Author: Mick Hartley

Well here we go again. The first two letters in the Times today seriously suggest that it is now time to negotiate with the terrorists. The second of the two is worth quoting in full for its sheer fatuousness:

We must find out how terrorists think and what they want, otherwise our uncompromising response will simply breed more disaffection for decades to come.

We are all in this together. Where the twin towers were a symbol of capitalism and dominance, commuter trains are not. Our task, right from the beginning, should have been to bring together all the nations of the world to tackle something that affects us all.

Instead, the US acted with disdain towards the UN and breached the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Its swaggering approach has done untold harm. We need dialogue and, ultimately, to bring even the terrorist into the fold.

How frustrating it must be for Al Qaeda and the other Islamic terrorist groups. They endeavour to make their aims as clear as possible – “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you” (Hussein Massawi, former Hezbollah leader) – but are constantly being misunderstood. Scott Burgess has some suggestions as to how the negotiations might proceed.

According to this Reuters story, France is joining China in intimidating Taiwan (via Instapundit):

China and France will hold rare joint naval exercises off the mainland’s eastern coast on Tuesday, just four days before Beijing’s rival, Taiwan, holds presidential elections.

China’s official Xinhua news agency made no link between the exercises off Qingdao — about 780 miles from Taiwan’s northernmost point — and the election.

But the show of military strength and solidarity signaled China’s desire to isolate the self-governing island before the vote and its first-ever referendum, which Beijing views as a provocative step toward independence.

“It’s the biggest in scale and the most substantial in content of an exercise between the Chinese navy and a foreign navy,” Xinhua said on Monday, quoting Ju Xinchun, the captain of the destroyer “Harbin.”

“Through this joint exercise, we hope to learn the French navy’s combat training experience and combat thought,” Ju was quoted as saying.

This is extraordinarily cynical even by Chirac’s low standards: the French trying to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese (after earlier fawnings in Paris) by helping them in their battle with democratic Taiwan, thereby ramping up the pressure towards open conflict. Nevermind: France’s two main foreign policy objectives, of increasing their own presence on the world stage, and embarrassing the US, are well served.

Unlike Oliver Kamm, I think it entirely plausible that the Al Qaeda bombings were an attempt to influence the Spanish election. And to that end they were spectacularly successful. The full extent of that success was only revealed in the haste with which the new Spanish Prime Minister announced that Spain would be withdrawing its troops from Iraq, and his denunciation of Bush and Blair as liars. No doubt he’s sincerely appalled by the bombings, and no doubt he is sincerely opposed to Spanish involvement in Iraq, but by his rush to sever any links with the US and UK and the stance of his predecessor Aznar, he’s removed any doubt as to the extent of Al Qaeda’s triumph.

There’s been much talk after the Spanish election result about Britain being next: that is, we can expect similar attacks in Britain prior to our election next year. But what hasn’t been pointed out to my knowledge is that the situation here is quite different to that which obtained in Spain. The principle opposition here, the Conservatives, are to the right of the ruling party, and by and large – though with all sorts of opportunistic qualifications – supported the sending of British troops to Iraq. In Spain this clearly wasn’t the case. There the ruling party was the right wing party, and the socialists always (I believe) opposed Aznar’s support for the US line on Iraq.

To avoid the spectre of Al Qaeda attempting by terror to influence the outcome of our next election, the Conservatives under Michael Howard should make it plain that they were in full support of our actions in Iraq, and had no intention, should they be elected, of withdrawing any British troops. Whether such an announcement by the Tories is likely I have no idea. Michael Howard seems to me to be someone who’d sell his grandmother for a few votes, but this would be a chance to show his statesmanship. Going in to a general election with both main parties committed to an active line against terrorism would be the best possible answer to Al Qaeda. Of course I’m not saying that this would necessarily reduce the chances of terrorist attacks here – who can say? – but it would deny some of the rationale which may have provoked the Madrid bombings.

