartoon crisis - that could be both good and bad.
Turkey is traditionally good friends and allies with Israel, which countries such as Iran and Libya plans to bash at Durban II.

I have had Google track any news on the combination of "Turkey" and "Durban" these last many weeks in order to catch any important article that might pop up on the subject but not much has actually turned up.
Two relevant links, however, speak in favour of Turkey:

#1: September 18th at the Human Rights Council the Turkish ambassador made a decidedly moderate comment:

ASLIGUL UGDUL (Turkey) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was at the core of all other problems in the region. All were aware that a durable peace in the Middle East would no be possible without solving that conflict. The international community had demonstrated a strong will in support of the Annapolis peace process. The success of the resumed process would largely depend on the parties acting with common sense and moderation. Turkey welcomed the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the recent release of Palestinian detainees by Israel. That constituted an important step in building confidence between the parties. The ongoing talks had to continue, until they produced a concrete outcome.

#2: Late US senator Tom Lantos who was active in the first Durban
conference, describes his diplomatic working behind the scenes:

I continued my bilateral negotiations with the key OIC ambassadors, representing Pakistan, Algeria, and Turkey. These meetings left me in a very hopeful mood. It was clear that the Islamic countries were prepared to relent and were searching for a way to save face. All three of the OIC ambassadors I met with assured me that they were trying to convince the radical elements of their caucus to abandon the attempt to attack Israel by name, and all three asked me for help in shoring up the other two for their ongoing battle with the hard-line countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and the Palestinians.

Firstly, Tom Lantos' comment above concerns the first Durban Conference in 2001 and not the coming. Secondly, he later finds out his estimation of the interests of Pakistan are blatantly wrong. Turkey's effort aside - whatever they might have been - Durban I still fell into an anti-American, anti-Israeli circus.

I don't see what different and strengthened position vis-a-vis Islamism Turkey could obtain by becoming a member of EU.
Besides, the union is already heavily weighed down by too many countries wanting it their way. EU is incapable of acting in unison against anything on the world stage. Russia routinely plays EU member against member to get an edge in negotiations. And then we haven't even touched on the massive security issues, historic hatred and cultural and religious differences between Europe and Turkey. Looking at the political culture in Turkey I suspect EU would have another Poland on its hands: Inflated image of self and not afraid to derail any process if there is something in it for them.
Turkey can get a preferential trading partner agreement and no more.

If Turkey was smart then they would launch a public diplomacy campaign in EU that Turkey was helping to reign in the insane islamists in OIC.
I bet they could manage such a campaign if they wanted to but I don't believe they have the clout to actually change anything with the OIC.

BTW go ahead and read Tom Lantos' entire account. Exciting stuff.

OIC takes fight against freedom of speech to the UN

2008-11-28T11:40:00.000-08:00

The Durban Review Conference a.k.a. Durban II may not have created many headlines outside the blogosphere and NGO web-sites yet but represents in fact one of the most important battlegrounds in the ongoing facedown between Western style democracy and freedom on one side and Islam plus various other kinds of fascism on the other. This time the Islamists have hijacked the UN to further their cause.

Previous optimism by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) was most likely premature. On the 25th of November 2008 the UN General Assembly passed (85 votes in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions) a (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1) a draft resolution on combating defamation of religions, which will form the basis of the votes at the Durban II conference in April 2009.

Quotes from the draft resolution:

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular,

Following the lack of tangible success from the use of violence in the recent Mohammed cartoon crisis the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) vowed to take the legal path instead. The problem, from their point of view, is that the Declaration of Human Rights protects humans and not ideas, ideologies or religions as such. Any attempt to launch a case at the European Court of Human Rights against publishers of cartoons or other material deemed offensive to the mullahs would therefore fail blatantly. Not content with having from time to time to accept criticism the OIC then decided to change the human rights and protect religious followers from such insolence as people actually disagreeing with them

The vehicle for this campaign is Durban II.

The title of the draft resolution being prepared for the conference is “Combating defamation of religions” and the aim is to limit freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of religion. The Durban Review Conference is nominally aimed at combating racism but the preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and dominated by Iran, Syria and Egypt, insists on squeezing criticism of religion into this category and thereby equating it with racism.

That is of course totally unacceptable, illogical and, not to speak of, harmful to the progress of humanity against ignorance and tyranny.

