The last months of the year provide us with many opportunities to connect with community, family and friends in the spirit of love and gratitude. With this comes an added level of stress and pressure to our demanding schedules. It is vital to stay balanced and to care for the self during these times. The extended evenings equip us with favorable circumstances to direct our attention inward and to nurture ourselves. Tamara Albright, Nia Instructor and Kibwe Parker, Reflexologist are pleased to offer you two beautiful tools for wellness for free on December 3rd at the The Self Discovery Center, 1315 South Ponce de Leon Ave NE, Atlanta GA 30306.

Nia with Tamara – Move Your Body and Lift Your Spirits
7:30p- 8:30p
Nia (nee-ah) is a unique blend of dance and martial arts set intuitively to exceptional music. This joyful, class is a creative arch flow -  warming the body from within, engaging your mind, body and spirit to a peak, then solidifying the experience with healing movements and symbolic gestures. The loose structure engages the mind while leaving lots of room for personal expression through personal style, levels of intensity and vocalizations. Nia is safe and adaptable for all ages and abilities. You’ll finish feeling, relaxed yet rejuvenated! Best of all, it’s FUN!

Benefits include:

• Increase the pleasure of living in your body
• Facilitate weight loss and proper weight maintenance
• Calm the mind, and alleviate depression, anxiety, and stress
• Strengthen muscles, improve muscle tone, and increase muscle definition
• Improve circulation, concentration and cognitive function
• Improve heart & lung function
• Build reservoirs of chi energy
• Enhance sensory awareness
• Heighten sexual function
• Strengthen immunity

Wear what feels good on your body and allows you to move freely. Bring water to maintain proper hydration.  Nia with Tamara – Move Your Body and LiftYour Spirits! For more information, email: infoatalbright-creative.com . To find local Nia classes, visit http://www.albright-creative.com/movement-nia.html

Reflexology by Kibwe – Within your feet are a map to your body
5:00p- 9:00p
Reflexology is a holistic healing science that helps to heal the body mind spirit by utilizing acupressure to stimulate nerve endings within the feet. Reflexology’s benefits include relief with headaches, back pain, cramps, digestive problems arthritis and other inflammatory symptoms as well as stress reduction. It helps to increase vitality, energy, and the natural healing properties that our bodies already posess.  Kibwe Parker has been studying reflexology for eight years. His additional interests include aromatherapy, music and art. To schedule a full appointment, or for more info, email: quinnlanvos1@live.com .

Found another interesting video, this time on the Independent newspaper website.

It’s called ‘Melting Pot’ and it’s part of their Green TV section. It’s all about green activism and features members of groups such as Plane Stupid and Greenpeace.

It was an extremely enlightening video, exploring and exposing the lengths to which the authorities (chiefly the police) go to undermine environmental protests and activists, in effect attempting to curtail citizens’ right to freedom of expression.

And so, the police send undercover agents to infiltrate various organisations to spy on, and discredit and disrupt, their operations.

In one bit of the film, a Greenpeace activist spoke about when he, along with the members of his protest group, were labeled terrorists. At the time they were protesting against the growth in the short haul market (deemed particularly damaging to the environment) and had camped out on one of the taxiways of Nottingham’s East Midlands airport (chosen because it specialises in short haul flights). This prevented planes from leaving. They called it ‘Sermon on the Runway.’

OK, that is a pretty extreme demonstration of green activism and they did breach security, but I don’t think it warranted them being labeled as terrorists all the same. I mean, they had apparently notified the police in advance of this peaceful protest and by positioning themselves on the taxiway, rather than the runway, had taken steps to ensure the public’s safety by allowing planes to land in case of an emergency.

Other parts of the film featured politicians and lawyers talking about how police tactics push the use of terrorism legislation to the extreme and into a grey area. It is being used to stop and search any protester, for example.

Journalists who participated in the film explained that they are routinely arrested and held without charge after covering a protest. And they are held until news deadlines pass. Clearly an attempt at news management.

A section showed a freelance journalist being questioned by police at a protest. He was following the event and police began quizzing him on what he was doing. When he told them that he was a freelancer, the police said ‘oh, so you’re not really a member of the press then.’ He was eventually told to turn off his camera. It all seemed pretty fascist if you ask me.