Clearly the Lib Dems would make no such announcement, having already made their position clear. Would the Tories calculate that by not taking a strong stand against terror they’d be stopping the leakage to the Lib Dems? That would be shameful.

s of the Ba’ath regime. Although some basic rights for women, such as the right to education, employment, divorce in civil courts and custody over kids, were endorsed in the Personal Status Code, some of these legal rights were routinely violated. The Ba’ath regime’s “faithfulness campaign”, an act of terrorism against women that included the summary beheading of scores of those accused of prostitution, is just one example of its brutality against women.

However, it is now almost a year after the war, which was supposed to bring “liberation” to Iraqis. Rather than an improvement in the quality of women’s lives, what we have seen is widespread violence, and an escalation of violence against women.

From the start of the occupation, rape, abduction, “honour” killings and domestic violence have became daily occurrences. The Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (Owfi) has informally surveyed Baghdad, and now knows of 400 women who were raped in the city between April and August last year.

A lack of security and proper policing have led to chaos and to growing rates of crime against women. Women can no longer go out alone to work, or attend schools or universities. An armed male relative has to guard a woman if she wants to leave the house.

Girls and women have become a cheap commodity to be traded in post-Saddam Iraq. Owfi knows of cases where virgin girls have been sold to neighbouring countries for $200, and non-virgins for $100.

The idea that a woman represents family “honour” is becoming central to Iraqi culture, and protecting that honour has cost many women their lives in recent months. Rape is considered so shaming to the family’s honour that death – by suicide or murder – is needed to expunge it.

I wouldn’t for a moment doubt that there are problems for women in Iraq, but it’s typical of a certain sort of Guardian thinking that although lip service is paid to the “untold hardships and difficulties during the past three decades of the Ba’ath regime”, the assumption when comparisons are made with the present is that apart from the odd bit of beheading, things weren’t that bad: no rapes, no honour killings, no domestic violence. The “right to education, employment, divorce in civil courts and custody over kids, were endorsed in the Personal Status Code”, so really the Baathists were progressive secularists who, unfortunately, happened to lapse into brutality from time to time.

We come then to the inevitable conclusion:

Iraq’s lack of basic rights for women and the rise of political Islam are the result of three wars and the ongoing occupation. The only way out of this chaos is through the direct power of the real people of Iraq – the progressive, secular masses.

So Iraq’s lack of basic rights for women has nothing to do with 30 years of Baathism, and stands in marked contrast to all those surrounding Arab countries with similar cultures where women’s rights are so far advanced. As for the “progressive, secular masses” – what sort of fantasy world is this?

From today’s Standard:

A scientist who tried to poison his wife and cover his tracks by spiking products in a local supermarket is lecturing students on ethics, it emerged today.

Paul Agutter – also known as the Safeway poisoner – has been employed on a part-time basis by the University of Manchester.

The 57-year-old, from Athelstaneford, East Lothian, was released from jail in 2002, after serving seven years of a 12-year sentence for attempted murder.

He spiked his wife’s gin and tonic drinks with doses of atropine and tried to cover his tracks by placing bottles of tonic injected with the poison on supermarket shelves. […]

A spokesman for the University of Manchester confirmed Agutter was employed on a part-time basis.

“He was contracted to teach philosophy and medical ethics two hours a week at night classes a couple of months ago.

“All we can say in relation to his appointment is that he applied for the job, we took up his references and he was appointed to the post after due process.”

The obvious choice really, with Harold Shipman no longer available.

I posted earlier about Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy as the latest in a long and inglorious line of diagnoses whereby doctors can justify removing children from their parents. This is from “Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy Reconsidered” by Dr. Eric Mart, a US psychologist:

I first heard the term Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy (MSBP) about ten years ago, when I sat in on a panel discussion of the syndrome at an American Psychological Association convention. I gave the matter no more thought until a few years ago, when a defense attorney approached me to review a local child abuse case in which MSBP was suspected.