Looking at the voting patterns in the UN this nonsense agenda looks, however, dead set on being approved by a majority come April 2009 when Durban II is held in Geneva, Switzerland. The city of Durban, South Africa, turned down the offer of holding the review conference because the first conference had turned into such an enormous Jew-bashing hate fest. Not surprisingly Israel has already announced that it will boycott Durban II.

Most likely influenced by the findings of these government sponsored reports: Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council: A Time for Serious Re-Evaluation and Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council – At the Crossroads, Canada has also opted to boycott Durban II.

Strong voices in the Danish debate have tried to make the foreign minister do the same. By attending the meetings he risks legitimating a process and a decision that goes against all the Denmark stands for. On the other hand, by not going he surrenders the process completely to the forces working against Western civilisation. Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller (cons.) has for the time being opted for a more idealistic road than the Canadians and decided to attend the preparatory meetings to at least attempt to let his voice weigh in on the side of reason. Importantly, he has kept the door open for a chance to leave the proceedings if they begin to appear hopeless.

Reading the above Canadian reports that foreign ministerial ‘if’ is more accurately a ‘when’ the proceedings begin to appear hopeless. Here are a few quotes from the reports:

"Witnesses stated that since the Human Rights Council first met, these three overlapping groupings of states (the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement and the OIC) have worked together to sponsor and adopt resolutions serving their interests – often in direct opposition to Canada and other like-minded countries. Vote after vote can be traced with a pattern of 33 to 12 or 34 to 11, with Canada voting against the resolution. Paul Heinbecker noted that the voting patterns can to some extent be explained by the OIC, Non-Aligned Movement, and Arab League’s perception of a struggle against the hegemonic developed world. He said that there is a solidarity that people will maintain, even in the face of that which is manifestly not in their interest or even manifestly wrong. The larger value, for a lot of countries, is to stick together because they feel weak and powerless. They largely are, but… they seem to feel that if they can stick together, they at least have some kind of clout vis-à-vis the United States and the other powerful countries.”

“The Committee is concerned that, faced with these bloc politics, there is little that human rights defenders such as Canada can currently do on the Human Rights Council. The Western Europe and other states group of members is effectively outnumbered. Government officials noted that Canada is missing many of its natural allies on the Council, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.“

A report by the European Council on Foreign Relations comes to the same conclusion: EU and the West are loosing the votes in not only the UN Human Rights council but the UN as a whole:

“In the 1990s, the EU enjoyed up to 72% support on human rights issues in the UN General Assembly. In the last two Assembly sessions, the comparable percentages have been 48 and 55%. This decline is overshadowed by a leap in support for Chinese positions in the same votes from under 50% in the later 1990s to 74% in 2007-8. Russia has enjoyed a comparable leap in support. The trend away from the Europeans is markedly worse on the new Human Rights Council (HRC) where EU positions have been defeated in over half the votes.”

“(EU) has also suffered a rift with the 56 members of the OIC and there are now only three Muslim-majority states among the EU’s human rights allies (Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Turkey). This reflects not only disputes over the Middle East, but a fundamental clash over cultural and religious values.”

“The EU’s diminishing influence over the last decade is all the more surprising given the amount of money that it invests in multilateral processes, and its strong representation within the UN system. EU states finance the lion’s share of the UN budget and are collectively the world’s biggest aid donor, committed to disbursing $80 billion a year by 2010. The fact that the EU holds four or five seats on the Security Council at any given time should be another source of leverage.”

At the meeting in the General Assembly 25^th of November where the draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religion was passed, France speaking on behalf of EU said it “was necessary to make distinctions between incitement to religious hatred and the right to discuss or criticize religion, adding that only the former should be forbidden. He noted that the recent report of the Special Rapporteur on racism and related intolerance had recommended dealing with the concept of defamation of religion through the establishment of legal norms to combat the incitement to religious hatred. There was no need for additional norms on the question. In situations where fundamental rights were in conflict, only courts could establish the limits. That question could not be tackled in the political field, but in the legal field. He also could not accept the idea of defamation of religion being integrated into the human rights framework. International human rights law should be aimed at protecting people in exercising their freedom of religion, not in protecting religions, as such. He believed the resolution could be used to justify arbitrary decisions against religious minorities, for instance, by not allowing them to exercise their right to religion or belief. He could not support the resolution and would vote against it.”