Activists claim that the press is biased in favour of big business. The Evening Standard was indeed slapped on the wrist by the Press Complaints Commission for fabricating a story about climate change campaigners at Heathrow in what activists have called a blatant attempt to smear their activities.

What was interesting was hearing, from a journalist, that environmental activism reporting is not exactly professional. Journalists are simply reading from press releases that are sent to them by corporations and simply regurgitating it. They don’t even bother going to the protests to see the other side of things.

Firstly, that’s plane lazy. And secondly, and far more importantly, it’s just shocking how bad that sort of journalism is. In fact, it’s not even journalism, it’s PR. It just contributes to the negative spinning against environmental campaigners.

We, as journalism students, are quite rightly taught about the ethics and professional standards we must uphold when we enter the real world. We are the voice that brings the news into the living rooms of people around the country. As such, there is an unquestionable need to be impartial and objective in order to inform in the best and most effective manner.

Just last week, a guest lecturer told us that journalists have never enjoyed the public’s trust, and that it is getting in fact getting worse. I think one of the stats we were presented with showed that print journalists are considered less trustworthy than estate agents. Enough said. Shoddy reporting of any kind just undermines the profession’s credibility and needs to be addressed.

Portions of the press are playing a significant role in pushing activists to the extreme and fringe of environmental debate.

I personally may not agree with the manner in which environmental protests are carried out, but you can bet that should I be called upon to cover an event at some point in my career, I will be out there getting the other side of the story and not just sitting behind my desk, relying solely upon the PR machine of big business to report what is happening.

If you’re interested, check out the video. Just click here. I found it be an informative watch and it certainly raised question in my head on how environmental protests are dealt with by the police and how the press goes about the reporting of such news.

According to BERNAMA, Malaysia’s governmental press agency, the country’s Communications and Multimedia Commission is investigating over seventy cases of “disseminating false and lewed [sic] contents and contents that insult Islam” via the internet. Eight individuals have so far been charged with defamation for ridiculing Islam. Of those, one received a MYR 10,000 (£1,800, $3,000, €2,000) fine, another fled, and the remaining six are awaiting trial.

Action has, apparently, also been taken against a number of blogs and websites, including:

www.adibahahmed.blogspot.com

www.surind.blogspot.com

www.syurga-islam.blogspot.com

www.manatuhanallah.wordpress.com

www.faithfreedom.org

www.malaysia-today.net

The last on the list for an English language article dated January 16th 2008 entitled “Malays, The Enemy Of Islam” which has subsequently been taken down. Thank heavens for the Google cache, eh? I’ve even converted it into a pdf for you . . . .

Malays, The Enemy Of Islam

CANBERRA – The Prime Minister has announced his intention to examine allegations against the Church of Scientology before deciding whether to back independent senator Nick Xenophon’s demand for a Senate inquiry, The Australian reported on November 19. Senator Xenophon told parliament on November 17 that Scientology was a “criminal organization” hiding behind religion, and the State Crime Command of NSW Police confirmed that he had handed over ex-Scientologists’ complaints for investigation.

ORISSA – The government has sentenced 9 people to prison and fined each $70 on charges of their connection to the anti-Christian riots in 2008, BBC reported on November 19. A local court acquitted five others, including a legislator from the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who were accused of rioting.  The violence in Kandhamal district left at least 40 people dead and more than 25,000 homeless.

KARSHI – Mekhrinisso Hamdamova, a Muslim holding a state appointment, has been arrested for holding unauthorized religious meetings in her home, and over 30 of her family members and other acquaintances have been arrested, Forum18 reported on November 18.  Authorities have accused Hamdamova of attempting to overthrow the President and the “constitutional order,” and inciting religious hatred.  In other cases, 11 Protestants have been fined because they were together for a meal in a friend’s house, the fines ranging between 50 and 10 times the minimum monthly wage, and 17 Protestants have been fined for possessing “illegal” religious literature.

JAKARTA – Leading human rights and legal organizations as well as a number of public figures, including former President Abdurrahman Wahid, on November 17 demanded the Constitutional Court overturn a controversial law adopted in 1965 that they argue is discriminatory and limits religious freedom, the Jakarta Globe reported on November 18. The parties argue that the Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion, which carries jail terms of up to five years, is unconstitutional. 