I had no particular expertise in this form of child abuse, but neither did anyone else involved with the case. In preparing to review the documentation and reports in the case, I spent time at the local university libraries and read as much material as I could find (which was a surprisingly large amount) on the subject of MSBP. I was appalled by what I read. There appeared to be only one or two articles in the professional literature which might have been considered “hard research,” and in these the research had been done only in the most rudimentary way. The rest of the literature consisted of case studies in which medical and psychological professionals identified what they believed to be MSBP cases and then discussed how closely they corresponded to or deviated from the behavioral profile and clinical features of the hypothetical archetypal case. Much of the “science” in this literature, which had been published in prestigious journals, would not have passed serious scrutiny in an undergraduate research methods class. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scientific “heavy lifting” of empirical research had not been done with this syndrome and its inferred dynamics, it was clear that professionals all over the United States and United Kingdom were willing to diagnose the disorder. Moreover, some of the excesses of the early child sexual abuse prosecutions were being repeated in cases of alleged MSBP. […]

Unfortunately, MSBP now appears to have become what Thomas Ryan, a well-known Arizona attorney who specializes in medical malpractice, has termed “the disease du jour.” It is disheartening to see families torn apart by allegations of MSBP, which are almost impossible to fight due to the looseness of the legal process in such cases, the cost of mounting an effective defense, and the fact that almost any behavior on the part of the parent suspected of MSBP is seen as a confirmation of the diagnosis. Although clearly there are cases in which parents have used medicine or the medical system to abuse children (I have seen such cases), it is also clear that many individuals, possibly most, who are given this diagnosis do not meet the diagnostic criteria for MSBP, if indeed the diagnosis itself has any validity.

The article which lead me to this (via AL Daily) looks at a new group of psychologists attempting to inject a little scientific rigour to the mental health field:

They have been called assassins and parasites. They receive hate mail from the proponents of a variety of popular psychotherapies. […]

Dr. Ronald Levant, president-elect of the American Psychological Association, said [they] had gone overboard in their enthusiasm for scientific vetting of therapeutic techniques. “Their fervor about science borders on the irrational,”…

It’s no surprise that many psychotherapists are unhappy about independent scrutiny, but no profession is in greater need of it. To judge by the comments of the president-elect of the APA though, there’s a long way to go.

In the Observer, Jon Snow reviews Rageh Omaar new book, and is not happy. Omaar never quite managed to get the necessary view of Iraq war that other journalists – mentioning no names of course – achieved so effortlessly. The way the BBC used him, unfortunately:

came to envelop Omaar and perhaps deprive him of the chance to contribute a unique insight into one of the most alarming military adventures of the past three decades.

Take, for instance, Omaar’s childishly optimistic view of the capture of Saddam:

His concluding paragraph on the consequences of the capture of Saddam could have been lifted from a White House briefing paper: ‘It could also lead the way to regime change in a way that will benefit them, providing a framework for the emergence of an independent, sovereign and stable state.’

Oh dear. Older and wiser heads could have come up with something much more, well, Channel 4ish. Snow allows patronisingly that Omaar is “capable and telegenic”, but if he’d got out and about in Iraq a bit more, then:

[h]is viewers and readers would have learnt so much more about who it was we were about to kill.

Nicely put, Jon – the only broadcaster capable of chastising the BBC for it’s positive spin on the war.

r of a centre for Islamic studies in Oxford. I wonder to what extent this is Ferguson pandering to a US audience: the opening of an Islamic centre in Oxford is hardly the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. He also brings in a familiar trope in US circles – the decadence of Europe – quoting figures for the decline of church-going. Again I’m unhappy with the implications of this: that the only defence against Muslim expansionism is Christianity. What happened to the whole Enlightenment project? I thought that was what we’re fighting for.

Also it’s not clear in this context to what extent Britain is included in Europe. This is a general problem I have with US discussions on Europe. I tend to think not on the whole, but it does, in the standard wisdom, reflect a problem we have with our definition of ourselves. Personally I don’t really see the problem. Where are we? We’re between Europe and the US geographically, politically, and culturally. What’s the problem with that? Why do we have to choose?

7178,00.html”>speech going on the offensive about Iraq, and I have to say once again I find myself in the strange position of admiring him. It’s never happened to me before, admiring a Prime Minister, and it wasn’t an option I’d seriously considered when he was elected in ’97, at which time I found him unappealing. Nor of course do I agree with everything he does now; but about Iraq, the most important issue of the day, he’s not only been firm and consistent, but he’s also been extremely eloquent.