Everything Pundit

On Everything...

Name:
Location: Every, Where

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Shoe Bombers and House Arrest

Saajid Badat, the similarly bearded and wild-eyed, would-be, shoe-bomber as Richard Ried, pleaded guilty to the eventually abandoned twin-shoeing/bombing plot yesterday. Although Badat abandoned the plot, and it took a good two years for the fuzz to find him, despite the overwhelming evidence – (Badat not only looks like his co-conspirator, their bombs were also identical twins, with the detonator cords coming off the same flex).

While Ried was just a petty-criminal-son-of-a-petty-criminal-idiot-bum, Badat it turns out is quite a bright spark. The question everyone is asking is, “why did he do it?” To me, the answer is simple: He (nearly) did it for the same reasons that Richard Reid (actually) did it. Deep and profound respect for religious leaders makes unfortunate little catholic boys keep mum while the holy father fiddles with their unholy bits. Likewise the mad mullahs western countries allow in to teach radical Islam in European and American mosques take advantage of weak minds, intelligent or otherwise. If you don’t understand why the problem lies with the clerics let me explain further. Many of the clerics imported into the U.K. come from Islamic countries where the schooling (read: religious teaching) system teaches outright intolerance. Intolerance of other religions, races, creeds, sexes, animals-that-other-people-like-to-keep-as-pets or eat – everything. If you don’t believe me, go to Saudi Arabia. If you do actually manage to get in you’ll be very lucky, (Saudi Arabia does not issue tourist visas, does not allow women to drive or vote, and does not allow anyone to drink, unless they are prepared to cross the border to Bahrain every weekend to get pissed, which all the bloody hypocrites do).

In the background to all the radical-religious and actual political control are the cleric thought-police types who make sure everyone is toeing the line. And it is just these types that get imported to the U.K. and elsewhere with the argument from the Muslim community that there are no suitable contenders for the role of 'senior cleric' at home. While the West may be largely devoid of real 'high priest' Islamic clerics, the answer to the shortage is not to import pig-headed narrow-mindedness from abroad. Some of these people are so bigoted you would not be blamed if you believed they had lead piping for brains. Think of that ‘radical cleric’, the one-eyed, hook-fisted, extremist – Abu Hamza. Before his recent incarceration in London’s Belmarsh prison, his favourite pastime was to taunt the authorities with borderline illegal, open-air sermons where he preached all kinds of pseudo-religious radicalism, including the glory of ‘Martyrdom’, not to mention the odd bit of furtive anti-Semitism to groups of disgruntled Muslim and Black youths. Hamza himself has a rather murky background, and has by an unfortunate error of the past been issued with British citizenship, which the authorities are now trying to find a way to revoke.

It won’t be lost on anyone, that the day Badat pleaded guilty to the nefarious actions with the shoe, also happens to be the day that parliament is debating the new ‘House Arrest’ laws that the Home Secretary, Charles Clark is trying to push through. In fact I have no doubts that conspiracy theorists of all kinds will swear that there is no coincidence. Coincidence or not, Badat’s story is enough for anyone who thinks that either the U.K. is not under threat, or that drastic measures need not be imposed to counter that threat, to think again. I wish I was all with the intelligentsia and the liberals on this one because it would make me look cool and I might even pull a girl, but I’m sorry. I’m not.

The house arrest laws are being proposed because incarcerating a group of suspect-pinheads including the aforementioned Abu Hamza, without trial has caused a legal furore in the U.K. The obvious joke a lot of commentators like to make is the observation that if these guys really were dangerous then why would we allow them out to be monitored under house arrest under a new law rather than bang them up permanently behind bars...

Ha-bloody-ha.

The point is the Home Secretary does not want to let them out – you do, in fact the Home Secretary has always had even another better idea – if they don’t want to be incarcerated they can always go back to their respective countries of origin.

Guess what. Not one of the men concerned has taken up the offer (not even one who claims the incarceration has driven him crazy, to the extent that he is now housed in Broadmoor – a secure centre for crazy people). Now why would that be? It’s because they’d be tortured in their countries of origin we’re told. Now while I’m not a fan of a bit of friendly gratuitous torture, I do know that at least one of the detainees is wanted, in fact, convicted, back in his home country – of an assassination plot, for which he faces a jail term. Torture is in my view subjective - prison for example is a form of torture, and the kinds of places where these people come from, like practically every other poor country where life is cheap, are rife with prison-based atrocities. Just look at er...Abu Ghraib. If anything, it sounds to me that their own fellow countrymen know exactly what to do with these dangerous crazies, and if anything – we don’t.