The law bans people from publicly espousing or gathering public support in favor of certain religious interpretations, and forces citizens to follow one of six state-sanctioned religions.

DIY abortions on Thai TV

I don’t subscribe to the idea that all censorship is bad. As much as I appreciate freedom of speech and expression in the media and arts, I do believe in sensible censorship of the most extreme opinions and/or images. For example, I think it’s quite right that distributing material which incites hatred is a crime in the UK, and that the USA’s Freedom of Speech law, which allows for the same to go unpunished, is a little lax.

But if censorship is to be enforced, it has to be done with common sense, and it must also treat the public with a modicum of respect for its intelligence. Consequently, I think sweeping bans on certain major websites (such as in China), or on publicly expressing certain opinions about a very important part of Thai life and culture (which, for obvious reasons, I can’t discuss here), do more harm than good.

But before I get into any deeper political comment, it was actually a daft juxtaposition in a schlocky Thai horror movie that got me thinking about censorship. It was Long Kong 2, or Art of the Devil 2 in English, which was shown on the cable channel True Film Asia. I only watched a segment of the movie, which was evidently about black magic. What I saw – unedited – was a pregnant woman strapped down on a bed and subjected to the electrocution of her genitals with a cattle prod, followed by a forced abortion by repeatedly thumping her in the torso. The foetus was then crudely yanked out of her, slopped into a bowl and then dumped outside. Nice.

Now, I’m not easily shocked. I’ve seen plenty of gory movies. The scene, while obviously disgusting, didn’t really bother me. But what did get a reaction from me – that of incredulous laughter – was the follow-up scene of one of the bad guys relaxing after the crude abortion ritual by smoking a cigarette – and it was this that got censored! A mosaic blurred out the offending object – the cigarette – whenever the guy lifted it to his mouth (although it was fine to show it being carried in his hand – only actual cig-to-mouth contact was deemed offensive).

Electrocution of vaginas and bloody foetuses in a bowl? Not a problem! But god forbid any impressionable people see the despicable act of smoking a cigarette on TV at 11pm on a Friday night.

It’s not unusual to see mosaicing in Thai movies on TV. It is also used to cover up guns (similarly, it’s fine to see a gaping head wound, so long as you don’t show the weapon that caused it!). But what is curious is that the same censorship is not applied to foreign movies. So Hollywood’s finest are free to tote guns and smoke cigs on Thai screens, but local stars are not.

I’d love to hear the rationale – are Thai people more susceptible to influence when seeing one of their own smoking than they would be when watching a farang? If so, then don’t the powers that be consider that occult practices and home abortions might be slightly more dangerous than smoking? Certainly if I had a child or teenager, I know which images I’d be more worried about them seeing.

Then again, this is a country where prostitution is tolerated – promoted, even, in some places – yet pornography is banned, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Just don’t mention the ********.

so one of my brothers in creativity, Sandile Madlala hooked up a team of people a, few advertisers, taregeted campuses all over durban and called it verb.

After the publication’s second edition, i voluntereed myself to guest design their cover.

Had an absolute time doing this!

Beautiful D'urban City life

There has been surprisingly little comment on the UK government’s acceptance of the amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 approved by the House of Lords last Thursday (12 November). This amendment is to that section of the Act which seeks to extend the definition of ‘hate crime’ to include attacks on people because of their sexual orientation (in addition to the existing provisions governing race and religion). The amendment has been welcomed in some quarters as a victory for free speech. I’m not at all sure that it is anything of the kind.

Clearly, there have been several instances lately of over-zealous and not very intelligent police interpreting legislation in a maximalist way, e.g., as reported in the New Internationalist, someone photographing a London bus was ordered to desist (information about transport, you see: could be passed to a terrorist organisation). There is something in the claim that over-explicit laws could lead to comedians being prosecuted for off-the-cuff remarks.

The problem is that any use of certain kinds of language creates a climate of tolerance which, while stopping short of incitement, intensifies and prolongs the stigmatisation of minorities as legitimate targets for contempt and abuse.

I include below the text of the relevant ‘exception’ clauses. 29JA sounds innocuous in isolation, but it has to be read in conjunction with 29J. Judge for yourselves.

‘29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation) The Waddington Amendment
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.’

