Big Sticks and Small Carrots

The actions of this terrorist have turned the spotlight on liberals, libertarians and all those others opposed to the ever expanding power of the state. It is time for them to make a choice.

Will they renounce their dangerous opposition to ID Cards and the National Database? Will they publicly support the rapid expansion of the government’s entirely secure DNA database? Will they wholeheartedly and sincerely endorse the government’s national children’s database? (And will they also support the perfectly sensible exclusion for the children of the people who made it compulsory for everyone else’s children to be included?)

Will they renounce the ridiculous idea that there could be any legitimate reason to oppose the government’s expansion of its ability to monitor its subjects in ever greater detail? And will they acknowledge that there are absolutely no legitimate grievances against the actions of the government.

At this crucial moment, it is to be hoped that these liberals will finally accept what all civilised people have always known; the government always knows best.

But I fear that many will not. A large number will continue to actively justify and support the actions of despicable terrorists. They will embrace violence rather than rejecting it. Many, brainwashed by the extremist philosophies of John Stuart Mill, will refuse to accept that their so called grievances are based on a dangerous, discredited and out-dated belief system. They will refuse to acknowledge the utter lack of credibility of their “arguments”, despite the fact that their facile nature has been proved beyond doubt by these vicious letter bomb attacks. It is impossible to see how refusal to accept this can be anything other than a wilful denial of reality fuelled by an unthinking hatred of the government.

These apologists should know this; you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror! Anyone who refuses to actively combat this dangerous ideology will be held accountable for their inactivity.

Well liberals, what’s it to be?

And remember, the government will know which side you choose to take. They always know…

I sometimes wonder whether it’s a good idea to use the word “propaganda” as often as I do. The worry is that it can sound too strident and that that can have the effect of damaging the credibility of my arguments. The “establishment” (for want of a better word) has long been keen to frame critics as barking extremists as a handy way of avoiding having to directly argue their case. The way that opposition to the replacement of the UK’s nuclear weapons delivery system was portrayed is a perfect example of this. Accusing dissenters of “playing fast and loose with the defence of the nation” is apparently enough to discredit any and all of their arguments.

So I worry that the use of the word “propaganda” by myself and by others with similar views helps those who want the barking mentalist tag to stick. But then I watch Fox News, that marvel of the free market media, and these worries tend to disappear. Here’s an example of their attitude towards Iran (via). One of the two interviewers is apparently a Democrat strategist. See if you can spot which one it is.

Not easy, is it? The answer, if you’re interested, is Kirsten Powers.

To move on to the content of the piece, I could pick it apart bit by bit but there was one stand out moment which I’ll focus on. This gem on the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons programme came from Michael Ledeen:

And remember, they’ve sworn to use it against Israel as soon as they get it.

He really did say that. Watch it if you don’t believe me.

Given that the Iranians consistently deny that they are even developing nuclear weapons, it seems a bit odd that they would have sworn to use weapons they don’t have and claim not to have any interest in acquiring. Whatever you might think of the meaning of Ahmadinejad’s infamous statement*, the suggestion that the Iranian regime has sworn to use nuclear weapons against Israel at the first opportunity is simply ridiculous.

And how did fearless truth seeking Mr Hannity respond to Ledeen’s nonsensical claim?

Yeah.

Paxman, he is not.

Now, I’m all for free speech. Free speech is great. But there’s a word for the dissemination of misleading or simply untrue information in order to further a political agenda. What is it again? Starts with a P…

* Here is the context of the infamous speech via MEMRI, an organisation not known for its sympathetic coverage of Muslims:

“‘When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah’s] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], ‘Is it possible [that the Shah’s regime can be toppled]?’

“‘That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah’s] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: ‘The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.’ But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.

“‘Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.

“‘Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country…

“‘Imam [Khomeini] said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’ This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly vehemently opposed to the existence of the state of Israel in its current form. The often overlooked point is that he was talking about bringing about the end of the “regime”, not about physically wiping a country of the map.

President Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University probably didn’t go quite as well as he’d hoped. His claim that “we don’t have homosexuals” in Iran was greeted first with howls of incredulous laughter and then with boos. You can listen here (via).

Farsi is apparently a notoriously difficult language to translate clearly into English but in this case, it seems likely that the translation did reflect Ahmadinejad’s meaning. As I understand it, Iranian theocrats believe that it is wrong to treat homosexuality as a specific sexual orientation, They believe that to be an unholy Western concept and not one they wish to adopt. They do acknowledge that individual homosexual acts happen but consider these acts to be expressions of a curable affliction. Essentially Ahmadinejad believes that there are no homosexuals in Iran, only people who have committed homosexual acts and must be cured or punished as a consequence.