The representative of the United States “called on all Member States to reaffirm their belief in the freedom of expression and to call into account those that misused General Assembly resolutions to harass individuals who were seeking to express their opinions and beliefs. He also objected to the text’s way of conflating racism and racial discrimination. The language appeared to suggest that, like race, one’s religion was a characteristic that one could not change, which was in direct conflict to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, which said that individuals had a right to change and choose their religion, and to manifest their beliefs through its teaching, practice and observance, or to choose not to practice a religion at all. It was unhelpful and incorrect to suggest that race and religion were the same. He would vote no on the draft.”

The draft was then approved.

James P. Cain misunderstands lessons from American history

2008-11-19T08:21:00.000-08:00

Soon to be former American ambassador to Denmark James P. Cain was recently (2008, 12th Nov.) interviewed by late night debate programme DR2 Deadline. Among other issues the interview revolved around his views on integration and what the American experience could teach Denmark.

Former Danish foreign minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen saw the interview and agrees with Mr. Cain. I don’t.

Speaking of the Mohammed cartoons and the fact that large parts of Danish society insist on being able to criticize an ideology such as political Islam, he said that any serious newspaper in the States would be unlikely to publish the cartoons. The reason for this, he said, was that at some point in American history the Americans decided that it was more important to maintain a “stable, harmonious and diverse society”. (BTW, Chinese leader Hu Jintao uses the term “stable and harmonious society” in the same way as Cain does here: as an excuse to clamp down on criticism)

James P. Cain says that America has to some extent “compromised the faith in freedom of speech and a free press in favour of respect, order and security in society. If that means not going out you way not to insult someone or incite someone for no reason then most media and most Americans would not (have printed the cartoons).“

First of all, whether the cartoons were “for no reason” at all or not is a different discussion and I happen to think that there was plenty of good reasons to publish them.

Secondly, although he acknowledges that the experience he is talking about is derived from problems with race and the current are not, he still thinks we can and should transfer the conclusions from dealing with race to the present ideological conflict.

American media and society were right to stop criticizing people for their race. Race is not important to other people besides the individual and has no real effect on the society at large. Taking race as an issue out of the debate basically removes the problem and allows blacks to integrate into society as they are.

The problems lately (esp. exposed by the Mohammed cartoons) are not about race but about politics, culture, and religion. In other word, aspects that do have a wider impact on society at large.

I don’t think American media are holding back from criticizing people over their political opinions and that is the way it should be. But religion is off limits? When religion acts as and feeds politics there is every reason to point it out and criticize that as well.

In the interview Cain draws on the American experience of the racial riots and says that back then it was young men who did not feel part of society and then proceeded to attack it in order to gain freedom to exercise their political rights. The same thing is happening today where young people who feel disenfranchised and alienated become terrorists, he says.

His conclusion is therefore to apply the same tool: Stop singling out the troublemakers and allow them a place in society.

I think that in a time where Muslims and no one else are killing other people in order to gain political rights, it would be foolish not to point out that fact.

Secondly: the political rights that the blacks fought for were ones such as freedom from slavery and the right to sit down in a bus even if a white man steps in. Hardly anything to disagree about.

Muslims are fighting for the right to marry off their daughters without her consent or the right to stone homosexuals? Are we just going to let that slide?

Muslims and the sort are welcome to become a part of Danish society. How you do that is by contributing to it. Fighting for a place for Pakistani tribal norms in Denmark or setting fire to cars because not every one here thinks Mohammed was the greatest man ever is not contributing to society.

Some may think that they have a right not to be offended - but they are wrong. Some may think that ideas have rights and it is their place to fight for them. Well, ideas do not have rights and if they choose to fight for whatever idea they like here in Denmark then they are going to be told an honest opinion.

For foreigners to feel like a part of this society they first have to understand it and then want to feel part of it. Parallel societies with opposite norms are simply way of keeping conflict out of sight – not resolving it.

James P. Cain and Uffe Ellemann-Jensen have failed in convincing me that certain ideologies, groups, forces, organisations, or religions should be exempt from criticism.

Especially the fact that Uffe Ellemann-Jensen holds this opinion continues to surprise me. All through his career he had a clear, informed and tough opinion on what to do with the Soviet Union and now the Russian regime. No one thinks that being tough on Communism caused groups like Rote Armée Fraktion or the Red Brigades to take up arms. That would be just stupid.