US President Barack Obama’s trip to China is one of the highlights in this coming week.

The purpose of this visit is for President Obama to address the economic relationship between the two countries and the environmental issues, which are believed to be the most urgent ones.

However, the issue of human rights is also one that should not be left out of the big picture. The suppress of freedom of expression in China is severe and is a fundamental problem of this country.

The following extract is taken from The Daily Beast, which sums up all the points so far regarding Obama and his fail to tackle human rights abuses in China.

Last month, President Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama when the exiled Tibetan leader came through Washington. It was a strategic move to placate China, where Obama is now on a three-day visit to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao to address economic issues. Such actions have led some to think that Obama is brushing human-rights issues under the rug. So far on his Tour de Asia, Obama has failed to bring attention to Tibet or Xinjian, two embattled minority regions in China. (Although he did call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese dissident leader under house arrest.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also implied that, at the moment, the economy and climate change are more pressing issues than human rights. A former Bush administration Asia adviser said, “I really hope that on this trip the president not only presses privately but makes it clear publicly his support for the Dalai Lama… It’s not just about an important international spiritual leader; it’s a measure of how China will treat the weak as it grows more powerful.” Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama after he returns from China.

Other readings:
“Barack Obama criticises internet censorship at meeting in China” – The Guardian
“Obama reaches out to China in first visit” – The Washington Post
“Five things the U.S. and China actually agree on” – The Time

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Tasty links and a busted phoney baloney “marine” :

• Fake Marine gets busted by a real one at his high school reunion. (The Smoking Gun).
• ” Pentagon Learning Lessons From MRAP Program” lessons written in fire and blood (Ares blog)
• Sikh officers get to keep their bears. and we slide down the slippery slope…(NRO)
• Liberal blogger gets it right on the Atomic Bomb. We dropped the bomb to end a war. PC revisionsit history be damned.
• The GOlden Arches vs. the Berlin Wall no contest (American Thinker).
• Eminent domain abused to serve developers, only to have the project fall apart. Way to go New London, Connecticut! (Flopping Aces)
• This Ain’t Hell gives us four examples that shows the left’s hatred of the military. Especially by those who’ve never served…
• …but even muggers show respect for a military ID. (military.com)
• MSM blasts Clinton for almost doing what our president just did. (Hot Air)
• China’s SecDef turns on the charm wants the US out of ther “Exclusive Economic Zone”, Problem, the zone they claim is over 3 million square kilometers, much of that in international waters.

Tacho Bell’s new menu (don’t tell the chow hall please!):

Ah, justice. A matter for the courts right? Well if you jaywalk, crash your car while drunk or murder your lover yes.
But if you are the mastermind of a plot to kill 3,000+ innocent people in another country thousands of miles away and you are a danger to that country still, the courts may be in over their heads.

Tell that to the left and their drool supporters in the press. (h/t: Michelle Malkin)

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Terrorists hate our laws. They hide behind them to exploit the loopholes and clueless lefties that support them. Terrorism is NOT and never has been a criminal matter. It’s survival of the country, of the people. They want to kill as many Americans as possible.

If KSM is found innocent in the trial, does he go free? Why him? Others are getting military tribunals?

If the wacky anti-GITMO lefties are still not satisfied what then?

Are some in the administration playing politics with national security?
(h/t: Ace o’ Spades)

The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department’s obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the “reckoning” that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring “torture” and “war crimes” indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama’s base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
….
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can’t help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America. Since that will be their “defense,” the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc.,

That’s the real danger. National secrets exposed to defendants who want to destroy America, an international left that wants to drag the US government into pointless court cases. Both want to “prove” that any US actions in defense of the country and American citizens are “war crimes.” The results may come back to bite us.

What most people don’t get is that the Geneva Conventions do not cover “enemy combatants” that:

• hide in the civilian population
• do not wear uniforms or carry ID cards
• “Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.” Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions</li>

We should have executed these clowns when we had the chance.

Ahmed Moustafa

I don’t know exactly what’s going on? I’m not interested in football soccer, but to be fair,  the team of Algeria was in bus after quitting the Airport protected by the Egyptian state security guards after quiting Cairo International Airport on 12 November 2009 before the big match that shall be occured by Saturday, 14 November 2009 at Cairo International Stadium.

