Festering rants: Gaza and Harry
Jan 11th, 2009 by John
Hello everyone! Hope you’re all fine and well back at uni and work in the new year. Did everyone have good celebrations? I’m afraid that being at home I have no-one to rant to, so I thought I’d take my rant to our emulation of the lunchtime table from the days of yore. Yore being CHS. Thus feel free to ignore, agree or disagree everything I’m about to say. I’ll try and make it a bit concise.
Firstly, this recent Israel kicking the Gaza strip issue. Now I find it a bit odd how the media (no this isn’t heading for a conspiracy theory, fret not) are ripping it out of Israel for this. During the recent ceasefire Hamas, who operate from within Gaza, have been busy rocketing Israeli towns and villages. Israel have been a little better at respecting the ceasefire. Then, the ceasefire ends, and Hamas rocket Israel even more. So they decide ‘sod this for a laugh’ and go to try and do something about it. Suddenly the world pounces on them! Naughty Israel! What are you doing bombing and attacking! Hacking and slashing! Naughty naughty naughty! Now, whilst I think they may (as Israel tends to do) be a bit heavy handed about the military action (civilian deaths are bad), who can blame them completely for trying to defend themselves? If France started rocketing us once a week, do you think we’d just sit here and say “Oh well, jolly bad luck, guess we’d better just sit it out eh?” There are plenty of news articles around, from many years of it happening, mentioning Hamas’ continual attacks on Israel.
That brings me to the recent anti-war protests in London. Can anyone explain why protesters were attacking British police and smashing shops up because Israel is attacking Gaza? Thankfully today’s pro-Israel protest passed without serious event.
Also about good old Prince Harry. Recently the media has been scathing again, bringing up a supposed ‘racist remark’ about a Pakistani army officer… in 2006. The remark was (to quote BBC News):
The newspaper said the prince, who is third in line to the throne, had called the soldier “our little Paki friend”.
Quite a term of endearment. In response the army said:
“The Army does not tolerate inappropriate behaviour in any shape or form,”
Urrrh… lol? Time for a bit of context I think… BuckP issued a very eloquent statement:
“Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offence his words might cause… However, on this occasion three years ago, Prince Harry used the term without any malice and as a nickname about a highly popular member of his platoon… There is no question that he was in any way seeking to insult his friend.”
So what does this boil down to. Are we all annoyed on someone else’s behalf? Oh! That term is insulting, and might insult people, well it doesn’t bother me, but someone else might be insulted by it! Bad, naughty, naughty. There are plenty of stories from the army involving people’s nicknames for each other, usually less than savoury ones. And in cases where the nicknamed person feels offended, then fair enough, step too far. Maybe the dear Prince should be more careful. Maybe Political Correctness Gone Mad, has just escaped from the loony bin (am I allowed to call it a ‘loony bin’?).
Comments, thoughts etc. always appreciated :] I’m now off to a photography forum to rant about the poor quality of Jessops’ lens filters. Happy new year one and all, sorry we couldn’t all meet up again before we departed toward our various vocations (with… vehemence?).
John, concerning Israel and Hamas it was Israel who was first to fire in this case. Hamas, believe it or not for the first time stuck to the ceasefire. Israel used the end of the ceasefire as an excuse to eradicate what they don’t like – that is a democratically elected government in a country they don’t recognise and never will.
Israel, during times of ceasefire, refuse to let food, aid and medical supplies in to Gaza. Worse, when they’re bombing the hell out of it they spout that the people they’re shooting and bombing don’t need the aid because they already have it. Where from? Where did this aid magically appear from? Israel have bombed UN schools, not Hamas. Israel have driven out the UN in Gaza, not Hamas.
Don’t get me wrong I sympathise with Israel. It’s not nice to be a country surrounded by enemies. But when it comes down to it it is not a matter of religion – the land that is now Israel and Palestine is historically one of the most tolerant religious centres in the world. No, it is a matter of the legitimate and illegitimate. Jewish people are obviously still scared in this world. I don’t believe that more muslims have been become extreemists, just those that already were have become more prominent because of this issue. Bombings of Israel is intolerable – but so is bombing Palestine.