In light of all this perhaps the Home Secretary is barking up the wrong tree, how about a law that states something along the lines of ‘anyone seeking asylum in the U.K. who has been given a custodial sentence in their country of origin gets shoved in the slammer at the discretion of the courts, for the safety of the people, for any duration as deemed necessary by the courts’. If that were to be passed I’m pretty sure it would solve at least half the problem.

Monday, February 28, 2005

Manufacturing Monsters

It’s great to see the Sun newspaper at it again, engaging in those activities aimed at demonising the accused to ensure the most vindictive of punishments, that only perfidious Albion is the world’s supreme expert at. While Slobo Milosevic gets a protective glass bullet-proof cell in court, it looks like despite the palace setting Saddam will have to make do with an animal-cage, because after all, that is what he is.

Why is it that practices which wouldn’t be stomached in U.S or British courtrooms (or maybe they would, particularly in the States?), often end up being carried out by authorities of the same countries abroad, with impunity? If this really is true, then it is nothing but a stunt, to make the evil dictator look, well, evil, as though that were necessary. Those of us with long enough memories, remember the same newspaper printing a load of tosh during the first Gulf War escapade, about how Saddam and son Uday enjoyed watching ‘reality’ snuff-movies in their spare time (snuff movies were all the rage, in fact, in England). Then there was that dubious claim by a girl who turned out to be a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family, claiming that Saddam’s soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators in the local maternity ward.

Before anyone jumps on their high-horse and starts accusing me of being a namby-pamby liberal, left-leaning-lily-livered pansy or anything else to that effect, let me come clean and tell you that I am all for Saddam and cohorts being ousted. I am not for demonising the man in a degrading fashion that adds to the distastefulness of the whole issue, on top of the impression it gives (of blatant hypocrisy) to those who hail from the Arab world. In the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the sanitized cell in The Hague courtroom sends a clear message to those observing – that his life, and therefore his human rights, are protected. The bullet-proofing is primarily designed to protect him, in other words to stop others getting in, whilst in the case of Saddam, this blockbuster-movie-style-cage business is to stop him (the animal) – getting out. These sorts of stories don’t help relations between the West and the Middle East. For your information guys, Saddam Hussein was, and still is revered by many in that region – and evil dictator though he may be, he deserves as does Milosevic, treatment with modest dignity.

One cannot also help but see the racial connotations here also, intended or not, John Walker Lindh, the “American Taleban” was shipped straight to a (presumably decent) American mainland penitentiary, whilst everyone else – mainly darkies, got an open air cage and an orange jump-suit in Guantanamo Bay. Has it not come to anyone’s attention that the vile Abu Al-Zarqawi makes a point of cladding all his hostages in orange garb before caging them for international television snapshots? This kind of cheap, evil, idiotic stunt works in the Middle-East because as far as a lot of people are concerned their folks are getting unfairly treated the same by your folks.

The American prison system has a fine, fair and appropriate way of shackling and transporting dangerous criminals of the Saddam ilk as does the British system. In the States the prisoner is shackled arm and ankle with further chain-links to a waistband. In the UK shackling murderous mullah to a prison guard is preferred; presumably, if there is any funny business then the screw gets it in the neck. What’s wrong with Saddam getting similar treatment? In fact, no-one saw any need for a cage the last time he was paraded for the press, ranting like the madman that he is, and for a while (shudder), the hole-dwelling-prick was even un-shackled.

I have no doubts that the U.S. is at it as well, but most of my experience has been of the U.K. way of making the bad look worse. There was a recent case of a couple of hoods being wrongfully jailed for murder in which if I remember correctly, there was a fabrication pertaining to the fact that their “gang” was so audacious it named itself the “Legal & General” (the name of a well-known insurance firm). It turned out that the whole thing was balderdash, there was no gang, let alone one called Legal & General, but one of the said crooks was at least honest enough to keep on reiterating not only his innocence of that particular crime, but the fact that he considered he was paying for the other crimes that no-one knew of. Odious, yet gallant.

This “pumping-up” of the criminal, a practice which means that the dribbling crip, Ronnie Biggs, is driven from Belmarsh Prison to court hearings in a police motorcade, may in the short-term serve its purpose, but in the longer term is always a mistake. Perhaps in the case of Saddam, the reason why the coalition may feel it has to do this is something to do with the fact that there are several ‘evil’ dictators all over the shop, and to try Saddam for his many evildoings alone is not enough, the man has to be made into a right-real-great-big-hoofing monster.