Therefore, nobody can throw any stone towards the bus lest exposure to police arrest, this is a matter of state security, what about the condition of tension before this match? Then the bus driver complained that the Algerians smacked and injured him at the bus, not only that the player broke the windows of the bus according to the satements of the police guards and the reception of the hosting hotel, in order to make a trick or a play to practice their pressure on the egyptian team, the matters that not matching with the code of fair play, this is a soccer match, not a battlefield.  

Aljazeera www.Aljazeera.net unfortunately became mistaken in its coverage for such news, they only highlighted on such fabricated youtube Algerian material, and did not highlight the other injured party or the police security around the bus, therefore, their performance tarnished with non-objectivity and bias, where were Mr. Hussein Abdel Ghani and his reporters?   

Frankly speaking, it was not the first time of Aljazeera in this regard, when they produced some materials make doubts about the credibility in our great victory in the 6th of October 1973 “the Liberation War” whereas I made a very strong commentary in that regard on my blog http://intellecto.wordpress.com    Football like religion is considered as the opium of peoples, manipulated by regimes here in the area to make the youth out of their appropriate awareness of their fundamental rights.  

Unfortunately Media here in the area helped the ambiance of this soccer match to be fired as a matter of business related to Advertising and Commercials.   Aljazeera is considered as an academy/panel for freedom of expression and human rights, but they have to follow all the time both neutrality and objectivity in their reporting news, because their report yesterday deformed the image of my country the matter which is never be accepted by us as Egyptians.   

Regards,  

Ahmed Moustafa    

Socio-economic Specialist/Researcher/Legal Translator at (www.eldib.com.eg)

Human Rights Activist/Blogger/Youth Trainer

International Law Association (ILA) Coordinator in Egypt

Work Tel: 002-03-4950000

Mob/Cell: 002-010-9229411       

Email: solimon2244@yahoo.com

Solimon146@hotmail.com

URL: http://intellecto.wordpress.com

http://www.youtube.com/solimon246

http://www.proz.com/profile/1104929

Kenn Nakata Steffensen

I am a member of the Broadcast Entertainment and Theatre Union, BECTU. Like most people in this country BECTU understandably finds the BNP’s views abhorrent. Its policy of denying the party airtime is more difficult to understand, as it seems to contradict the union’s values as a democratic organisation committed to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression should be particularly important for a union of media workers, and it ought therefore to think about the meaning of the concept and its translation into policy.

Regardless of the fact that Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time looks like an unmitigated PR disaster for the BNP, was BECTU right in principle to argue for suppression of their views? Does calling for censorship not open up an intractable debate about who else should be censored and the criteria to be applied when making such a decision? And does it not represent a capitulation to the authoritarian values that BECTU sought to oppose? Should we fight fire with fire and thereby sacrifice a central principle? Do the ends justify the means? After some doubts I have come to believe that BECTU’s policy of “no platform for the BNP” is misguided.

In September the BBC decided to invite the BNP leader Nick Griffin to participate in its current affairs programme Question Time. This has been a matter of general political controversy, exposing some of the core contradictions of liberal democratic political theory and practice and posing a dilemma for all who believe in democracy, equality and freedom of expression. This is exemplified in the manner in which the issue has split the Labour Party with Jack Straw agreeing to appear on the programme and his cabinet colleague Peter Hain urging the BBC not to allow Mr. Griffin to appear. The Labour Party has previously had a policy of not sharing media platforms with the BNP. The party’s decision to be represented by the Justice Secretary therefore marks a significant change. The Prime Minister argued for the policy reversal by saying that, “If, on Question Time, they are asked about their racist and bigoted views that are damaging to good community relations, it will be a good opportunity to expose what they are about.”

In response to the BBC’s decision BECTU issued a press release on 28th September announcing the union’s support for members who chose on conscientious grounds “not to work on the broadcast because of the involvement of the BNP.” The day before the broadcast, BECTU announced that general secretary Gerry Morrisey would “speak at the Unite Against Fascism rally outside BBC Television Centre, London, on 22 October.” BECTU argued that “the party’s performance earlier this year in the European elections, does not justify inclusion in the programme, contrary to the BBC’s official view.” The day after the broadcast, BECTU issued another statement saying that “The BNP leader’s weak justifications for his extremist, far-Right beliefs will galvanise the political opposition to him and, most importantly, should encourage those voters who delivered a platform for the party in the European Parliament to think again about the further damage which the BNP would do to UK society.” The union also reiterated its belief that Nick Griffin should not have appeared on Question Time. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary, said, “We stand by our view, which is union policy, in arguing that the BBC should not have granted a platform to the BNP. Time will tell whether the BNP secures any electoral advantage from the broadcast.”

