i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.

you can read more about the basics of spiral dynamics here and here - and i strongly encourage you to do so, but perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate its unique way of enabling insight into human nature is by a review of the various behaviours that have been exhibited during the riots. in the table below you will see a number of different types of responses and the messages associated with them, which you will have seen reflected by the proponents of these value systems in the various media channels. the vast majority of these types of response can present in either healthy or unhealthy forms – thus “C-P” (“red”) behaviours and messages were used both destructively (wanton destruction) and constructively (arresting looters) – in both cases, the behaviour was the demonstration of dominance and power, with corresponding public messages (a cartmanesque “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAH!”) sent to the media.

you’ll see that whilst most of the operational trouble has functioned at C-P/red systems level, most of the discussion and analysis has been conducted by politicians and the media at blue (mostly “societal breakdown”, good-and-evil) orange (intellectual, opportunistic and tactical) and green (communitarian, progressive and inclusive) levels – and if the reactions are to be systematic, they will have to be a combination of green, blue and orange solutions appropriate to the situation, just as identifying looters using website photos (orange), communally organised clean-up squads (green) and attempts to strengthen traditional family structures (blue) have already been used. i note that ed miliband (who i usually have little time for) has supposedly come out against knee-jerk reactions and i think he’s correct in this at least; david cameron will not get very far if all his responses are couched in “blue” terms to appeal to the “respect for society must be restored” brigade and executed in “orange” technocratic action plans by community workers who are uncomfortable with anything which doesn’t take account of “green” inclusion. if he is serious about the “big society”, he will need to understand that the big society needs *all* these things, it is not a blue, orange or green concept, just as it needs “red” defences and alternative “purple” clan and kin affiliations than those of gang, patois and skin colour – and that includes the purple affiliations of the non-rioters, too! the “big society” could be second-order policy thinking and leadership, but that needs a shift in both our understanding of the situation and the strategies we use to manage it.

in all these cases i would say: if you want to find a constructive, insightful way of discussing the value systems that led to the events of the last couple of weeks, you would do worse than to look at how spiral dynamics sheds light on the tensions, relationships, structures and messages involved.

all comment and discussion welcome.

“Nationalism”. I believe the word instantly causes thoughts to materialise in one’s mind – of extremists, such as skinheads, thugs, nazis, people with “dark agendas” and violent or deceiving methods to fulfil said dark agendas. This is not me – but I still consider myself a nationalist. If you’re interested in more detail, I consider myself a “territorial nationalist”. That is to say, I don’t see colour / race and such as important, or a necessity to be “a part of the club”. I personally see it this way: everyone is a part of the club and should pull together and make this club a better place. I think most people are truly nationalists, even though they wouldn’t use that exact word to define themselves: “Hi, I’m ABC, I’m a nationalist.” But the dictionary definition tells us it is a person who loves his or her country, with synonyms such as “good citizen”. I am sure that we would all like to consider ourselves good citizens, people who care for the wellbeing of the nation and our neighbours. Sure! So, when a party brings a slogan to you like: “Putting British people first!” “People like you!” “Bring our troops home!”, they feel like reassuring statements, noble statements. Can they inspire to a degree and draw you in? Well, I thought so. I wanted to see how they were doing this and see these “people like me”. Obviously, there was a multitude of people saying this party was full of bad people, people not at all like me. As I saw myself as a nationalist, I thought they must be wrong and that I would be much, much more satisfied finding out what’s what for myself. This is how I am – always having to see for myself rather than taking someone’s word for it. Just because many people say so, that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment from the beginning that there were bad apples within the group; you’re always going to get a few, (see if you spot the irony and please place answers on a postcard) and I feel it is unreasonable and lacking in logic to define an entire group by the actions of a small percentage. I spent months before the general elections and a few months after that becoming affiliated and trusted within the “online ranks” of the party. It got to a stage where in a relatively short time I had become respected and given Moderation / Administration authority within the groups. If I’m honest, this fuelled my ego. I started to try and educate and moderate the bad apples and promote the good parts of the party, always, always having to defend its past mistakes and errors. But I began to tire of defending the past, which I wasn’t a part of. Each time, I was assured by all the others that things such as that wouldn’t happen again – we were building a righteous nationalist party the land could be proud of, they just needed to realise we had changed! United, we had the power to change anything!

As time passed – especially after the elections – I saw more of the entrails of the beast; saw what it was and how it worked. The deeper inside, the uglier it got. Many people, making a racist remark here or slandering another who opposed them… I still held onto the idea that ‘Well, perhaps this is still just the bad apples; I need to reach the higher echelons.’ I was frustrated, because when I wasn’t there, keeping everyone in check, people would just come on and instantly start spouting hatred. There was no reason behind many people’s rants; they were blinded. “Nationalism seems to just draw this kind of people”, I thought. I finally got a meet with the area representatives; now I was buzzing, it was all going to be different, more positive, more progress, get to meet leaders – it’s going to be awesome. I had planned out so many ideas and suggestions and wanted to put them forward.

But at the meeting, all the ideas and topics I had to offer were shot down or ignored. They were much more interested in and – dead set focused on – ranting about “those damn blacks” and how “they didn’t belong here” and they were “invading inferior beings”. No matter what topic I tried to raise – always the same. It really came down to a personal hatred of black people. Now it was confirmed to me, finally. I had gone on to meet three influential people within the party, whose jobs and duties it was to encourage and promote to the members… All had blinding grudges and unreasonable hatred of other races; they had no interest in speaking to me about education, economy, health, welfare. So what are they teaching the rest of the group? Not many of those I encountered would second-guess them, or follow up on their statements -  they just wished to get people pissed off, because pissed-off people can be manipulated very easily. I felt sad, because I gave them the opportunity to prove me wrong and they, in my opinion, had sadly not done so.

These people just breed hatred and anger.  Maybe there’s something valid they’re upset about, something that looks like it needs looking into or stopping, but this sort of hate only breeds hate. The way they offer misinformation makes this a vicious cycle. I was asked to represent them, to encourage people my age and younger to join. That I just had to decline; I couldn’t encourage anyone to join a group which is so blinded.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

According to the Daily Mail (ho, ho ho), only one in five of you believe David Kelly committed suicide.

According to an exclusive Mail opinion poll, only one in five people accepts the Hutton Inquiry’s finding that the government weapons inspector took his own life.

The survey also reveals that eight out of ten people want a full inquest. With senior MPs making the same demand, the Coalition is under strong pressure to act.

It comes as a medical report says it was ‘impossible’ that Dr Kelly bled to death in the way described by the inquiry.

The “impossible circumstances” of Kelly’s death are described by the pathologist who examined Kelly in today’s Sunday Times (paywall) as:

“an absolute classic case of self-inflicted injury. You could illustrate a textbook with it. If it were anyone else and you were to suggest there’s something foul about it, you would be referred for additional training.”

Details disclosed from the pathologist report include:

• Claims that there was little blood at the scene were inaccurate. Hunt found “big clots” on the inside of Kelly’s Barbour jacket and soaked into the ground.
• Kelly had about a dozen cuts on his left wrist of varying sizes, including “hesitation” cuts — shallow cuts that he made as he tried to summon the resolve to kill himself.
• Two of Kelly’s main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal. His heart disease was so severe that he could have “dropped dead” at any moment.
• A millimetre by millimetre examination of his body and DNA testing found no evidence of the involvement of a third party.
• Kelly’s death was caused by bleeding from the cuts to his wrist, severe heart disease and an overdose of painkillers.

Andrew Gilligan also discounts the theories of murder:

Though I’d initially doubted the suicide verdict, that was before I knew quite how badly David had been treated. After learning what he went through at the hands of his employers, it is easier to understand the road that led him to that Oxfordshire hillside.David was placed under great pressure by senior government figures. He was intensively interviewed, forced into televised interrogation, coached in what to say, and then found himself caught in an untruth amid the blaze of publicity – an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.