And why should Israel be treated any better than it is? No-one in this country would rightly support Hamas but they can claim moral superiority by siding with Israel. Both kill civilians to achieve their aims, both show disregard for the nature of international law and both are just plain rubbish. They’re like two children with big guns. Except Israel is the older child with the bigger gun. And when an older brother is beating up his relatively harmless sister who do you tell off? You prevent the older brother doing it right? And that for me is what it comes down to – power. Israel can protect its citizens, obviously. But who is to protect the citizens in Gaza that Israel is very successfully killing?
About the demonstrations in London. Protesters did not attacked police but when they marched near to Downing Street the police did use force against the protesters, which is under investigation I believe, as the police had no reason to do it. This caused a minority to react, but not many.
For me what makes this so sad is that Israel are being fucking stupid! The 2006 Lebanon war only solidified and expanded support for Hezbollah there. Of course, this war will only increase support for Hamas – as if it couldn’t be any more polarised. *sigh*.
I don’t know why I care so much.
Hehe, well thankee for the well reasoned reply.
In the case of Israel starting it this time, well I think the trouble really began when Moses parted the sea to let the slaves escape Egypt… (not that that was a bad thing really).
And some Israeli official was saying last night that they did indeed bomb the UN school, but only because Hamas was firing out of it. I agree however, that’s no excuse to go round bombing schools: hello heavy-handed Israel.
And yes whilst it was a minority who reacted during the protest (by the flashgun lights it looked like there were more photographers than rioters… probably one unruly protester and a rabble of photographers all trying to take his photograph…) I can see why the police didn’t want them outside the Israeli embassy, as the aftermath in the street shows. BUT with freedom to protest and freedom of speech, they should really be allowed to protest wherever they like (except outside parliament… apparently).
Maybe the police did take too much of a liberty. But in days when a casual photographer was arrested and held for 10 hours for taking photos of public buildings in a public place, I think the liberty has already been taken.
Good to hear from ye :]
Sadly there is no freedom to protest in London. All protests have to be approved and it is illegal to protest within a mile of parliament. The route of the protest and the topic of the protest have to get police approval.
Nor is there freedom of speech – for example racist and homophobic remarks can become illegal depending on their severity. This ain’t the US; we have no such freedoms.
It is a frightening thought that the police have so much political power. Since the war on terror began all they have to do is demand parliament push through a bill on: detention of terror suspects, phone tapping, storing our e-mails for a year, storing every phone call you make and recieve, creating the largest DNA database in the world, having to have police approval to protest and so on and so forth, and it will get done.
And now they’re becoming more militarised. The armed police units have considerably increased in number and tazers (which the police said only three years ago could easily kill people – hence they became illegal for the public to own) are going to become common place within the police.
Britain used to be the only country in the world which could claim not to have armed police. Truly there to protect the people. Now, it seems that the police are protecting themselves from the people. We’re all so dangerous don’t you know.
So you’re right. The liberty has already been taken. *sigh again*
“And now they’re becoming more militarised. The armed police units have considerably increased in number”
Why do you think that might be?
“Britain used to be the only country in the world which could claim not to have armed police”
I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I think you’ll find that we still have a predominantly unarmed police force, though. We have had armed elements in the police force for decades, yet your average officer still carries little more than CS spray. The number of AFOs and SFOs has increased, but this doesn’t necessarily translate to an increased armed police presence. In fact, any kind of routine armed police presence is extremely rare, outside of airports and other select locations that demand it. Northern Ireland is a notable exception, however. Beyond that, routinely armed police will only be found in the form of the MoD police (MDP) who only work with MoD property, and the CNC who protect nuclear facilities. Neither of which are very publicly visible.
“So you’re right. The liberty has already been taken. *sigh again*”
I would be interested in hearing some of the past cases of our liberties being taken from us that you support.
I’m quite glad that we don’t have the freedom to murder people and set fire to each other’s donkeys.