The BBC has justified its decision to include the BNP with reference to the organisation’s obligation “to treat all political parties registered with the Electoral Commission and operating within the law with due impartiality,” and with reference to the fact that the BNP has “demonstrated evidence of electoral support at a national level”. This electoral support should “be reflected in the amount of coverage the party received.” Although the legality of the BNP’s constitution is disputed, the reasoning of the BBC seems logically coherent and in line with its obligations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the many well-intentioned people, including BECTU’s secretary general, who are, in effect, calling for censorship.

The BNP increased their share of votes in the European Parliament elections on 4th June by 1.3% on their 2004 results, thus winning two seats and representation at a national level for the first time. They won 6% of the vote nationally (943,598 votes) and “close to 10% in some regions”. This is a momentous event in British political history and a disturbing development for all egalitarians. What is heartening, on the other hand, is the general response by the public and the mainstream parties. Unlike in some other European countries, the political ideas of the BNP remain marginal and are consistently opposed by Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It does not enjoy as widespread support as the Dutch Party for Freedom (14.8%) or the Danish People’s Party (15.3%). And due to the higher thresholds for representation in the British first-past-the-post electoral system, this does not translate into parliamentary representation as directly as in proportional systems. In spite of its relative electoral success, the BNP is still considered beyond the pale by other parties, and unlike in Denmark its core ideas have not been adopted by the social democratic, liberal and conservative mainstream. Nick Griffin’s performance on Question Time clearly showed that his parasitical attempts to co-opt liberal democratic discourse and present a “New BNP” failed. The party cannot run from its fascist roots and is unlikely to have mass appeal or to change the orientations of the mainstream parties. However unpleasant a phenomenon it is, it does not represent as great a threat to pluralism as parties with similar values elsewhere in Europe.
It is right for BECTU to be concerned about the rise of the BNP and to act against it. There can be no doubt about that. But, as Lenin asked in another historical context and from a different perspective and with different objectives than mine, “what is to be done?” This is really one of the “burning questions of our movement.” To answer the tactical question of how to respond appropriately requires some theoretical reflection on a number of dilemmas and possibly irresolvable contradictions of modern politics. These tend to present themselves as paired conceptual oppositions, such as the limits of democracy and authoritarianism, procedural versus substantive democracy, freedom of speech versus harm to society and individuals, universalism versus relativism, and reason versus emotion.
Democracy as a political system has its origins in ancient Athens. It has two semantic components – demos (people) and kratia (rule). It was a system by which the people governed the city state (polis). The people were conceived of as all Athenian citizens, which meant native, male Athenians over the age of 18. Women, descendants of immigrants and slaves were excluded from the citizenry. Citizenship conferred a right to participation in the assembly (ekklesia), which would constitute an executive council (boule) of 500 paid government officials elected for a one-year term. Between 503 to 322 BCE, “Athens lived under a radically democratic government” where “in a very real sense, the People governed themselves, debating and voting individually on issues great and small, from matters of war and peace to the proper qualifications for ferry-boat captains “
After the enlightenment and the French revolution, classical Athenian democracy developed into representative liberal democracy and became the ideal form of government towards which European states strived. Hardly any political movements since Hitler have defined themselves as opposed to democracy. Even Stalinists and Maoists have claimed to be democrats, as terms like “people’s democracy”, the oxymoronic “people’s democratic dictatorship” and names like German Democratic Republic or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea show. What we generally refer to as democracy today is representative liberal democracy. Although it means different things to many people, democracy is so hegemonic that even Nick Griffin appeals to liberal democratic principles.
Liberalism and democracy coexist uneasily, and at times they come into conflict with each other. Unlike classical democracy, which was founded on fundamental gender and class discrimination, liberalism secularised the Christian doctrine that all human beings were equal before God. The principle of fundamental equality made exclusion from political participation based on first class and later gender and ethnicity untenable and resulted in the gradual extension of citizenship rights to more of the population. Today, all adults regardless of class, income, gender and ethnicity have a right to in principle equal participation in the political process. In most contemporary liberal democracies, immigrants do not have the right to vote in national elections, but all citizens do, including BNP members, voters and sympathisers.
As the name implies, liberalism is also centrally concerned with liberty, which is usually understood as the right of individuals and groups to freely live as they choose as long as their choices do not harm others. A distinction is often made between positive and negative freedoms – freedom to and freedom from. One of the questions faced by anti-racists is whether the BNP’s right to democratic participation infringes on the right of others, e.g. ethnic minorities, to live in freedom. If so, how should it be addressed and what should be the balance between positive and negative freedom? The union’s position is that the BNP’s rights should be curtailed because their views are in principle different from those of other political opponents. What distinguishes the BNP from others is, according to Gerry Morrissey, that their “policies are reprehensible, anti-democratic and racist”. Most members will probably agree with this. Many may also agree that the union should therefore support efforts to prevent them from spreading their views in the media. However honourable the intentions, such a policy is problematic because it means relativising and compromising principles, which should be consistently upheld by BECTU. Freedom of expression and the right to political participation applies to all, even to those we fundamentally disagree with. Censorship is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic, and a consistently democratic position would therefore defend it as an absolute value under all circumstances. By seeking to keep the BNP off the airwaves, BECTU has given in to the authoritarianism that it finds reprehensible about the BNP. It is a self-contradiction to do what we condemn others for trying to do.  As Noam Chomsky once wrote,