Treating homosexuality as a curable affliction is certainly not an exclusively Middle Eastern phenomenon. A quick google highlights a drug which claims to be “the most widely prescribed anti-effeminate medication in the United States, helping 16 million Americans who suffer from Behavioural Effeminate and Male Homosexuality Disorder”. 16 million? That’s a whole lot of repressed homosexuality.

The Iranian government’s attitude, however, cannot glibly be compared to the situation in the United States. Read the story of Maryam, an Iranian lesbian, if you’re even slightly tempted to make the comparison. After six months of “treatment” failed to “cure” her, she was told by a psychologist that “if you don’t change your sexuality and you continue unlawful acts, your future will be a death sentence.” Note that “change your sexuality” refers to pressure Maryam was under to agree to a sex change operation, a transformation she had absolutely no desire to go through.

For those who want to avoid another bloody war, there is a temptation to downplay the intolerant attitudes of the Iranian regime. With parts of the US government clearly looking to manufacture public support for military action against Iran (using the Iraq debacle as their model), any criticisms of the Iranian regime can seem to lend support to the bomber brigade’s desire for war.

It would be a mistake to minimise criticism of the Iranian regime for this reason.

For a start, it would allow the war advocates to claim that those who oppose military action fully endorse the Iranian regime. Everyone who has ever been called a supporter of Saddam, and that will probably include just about everyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq, will know what I mean. It’s a straw man but one which refuses to go away.

Let me put it plainly. I do not support the Iranian theocratic government. It has undoubtedly been the subject of a disinformation campaign in recent times (the discredited yellow badges for Jews story exemplifies this) and these lies and distortions should be challenged but that does not make the Iranian regime a wonder of sweetness and light. It isn’t.

The major fault in the argument for military action is that it would not actually help to improve the situation. If ever there was a case study which proved the point, Iraq is it. Homosexuals in the new “free” Iraq are now being hunted down by Shiite militias. In a bloody irony, these militias and the associated political parties - who dominate much of Iraq as a result of the “liberation”- share many beliefs with the Iranian regime. The actual result of military action in Iraq has been so far from the stated aims that a whole conspiracy theory has built up which maintains that disorder was always the goal. This is nonsense, the Bush administration did not mean to project American powerlessness, boost Iranian influence or get the US military bogged down in Iraq for years on end, but you can see why its difficult for people to accept that they could misjudge the situation so horrendously.

The result of military action against Iran would be complex and difficult to predict fully but some things are certain. Iranians, like Americans, are mostly proud nationalists and any attack on their country by the US or Israel would provoke increased loyalty towards their government and hostility towards the attackers. It would entrench the power of the mullahs and radicalise a new generation of Iranians. The long term effects could be dire indeed.

It is also certain that those who advocate military action don’t have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of such an act.

You don’t have to love Ahmadinejad to be opposed to military action against Iran and criticism of the Iranian regime is not a de facto expression of support for military action. There are other ways to achieve goals than through war.

Finally, for anyone who might consider referencing a certain other conflict from the 20th Century in support of military action against Iran, here’s a link to possibly one of my favourite blog posts of all time.

Update

Sam has pointed out that the drug linked above was a hoax. My googling was too quick on this occasion and I forgot to engage my brain in the process. Apologies.

The basic point I was making, that there are organisations in the US who believe that homosexuality can be cured, remains valid, despite my blushes. I’ll take this opportunity to add that some of my religious relatives here in Scotland would agree. Both sides of my family have deep roots in the Open Brethren who tend to be rather strict in their interpretation of the bible. There was no doubt what “strange flesh” meant in our church.

There are many people who believe that the stated priority given to promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East is just so much hot air designed to obfuscate the real motivations behind British foreign policy.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the British government’s involvement and support for the BAE deal to sell 72 Typhoon fighter jets to the Saudi government. This billion pound arrangement to sell highly sophisticated military aircraft to a regime which is corrupt, non-democratic, staunchly authoritarian, a serial abuser of human rights and a regular practitioner of torture cannot be explained by reference to the rhetoric of the “war” on terror. It can only be explained through the prism of narrow national interest considerations coupled with an admission that the promotion of democracy is not the dominant foreign policy influence claimed by the rhetoric.