David defined himself by his work, and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing that work, and that reputation, must have been terrifying to him, even if it was unfounded. Nor had I known (why should I?) of his relationship with his wife – who, we discovered, was not even told he had taken up the Baha’i faith until nearly two years afterwards. All this points to suicide – with only one faint alternative possibility. Not murder, just perhaps a kind of misadventure – a “cry for help” that went wrong.

In today’s Independent, Tom Mangold agrees with Andrew Gilligan, although he makes a point Gilligan omits:

Kelly lied because he had been warned by his MoD bosses that if any other skeletons fell out of the cupboard involving him and unauthorised press briefings, his future would be in doubt. But he had already been betrayed: what the arms inspector never knew was that Andrew Gilligan, in a breach of journalistic ethics, had previously emailed Chidgey, suggesting that Kelly had indeed been the author of those words and the source for Watts’s broadcast. Worse still, Kelly did not know when he gave evidence that Watts had, quite properly, recorded the interview with him for the purpose of record only. She had not warned Kelly.

But how did Gilligan know Kelly was the source? Watts didn’t tell him. He says it was a lucky shot in the dark. But there is an alternative theory. Watts revealed Kelly’s name only to her editor, George Entwistle. It is likely that Kelly’s name reached top BBC bosses who needed to prove Kelly had briefed not only Gilligan but several BBC reporters. In turn, Gilligan, I believe, learned Kelly had been Watts’s source. With this, Gilligan had the ammunition he needed to arm David Chidgey at the hearing.

Kelly was hung out to dry by journalists.

The only conspiracy is the Daily Mail’s campaign. As it has bounced and rolled away from the hills of reality into the forest of wingnuttery, it has accreted additional self-defined experts and a large proportion of the UK population.

(P.S. I recently read David Aaronovitch’s entertaining Voodoo Histories, which debunked the Kelly conspiracy. Much recommended.)

UPDATE: Nick Cohen also weighs in on the BBC’s betrayal of Kelly.

Susan Watts, an honourable reporter on Newsnight, told her editor that she had a tape of Kelly making some of the same criticisms Gilligan said he had made to him. She quickly became so worried about what her superiors were planning to do with her confidence she hired lawyers to protect herself and Kelly from“considerable internal pressure to reveal her source”.

The scene in the south of Iran where hundreds of mass graves have been dug

General Hossein Moghadam, the Guard’s former deputy chief, was speaking after film footage showed strings of freshly dug graves in the south of the country.

They were close to the site of war graves for the dead of the long war between Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which devastated the region in the 1980s.

“The mass graves that used to be for burying Saddam’s soldiers have now been prepared again for US soldiers, and this is the reason for digging this big number of graves,” Gen Moghadam told the Associated Press, which obtained the footage.

The warning is unlikely to be more than symbolic. No-one expects a land invasion, should the White House authorise a strike on nuclear facilities, while Iran has so far suggested counter-action is most likely to be aimed at American allies in the Gulf and Western bases there.

Gen Moghadam’s claims might be a sign that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is increasingly reliant on the Revolutionary Guard for political backing, is feeling the heat of international diplomatic pressure over his aggressive posture on Iran’s uranium enrichment programme.

Washington has made full use of the diplomatic victory it won in forcing through a new United Nations sanctions package, with the unexpected support of both Russia and China, in June.

Iranian businessmen both inside and outside the country say the economy is suffering, while President Ahmadinejad’s many enemies from within the ranks of his own conservative faction in the leadership are frequently outspoken on his domestic record across the board.

Last week Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the American joint chiefs of staffs, kept up President Barack Obama’s double-handed approach, saying that he had prepared an attack plan focusing on Iran’s nuclear plants while at the same time accepting he was unwilling to use it.

Both sides are open about the brinkmanship threats of force involve, with the wider Middle East fearing it will be sucked into open conflict. Gen Moghadam went on to say: “If the US decides to take a pre-emptive action and attack Iran, Iran will have no choice but to strike the American bases in the region.

“The heavy costs of such a war will not be just on the Islamic Republic of Iran. America and other countries should accept that this would be the start of an extensive war in the region.”

This is a re-post of an article by Raziq first posted in January 2010

****

Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that Muslims were ruled by a single political leadership which started from the time of the Prophet Muhammad in the 6th century and lasted until the last days of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. According to Islamists, this political leadership looked after the interests of all Muslims worldwide. The central aim of Islamist groups today is to recreate this leadership by uniting the 52 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world into a single state ruled by a single ruler (Caliph). They refer to this totalitarian system as the Khilafah (or the caliphate).

A basic study of Muslim history tells us that various Muslim empires existed in various parts of the world at the same time. In the 10th century, for example, there were three different Muslim empires in the world; the Umayyads in Spain, the Abbasids in Baghdad and the Fatimids in Egypt. Each of these Empires had their own Caliphs and they were independent of each other. Again in the 17th century, three different Muslim empires existed; the Ottomans in Central Asia, the Safavids in Persia and the Mughals in the Indian sub-continent. As well as these empires many parts of the Muslim world were not ruled by any of these empires at all, i.e. South East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of central Asia.

The Mughals considered themselves even more worthy Caliphs than the Ottomans because they were descendants of Tamerlane (Timur). In the 14th century Tamerlane had defeated the Ottoman army and imprisoned their Sultan Bayezid in a cage. He later had him tortured, beaten and starved to death. However Islamists groups have totally ignored the Mughal claim to the caliphate. Furthermore, many of these empires were often at war with one another, the Ottomans and Safavids fought many wars and eventually agreed on a border.

India was conquered by the first Mughal Emperor Babur in 1526 but the Mughal claim to the Caliphate began with the Emperor Akbar in 1556:

The Mughal Emperors, from the reign of Akbar onwards, called their domains ‘Dar ul Khilafat’ (the abode of caliphate). In Akbar’s reign gold coins were minted that bore the inscription ‘the great Sultan, the exalted khilafah’ (The Mughal Emperors, catalogue of Indian Gold Coins in the British Museum, by S. Lane-Poole, p.159).

In official correspondence with the Ottomans, the Mughals made clear their claim to be the true Caliphate:

In the reign of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan … his minister wrote a letter to a Turkish ambassador. In the letter he describes Shah Jahan as ‘his exalted majesty, who occupies the dignity of caliphate, the khaqan of the world, the shahinshah of the Sultans of the whole earth, the shadow of god’ (Dastur ul-Insha, Abdi Sari Effendi, National Bibliothek, Vienna, pg 161).