I’m also quite glad there are armed police protecting nuclear facilities ^^
Whilst gun weilding police folk in airports do unnerve me a bit, I
knowtrust they’re well trained and sensible enough not to do anything silly :](And in refernce to the Charles de Menezes case, well if someone shouts ‘police stop or I shoot’ and you run into an underground station just after the bombings, well what do you expect? Although running away from a person pointing a gun at you does seem like a fairly sensible thing to do, but this is another argument altogether…)
I’d rather have police armed with tazers than firearms perhaps, but then I’d rather people wouldn’t try to explode themselves in public places. They should keep such activities to the privacy of their own homes.
Agreed, John. They should confine their explosions to themselves. Somehow. But they should. I also think Freddy has a distinctly valid point about civillians being victimised, or even just caught in the cross-fire by both sides. At home, my family and I watch the news almost in horror at what’s going on, espicially the humanitarian issues raised by lack of aid for the victims. While one view may be that by letting the red cross in on mass, the people may become to dependent or sympathetic on foreign aid, on the other hand, civilians are dying and I doubt we know the full scale of it…. What has the world come to?
Civilians dying is never a good thing. Indeed people dying in general is quite a bad thing. I don’t see that Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel, so I don’t see Israel backing down against Hamas. But I think even if Israel sat around and did nothing, Hamas would still rocket them, so civilians would still get killed. Fred has a point with the children comment.
“OW”
“OW”
“What’s going on here?”
“BRIAN HIT MEEE”
“BUT HE STARTED IT”
“DID NOT!”
“DID TOO!”
“I don’t care who started it, the both of you can stop that right now”
In other news I hear that CHS has a flag now. Apparently it’s short and green.
Adam:
“Why do you think that might be?”
I know perfectly well why that might be and the answer comes in the form of a threat we have faced before. Terrorism in the UK is and has always been home grown. Unlike the US the threat to us is not external but internal.
The UK was able to effectively deal with the IRA and terrorist activities throughout the 20thC up to the 1990′s without the militarisation of our police forces and the erosion of rights we should take for granted. Terrorism used to be dealt with using existing laws in which it was already criminal. Now it seems this is not enough and we have to set up another form of ‘justice’ that runs parallel to the system that used to be in place save for the fact it has more powers to encroach upon my rights if not erode those rights altogether. I disagree wholeheartedly with that. What was in place before was perfectly adequate and more importantly a tested means for combating terrorism in this country.
“Neither of which are very publicly visible.”
Of course they’re not publicly visible, there would be outrage. I hate the I can’t see it so it doesn’t exist attitude people in this country seem to adopt.
John:
“Whilst gun weilding police folk in airports do unnerve me a bit, I know trust they’re well trained and sensible enough not to do anything silly :]”
I don’t doubt the abilities of individual officers, what i question is the entire reason behind it.
“The UK was able to effectively deal with the IRA and terrorist activities throughout the 20thC up to the 1990’s without the militarisation of our police forces and the erosion of rights we should take for granted.”
You would prefer an Army deployment then? A real military force?
Don’t make the mistake of equating use of firearms with militarisation.
“What was in place before was perfectly adequate and more importantly a tested means for combating terrorism several decades ago in this country. ”
Fixed it for you.
I would still be interested in hearing examples of when your very noble vindication of liberty has fallen short.
Excuse me, I appear to have missed a part of your reply.
“Of course they’re not publicly visible, there would be outrage. I hate the I can’t see it so it doesn’t exist attitude people in this country seem to adopt.”
That’s not quite the point. The low visibility isn’t due to shady government operations with the police designed to cheat and deceive the public. In this case I’m afraid it’s quite simply because most people don’t live next to a nuclear facility of a Ministry of Defence property.
Would you prefer that the above go unprotected?
“You would prefer an Army deployment then? A real military force? ”
You’re getting confused with the events in NI and terrorism in Britain. Sure they’re linked but the military force deployed in NI was there before the terror threat – not a means to combat it.
““What was in place before was perfectly adequate and more importantly a tested means for combating terrorism several decades ago in this country. ””
It’s just as relevant then as it is today. Why is this government changing the justice system? To prosecute without evidence? To hold indefinitely without charges or trial? I don’t care if we are in the ‘modern world’ that is wrong surely? You can’t combat terrorism with the measures this government is taking. They are sweeping every single person in this country when what they need to do is pin point. Can you find me anything in the law before 9/11 that would have made it impossible to combat this new ‘threat’?