OIC priorities

2008-03-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

Islam is under attack, we hear and OIC, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, is coming to the rescue. Jihadwatch takes a look at the priorities of OIC: Unfortunately the threats that OIC sees are not the sort of violent extremist "hijackers" of the "religion of peace" who perpetrated 9-11, 7-7, etc. but rather "political cartoonists and bigots".
The real offense in their eyes is apparently that it is hard to take them seriously.

Quotes from the video:

Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general.

AP reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” (…)

In response, the OIC is planning to create a “legal instrument” to combat criticism of Islam. “Islamophobia,” Ihsanoglu declared, “cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.” (…)

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. (…)

This is especially true since Islamic spokesmen brand as offensive to Islam any inquiry into the use of Islamic teachings by the jihadists. (…)

The upshot of this is that even reporting accurately about the teachings of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence, as Mark Steyn did when he ran afoul of Muslim leaders in Canada, will be branded hate speech that is offensive to Muslims.

That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.

Straight talk

2008-03-29T07:15:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen, Pat Condell.

Slow creeping death of universal human rights

2008-03-28T15:29:00.000-07:00

I have written about them before and once again does the improbably named IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) impress me with a poignant and ominous report on the poor state of the UN’s work for human rights in the face of a majority of Islamic member states that work within the system to establish the dominance of their religion.

IHEU's own short explanation can be read here and I definitely recommend going there but Reuters actually does a better job of boiling the issue down to its core in a short and easy-to-read text, which I quote in full below:

Islamic states seek world freedom curbs-humanists

Wed 12 Mar 2008, 18:53 GMT

By Robert Evans

GENEVA, March 12 (Reuters) - Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.

In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous," it said.

The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.'s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.

Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism."

MOUNTING SUCCESS

But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.

The IHEU statement and Ligabo's report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions."

Although several such resolutions have been adopted by the two-year-old Council and its predecessor since 1999, in December the U.N.'s General Assembly easily passed a similar one for the first time over mainly Western and Latin American opposition.

The OIC -- backed by allies in Africa and by Russia and Cuba -- has been pushing for stronger resolutions on "defamation" since a global controversy arose two years ago over cartoons in a Danish newspaper which Muslims say insult their religion.

The "defamation" issue has become especially sensitive this year as the U.N. prepares to celebrate in the autumn the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration, long seen as the bedrock of international human rights law and practice.

The OIC has been actively promoting its own 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which it argues is complementary to the Universal Declaration but which critics like the IHEU say negate it in many areas.

Humanists, who include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics, say the "defamation" drive is part of an effort to extend the Cairo declaration to the international sphere.

The IHEU statement argued the December General Assembly resolution means states "may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define 'disrespect'."

© Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved.

I want to work for this organization.

Ellemann-Jensen and democracy

2008-03-24T05:18:00.000-07:00

Former Foreign Minister and contestant to be Prime Minister of Denmark Uffe Elleman Jensen (Lib.) has been an out-spoken critic of the Mohammed cartoons from the beginning. In a recent post on his blog on major Danish daily Berlingske Tidende's web-site he asks who benefits, Cui Bono, from the publishing of the Mohammed Cartoons and answers himself that since the Taleban are using the cartoons to recruit we should think again before publishing something like that again. Furthermore, because there was no special reason to print the cartoons and the terrorists seem to gain from them, Jyllandsposten was wrong to print them in the first place and the entire Danish press was even more wrong to print them after a plot by radical Islamists to kill Kurt Westergaard, the creator of the bomb-in-turban cartoon, was exposed. So goes his argument.

I used to have the greatest respect for this man but his arguments simply don’t hold water in this case.

First of all, the fact that some idiot may abuse your creation after you put it out in the public is no argument for not putting it out there in the first place. Think of cars, guns, medicine and kitchen utensils. All of which can be used to harm yourself and others and still those reckless producers keep churning out forks when they know that some child is just going to stab himself in the eye first chance he gets. Get the irony?

Second point that “there was no reason to print the cartoons”: well, first of all the press does not need a special reason to print something. That is the whole idea of not having censorship: the press is free to judge what to print without prior acceptance from someone else. Read UN Charter of Human Rights article 19 if you are in doubt. (After printing, the press is of course subject to the courts’ decisions on points such as defamation or disclosure of state secrets but not before). The whole industry of gossip magazines would have a hard time if relevance had anything to do with what was allowed in the press.