Most of the Mughal emperors saw themselves as Caliphs of India.  The Mughal Emperor Shah Alam 11 (1759-1806) is also called ‘Khalifah and Shadow of God’ by his biographer. (Shah Alam Nameh, p.16 – Calcutta, 1912)

So the Islamist assertion of there only being one caliphate which united all Muslims across the world under a single ruler is utterly false. It is a misrepresentation of history inspired by the Arab nationalist movements of the 1930s and 40s. The aim of constructing such a myth is to inspire confidence in their insane totalitarian project which attempts to apply medieval political paradigms to a modern globalised world. Let’s hope they don’t intend on replacing SUVs with diesel driven camels.

the thing that struck me initially, from the moment i got to the airport for our easyjet flight, was the other-worldliness of our ultra-orthodox fellow-travellers. now, the thing is, we live in a strictly orthodox community at least in part and know a lot of people with black hats, large beards, modest wigs and a mediaeval approach to family planning and, for the most part, they’re really just like everyone else. these guys on the plane, though – they’re really, really not fun to be around. mrs bb had some words with one who pushed in front of the buggy with mini-banana #2 in it and he looked at her like she was from outer space. she was clearly a respectable married woman, modestly dressed (at least by most people’s standards, even if she wasn’t covering her hair) and travelling with a skullcap-wearing husband. casual interaction with these people doesn’t appear to reveal that they have learned any of the laws of deportment, behaviour or politeness – and, yes, there are plenty of these in the halakhah. next thing, we sat down next to another who was quietly studying talmud, and rocking his daughter in her buggy. he’d seen the whole thing and said quietly to us “people just don’t know how to behave these days”. it was nice to be reassured that appearances aren’t everything.

this initial impression i got of the total fracture of israeli society along religious lines was only reinforced throughout my stay. bernard lewis famously described it as split down the middle between the “jews of christendom” and the “jews of islam”, which, largely speaking, remains true: the “christian” jews – i.e. mostly ashkenazi, from europe, north and south america and the british commonwealth, split into multiple ideologically-driven subgroups covering the spectrum from militant secularism to religious fanaticism, each with its own microclimate. the “islamic” jews, from the middle east, africa and south/central asia, whose relationships are more tribal, more ethnically based, and a traditional approach to religion that embraces all levels of observance – their relationships with each other and the islamic world based more on empirical and family experience than ideological principle. both “christian” and “islamic” jews can be pragmatic or stubbornly bloody-minded, depending on circumstance.

however, the real change i see in the society is from the russians – jews (mostly) of neither european christendom nor the islamic world, but fundamentally different to both; for the most part as hostile to religion as only people brought up under communism can be, with the attitude to ethnicity and human rights that brought us the siege of grozny and the ascendancy of vladimir putin; they understand the law of the jungle, but for all this, their very lack of religious scruples brings its own pragmatism. not to mention, of course, israel’s significant population of arabs, druze and circassians. this, then, is the israel that has developed since the end of the cold war. the fundamental four-way split is only exacerbated by the political culture, with proportional representation enabling parties to be created around ethnic blocs, religious minorities and political tendencies, the current coalition being comprised of parties which are defensive hawks, ethnic conservatives and free market economists, which is why it looks so right wing to your average guardian reader.

what really struck me, however, is the extent to which religion divides the society. we were initially staying in a hotel in the beach resort of netanya and it astonished me just how hard it was to find a kosher restaurant – and the preponderance of cyrillic menus. we also spent a goodly time staying with mrs bb’s utterly delightful cousins in haifa who are what i’d call “soft” secularists; in other words, they have no problem with religious people as long as nobody gets in their face about it. however, they don’t know the first thing about jewish practice, not even the most basic blessings; even our three-day-a-yearers know more. aside from them living in israel and speaking hebrew, you’d be hard put to tell them apart from, say, your average brazilian. my own cousins are somewhat more traditional, but not much; then again, their parents made aliyah as adults with a jewish education and some of their partners are from traditional or religious families. however, this is the exception rather than the rule. both are relaxed about the religious practice of others, but what really gets their goat is the behaviour of religious people who refuse to participate economically, who they see as cynically exploiting society and the political system.

israelis (particularly in corporate jobs) also work a six-ish-day week, from sunday to friday lunchtime in most cases. if you’re sabbath-observant, this doesn’t leave a great deal of time to do anything else. effectively, this means a significant barrier to socialisation or interaction with the non-sabbath-observant. if i lived in israel, my own practice would effectively remove my social life with anyone who wasn’t within walking distance, or sabbath-observant. in fact, there would be significant pressure to abandon my observance entirely or become more obsessive about it, because there’s no time to actually do anything like take the kids out for the day. it seems to me that this drives a wedge between the religious and secular, leaving little room for the moderately religious and driving polarisation of behaviour. it is easy to see why any religious control over public life causes huge inconvenience to the secular, as well as why secular behaviour clashes so hugely with religious observance (for example, israelis never, ever turn off their phones!)

compared to the gaping rifts in the jewish population, there is comparatively little dislike of arabs. the general abrasiveness of israeli behaviour is observable in the aggressive use of mosque loudspeakers, but certainly in the north (from about haifa up to the lebanese border) there is a sizeable arab population which appears moderately well-integrated into the workforce, if not socially. i didn’t get any attitude from any of the arabs i interacted with, certainly and, if anything, they were friendlier and politer than the jewish israelis (well, that’s family). my cousins don’t have many arab friends, though they appear comfortable working with and employing them. my recently-widowed, english-born uncle is of a different generation, but even he made reference to the integration of arabs in the workforce – they’re not all blue-collar by any means. he volunteers at a major city hospital where the director is an arab, dr masad barhoum - “and”, said my uncle, “good for him”. the sad thing is that the policy of separation from the palestinians has simply resulted in the importation of foreign labour – it’s not unusual to see asian “guest workers” where once you’d have seen palestinians. i think we’re all pretty aware of the effect on the palestinian economy, but the israeli economy simply sources its labour elsewhere. this is the result of the bombings and terror; fifteen years ago, it simply wasn’t the case. this is why economic co-operation must at some point resume, at which point the wall will have to come down.

the matzav – the “situation” – is clearly a cause of huge frustration. i was struck by the disappointment in the political class and in the country’s leadership (our relatives are generally kadima supporters, with some likudniks, albeit i’d say they were pretty left for likud) together with the repeated recognition that “we are authors of our own misfortune”. if i had to sum it up in one sentence, what i heard from my family could be stated as: we should be doing our bit to fix the situation with the palestinians, but we just haven’t done so; it just seems to be too hard to do and there are too many forces, internal and external, that are pulling in the other direction. there is a sort of quiet despair that i haven’t seen before, together with a dogged determination to give the iranians and their hizbollah stooges a dam’ good kicking if they go any further. not many of the people i talked to were looking for a fight, but more than one person stated flatly that an attack on iran was on the cards; they are now purpose-building “sealed rooms” in their flats and houses as a matter of course against WMD-enabled rocket attacks. but in the meantime, life goes on, although there isn’t much hope of a resolution, people simply try and get on with life as best they can. i talked to a number of people about the ray hanania peace plan that i have previously promoted. it produced reactions varying from surprise (for all that it was reported in the israeli press) to disbelief to sceptical welcome. it was just hard for people to believe that such a thing was feasible although, in principle, they understood and supported the compromises that would be necessary. this, if nothing else, i found encouraging and cause for hope.

of course, none of this is the “front line”, politically speaking. i didn’t visit the separation wall, or the green line, or jerusalem. these places are where the people with an axe to grind (like extremists, journalists and activists) tend to cluster and they’re extensively reported. naturally, few of these people – and it is largely they who influence the political arena – it is rare, however, that anyone ever reports on how people think and act in israeli civil society itself, because it’s not nearly as “interesting” (read “nutty”).

in my view, there are a couple of things that are absolutely essential for israeli society to get out of the stalemate it’s currently in:

1. political reform – this eternal coalition-building simply gives extreme views and splinter groups disproportionate leverage.
2. a comprehensive commitment to social cohesion – this means not only that the ultra-orthodox are going to have to work, but that israel itself needs a five-day working week; israel once spent a great deal of effort on social integration, unfortunately it was mostly wasted on trying to build a socialist, secularist utopia. israeli society needs a vision for all its people, not just the excluded middle.
3. more long-term political horizons and engagement with the world; i think this will come from new realities in the diaspora, j-street and the new european jewish lobby organisation ought to help this reorientation.

i don’t know if any of these things are possible – the social, political and international pressures against it are formidable.

we can but hope.