“it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance.”

Parties and movements like the BNP should be opposed on the principled grounds that their ideology is irrational and unethical. This opposition should take the form of reasoned debate true to the dialogic nature of democratic politics, not by making concessions to the very authoritarianism we oppose.
A further question raised by BECTU’s decision is which criteria to apply when deciding who should and who should not be censored. In this case, the argument for censorship is the anti-democratic and racist nature of the BNP. How should BECTU then respond to certain strands of Islamism or Zionism? Should it, as the Dutch and Danish far-right politician Geert Wilders and Søren Krarup, argue for the suppression of Islam itself on the grounds that it advocates authoritarianism and sexism? How should contemporary democratic liberal racists like Wilders be treated, and how should we assess historical democratic socialist racists like Sidney and Beatrice Webb? There are no easy answers to these questions, if any answers at all, once censorship and denial of political rights to one’s opponents has been embarked upon. A way of avoiding these questions in the first place is to consistently uphold the rights to freedom of expression and equal participation. This must, of course, be qualified by the harm principle, which John Stuart Mill defined as:

the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

This means that the BNP have a right to be heard, but that the exercise of that right is conditional on refraining from inflicting harm on other members of society. It also means that nobody is entitled to limit that right unless it is for the purpose of preventing harm to others.
It seems logically inconsistent for anti-racist democrats to wish to deny a racist party the right to be heard and scrutinised in public. Weyman Bennett of Unite Against Fascism said, Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time “will lead to the growth of a fascist party” . According to the BNP, this has been an immediate effect of the programme. The party claims that the BBC has acted as its recruitment agent, thus apparently confirming Peter Hain’s fears. But 9,000 inquiries out of 8 million viewers amounts to very little. Ken Livingstone has argued that it will result “in a surge in violence against people from ethnic minorities”. This remains to be seen. It seems impossible to establish any clear causal relationship even in the (unlikely) case that there is a correlation. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that all publicity is good publicity. As Gordon Brown has said, exposing the BNP may “make people see what they are really like.” On the contrary, silencing parties like the BNP may have the opposite of the desired effect by lending legitimacy to their bizarre claims that London has been “ethnically cleansed” and that they speak on behalf of an indigenous ethnic majority threatened by genocide. As with other radical movements, there is a risk that suppression will backfire and strengthen the movement.