The idea that there was no special reason to print the cartoons may also be disputed by trends visible in i.e. the killing of film maker Theo van Gogh, threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rushdie and others. The sheer fact that the cartoons elicited such an enormous response calling for obeisance to the Islamic taboo on images of the prophet also makes it somewhat difficult in my mind to deny that there is and was a movement towards establishing defamation as a trump-all argument. It was exactly this movement that the cartoons wanted to and did in fact bring into the light. No reason to print the cartoons? I beg to differ.

Mr. Ellemann-Jensen has been active in responding to a wealth of comments on his blog and in one such response he writes that (my translation):

“I think that Danish democracy is threatened from the inside if we do not understand that a stubborn insisting on own values – without understanding that other may perceive things differently – is a threat against democracy.”

(The grammar is a little off but that is how he put in himself).

So by giving into anti-democratic forces we are in fact protecting democracy? By insisting on keeping democracy the way we know works well, we are actually trying to abolish democracy?

I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense.

His point is probably that democracy is supposed to let everyone be heard and then move towards consensus. Well, the Muslims have been heard. They have made their point. Democracy has worked thus far but this conversation is a two way deal and they do not get to write the conclusion just like that.

Since their idea that religion is above freedom of speech is directly opposed to the idea of democracy, no compromise can be made without compromising democracy itself. I happen to put democracy before religion and I am therefore unable to accept any form of compromise that gives authority to religious taboos.

Freedom of speech is an absolute cornerstone of democracy and any kind of censorship (religious or otherwise) is a threat to a free society.

Mr. Ellemann-Jensen who was also an ardent critic of the Soviet Union should know better than to give into anti-democratic demands.

More irony

2008-03-08T17:12:00.000-08:00

I know that not a soul is going to actually read this but I just need to get it off my heart.

The second round of the Mohammad cartoon crisis is sort of rolling and I just happened to watch a round of the Doha Debates on BBC World (March 8th) where the otherwise intelligently sounding ex-islamist Ed Husain had this argument concerning the cartoons:

Jyllandsposten turned down cartoons of Jesus. Therefore the Mohammed cartoons were inflammatory.

What does that have to do with anything?

If I can find a cartoon of Jesus published by Jyllandsposten, does that mean they were not inflammatory? If I can find two cartoons is it then alright to publish two cartoons of Mohammad? What is the connection?

Whether they published 20 cartoons of 20 prophets or none at all is beside the point: Islamic taboos have no jurisdiction in Denmark. No person, living or dead, religious idol or atheist scientist, is safe from criticism. The job of the press is to point out problems in the real world (which old religious texts do not get to identify) and that is what they did with the cartoons: there is a real problem with Islamic extremism in this world.

The irony of this is that the otherwise intelligent Ed Husain had come to the Doha Debates to argue that the Islamic world is not doing enough to combat Islamic extremism. I totally agree with him and so did 74 percent of the audience in Qatar.

Well the cartoons were simply pointing out that fact.

Stop the terrorists and there will be no need to draw Mohammed with any explosive devices what so ever.

Comments

2007-11-24T02:46:00.000-08:00

I can tell people are still checking out this page and if some one should happen to have a comment or two, I will automatically be notified by mail so please don't hold back.
It is always interesting to see reactions to what I have written.

Signing out.

2007-04-02T12:41:00.000-07:00

This blog is no longer active.

I simply don’t have the time to keep it up to a decent standard. Quite frankly I ought to erase the last posting for being too shoddy.

For those interested, here are my biggest achievements with this blog:

Mentioned in The Guardian Unlimited
Initial Google-rating of four.
At least three visits by American intelligence services.

Best piece imho: China and the environment

A quick run-through

2006-11-18T15:13:00.000-08:00

I haven’t written anything here for a very long time now. My situation has changed and I no longer have the time or energy to look through all those news sources.

I used to read a dozen blogs and newspapers every day. Partly because of this blog I then happened to get a job where I sit all day (or night) and write news summaries. Unfortunately it’s only local or national news. That means I spend seven hours of sifting through stories that are of no particular interest to me and when I get back home I’m just too tired to go through all the Asian stuff.

A shame really.

Also, 90% of the people who do happen to hit this site are looking for one of two things: 1) “Essay contest Japan” or “Kurara Chibana gallery”. Everyone is welcome. It's just that the overwhelming majority of these kinds of hits just aren’t particularly encouraging me to write more about aspects of society as I see them.