This particular argument holds sway with me for one. The last time I gave it a peek the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zaire, parts of Nigeria and several other countries, many of whom do business with coalition countries, are just as good at hacking off limbs, and oftentimes heads as Saddam himself was.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

An African Question

I like the way that one continent, Africa, has the unique ability to make any foreigner who visits one small corner of this vast continent – an instant expert, on all things African. Last week during my usual doodling Internet tour I stumbled across AfricaPundit, a blog dedicated to African news and opinion. With stifled curiosity I followed the link to the blogger’s bio, hoping to God that the said blog would belong to some, at-least-moderately-distinguished African expert on African political economy, a la InstaPundit, rather than the usual suspect – a Caucasian of European descent with what can at best be described as a passing fancy with the continent.

What is it with all Western Europeans and Americans, that a single visit by an individual to one African country, in this case Ghana (for three months), seems to instantly inflict the said person with instant expertise on an entire continent? Does the odd Japanese student or two visit Kosovo-Albania and return home to pontificate on the woes, trials and tribulations of Europe? (If you are Japanese and are aware of such reciprocal phenomena in your part of the world please let me know). Last month we had Sir Bob Geldof spouting off about being tired of known as “Mr. Bloody Africa” – hello? Fair play to him he goes on to state the very obvious:

"Who's interested if the leader of Niger goes on Newsnight? It's `Get Geldof'. I'm `Mr Bloody Africa'. Bizarrely in our society, there's confusion between politicians and celebrities. Bono and I are under no illusions."


Newsnight by the way, is a current affairs news/discussion programme hosted by Jeremy Paxman – Britain’s own er… what do you call that CNN guy again? Back to the matter in question, no-one cares if the leader of Niger goes on Newsnight because, guess what? No-one knows who the leader of Niger actually is. When the name of that continent “Africa” is mentioned to or by an actual African the mental picture conjured up is that of a woman in colourful flowing robes, or a cool beer in a summer-hut-style beach bar, or a calabash-full of sweet palm-wine after a hard day tilling the land.

A European or an American has just two mental pictures of Africa – one is a child with a skeletal body, with a baseball-sized head and flies in his eyes, and the other one, if not AIDS, is Nelson Mandela, oh and perhaps – Bob Geldof. Sir Bob happens to be a famous man, and he has aligned much of that fame with Africa, it’s as simple as that – here’s an exercise for all non-Africans, name me the Mauritanian Prime Minister without looking it up on Google. You see, more people in the “connected” world care about Geldof far more than they do about Sghair Ould M’Bareck, or John Agyekum Kuffour, or Laurent Gbagbo. Once Geldof aligns himself with Africa, apart from Mandela, he becomes the only ‘African’ they know. The very fact that Sir Bob uses the phrase “Mr. Africa” is itself significant – he is most famous for aid to one country in particular – Ethiopia.

When Africans think about themselves they think about being Gambian, Senegalese, Guinean, Sierra Leonean, Liberian, Ivorian, Burkinabe, Ghanaian, Togolese, Kenyan, Zimbabwean, Rwandan, (these are all countries by the way) long before they actually might consider themselves African.

I am not actually intending to be condescending when I stress the fact that the list I make is of countries – I know very well that while you may gather that they are states of some sort or the other, your grasp of their autonomy may not be complete. While I understand that an unfortunate naming policy may make many an American, for one, to equate My Country = My Continent, with Africa, my friends, this is not so, in fact, hardly. Africa is a massive and diverse place (the second largest continent after Asia) – from Mauritania to Madagascar to Egypt to Equatorial Guinea you are talking about the continent with the most countries (53) and the most languages (anyone’s guess), in the world.

You simply cannot tar the whole place with just the one brush – yes pun intended, shoot me! While I admit to be of the class that uses the term “sub-Saharan Africa” to denote those countries with very recent histories having gained independence within the last fifty years, all of them, where people are largely of a darker shade of skin – my knowledge of Africa is a lot more than passing.

Bob Geldof laments his “Mr. Bloody Africa” status – but I’m afraid, he created it. And because of that, no-one will listen to the real “Mr. Bloody Africa” because who knows who, or where he is? Western educational and media systems are deliberately designed to do this, education is socially biased towards the country or area in which the said education takes place and the media is just there to sell footage. Newsnight and Larry King Live (I’ve remembered his name now) would not be so popular if a more proportionate say 25% of coverage was dedicated African news and issues; and teaching about Africa in Western schools barely ever goes anything beyond the you-know-what usual-suspects (AIDS, poverty, dysentery, diarrhoea, diphtheria…).