We’re being asked to make a trade. Rights for security. The two go hand in hand – the more rights we have the more secure we are.
“I would still be interested in hearing examples of when your very noble vindication of liberty has fallen short.”
Retaining DNA samples of innocent people is in theory a breach of human rights. A variety of measures have been introduced to undermine free speech and protest (do you not think it is scary that laws designed to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and violence are being used against legitimate protesters?).The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 also makes it illegal to incite racial hatred without any definition of what this is. I cannot within the law discuss religion in a negative way on a public platform. This isn’t wrong to you?
Section 44 of the terrorism act allows police to stop and search anyone without reasonable suspicion in the greater london area. This begs the question why they changed the law from not needing reasonable suspicion to search people? Also this as with so many other laws designed to combat terrorism are being used in the day to day lives of the police. They are now being exercised as normal powers and not extraordinary ones – on essence the police treat everyone as a potential terror suspect.
And of course you know about not being allowed to protest within 1km of parliament – an attack on our traditional rights.
And don’t even get me started on ASBO’s. You can go to prison now without actually doing anything illegal. Fun times.
“You’re getting confused with the events in NI and terrorism in Britain. Sure they’re linked but the military force deployed in NI was there before the terror threat – not a means to combat it.”
Well…no. The role of Operation Banner was to support the police forces in counter-terrorism.
“You can’t combat terrorism with the measures this government is taking. They are sweeping every single person in this country when what they need to do is pin point.”
I don’t think they are “sweeping every single person”. I don’t feel swept. Nor am I standing behind the policy of this government, but I recognise that you can’t expect the same policies to work through the decades. Terrorists aren’t stupid (well, blowing yourself up is pretty stupid) and they will adapt and develop. If you don’t do the same then they will win. You can’t change your policy on a reactive basis because…well then you do get a lot of the problems we are left with in the post-9/11 world that you describe. Even if I don’t agree with the particular policies the government has adopted, nor do I think we should instead sit on our laurels and trust existing policy to work until the day that it doesn’t, without examining it along the way.
“We’re being asked to make a trade. Rights for security. The two go hand in hand – the more rights we have the more secure we are.”
Such as the right to own (and use) firearms? I seem to recall you being an advocate of that particular government move to rob us of our liberties. I suppose that’s an exception to the rule, is it? I’m afraid if you make a bold statement such as “the more rights we have the more secure we are” then you are subscribing to the concept of liberty itself – not just to the particular liberties that suit your political leanings.
“I cannot within the law discuss religion in a negative way on a public platform. This isn’t wrong to you? ”
This isn’t “correct” to me might be more accurate. I point you in the direction of numerous atheists who manage to do just this, whether it be in TV, the radio or in a published book, without being arrested. It would indeed be wrong to me if you or anyone else could not. What makes you think that I think otherwise?
“Section 44 of the terrorism act…”
To be honest, I don’t really know where I stand on “stop and search” and never have done. So don’t have anything to discuss there.
“And of course you know about not being allowed to protest within 1km of parliament – an attack on our traditional rights.”
I agree.
“And don’t even get me started on ASBO’s. You can go to prison now without actually doing anything illegal. Fun times.”
ASBOs were/are a bad idea in many/most ways.
I don’t know what Operation Banner is/was :buck: I shall have to wiki it…
Stop and search though, I think that’s reasonble in a way. I know they don’t need a good reason to stop and search you, but why would they bother if there wasn’t one? If you’re loitering outside Buckingham Palace in a trench-coat and with two violin cases, wearing sunglasses and with suspicious bulges about your waist… you’re either a chubby and talented multi-violinist, or about to do something quite unsavory. Perhaps both.
But you don’t have to give them your name, address or even say what you’re doing there…
So I don’t seem to have a particularly strong opinion either way on stop and search :happy:
As for firearms I’m not really for everyone being allowed to have them, but don’t mind the police having them, although I’d prefer they had tazers (if they can still kill you they’re a lot less liekly to than a hail of le bullets) or perhaps really nasty stink bombs which rendered people inoperative – but not dead.