There are those who will quite happily agree with this assessment and argue that it is nevertheless right to support this deal precisely because governments should pursue their narrow national interest above all other considerations. I don’t have any complaint about that; disagreement yes, but no complaint. There is an entirely separate argument to be had as to the best way to promote the national interest. I’d argue that this deal is likely to be damaging to the national interest, particularly in the longer term,. I’d further argue that decisions taken in pursuit of the national interest are often based on a narrow short term views and are often harmful in the longer term (politicians generally don’t do long term very well).

I do have a complaint when the government insists that it is absolutely committed to promoting democracy and opposing oppressive regimes and refuses to accept that selling powerful military equipment to a regime like the House of Saud flatly contradicts that assertion. The result is that the entire premise of the foreign policy debate as framed by the government is built on a myth. This is not only starkly hypocritical but it also effectively negates the ability of the people to meaningful debate foreign policy with the government.

It is, ironically, entirely undemocratic.

Sometimes Iain Dale almost writes these posts himself.

Yesterday, he attacked an article by Sunny Hundal on Comment is Free. In the article, Sunny argues that then BBC is increasingly bending to the will of the vocal rightwing internet lobby which seeks to undermine its credibility.

Rather than tackling the wider point, I want to focus on one part of Iain’s post. It is this:

But now we come to the most idiotic part of Sunny’s article, for in this next paragraph he actually admits that there IS a liberal bias within the BBC, which surely undermines everything which precedes it.

Now, to my main point. For many of us on the liberal left, the BBC is a useful if somewhat increasingly dumbed-down antidote to the hard-right propaganda of most of the press. It keeps us vaguely sane, so we support it.

Quite a revealing admission, wouldn’t you say?

This is quite revealing but not in the way Iain imagines.

If you read the entirety of Sunny’s article, it is obvious what he actually means. As I explained in the comments to Iain’s post, what was meant was that the BBC has been an impartial and credible antidote to the rightwing output of much of the media (septicisle also makes the same point but better). Sunny fears that this impartiality and credibility will be lost if something is not done to counter the pressure applied on the BBC by the rightwing press and the internet lobby. Iain has, either deliberately or unintentionally, misrepresented what Sunny wrote. He certainly didn’t contradict the entire thrust of his article by admitting that the BBC has the sort of bias Iain claims it has.

No-one else took up the challenge but Iain himself decided to defend his position.

I have not deliberately misrepresented him at all. I can only go on what he wrote and interpret it. You and I may have different ways of interpreting what he wrote, but that does not mean I am deliberately misrepresenting him. I know Sunny and like Sunny, but I was suprised at the weak arguments he put forward in this rather ranting article.

I say defend…

Iain’s “defence” is that there are different interpretations of what Sunny wrote and his is as valid as mine. Apparently, Iain does not accept that there is actually a true and accurate understanding of Sunny’s meaning, merely interpretations of what he wrote. That explains why he has no interest in trying to get to the truth of the matter.

In an age when those on the right continually attack the supposed relativism of the left, I find this quite amusing. There is no spoon.

Update

I see that the links to individual comments on Iain’s blog are not working again. You’ll have to scroll if you want to see them.

Update 2

Thanks to Tim for pointing out that it is possible to link to individual comments on Iain’a blog. Links adapted accordingly.

The immediate reaction of Muslims around the world to the attacks of September 11th 2001 has been through the revisionist grinder in fairly major way. There’s a growing perception that there were mass celebrations on the streets of the Muslim world in response to these attacks.

I thought take the time to highlight the fact that this is complete nonsense with the help of this handy link from the American Academy of Religion. I’d recommend that you take a moment to read the linked page.

Some facts

• Every Palestinian organisation condemned the attacks.
• The US Consul General in Jerusalem received a huge stack of faxes from Palestinians and Palestinian organizations expressing condolences, grief and solidarity and was pained to see that the media chose to focus on the sensational images of a few Palestinians rejoicing.
• Students and professors in East Jerusalem donated blood for the American victims who need it.
• In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.

These facts do not fit the narrative of the “clash of civilisations” and are slowly disappearing down the memory hole. The US and UK governments have a particular vested interest in having their populations forget how much goodwill their “war” on terror policies have squandered.

Personally, I’d prefer it if our governments had to formulate, debate and assess the effectiveness of their policies based on the facts rather than on fictional Hollywood style narratives.