What would be truly worrying would be if Jack Straw, like the then Social Democrat (now Liberal) Danish Home Secretary Karen Jespersen, began to speak of the need to keep “illiterate Somalis” out of Britain, promise that the Labour Party would ensure that Britain would “never become a multicultural society” where “Islam was considered equal to Christianity”, or propose building special detention centres for asylum seekers on uninhabited islands. Fortunately, the British political elite and the general public are firmly committed to multiculturalism, and the political poison of the BNP has not infected the mainstream parties like in Denmark. Although the BNP is parasitical on liberal discourse for tactical reasons, e.g. in its appeals to freedom, human rights and democracy, it has clear historical roots in European fascism. The same cannot be said about the Danish and Dutch parties with which it shares many points of view. The historical roots of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s Party are not in pre-1945 fascism, although both parties have attracted members and supporters from more traditional fascist backgrounds. These examples illustrate that liberalism, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia are compatible with liberalism. In the same way, leading early 20th century socialists like Sidney and Beatrice Webb held views that are clearly racist.

Freedom of speech would have no meaning if it applied only to views found acceptable by most members of a polity at a given time in history. One’s commitment to freedom of speech is tested precisely when confronted with despicable views. Rather than following Hitler and Stalin in allowing the “free” expression of views BECTU agrees with, it should have followed Voltaire’s insistence on defending to the death Nick Griffin’s right to speak and be challenged. Freedom of speech has no meaning if it is relativised.

Notes

THIS IS A GUEST POST BY DHAIBHIDH C MHAC DHUIHDHLHEIGH OF THE LENINIST VANGUARD (DRUMNADROCHIT CHAPTER).

I normally am pleased to address you all, but I am sure you will appreciate why I do so with such a heavy heart today. I was truly saddened to hear of the shameful events surrounding the slaying of 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The eagerness which the international and Islamophobic media showed in naming Major Nidal Malik Hasan who surely deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty was truly disturbing.

We must, of course, all stand against such acts of terrorism, wherever they may occur. For that reason, I was truly saddened to read an apologia for the slayings by a man whom I had once considered to preach nothing but peace.

I have previously been truly inspired by the words of US-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki but feel cheating by his recent thoughts on the Fort Hood slayings, which he called the actions of a hero.

I cannot stress how much I disagree with these words, and consider it truly disingenuous to attempt to smear me and my comrades in the struggle against Imperialism, hegemony and Islamophobia as the notorious neo-con Centre for Social Cohesion has done. Equally shamefully, the right-wing The Times has picked-up this and accused our Brothers, Osama Saeed and Azad Ali of praising the viper, al-Awlaki.

Brother Azad’s is a truly inspiring civil servant whose advice on incitement of racial and religious hatred is sought by the Crown Prosecution Service, and before being named in the national media, had described al-Awlaki as:

”one of my favourite speakers and scholars” and “I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing”.

As if the shameful forced repayment of much needed set-up money was not demeaning enough, Brother Osama is right to feel offended, and has said:

I completely disagree with what he has said about Fort Hood, and a host of other matters which he has more recently written and spoken about.”

Like any normal human being with a scintilla of compassion and sense of justice, I believe it is essential to settle to sore in humanity which is the settler state of Israel and establish a bi-national haven of peace, but words such as these are not helpful:

The illegal state of Israel needs to be eradicated. Just like Rasulullah drove them out of the Arabian peninsula the Jews of Palestine need to be driven out to the sea. There are no Israeli civilians unless they are Muslim. When the enemy targets our women and children we should target theirs.

Engagement with the democratic process is essential for any revolutionary socialist, and I cannot agree with al-Awlaki’s words on the truly disturbing situation in Somalia:

“[Al-Shabaah] not only have succeeded in expanding the areas that fall under their rule but they have succeeded in implementing the sharia and giving us a living example of how we as Muslims should proceed to change our situation.The ballot has failed us the bullet has not.

Had I known that al-Awlaki’s 44 Ways to Support Jihad would be made public, I never would have offered him support.

I am led to believe that this political activism is like a computer game, so I would like now to press the reset button.

KUALA LUMPUR – The editor for Malaysia’s weekly Catholic newspaper, The Herald, has lost its publishing permit for next year following the dispute over its use of the word “Allah,” the AFP reported on November 12. The Roman Catholic Church has waged a two-year legal battle with Malaysian authorities over the use of the word “Allah,” while the government has argued that the word “Allah” should be used only by Muslims, who represent the majority religious population in Malaysia.