1. transparency at the jewish leadership council

ok, we know who the board of deputies are. we know what it’s for. we know how it’s funded. we know how you get to be on it. we know who it represents. now, we have this new organisation called the “jewish leadership council”. on it, you have various movers and shakers, you’ve got the vc/banking/property tycoons, you’ve got the charity/safety/israel activists, you’ve got synagogue movement machers, you’ve got access, you’ve got international connections, you’ve got lords, baronesses, knights and the chair of ujs – you’ve got two women and no rabbis, for some reason. you’ve got no haredim, for some other reason. you’ve got leaders from the most broad-based and influential organisations in the community – but what are they for? clearly, this is an influential bunch of people, but who chooses them? who decided that there should be a jewish leadership council in the first place? how are they accountable? what is their strategy? what is their relationship with the board? how is it funded? i for one would like to know.

2. promote jewish (especially sephardic) cultural literacy

we are not short, for good or ill, of jewish education organisations, from the controversial chabad to the inestimable limmud and all points beyond. however, for the most part, systematic approaches aimed at enhancing jewish identity are without exception entirely religious-based. more worryingly, they seem to be ignoring the question of cultural literacy. whilst there are instances of successful specific initiatives, like the yiddish summer school run by the jewish music institute, or the various ulpanim run by israel-focused organisations, there is a distinct lack of provision for the sephardic and oriental communities to promote the learning of ladino and judeo-arabic – essentially, globalisation is being driven by majority tastes, hence the largest groups attract the most funding and if one didn’t learn it at one’s mother’s knee, one might struggle to gain familiarity with anything from cookery to piyyutim, history to dress. there are organisations, including musical groups and individual tutors, who are promoting and disseminating the results of their knowledge and expertise in specific areas, normally as a result of academic research, but there is no-one who can teach you about the culture of, say, an “indian iraqi”, everything from how to make sambusak and sehug to singing shbahoth pronounced correctly – in other words, the customs, the language, the music, the food, the history. and the same goes for the different ashkenazi traditions, with the possible exception of chabad, who integrate their cultural traditions such as “farbrengen” as part of their outreach programmes. it is possible that this may be the result of a hundred years of zionist shelilat ha-galut (“negation of diaspora behaviours”) or an enlightenment/modernist hangover against the backward ways of “ghetto culture”, or simply the influence of organisations whose sole concern is increasing religious observance, but surely one can no longer argue that diaspora jewish is simply something to be outgrown. yet we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this one – and forgotten much of what made being jewish interesting. this is something i believe where we can learn something from how other diasporas have preserved their cultures, the various south asian communities being a case in point.

3. take a lead on environmental frumness

something was said about making Shabbat the “greenest day of the week” – now, i am the first to expound on the benefits of one day with no driving, tv or communications, but i worry about the effects on the planet of copious use of tinfoil, urns, hot-plates, leaving lights on and most of all the use of disposable plates, cutlery, glasses and so on for ease of clear-up at synagogue kiddushim or on other communal occasions. i was less than underwhelmed at chiefy’s “green shabbat” damp squib and am regularly appalled at the environmental disaster area that most community functions seem to be. there is an opportunity for the community to change this – it is 100% wrong that correct religious observance should be in breach of Torah prohibitions on wastefulness and the destruction of natural resources. i would be delighted if religious organisations could take a lead in this department – the progressive movements have already made steps in this direction and organisations like limmud have made concrete moves to make policy into reality on its conferences. there are organisations such as hazon that are focused specifically on doing this in a jewish way – it is about time that the religious establishment, particularly within the traditional communities, does the same. a set of guidelines would be a start.

4. break the stranglehold of fiftysomething personal fiefdoms

i lose count at the number of community organisations in this country whose leadership and patronage is controlled by middle-aged people who run them as if they were their own personal kingdoms. sometimes, these people have some claim to expertise, or have built the organisations up, but more often than not, they have simply prevented the organisations from developing by hanging on to all the levers of power, dispensing patronage with the help of compliant boards of part-time trustees, picked for their names, contact books, relations and fat wallets. how many of these organisations have executive scrutiny from anyone under 35, let alone under 30? how many of these boards provide an effective check on the power of the chief executive or director? more worryingly, what happens when an organisation which has no competition begins to stifle innovation in its key area of focus and actively prevent other organisations challenging its dominance, or even block activities in its area which are not under its control? i propose that all community organisations adopt a code of practice which includes a commitment to the future planning of the organisation, specifically to succession planning and provides for some kind of non-executive checks and balances. not being an expert in charity law, i’m not sure what the actual rules are, but enough charity scandals have made it into the papers (and i know of some which haven’t even got that far) to suggest that there is something to address here, perhaps through the board?

5. shul and mosque twinning

although there are a plethora of opportunities for the ceremonial activities associated with interfaith dialogue (i’m thinking here of the likes of the indefatigable and admirable sir sigmund sternberg) and quite a few effective practical collaborations amongst communal professionals and academics (i’m thinking here of the leo baeck college jewish-christian-muslim conferences in germany and the tireless liaison work done by the cst) there are still far too few grass-roots initiatives (here, i’m thinking of the likes of radio salaam-shalom or the alif-aleph student dialogue activities) in the mainstream synagogue movements. i would propose a simple solution – a programme of twinning between synagogues and mosques, perhaps trilaterally including churches if it helps. by the same token, i think jewish-sikh dialogue has long been neglected and, particularly in view of our similarities as religions with a partly ethnic element, it would be extremely helpful to bring gurdwaras into the mix. a programme of working together on uncontroversial and useful community projects such as litter collection or redecorating local facilities would enable the building of links which would contribute strongly to community cohesion.

6. transparency in the tzedakah industry

every day, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds are donated by religious jews to the needy. the giving of “tzedakah” (not exactly the same thing as charity) is a religious obligation that is taken extremely seriously by both observant and non-observant jews. however, this system lacks transparency. every traditional morning service includes a point at which money is ceremonially donated, usually into a collection box. usually this money is given as coins or even notes, but there are a number of schemes, widely used in the strictly orthodox community, whereby tzedakah vouchers are purchased en masse, donated by the purchasers and then redeemed by the recipients. however, these cashflows, which are then collected and redistributed by either communal officials or charitable networks, undeniably place significant amounts of patronage in the hands of synagogues, rabbis and charities. there is little transparency about these donations, how they are used or what strings may or may not be attached.

on the other side of the transaction, a huge industry has built up around getting money donated for tzedakah to “the needy” or “for Torah study” – however, a sizeable (though who knows how much?) amount is directed towards ultra-orthodox institutions both here and in israel. similarly, the communities for whom “Torah is their profession” (in other words, they don’t work for a living, but live off these donations whilst studying full-time) are disproportionately benefited. i’m not saying they live in the lap of luxury, but they certainly have a lot of children, don’t pay a lot of tax (or, in israel, serve in the army) and don’t seem to pay much attention to the talmudic maxim, which is part of the normative halakhah of the shulhan arukh, that “he who does not teach his son a trade, teaches him to be a thief” (BT qiddushin 29a). moreover, if you spend any time in the strictly orthodox community, you will become aware of the number of people who come asking directly for money from the community during prayers, in most cases waving a laminated note under your nose about the operation they need to pay for, the medication they need to take, the institution of Torah learning that they are supporting or even the wedding they need to make for one of their 12 children. all of them seem to be able to afford plane tickets and most of them seem to think if you are collecting in the UK, you have no obligation to ask in english or provide any kind of english explanation of what you’re asking for, which is just plain rude.

now, i don’t deny that some of these are worthy causes, but some of them definitely aren’t. the money isn’t audited at either end. the tax authorities certainly aren’t consulted. money often goes missing, is diverted, is used to gain undue influence or ends up funding things of which i certainly do not approve (like illegal settlements) and we are all aware of the recent scandals in america over money-laundering. there is a secondary industry (well known in stamford hill) whereby you can hire a driver for a couple of days who has a list of addresses where people live who give to good causes live and the amount they are likely to give and he will shuttle you round from door to door in return for a cut. one person of my acquaintance used to keep a wodge of five pound notes by the door for when anyone rang – and, apparently, a lot of them complained about how little he gave! now it is all very praiseworthy that the jewish obligation for charitable giving is so powerful, but it is currently driving a lot of very, very questionable behaviours and practices.

the authorities have long been interested in the hawala system by which muslims raise money for good (and some not so good) causes and a focus on this is part of most anti-money-laundering computer systems. it is only a matter of time before the tzedakah system comes under scrutiny as a racketeering practice. in fact, it probably already is. my advice, particularly to the strictly-orthodox communities is this: clean house. do something about the lack of transparency. get audit trails and control systems in place – or you will live to regret it when this augean stable is eventually cleaned. there is an opportunity for, among other things, a cashless system to be introduced whereby people seeking donations can be issued a portable card reading device. similarly, if we can issue hechshers (stamps of kashrut) for food, there is no reason why we cannot do the same at the UK end for reputable collectors of funds – that way, we who wish to fulfil our obligation to donate can be assured that our funds are going to someone or a cause who really deserves it and not to anywhere else.