We do seem to have digressed a bit.
*realises the water is getting deep and choppy, swims to the side and sits on the fence*
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on certain points. However I will say this about firearms – Just as no-one should ever have the right to take a life, owning firearms for purposes other than livelihood should never be an option. This is just my opinion and as you know there are arguments for and against it. When I talk about our rights I talk about liberty. In a democratic nation such as ours the idea of an American style right to bear arms (presumably to oust governments that endanger us) is more dangerous than it is protective (we can vote). Guns don’t get used to defend people, they get used against the people. And that is why I believe such a right would hinder our security rather than promoting it.
John: Shove over *gets on the fence, grabs popcorn* They’ll thrash it out.
“I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on certain points.”
Indeed.
“However I will say this about firearms – Just as no-one should ever have the right to take a life, owning firearms for purposes other than livelihood should never be an option.”
Oh? But your post No. 11, written by you, clearly states:
“We’re being asked to make a trade. Rights for security. The two go hand in hand – the more rights we have the more secure we are.”
– You, 2009.
“When I talk about our rights I talk about liberty.”
Good. So do I.
“In a democratic nation such as ours the idea of an American style right to bear arms (presumably to oust governments that endanger us) is more dangerous than it is protective (we can vote)”
To continue the presumptions: presumably a dangerous government wouldn’t let itself be voted out.
“Guns don’t fit with my political outlook. And that is why I believe such a right can reasonably be taken from us by our government.”
Fixed it for you.
*leaps dramatically from the fence*
I mostly agree with ye there Fred. There have been a lot more assassinations of high-profile people in Americaland. But then maybe if Mr. King or JFK were in British and in Britain they still would have been shotted.
Wikipedia does, however, have a whole article dedicated to United States presidential assassination attempts.
Maybe no one tries to assissinate British leaders because they’re too mundane to be worth the effort?
I’ll tell you what though, assassinations aren’t what they used to be, if Wikipedia is to be believed. In 681BC the Assyrian king was (possibly) crushed by a winged-bull collossus. So much more inventive. :happy:
Also, finally some sense regarding political correctness gone mad (sort of).
OOH Popcorn *fence again*
“Maybe no one tries to assissinate British leaders because they’re too mundane to be worth the effort?”
Quite likely, but both Churchill and Thatcher have had attempts made on their lives nonetheless. Perhaps there are others too. To the Googlemobile!
“… Churchill and Thatcher have had attempts made on their lives …”
I’m quoting you because it’s what all the cool kids seem to be doing. Despite there being no actual need in this case. It makes sense that Churchill was targeted, there was a bit of an epic war on at the time. So that doesn’t count! As for Thatcher, well she did have some crazy ideas regarding nuclear missiles…
*drags a barbeque over to the fence and starts cooking*
sausages anyone?
Ooh yum. Trust Toby to get the barbecue going
“Oh? But your post No. 11, written by you, clearly states:
“We’re being asked to make a trade. Rights for security. The two go hand in hand – the more rights we have the more secure we are.”
- You, 2009. ”
“When I talk about rights I talk about liberty”.
A right has to be reasonable. For example, it is not reasonable to murder – that is why it is illegal. To use the example of murder again – this endangers other peoples rights by not allowing them the right to live. What I am getting at is any ‘right’ that ultimately takes away other peoples rights should not be a right (I think I said right enough times in that sentence). So when you say it is my political outlook that leads me to this conclusion on the ‘right’ to bear arms you are correct. I do not believe in anarchy as I’m sure you do not either. I believe that we have to support peoples liberty take away liberty. Sure for the person wielding the gun they have all the rights they can take – but they take them from others and that is not freedom.
“To continue the presumptions: presumably a dangerous government wouldn’t let itself be voted out. ”
In this country that is impossible to achieve. Constitutional monarchy and the house of lords have all the power they need to overthrow corrupt governments. And what is more it is equally in their interest as it is in the public interest to do so.
““Guns don’t fit with my political outlook. And that is why I believe such a right can reasonably be taken from us by our government.”
Fixed it for you.”