If I want my political commentary to be read then this medium is obviously not the right place. Or maybe I just don’t know how to use a blog correctly?

If I may catch up on my previous story on what the Chinese would do after UN resolution 1718 condemning North Korea’s nuclear test, I’ll do it quickly here: (old news, sorry) First China balked at doing anything at all but then agreed to pretend to try and check the northern border. The point is that no one can check if they are actually checking and the Chinese themselves made sure to point out that it was actually impossible to go through everything up there. Excuses, excuses. They specifically refused to take part in any naval regime. Beijing probably didn’t want to get into a situation where they would have to turn down a request by someone to stop and search a North Korean ship.

Japan has implemented the resolution and more. So far as I know no North Korean ship is allowed in a Japanese port at the moment. They have had some discussion over the legality of stopping and searching vessels in Japanese waters but I think they will manage somehow. (I’m not in a mood to go and check up on all this.)

When I’m too tired to read more than absolutely necessary I tend to choose news sources with a profile that fits my own observations. Today I happened to spend some time away from home and started reading a different newspaper than usual. It featured an essay by the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, that I just have to react to. The piece has previously featured in International Herald Tribune. Go read it.

The title, "Open Wide Europe’s Doors". The reason? “A critical part of the soft power of Europe lies in the continued process of enlargement”, he says.

The idea seems to be that expansion of EU is expanding peace and democracy. He then holds up the ten countries that recently joined EU as an example of why we should open the doors to Turkey. In fact those countries are right now slipping back into the political disorder they came from. Now that they don’t have to exert themselves any more to get into EU, the shine has gone considerably off the political and economical polish. What we did for European ideals by accepting the ten countries was more akin to bribing them while they pretended to care about ideals.

Accepting Rumania and Bulgaria is also a huge mistake. The two countries are more or less run by organised crime. And the only reason anyone can come up with, is that “we already promised them that they could join!” Blah. What a bunch of fucking nitwits we have as our negotiators.

Even more of a mistake would be to accept Turkey. For one thing, only a third of Turks actually want to become members. Secondly, their insistence that they actually belong in the European family is just ridiculous. Islam is one thing but the sheer hysteria and irrationality that is integral to Turkish public debate and politics is too much to handle for an EU that struggles hard to find common ground on anything as it is. Putin was polite enough to only make a fool of EU over the lack of unity in private at the latest summit in Finland.

Third, the security problem of extending EU’s borders to Iran and Syria is just overwhelming. They can't control the borders as it is. If EU takes away its border controls as well then the drug road from Afghanistan to Europa will be wide open. Not to mention what else follows in the likes of human traficking and terrorism (do I really need to mention that?).

Having Turkey sign on to some protocol won’t make EU any greater a player on the world stage either. No one listens to Turkey. The arabs don't trust them. Persians don't trust them. EU already can’t figure out where to put its feet. Why would making an even bigger mess of EU’s institutions give us more punch?

“Drawing big lines on big maps of the east of Europe risks becoming a dangerous process. We should know that such a process will have profound effects in those areas or nations that fear ending up on the other side of those lines.”

So we should accept them out of fear of their destructive potential?

If trouble outside our borders is dangerous what is the great idea of inviting it inside?

The historical neutrality of Sweden is not a courageous voice for philosophical pacifism but more of a cowardly refusal to speak out on what is what. Saying something clearly always carries the risk of someone disagreeing with you. If everyone joins EU that means we’ll all agree and be friends, right? Wrong. We need to draw some lines to explain to ourselves and others that we have some standards and values that not everyone can live up to. They are welcome to try but we are not going to finance it.

”I do believe that even more of Europe, in an even larger area, is perhaps the only way of meeting the new challenges now mounting.

But for that to happen, Europe must again believe in itself and in its mission.”

For that to happen we have to first of all agree on what we believe in. Islam does not fit into that category. Secondly we need to accept that the reason why other countries disagree with us is not that they are unenlightened or poor. They won’t change their minds if we just sit down and have a chat. Not even if we subsidise their farming.

That is why EU enlargement is not a critical part of any kind of lasting power. It only lasts as long as it takes to cash the agricultural subsidies check.

The strength of EU lies in our considerable economic wealth and a stability that affords us to go out in the trouble spots of the world and lend a hand.

If we invite trouble inside EU we put our own stability on the line and everybody ends up losing.