7. call the kiruv industry to account and combat the influence of artscroll

regular readers of the spittoon will be aware of my opinions on the kiruv or “outreach” industry and the organisations that are engaged in it. many of these organisations worry me. not because i object to bagels and speed-dating, but because i object to the hidden agendas of these organisations and the power they are increasingly gaining within the communal mainstream. at least one major united synagogue has outsourced its jewish education to a kiruv organisation in the past, which has been a source of some controversy. the ideology that drives these people comes straight from the haredi world. that is not to say that it is necessarily such a bad thing, but it’s simply not healthy that it is allowed to infiltrate and take over the mainstream of jewish education. the stalking-horse of this entryism is the powerful “mesorah publications” publishing house, home of the artscroll series of books. now i don’t know of one jewish house that doesn’t have at least one of their books, including mine, but i for one worry about allowing the hashkafah (“worldview”) of this part of the community to become dominant. both artscroll and the kiruv movements push a monolithic, heavily edited, selective, prudish, intolerant and above all doctrinaire view of judaism which flies in the face both of our history and the jaw-dropping complexity of jewish thought, theology, law and culture. people like simplicity and for things to be set out for them to understand – that’s fine. but what goes with this, both in the publications and the programmes, is an ideology – and it’s not an ideology that we should be comfortable or complacent about. the traditionalist mainstream has been supine in the face of this onslaught, in many cases sympathising with its negation of non-orthodox communities and streams of thought and, in many cases, actively encouraged by the power players in the religious leadership. it is time we fully understood what these organisations stand for, what their political aims are, what links they have to israeli political parties on the [ultra]religious right and what influence they have over the community in this country. they have been able to buy silence so far with what is in many places entirely praiseworthy community work, but it is time we had some transparent scrutiny of these organisations.

all suggestions are welcome!

scary kiruv cartoon

on reading it, i didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. on one hand, it’s a caricature of the position of the kiruv (“outreach”) organisations, but on the other hand, once you start digging into their theology, their internal politics, their fundraising activities and their influence on the jewish community and israeli politics, it’s hard not to find them scary.

i’ve been thinking about this for a good long time, because as an observant jew, albeit one who was became observant as an adult, i am constantly aware of the phenomenon of the ba’al teshuvah, the “penitent”, the returner-to-traditional-judaism. when you’re trying to do this, the kiruv organisations are the first to stand up and say they’ll help. however, i never took them up on their offers, because i could see where it led and i had seen its effect on friends and family when conflict arose. i won’t say that i’ve never met fantastic rabbis from chabad, project seed, aish or the jewish learning exchange – but i was always aware of the kiruv undercurrent and kept my involvement at arm’s length. it would appear, however, that not everyone is in possession of the requisite confidence and critical faculties to counter the half-truths, mendacious reasoning, tendentious interpretation and evangelistic love-bombing; people want their outer message of family values, Torah and a truly integrated lifestyle to be true – and so it is.  and, yes, of course these people are often more amusing than scary:

Lubavitch Sends T-800 Back in Time to Protect Holy Temple (thanks, the Knish)

but that’s not all it is.

what i truly find sinister about these organisations is their monolithic nature. like all fundamentalisms, they take a mythologised golden age (which may or may not have happened) and posit a fall from that state, which can only be regained by a return to the actions, behaviours and values espoused by the organisations which claim to represent the legacy of that golden age. whether this is an idealised picture of the yeshivas of lithuania, the shtetls of poland, or indeed the era of the prophets, patriarchs and classical rabbinic sages. if only we all attained that standard, they claim, it would all be different – the world would be transformed and us with it.

well, the world would be transformed all right, but something vital would be lost – and that is the vitality of religious biodiversity. there has always, *always*, *always* been variation in both belief and practice, there has *never* been a time in which we all did exactly the same thing and observed a uniform code of dress, behaviour, ritual and belief. maimonides’ “13 principles of faith” divided the community for a century. the hasidim and mitnagdim fought like cats and dogs (and continue to do so) – the accommodators of modernism and the NAY-SORRENDUR vanguard, the rationalists and mystics, the scholars and the businessmen – we’re all necessary just as much as we always have been. what i really, deeply object to is this idea – shared either overtly or covertly by all kiruv organisations, is the concept that we must all dress like this:

and spend all our time doing this:

hevruta study in a yeshiva

and everyone else should just be happy to pay for us to do this, because after all – we’re doing the world a favour by sitting and studying Torah all day. now, actually, i don’t entirely disagree that studying Torah a lot is a good thing for the world, but i also note that the sages expected us to Get A Job and Pay Our Taxes as well. rashi had a job. rabbi akiva had a job. maimonides had three jobs. now, suddenly, we’re expected to all wear the black-hat uniform and aspire to a life of Torah study?

i’m sorry, it’s never been like that and, hopefully, it’ll never be like that. but of course, we must remember what the consequences of not being like that are, in the view of the people in the ultra-orthodox world who fund the kiruv organisations. i was not entirely surprised, of course, to find that these cartoons are supposed to have caused the haitian earthquake – that’s right, because G!D Is bound to kill thousands of people in the caribbean just to get the jewish community’s attention.

this sort of thing is a wake-up call. these people are not the future of judaism – they are our wahhabis, generous, well-funded, well-organised and intelligently marketed – and puritanical, intolerant and disingenuous. just as we outsourced islamic education to the saudi international dawah programme a generation ago and are now reaping the dubious benefits, we are in the process of handing these people the future of jewish education. we should take ownership of our own Torah back before it’s too late.

in such an environment, it’s extremely helpful to be able to point to people who can stand up and say in no uncertain terms: this isn’t right. excusing it is even worse. as it says in the Mishnah: where there are no men, at least you should try and act like a man. i am encouraged to see at least some orthodox rabbis swimming against the tide of denial although, of course, not that surprised to see the perennial awkward squad-nik and contrarian (and my own much revered teacher) rabbi jeremy rosen, writing in haaretz:

“I am tired of making excuses. Once I would argue that 2,000 years of oppression, hatred and exclusion had taught the Jews to do whatever they needed to survive. Or, I would note that much of Orthodox Jewry nowadays is barely a generation removed from life in an Eastern Europe where the state was an enemy and everyone had to break the rules in order to evade the discriminatory regimes. In Israel, one could put the blame on David Ben-Gurion, for not having separated religion and state, which in effect encouraged the Orthodox to indulge in all the temptations that accompany political power.
 