It appears to me that the average white, Caucasian Westerner actually knows so bloody little about Africa, that when they get to know a pinch more, they think they’ve sussed it all. When I was in my first year at university, not that long ago (ok, over a decade), I actually had an argument with a first year geography student (to spare her the blushes I’ll not mention her name), over whether Africa was a country, or a continent. Please don't contest this, I don't think she wants to be named (and shamed), just to back me up - plus she's still my friend.

The only time ever, that I won the famous Wellington Arms pub quiz (on my own) was the night that by chance the picture questions happened to consist of a map of Africa with 20 blank countries for you to name. (For those of you who don’t know, typically the first 10-20 questions in the average English pub quiz are name-the-celebrity “picture questions”). Yours truly of course got all twenty. If I remember correctly, the nearest contender managed three. I’ll grant AfricaPundit some respect in that in his bio he explains that in reality he is no Africa Expert and in that, in his own words it is quite a misnomer to call him a “pundit”. Quite.

But if this would suffice in making the average blog-reader a little more circumspect in his or her analysis of AfricaPundit I would be satisfied that most people would read it with a pinch of salt. But the audacity of the opinion – Nelson Mandela is “truly naive if he thinks that a simple redistribution of wealth from the West to the Third World would solve the problem of poverty”, and the apparent extent of the readership tells me otherwise.

It appears that it is simply the lack of truly articulate, intelligent and perhaps somewhat media-savvy voices in the real African community that leads many a self-aggrandising Africa-nobody to leap out and stick their hand up. In fact, in not so much of a roundabout way, that’s exactly what AfricaPundit admits to with: “since I didn't know of any other African news blogs, I figured I'd start my own.” And there is nothing wrong with that, fair play to the lad – this is the one great thing about blogging, anyone can blog, about anything, anywhere in any manner they choose. If Africans really want to be seen, heard, read, regarded and viewed for what they really are and not what a crass and biased Western media portrays them as, or what an ethnic-fabric-Caucasian-open-toe-sandal-wearer would like them to be or whatever – then Africans must speak for themselves.

But not only should Africans just speak for themselves, Africans should be brave and speak openly and truthfully about the issues that matter in a manner that fosters clean, if even sometimes painful debate. Rather than just narrow the focus to African issues the real African pundit (professional or otherwise) should also give the African perspective on issues outside of Africa – well into deep space. Come on, all the teenage wet-behind-the-ears whiteys who spend half-a-year with the peace-corps or VSO or whatever condescending, do-gooding-but-in-truth-debilitating organisation inadvertently teaching Ghanaian kids that they are intellectually inferior, comes back home an expert on all of Africa. And before you ask about the “intellectually inferior” comment, show me the African kids (undergraduate unqualified teachers) who are allowed to go teaching at secondary level to Americans, Canadians, or Brits, or Germans, or the French for three hours let alone three months.

Qualified African Nurses are transported by the shipload to the Western world from the countries that need them the most, to look after the Western sick. In return what do Africans get? Dumb, unqualified teenagers sent to poor rural secondary schools to be venerated by awestruck black teenagers. A handful of antiretrovirals allocated reluctantly to help combat a growing pandemic that’s estimated to kill 6000 per day, and no doctors or nurses to dish them out because they've all been hauled over to Yankee and Blighty. Platitudes from the United Nations over obvious and open killing, mutilation, rape, all kinds of human rights abuses and downright preventable pestilence of all kinds (malaria, cholera, typhoid, Ebola – just to name a few). Yep, it’s not fair and I am sick and tired of being a backbencher.

So me too, as an African, I will stand up to be heard. Many a non-African, whether with an axe to grind, a point to make – relevant or not, is now an Africa Expert. I care about Africa, but I also care about everything else – doesn’t everyone? (Only kidding, I know you don’t). I will make much comment on Africa and all things African, but even better still, like those who know nothing (whether they admit it or not) who comment on the continent like they know it more than I, I too will have comment on all those things I know absolutely nothing about. Like Canada, like the U.S. of A., like Russia, like Georgia, like Lithuania, like England and St. George, like space-travel, like the Orang Pendek, like the Middle East and crude oil and Aladdin’s Cave, and so I announce myself, I’m EverythingPundit.