Ban-ki Moon will run UN into the ground

2006-10-09T08:02:00.000-07:00

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban-ki Moon is set to be become next General Secretary of UN.

He has previously worked as a foreign policy advisor to Korean premier minister, Roh Moo-hyun.

Roh has had one of the most pathetic, toothless and apologetic foreign policies imaginable and UN with mr. Moon as general secretary is therefore in danger of loosing even the last glimmer of importance attached to it.

Nuclear North Korea. Positioning by China, Japan, Korea

2006-10-09T06:08:00.000-07:00

In connection with

North Korea

’s testing of a nuclear bomb, three things I want to notice:

1) China’s reaction when the UN Security Council meets. Until now China’s attitude towards any proactive steps on UN’s behalf has been one of stalling or preventing. China has actively opposed any and all sanctions or even harsh language against countries like Iran or Sudan.

Now that China’s own ass and interests are on the line. Will they change their attitude? Will they agree to sanctions?

My guess is that they will agree to token sanctions. China still has to weigh the alternatives of a nuclear Korean peninsula and an actual collapse of the North Korean regime with the flood of refugees and economic chaos that will inevitably ensue. China can not, in fact, push too hard on North Korea.

A nuclear armed North Korea is, however, a blow to China’s prestige, security and credibility.

2) Japan. Will they or wont they work towards developing their own nuclear arsenal?

The smart money is on No. For one thing, Korea and China have talked the “threat” of “militaristic Japan” up to levels that are completely out of touch with reality by. Japan is very far from being either militaristic or a threat to anyone. This crisis poses an opportunity for Japan to show that fact to their neighbours. Just don’t count on them picking up on it.

With Koizumi now replaced by Shinzo Abe, maybe China and Korea will want to make reconciliatory or encouraging remarks to Japan over their policies. Who knows? Maybe the trees really do grow into heaven.

Spokesman of the Japanese Foreign Minister Tomohiko Taniguchi was on CNN an hour ago and clearly rejected the idea that Japan was looking to build a nuclear deterrent. The American nuclear umbrella did that job very well, he said. He also noted that if Japan should decide to change its mind, it would only take a matter of weeks to assemble a weapon.

I wonder if that remark isn’t going to keep popping up in the coming days. Just to let North Korea know that they have the resources.

3) South Korea has been as vague as usual.

“President Roh Moo-hyun said Monday that it will be difficult for South Korea to stick with its engagement policy towards North Korea”.

“We won't give up pursuing peaceful and dialogue-based settlements. Unlike in the past, however, we may not continue to be patient about whatever North Korea does.”

Link.

So Korea is thinking about halting food aid in return for nothing but threats of annihilation?

Good job! You tell’em Roh. Don’t let that bad man get away with teasing you like that.

Japan’s political opposition

2006-09-03T08:50:00.000-07:00

Koizumi’s tenure is about to end and its time to evaluate.

Japan Times’ interview with political commentator Minoru Morita attempts to cast a critical light on the period.

Japan’s economy is finally looking up; Japanese banks’ unprofitable loans have shrunk. If that is all to Koizumi’s honour I don’t know but he did manage to secure the return five abductees from North Korea.

On the other hand the state of foreign affairs is at a low. Relations with neighbouring states are bad to say the least. Japan’s bid at securing a permanent seat in the UN Security Council looks pretty improbable.

Along comes Mr. Morita to try and set things straight. With opposition like that no wonder LDP has managed to reign almost uninterrupted for the past 50 years.

His analysis of the state of the nation goes more or less to the tune of everything was better in the olden days - before the US came and ruined everything.

“(…)following World War II, under U.S. occupation, education based on bushi values was prohibited. Confucian education was also banned. Japanese leadership lost all theory of leadership.

Then, the introduction of market fundamentalism encouraged the crumbling of moral structure within Japan's elite."

So, more Confucianism in leadership would make everything alright then, would it? Moral strength is what makes a country successful? I see... Where did I hear that the last time… I’m thinking pre-war rhetoric here.

His diagnosis of Japan’s problem with falling birth-rates goes like this:

“Many LDP members believe that the declining birthrate is due to a reduction of barriers to women's participation in society or the quickened pace of gender equality -- that women are expanding their legal rights and thus holding back from motherhood.