But as with attempts to rationalize terrorism, you go through the obvious list of justifications – poverty, alienation, discrimination – and then you find perpetrators who have suffered none of the above. Daily, we Orthodox repeat mantras about justice, charity and kindness in our prayers, and the more we seem to spout them, the less many of us seem to pay any attention to translating the words into actions.”

you can read the rest of the article here, but i think it’s worth pointing at this particular point:

“Wherever you have a self-perpetuating oligarchy, its members come to see themselves as above the law. Just as a regime of men usually discriminates against women. This is why the unfair laws of divorce in Judaism have still not been modified to remove the disgrace of male chauvinists who can blackmail their wives over a get. When a majority of rabbis turn a blind eye, claiming they can do nothing, they are really encouraging the process of coercion, providing easy outs to the men while refusing to budge for the women. Add to that the superstition factor – and a tendency to attribute superhuman powers to certain rabbis, so that many then fear crossing them – and you have additional opportunities for corruption.”

i think there’s probably a lesson there that the catholic church has been learning – hard – recently. with that said, i was astounded to see this article in this week’s jc (now it’s been retrieved from pro-palestinian hackers) written by two of the most forward-thinking of the rabbis of the united synagogue in connection with the jfs admissions fiasco:

“What is required, therefore, is work for a change in the law that will put the determination of Jewish identity back where it belongs — in the hands of the Jewish community. Since there is no prospect of a change in the law without broad consensus across the Jewish community in favour of change, this involves all the denominations working together. This, in turn, requires realism and a willingness to compromise on the part of the Orthodox community.”

yes, you heard right: orthodox rabbis realising they have to be realistic, compromise and work with non-orthodox rabbis and proposing détente.

good G!D. i sincerely hope this is the thin end of the wedge – it is genuinely astounding to see something so overtly challenging to the “NO SORRENDOR!!” paisleyist orthodox establishment stated so clearly, succinctly and without ambiguity.

the two rabbis concerned, naftali brawer and michael harris, have long been known as pragmatic, open-minded, individuals. let’s hope it doesn’t stand in the way of their further advancement.

It is now clear that the failed terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day was directed by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The reasons for the sudden resurgence of this previously almost extinct chapter of the global jihad network lie not in Yemen, though—where AQAP is based—but across the border in Saudi Arabia.

For three years the Saudi Kingdom has been experimenting with a deradicalization program for captured Islamist terrorists in the CARE Rehabilitation Center. Rather than turning the jihadists into productive members of society, however, the center has replenished the terrorists’ troops by releasing some extremists who immediately rejoined al Qaeda. Unwilling to challenge their own brand of radical Islam, Wahhabism, the Saudis don’t seem ideologically best equipped to resocialize Islamist terrorists.

Located on the outskirts of Riyadh, it is not how you would imagine a typical Saudi prison, and indeed no one at the facility refers to it as such. Instead, the preferred term is “resort” and the inmates are called “beneficiaries.” In this laid-back atmosphere where inmates can take swimming lessons, play table-tennis, or enjoy video games, it is easy to forget the seriousness of their crimes.

However this initiative is packaged, though, it is still a prison housing al-Qaeda fighters. Every Saudi detainee released from Guantanamo Bay passes through the Center before being released, alongside scores of domestic radicals.

Since its inauguration in 2007, the Center has attracted such a carousel of foreign visitors that it now has a purpose-built reception and exhibition tract. It has been of particular interest to intelligence officials from the United States, Britain, France and Germany. Some Western officials were so impressed with the facility that it helped accelerate the repatriation of Saudi detainees from Guantanamo Bay on the condition that they first passed through the CARE de-radicalization program on their return.

The triumphalism surrounding the center, however, came to an abrupt end last year when two of its graduates, Said Ali al-Shihri and Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi, appeared in an al-Qaeda video.

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” Said al-Shihri declared. Statements from al Qaeda now identify him as the terror group’s deputy leader in the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi government concedes that a total of 11 graduates from the Care Center have now returned to al Qaeda. That much was inevitable.

After visiting the deradicalization center in 2008, a retired senior official from Saudi intelligence told me that not everyone at the Center was a hardened jihadist. It also houses Arab nationalists whose sentiments boiled over during the allied invasion of Iraq.

Herein lies the problem. It was mainly these nationalist fighters who passed through the Care Center when it first opened. Yes, these men may have gone to Iraq motivated by a loathing of America and the West, but realizing al Qaeda’s worldview was not their primary motivation. Having never truly embraced jihadist aims, they represented an easy and early success for the architects of the Saudi initiative. These sort of nationalists were easily won over by the generous financial assistance offered by the government to repentant jihadists, including money for home refurbishments, new cars, wedding expenses and a monthly stipend of $700.

This sort of bakshish does not work with true believers, though, and identifying them was not difficult when I visited the facility in July 2008. During my trip I met Ahmad al-Shayea, who travelled to Iraq in 2003, then aged 19, and drove a truck-bomb to the Mansour district of Baghdad, which killed nine people and injured 60 outside the Jordanian embassy. The blast catapulted Ahmad al-Shayea from the vehicle, leaving him alive but with horrific burn injuries.

Sitting on the trimmed lawns of the Care Center’s gardens, he was one of the few who quoted from the Quran and explained why he felt obliged to fight what he regarded as the occupation of Muslim soil by infidels. He also seemed among the least repentant of the inmates I met there.

Aside from Saudi nationalists, many of those who initially passed through the Care Center appeared to have been al Qaeda foot soldiers, not leaders. The latter, who are usually hardened ideologues, are particularly resistant to change.

Of course, the Saudis accept they must challenge the jihadist worldview if rehabilitations are to succeed. To do so, they have created the rather Orwellian sounding “Ideological Security Unit.”

“You cannot defeat an ideology by force. You have to fight ideas with ideas,” its director, Abdul-Rahman Hadlaq told me.

The problem is that the Saudi program does not go far enough. It can’t. To do so would mean challenging the dangerous literalism of Wahhabism itself—the austere and regressive form of Islam that is the official state-sanctioned version of Islam in the Saudi Kingdom. Yet, it is that very doctrine that first inspired radical movements such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Instead, the Saudi authorities rely heavily on kindred approaches based on the tribal and patriarchal structure of Saudi society to reform detainees. The main emphasis is on keeping detainees busy. The government finds them jobs, spouses and encourages their families to keep them in line. That much was true for Juma al-Dossari, whose marriage was facilitated by the government after he returned from six years of incarceration in Guantanamo Bay.

“I have a great wife. She tells me to forget Guantanamo. She says: ‘Just forget it.’ She says: ‘You’re a new man. You have a new life. You have your family. Focus on that.’ That makes me feel much better,” he tells me.

Omar Ashour, an expert on deradicalization programs at Exeter University, thinks this approach will ultimately result in more recidivism. “The Egyptians tried something similar in the 1970s and failed,” he says. “The Saudi program is not comprehensive because it doesn’t address the wider issue of religious and ideological reformation. While it doesn’t do that, it can only offer a temporary panacea.”

It appears that as long as the Saudis fail to address the regressive literalism and intolerance of their own state religion—which fuels radical Islam around the world—they will also fail to rehabilitate true jihadis.

It is the worst and most blatant propaganda I’ve seen for years. Exactly the kind of rubbish I’d expect from a station that is little more than a mouthpiece for Ahmadinijad’s murderous regime.

Ofcom has rules on due impartiality and that film is clearly anything but balanced. Arash Hejazi is, for example, given no opportunity to defend the various charges levelled against him. You can make a complaint to Ofcom here (apparently even if you’re not a UK resident).

Not much more I can say really, I’m just so angry at the way we’re allowing a hostile regime to broadcast its propaganda so freely in Britain.

