If Hazel Blears made UK foreign policy...

Interesting comment from UK Communities Secretary Hazel Blears:

"The quality of debate about religion in contemporary life - and by religion, I mean all faiths - is being sapped by a creeping over-sensitivity," she said.

"Three-quarters of the UK population describe ourselves as belonging to one of the major world religions. Yet there is an astonishing amount of squeamishness about the subject."

Ms Blears said on the Middle East, the liberal-left's historic concern for oppressed peoples had in some cases "mutated" into support for organisations whose members were filled with "misogyny, homophobia and Jew-hatred".

"It leads to British democrats who are sickened by the sight of the suffering of the Palestinian people allying themselves with people who advocate the violent destruction of an entire nation-state."

Raises an interesting question or two for me.

My Gran, when talking about immigration, kinda takes Hazel Blears view. Tolerance up to a certain point - but if you are coming to live in Britain, you need to respect British "laws and culture" (so says my Gran). And that, I think, means practise the religion you want to, but within the laws of this country. Indeed, if one were to go and live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you would be expected to respect the different culture and live by their laws. The same goes here. And that is a point I have no problem with.

But is Hazel Blears simply talking about Britain? Or does she mean we should be challenging these kind of practises abroad?

Because, while part of me thinks that is nothing more than "Empire" talk - harking back to days when we tried to "civilise" the uncivilised world, another part of me thinks there is a genuine point to it.

Yes, were we to go to Islamic countries (where, in some places, Sharia law exists) and tell them how "wrong" they were, how we would no longer tolerate their "backward" views I expect there'd be something of a backlash. But there is a principled stance to take - if we are saying homophobia is wrong, if we are saying we are for equality of the sexes, if we are saying that forced marriages are unacceptable (which IS, in fact, what Hazel Blears is saying) then don't we mean it it wrong FULL STOP? Or just in our little British bubble?

Is there a moral imperative to act on this? Or are we asking for more trouble from fundamentalists who are looking for yet another reason to hate the west? A controversial argument and a tricky one to balance.

This is probably why Hazel Blears doesn't make our foreign policy.

Read more...

Too statesmanlike for some?

There's been a big hoo-haa (original spelling by the way) over the above photo of Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Some claim that this meeting is a "great moment for Scotland" others have made light of it or generally criticised it as "style over substance".

Maybe with my moderate hat on I can make sense of it.

It would appear that some in opposition camps (who I seem to remember being awfully fond of Mrs Clinton when she was running for an important office) are a wee bit miffed that it is Salmond and not them who is meeting the US Secretary of State. Others, I guess, are more concerned with how the meeting looks (Scotland, you know, not being a state or anything) than if anything substantive came out of it.

The fact that a popular administration like President Obama's (so far, so good) looks like they are taking an interest in "wee Scotland" is surely good on a stylistic level. And whether or not anything substantive came out of it, the fact that a Scottish FM is meeting at this level indicates a kind of ambition for Scotland that opposition parties seem only too keen to rubbish. On the other hand, it is patently easy to see the meeting as a Nat stunt, with Salmond keen to show Scotland on the world stage and mixing with the big actors - which, inevitably, is how unionists will see the photograph.

So, a mixed reaction I guess. Getting your photo taken with the US Secretary of State isn't going to change the world. Indeed, its probably not going to change anyone's opinion of you either. But it does emphasise ambition. And that is something that we in Scotland don't tend to go for that often.

Read more...

No love in Dubai tennis tale

I've been thinking about a post on this issue for a few days now, and I still can't decide where I fall on it. I am leaning towards supporting the tennis player involved however.

If you are not familiar with the story, I'll summarise it for you. Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer has been denied a visa to compete in a tournament in Dubai - in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE has said that, after the three week conflict/ Israeli aggression against Palestinians (delete depending on your point of view) tensions are still running high in the region and they were concerned for the player's safety.

Now, I can understand that sentiment. But there are two things that make me somewhat suspicious about their motives here:

1) They have given a visa to another Israeli tennis player, Andy Ram, so he can compete in the same event. Why is his safety not at risk? And even if it was, shouldn't it be up to the player to decide whether they feel safe attending an event?

2) The UAE doesn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. Which suggests that they may have looked for the first opportunity they could to send a message to Israel. They've said they "don't want to politicise sport" but wanted to be sensitive to recent events in the region.

Now, like I said, I'm not so sure about where I stand on this one. In an earlier post on the subject of Israel's actions I compared the division of peoples there to South Africa under the apartheid regime. I know there are flaws in the comparison, but I maintain that the cases have some similarities. Anyway, the point I'm making is that when the South African government decided that it would have two classes of people, the world stood up and said "that's not one" and boycotted South African goods and - crucially, for this argument - their sports teams were not allowed to participate in international events.

Now I know that is not why Dubai has stopped Peer from participating in the event there - they've given the player's safety as the main reason. But really, if it had been for that reason, would people have reacted in the same way?

Like I say, I have sympathy for Peer. She hasn't any way of shaping Israeli policy. She just wants to play tennis. But South Africa's sporting stars just wanted to play sport too.

The boycott of South Africa worked. Maybe it is time we started giving Israel some tough love too.

Read more...

Did Georgia commit war crimes?

I read with interest this piece on the BBC website about the Georgia-Russia conflict earlier this year.

According to the BBC, Georgia "used indiscriminate force and may have targeted civilians."

I'm not going to come across in full condemn-mode because I appreciate that there are difficulties and decisions in combat that we, as civilians, do not come across in every day life. The use of particular force and the targeting of civilians, while shocking and altogether unpleasant, is something which we can not comprehend nor would we want to. War is an ugly beast.

I will say this though. If the BBC's claims are indeed founded in irrefutable evidence, would this alter the Foreign Secretary's view of the conflict? Presumably he'd still think Russia the aggressor and in the wrong - but this evidence, if it is such, would suggest that Georgia is no saint in the conflict either, and perhaps our backing, and that of the EU, should be re-evaluated.

Read more...