This is a complete misunderstanding. The cause of the slowing birthrate is that people's livelihoods are more impoverished. Japanese citizens have suddenly become poorer. That, and the fact that Japanese youth are exceedingly unhappy in comparison with their parents' generation. Such people refuse to bear children because they believe their offspring will experience yet greater hardship and unhappiness. This is a more serious issue than just changing the law, or the Constitution, and hoping that people will give birth.”

Although I agree that the economic downturn and the pessimism caused by it has something to do with falling birth rates, I am convinced that Japanese women’s growing participation in the work market also has a part in it. I think Morita automatically wants to disagree with as many LDP members as possible and here he overlooks the fact that they are actually right.

The Japanese youth of today is more unhappy in comparison with their parent’s generation because women want to participate in the workplace but can’t. That is partly because there are less jobs and partly because of the cultural expectations towards both men and women.

Today Japanese women are no longer dependent on finding a husband for survival. Japanese men are, however, still expected to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Once a woman gives birth she is either laid off or expected to quit her job. Finding a fulltime job as a mother is next to impossible. Leaving your active life behind for the solitary life as a house wife is the direct road to the unhappiness Morita speaks about. Keeping women in the kitchen is not going to solve the problem.

He continues:

“Vast numbers of Japanese youth can't find stable work. Koizumi has given managers, the trustees of capital, complete freedom on the basis that it is what America has done, and that Japan must create an American-type society. I've been to the United States on several occasions, and I believe that such a perception of the U.S. is mistaken. The U.S. has a somewhat better situation: Labor unions there are more powerful; there is a sense of humanism.”

This is exactly the point of the “many LDP members” he so disagrees with. Stronger unions would cut down the working hours and thus give Japanese families more space and time to cure the “unhappiness” he defines as the main cause of falling birth rates.

“But Japan has fallen under the impression that American shareholder-led capitalism disregards the importance of the employee, and that to conform to a U.S.-based global standard must involve adopting such a system.”

Japan is perfectly capable of disregarding the employee (as a person with a life outside the workplace) without any inspiration from the US. That is after all what created Japan’s economical success up through the 60’s and 70’s.

In other words the unhappiness does not come from Koizumi misunderstanding American systems but from pushing Confucian style expectations onto women in a society that has moved on a long time ago. I even think that the humanism, which stronger unions would bring with them, goes against his Confucian ideal of management above.

I think Morita’s outlook is too narrow. The world is bigger that Japan and the US. I would like to invite Mr. Morita to Scandinavia for him to see what real powerful labour unions look like. And how “unhappiness” can be avoided even without Confucianism.

Global Islam

2006-09-03T03:51:00.000-07:00

The terrorists who planted the two bombs on trains in Germany last month have spoken out on what spurred them into action : the drawings of the prophet Mohammed in Jyllandsposten and the death of Zarqawi, evil mastermind extraordinaire.

Two incidents with which Germany has no connections what so ever. Are these two terrorists just particularly stupid? Even among terrorists in general? Well, they did manage to botch the timing mechanism on their bombs so I think it’s safe to say that they are probably not rocket scientists.

The logic, in their minds, is of course that their actions were just one more strike in the decadent heart of the West. Had they happened to live in France or Italy then they would have blown something up in those countries.

Another example of the Islamist logic of not differentiating and going straight for radical mass killing solution is this video of protesters outside the Danish Embassy in London after the Mohammed drawings:

No messages of “Please behave nicely” or “we are sad”, no! They go straight for the throat. “We want Danish blood”, “Burn, burn Denmark! Burn, burn Germany! Burn, burn France! Burn, burn Spain!”, “slay those who insult Islam!”, “Europe, your 9/11 is on its way”, “take lesson of Theo van Gogh”, UK, you will pay”, etc. The only message here is violence.

The German intelligence service estimates that about one percent of Muslims in Germany are radical enough to support Islamist groups like al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. I think the MI5 operates with a similar number.

What is it about violent radicalism and stupidity that so festers among Muslims?

Maybe one percent doesn’t sound like enough to criticise Islam as such but the sheer number of suicidal maniacs on the loose is certainly enough to make you worried. What is it that links all the suicidal maniacs together? They are all Muslims.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project reveals that 36% of German Muslims think that there is a conflict between living in a modern society and being a devout Muslim. 15 percent of British Muslims think that violence against civilian targets to defend Islam can be justified sometimes or often. 56 percent of the same don’t believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.