(via Potkin)

Leading contenders include Hussein Ibrahim (head of the MB parliamentary bloc), or one of his fellow hardliners, Mahmoud Ezzat, Gomaa Amin, Abdel Rahman Al Bar or Mohamed Badee’a. Outside runners include the deputy chairman of MB (recently removed from the Guidance Council in the rigged elections of December), Mohamed Habib – although the likelihood of Habib winning the post is remote in the extreme given the hard-liners complete grip on the reins of power inside MB.

Without a hint of irony, one new Guidance Council member, Saad El-Katatney, told Egypt’s Daily News:

We are a powerful group that is getting more powerful, these elections proved that the highest authority is well aware of the group’s welfare, therefore they have elected members for the new Guidance Office to lead in the coming four years… I can see a bright future for the Muslim Brotherhood with this harmonious group.

Not the sort of “bright future” many beyond the Brotherhood would want, one would wager.

One of the contenders, Mohamed Badee’a, has already set out his ideological stall, eager to attract the attention of fellow clerical fascists in the Guidance Bureau as they mull over who should be declared Supreme Guide on January 15th.

In a deranged article in the Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb, Dr. Badee’a seeks to impress his fellow Islamists with the assertion that the late Sayed Qutb was not (as is widely understood) a radical Islamist, wedded to a jihadist model of clerical fascism. Oh deary me, no! In fact (he claims), Qutb was a peaceful reformist. Badee’a asserts Qutb had:

won the respect of many including  Eugene Rogan author of “The Arab”. He continued that numerous theses studied and doctorates discussed were based on Qutb’s writings where he was in fact referred to as a ‘reformist’.

One might kindly suggest that Badee’a actually read Rogan’s highly acclaimed work before he asserts something that was very far from Rogan’s mind as the latter wrote of Qutb’s radical, innovatory reform of Islam’s traditions.

Declaring that Qutb sought to reform Islam is not necessarily a promotion or endorsement of Qutb’s ideas – it is a statement of fact. Islamism seeks to re-form Islam, not to the better – but as a clerical fascist political ideology determined to win power by any means necessary. Turning Islam into a vicious, violent, negative, ideology of narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance is the essence of Qutb’s reforms.

However, such is the nature of the disingenuous, truly Orwellian double-speak of the Brotherhood, so one should not be surprised to discover such a complete distortion of reality slips easily from the lips of one of MB’s leaders.

That a leading contender to MB’s supreme leadership should now seek to openly promote  Qutb, ideological forefather of al-Qaida and every violent jihadi group worldwide, speaks volumes.

in the spirit that got these imbeciles to cancel their most recent demo and, naturally, in tribute to the recent foiling of the detroit pants bomber, i humbly propose the following:

let all who wish to show this truly grotesque man up as the nasty, ridiculous bigot he is – FLY THE UNDERPANTS!

some pants yesterday

yes, we all know that angry andy and the bombastic beards of barminess would be applauding the Glorious Pants Of Terror right now if it had all gone as planned on flight 253, so let’s throw it right back in their faces. take a broomhandle or some other stick-type object and fly a pair of y-fronts off them as a flag. stick them in the window of your house or the window of your car, like people did in the last world cup. if all else fails, leave your trousers at home or wear your pants outside your trousers like a superhero! yes, the humble underpant must now become a SYMBOL OF RESISTANCE!

Montazeri was a leading light in the 1979 Revolution. Initially named as Khomeini’s successor, Montazeri soon turned against the regime, becoming one of its bravest and most consistent critics from within the Shi’a clerical elite. He remained under house arrest for much of the latter part of his life.

Montazeri will remain a controversial figure for everyone committed to secular democracy and the separation of religion and state. However, Montazeri’s personal bravery,  integrity and commitment to human rights are surely without question. His early and consistent opposition to the tyranny of Khomeini’s regime and that of his successors marked the Grand Ayatollah out as an important opponent of the Islamist regime in Iran and, more broadly, the political realities and ambitions of clerical fascism.

His funeral is today, December 21, in Qom.

I call you father because I learned from you how to defend the oppressed without using violence against the oppressor. I learned from you that being silent is helping the oppressor. Father, I learned much from you, although I never got the chance to show my appreciation for being your child and student. Father, forgive us.

Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Laureate for peace

Read the obituary written by Muhammad Sahimi,  here.

His old landlord tells the Telegraph about the time his £3 rent cheque bounced. If you’re that way inclined, you can buy it on ebay here.

I was selected as the Green Party candidate for Oxford East in April 2007. A month later, I was badly beaten around the head by neo-Nazis during an attempted Gay Pride parade in Moscow.

This exacerbated the brain damage caused when I was bashed unconscious by President Mugabe’s bodyguards in Brussels in 2001, after attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of the Zimbabwean leader on charges of torture.

Following the Moscow assault, I never rested and recuperated. I carried on campaigning, with a very heavy schedule of commitments in Oxford East. After several months, I was severely exhausted. This stress and exhaustion probably intensified the damage and thwarted my recovery.

[...]

I don’t regret a thing. Getting a thrashing and brain injuries was not what I had expected or wanted. But I was aware of the risks. Taking risks is sometimes necessary, in order to challenge injustice. My beatings had the positive effect of helping draw international attention to the violent, repressive nature of the Russian and Zimbabwean regimes. I’m glad of that.

My physical inconveniences are nothing by comparison to the far worse beatings inflicted on human rights defenders in countries like Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Sudan and Burma. These heroic activists often end up jailed or dead. I count myself lucky.

[...]

The brain damage caused by Mugabe’s thugs in Brussels in 2001 and by neo-Nazis in Moscow in 2007 has been compounded by head injuries in an accident while I was campaigning in Devon in July. A bus on which I was travelling swerved and braked sharply. I was thrown forward, hitting my head on a metal handrail.

The injuries don’t stop me from campaigning but I am slower, make more mistakes, get tired easily and take longer to do things. My memory, concentration, balance and coordination have been adversley affected. I can’t campaign at the pace I used to.

Who would have thought that in the 21st Century we would still have to campaign against this kind of bigotry? Thank God there are men like Peter still around who campaign for justice and equality.

We wish him all the best with whatever he does next.

Ray Hanania, the Palestinian-American journalist, is proposing to run for president of the Palestinian Authority on a very interesting platform indeed, as detailed here at the Huffington Post:

It’s been picked up in the Israeli press by Bradley Burston of Haaretz – you’ll forgive the large c&p, but I think it’s important in this case:

1. I support two-states, one Israel and one Palestine. As far as I am concerned, I can recognize Israel’s “Jewish” character and Israelis should recognize Palestine’s “non-Jewish” character.

2. I oppose violence of any kind from and by anyone. I reject Hamas’ participation in any Palestinian government without first agreeing to surrender all arms and to accept two-states as a “final” peace agreement. But I also reject allowing Israeli settlers to carry any weapons and believe Israelis must impose the same restrictions on them.

3. I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality of 42 years of time passing – in a dunam-for-dunam land exchange. If Ariel is 500 dunams with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunams in exchange.

4. Jerusalem should be a shared city and Palestinians should have an official presence in East Jerusalem. The Old City should be shared by both permitting open access to the city to all with a joint Palestinian-Israeli police presence.

5. Palestinian refugees would give up their demand to return to pre-1948 homes and lands lost during the conflict with Israel. Instead, some could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations.

6. I also think Israelis should find it in their hearts to show compassion and offer their apologies to Palestinians for the conflict.

7. I support creation of a similar fund to compensate those Jews from Arab lands who lost their homes and lands, too, when they fled.

8. I think the Wall should be torn down, or relocated to the new borders. I have no problem separating the two nations for a short duration to help rebuild confidence between our two people.

9. All political parties, Palestinian and Israelis, should eliminate languages denying each other’s existence, and all maps should be reprinted so that Israeli maps finally show Palestine and Palestinian maps finally show Israel.