Nothing has been taken from us. It has never ever been a right in this country and pray to god it never will be.
As for assassinations these are somewhat besides the point. People in their everyday lives and world leaders (somewhat controversial ones at that) with a secret service and military behind them are not comparable.
“I believe that we have to support peoples liberty take away liberty.”
should read
I believe that we have to support peoples liberty, not help others to take away that liberty.
“As for assassinations these are somewhat besides the point.”
Alas, true enough.
Nice one Toby. You are truly the barbeque king. *om nom nom nom* :bigo:
“A right has to be reasonable. For example, it is not reasonable to murder – that is why it is illegal. To use the example of murder again – this endangers other peoples rights by not allowing them the right to live.”
I thought some such argument would rear itself. It’s something dealt with well enough way back in 1651 by Hobbes, so I don’t feel the need to give it too much attention here.
My main contention with what you have written is not that you oppose guns. That’s an issue for another day, perhaps. What I object to is you, or anyone else, making sweeping, all-encompassing statements such as “the more rights we have the more secure we are” when that’s clearly not what you think. Words such as “liberty” and “rights” get thrown about a lot by people who don’t seem to understand what they mean, presumably because fashioning yourself as a shining guardian of liberty lets you take the moral high-ground in a discussion and just generally looks better than the alternative of advocating the removal of rights.
If you add conditions such as “a right has to be reasonable” (as judged by…someone) then I’m afraid you reasonably have to abandon your position that “the more rights we have the more secure we are”.
“What I am getting at is any ‘right’ that ultimately takes away other peoples rights should not be a right”
Your logic here seems to be:
A. Guns can be used to kill people, which would be a serious infringement on their rights [correct, I'd say being killed is a pretty serious infringement of my rights].
B. The right to bear arms allows people to have guns
Therefore:
C. The right to own a gun is a serious infringement on peoples’ rights.
Unfortunately that doesn’t make sense purely from a logical standpoint. A and B make sense but there’s quite a gap between those two premises and the conclusion you have drawn. Simply owning a gun doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone. It has to be used for that to happen.
To adapt one of your previous arguments:
Can you find me anything in the law before Dunblane that would have made it impossible to combat this ‘threat’?
“Sure for the person wielding the gun they have all the rights they can take – but they take them from others and that is not freedom.”
Do they? It’s time to fulfill my duties as Captain Obvious (BA, OBE, PhD) by pointing out that you don’t need to live in a state where guns are legal to see people wielding guns and taking rights from others with them. It’s very easy to point to the gun as the problem for liberty, but the rather more troublesome truth is that it’s the person. But that’s why guns were banned in this country – because it was the easy way out. Not because it was the right thing to do, or because it has solved the problem (it hasn’t).
“In this country that is impossible to achieve. Constitutional monarchy and the house of lords have all the power they need to overthrow corrupt governments. And what is more it is equally in their interest as it is in the public interest to do so.”
What makes you think a dangerous government would care to work within the existing framework? If we’re talking about a truly dangerous government, which is presumably the kind that the US constitution had in mind with regards to the right to keep and bear arms rather than merely a corrupt one, then I doubt the House of Lords would give it much cause for hesitation. The House may well be capable of dealing with corruption, but won’t provide any obstacle to a dangerous government, which I believe is what we were talking about.
“Nothing has been taken from us. It has never ever been a right in this country and pray to god it never will be. ”
Except something very clearly has been taken from us. It’s only because we don’t have the same kind of enshrined, codified rights as the United States that people come to this conclusion. They don’t see it written on a piece of paper in front of them and so assume that it isn’t there, and don’t complain when a piece of paper does appear explicitly telling them what they can’t do. If you insist on thinking like that, then we barely have any rights at all. There are a lot of things that we don’t have an explicit right to that I’m sure you would complain about nonetheless were they to be taken from you. You touched on this issue in your second post, so I’m surprised that you haven’t applied it here, too.
Perhaps slightly off-topic, but I didn’t know that you had become a religious man.
Adam, I’ll leave you the pick apart the logic and stuff words in my mouth.
We’re not going to change each others minds – shame about the insults though.
Insults?
:catfish:
Quite :V