10. A subway system should be built linking the West Bank portion of the Palestine state to the Gaza Strip portion of the Palestine State. Palestine should be permitted to build a seaport access to strengthen its industry, and an airport to permit flights and too and from the Arab and Israeli world.

11. I would urge the Arab World to renew their offer to normalize relations with Israel if Israel agrees to support the creation of a Palestinian State.

12. And I would ask both countries to establish embassies in each other’s country to address other problems.

13. While non-Jewish Palestinians would continue to live in Israel as citizens, Jews who wish to live in settlements surrendered by Israel could become Palestinian citizens and they should be recognized and treated equally.

14. If Jews want to live in Hebron, they should be allowed to live in Hebron and should be protected, just as non-Jews. In fact, for every Jewish individual seeking to live in Palestine, a Palestinian should be permitted to live in Israel. In fact, major Palestinian populations in Israel could be annexed into Palestine (like settlements).

15. Another concept is to have non-Jews living in Israel continue to live there but only vote in Palestinian elections, while Jews living in Palestine would only vote in Israeli elections. A special citizenship protection committee could be created to explore how to protect the rights of minorities in each state.

16. Israel and Palestine should create joint-governing and security agencies working with the United States to monitor the peace, and establish an agency to pursue criminal acts of violence.

As in every potentially workable peace proposal, something in it to upset and disappoint everyone. But its underlying principle of compromise based on mutual respect and compassion, its openness to the needs and wounds of two victimized peoples, and its suggestion that grassroots sentiment for peace can succeed where leaders have so consistently failed, are surely as worthy of serious consideration, as anything currently on the table.

i think it’s interesting, not least because virtually all of it, especially point 7, forms part of my own proposed solution – i just didn’t think we were anywhere near ready for it to be discussed in public and
perhaps i’m wrong.

i really hope so.

thoughts?

i will reiterate the reasons that i cannot support this:

1. what about jewish batei din and anglican ecclesiastical law?

some might consider this selfish, but shari’a courts must be allowed if the state is not to be guilty of severe double standards in respect of both jewish halakhah and christian canon law. although, obviously, some of the speakers (like the british humanist association and the national secular society) would argue that they would ban the lot and, indeed, maryam namazie herself says:

The One Law for All Campaign is opposed to all religious councils and tribunals including the Beth Din.

well, that’s lost my vote straight away. the reason for that is not *just* because i’m jewish, but because the “one law” that we are all subject to already caters for religious courts under the provisions of alternative arbitration.

2. alternative arbitration is, effectively, a human right

alternative arbitration arose in part because law, lawyers and access to the “one law” is prohibitively expensive, complicated and adversarial. services such as acas and relate are available to anyone that wishes to make use of them. those that do not are not compelled to do so if they do not wish to. obviously, there are some muslims (guess who) who think that muslims should be compelled to use shari’a courts, but the jewish community has long recognised that jews cannot be compelled to use, respect or comply with the dictates of the beth din – the case in point being that of agunah, where the inability (for whatever reason) of the beth din to prevent husbands from unreasonably withholding a bill of jewish divorce (thus effectively “chaining” the woman to the marriage despite the civil court having granted a civil divorce under civil law) and the shameful lack of a universally acceptable alternative resolution in halakhah. this loophole has now been specifically rectified in civil law whereby the judge now has grounds for refusing to grant decree nisi if s/he is notified that ability to obtain a divorce under a religious system is at issue in the case – i’m not aware of the precise drafting but i would have thought it’s a reasonable principle, but that’s the only place where i am aware that civil law has accommodated jewish law – it is to our discredit that it was necessary, of course and it is not entirely certain whether it has been entirely successful.

3. if religion is a private matter, then the state has no right to interfere with it and, moreover, cannot effectively control it

it is certainly up to individuals what they do with their genitalia in the privacy of their own home with consenting adults, just as it is certainly up to individuals which religion they wish to belong to and what they wish to eat or refrain from eating. in this case, you can’t have your cake and eat it. the right to marry or divorce with whom you wish however you wish is surely the most private right of all and if it’s private, as long as no harm is occurring, the state should keep its nose out of it. secularists have long demanded a separation of church and state, but they seem to have no problem with a state-sanctioned religion of secularism imposing itself on matters of personal individual commitment. more to the point, it is about as possible for the state to determine whether religious rules are being observed or not observed in a particular marriage as it is to determine whether people drink too much or smoke dope – in other words, not at all unless someone gets hurt. it is, effectively impossible to enforce the elimination of religious courts without surveillance to ensure that three rabbis do not meet in a room at once and issue a ruling. i am sure that the issue of civil liberties here cannot be missed – the same applies to shari’a courts. it’s also been tried and failed – in inquisition-era spain and the soviet union, where ritual immersion pools for observing the laws of niddah were often hidden in basements under false floors. is that a road we really want to go down in this country?

4. shari’a, like halakhah does not deal with issues of personal status alone, it is also a means of providing assurance of quality in a number of areas which require operational compliance with a standard

this is a fairly simple issue, it’s not about marriage and divorce, but about kashrut. the beth din decides what’s kosher and what isn’t and produces things like the “kosher food guide“, which tells us which foods are supervised, which e-numbers may have non-kosher ingredients and so on. of course, this information could be provided from abroad over the internet, as could halakhic advice, so effectively, there’s no way of preventing it. besides, how is it different from something like the international standards association or any chartered professional institute with its own rules and bylaws? kashrut is a set of standards, just as halal is; it is a knowledge-based system and thus any attempt to stifle it is bound to fail. of course, you could close any butcher’s shop where jewish people shopped, but i think many of us, including me, would see that as an unacceptable restriction of our civil liberties and leave the country.

5. it conflates shari’a with islamism and therefore serves the islamist agenda

i hardly think we are unfamiliar with this particular viewpoint. if all shari’a is bad, then we are playing into the hands of the likes of al-macaroon and the hizbies.

i do have one solution to suggest. if the muslim communities of this country wish to make shari’a respectable, it must be unified and centralised to a far greater degree than it presently is. at present there is a sort of guerrilla approach, any maniac with a beard and a qur’an can set up on his own and start issuing fatwas. that this constitutes a problem should be obvious simply from the issues i am aware of with halal quality control – there’s no real standard, no real means of universally acceptable certification and no real guarantee that what you are eating is actually halal. if muslims could get their act together to establish a more consistent benchmark with a central authority around it, it would enable them to rule rogue organisations out of court, as it were. i think this is the sort of thing muslim community organisations ought to be doing rather than playing silly buggers with politics; it would also give them a clear focus as valuable providers of communal services, rather than showing them up as rather inept manipulators of public patronage. in short, the muslims of the uk need to centralise, integrate and get organised, not around gesture politics, foreign policy grievances and communalist battles imported from bangladesh and elsewhere, but around the needs of the uk community for communal standards, consistent quality and procedures. that’s how we did it and, largely, it has worked. it would certainly provide a refutation of the trope of squabbling, shrill lobbyism that has characterised british islam in recent times.

UPDATE: this piece was picked up by comment is free, who asked me to rewrite it, which i duly did here. the comments are quite interesting, so i’ll respond to them below.

There is a Facebook group called ‘Say No To Andy’s Fanatics’ which has some details. It reads:

The extremist AND UNREPRESENTATIVE cult group al-Muhajiroun intends to provoke hatred and division in both Muslims and British people of all backgrounds with a demonstration in Central London….

I AM ASKING ALL TO STAND WITH LONDONERS AGAINST THESE EXTREMISTS ON OCTOBER 31st 2009….

The way we have stood together against the EDL we now need to stand together against those who want to harm the UK and its people.

Publicise this far and wide – and make sure you get down there. A big attendance is vital.

Afterwards, we’ll all go for a swift half.

Andy in happier times...

]]> http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3093/feed 13