Absurd British "human rights" laws to be suspended?

John Reid faced growing anger as he signalled the Government was ready to declare that Britain faced an "emergency" over terrorism and opt out of human rights legislation. As the recriminations flew over the disappearance of three radical Islamists who had been on control orders, he made clear his determination to bring in tougher curbs on terror suspects. The Home Secretary said that could mean "derogating" from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so he could impose tougher control orders on suspects. The convention, which entered British law via the Human Rights Act, allows countries to suspend parts of the ECHR in "time of emergency".

Control orders, which restrict movements and contact with other people for terror suspects who cannot be brought to court, were introduced two years ago. They replaced the detention without trial of the "Belmarsh detainees," which was ruled illegal. The latest disappearances bring to six the number of people on control orders who have vanished in the past year and have left the control-order system in disarray.

A major police search was under way last night for Lamine Adam, 26, his brother Ibrahim, 20, and Cerie Bullivant, 24, after they went missing this week. Police believe they may try to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan. A third Adams brother, Anthony Garcia, 25, was jailed for life last month for his part in the "fertiliser bomb" plot to attack targets including a shopping mall and a London nightclub. Bullivant is due to stand trial over claims he breached his control order on 13 occasions over the past 10 months. All three had been assessed at the lower end of risk, but the fact that they co-ordinated their disappearances has alarmed the police.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said: "Nobody can be perfectly satisfied they are not a risk to the public here, but the intelligence is pointing in another direction." However, Mr Reid had said the men were "not considered at this time to represent a direct threat to the public in the UK".

News of the absconders triggered fiery clashes over the control-order system in the Commons. The Home Secretary admitted that he would prefer to detain terror suspects or deport those who are foreign nationals, but said he was constrained by legal and political opposition to that approach. He said he wanted to impose tougher control-order regimes, but was hampered from doing so by court judgments under the ECHR. Mr Reid said he wanted the convention modernised by European leaders to reflect the realities of the terrorist threat. But he added: "We will consider other options, which include derogation, if we have exhausted ways of overturning previous judgments on this issue."

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "By threatening to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, John Reid reveals a worrying mix of sloppy thinking and buck-passing." He said it was "wildly inaccurate to claim that the three escapees were somehow helped by our respect for human rights".

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the escapes were caused by the Government failing to use existing powers, such as tagging suspects. He also said the delay in releasing the identities of the fugitives had allowed them to flee abroad. "He is now blaming his own Human Rights Act when he has not even tried to derogate under its provisions. He can blame the courts and the opposition, but the problems are of his own making," Mr Davis said. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the campaign group Liberty, said: "This is last year's rhetoric from yesterday's Home Secretary."

Source



Claims are mounting against child-rearing "experts"

CLAIMS are mounting that child-rearing experts such as Supernanny and Gina Ford are damaging family life by undermining parents' authority in the home. There was growing confusion among parents over how to bring up children because of the parenting advice "industry", a leading sociologist has warned. He said that relying on techniques from the so-called experts could be destroying some parents' confidence in their own child-rearing abilities, weakening their control over their offspring.

Professor Frank Furedi also cautioned that the spread of the nanny state was adding to bewilderment among parents. The Kent University sociologist was among academics to challenge increasing interference in family life at a two-day conference at the British university. He claimed figures including TV Supernanny Jo Frost, whose discipline techniques include the "naughty step", portrayed mothers and fathers as incompetent. "They basically assume the high ground 'I am the supernanny, unlike you, the incompetent, bumbling idiot'," Professor Furedi said.

But he warned that the wealth of advice available, from Frost and others including the no-nonsense author Gina Ford, risked demoralising parents. "Parents who don't believe in themselves are not going to be very confident," he said. "The main thing is that it leads to estrangement. Mothers and fathers become estranged from each other and their children. Rather than a family developing a strong sense of itself, it is looking too much to the outside."

Professor Furedi, author of Paranoid Parenting and the Culture of Fear, went on to accuse governments, particularly the British Labour Government, of politicising parenting. "Over the past 10 years, virtually every aspect of childrearing is turned into a problem that requires their support or intervention," he said. "This undermines parents' confidence. "Targeting parents has become a national sport. New Labour politicians appear to take the view that almost every social problem is caused by bad parenting. This allows failed politicians to avoid confronting their policy failures - in health, in education and in community building."

He also criticised as patronising advice booklets published by the British Government. For example, a "Dad Pack" published last year advised men not to have affairs during their partner's pregnancy. Professor Furedi added: "Parenting has become an industry. It's no longer about the relationship with your children, it's something for politicians and professionals to have an opinion about."

Source



Britain: Comparing apples and oranges

A multiculturalism debate didn't get off the ground last week - mainly because the panellists failed to define what they were talking about

On Friday night I attended a charity fundraiser where the big draw was a debate with Trevor Phillips and Kenan Malik arguing that "multiculturalism encourages separateness", and the MP Sadiq Khan and Arun Kundnani arguing that it doesn't. When questions were invited from the floor, I castigated the panel for their failure to define "multiculturalism", which had resulted in a dog's dinner of a debate with rambling monologues at cross-purposes. The subsequent attempts by each of the panellists to define the word were rather revealing.

Reminding them of last week's Rowntree report, produced by the New Policy Institute, I raised one particular finding. The income poverty rate of the British population as a whole stands at around 20%. The same rate for Bangladeshis is about 65%. The researchers had discovered that half of the difference was due to the fact that huge numbers of Bangladeshi women were not in paid work. I asked Khan if this was because values in that community were keeping women from going out to work?

Khan's response was to enumerate a litany of complaints about racism, discrimination in employment, unfair housing policy and all the rest of it. Khan must have been very tired when he read the report (or its summary) because he evidently failed to note that the report itself states that half of the difference is the figure it arrives at after taking into account those very factors that Khan mentioned. Clearly Khan, like the other panellists, was more comfortable discussing vague terms like multiculturalism, especially when they're left undefined.

When the chair pressed them to define the term, Arun Kundnani said that multiculturalism was "ethnic pluralism recognising difference between groups within the public sphere". Sadiq Khan said multiculturalism was "mutual respect based on common ethics". Trevor Philips said that multiculturalism was "valuing the things that divide us more than the things that unite us". Finally, Kenan Malik spoke of multiculturalism as consisting of "policies of cultural diversity which require us publicly to celebrate difference".

There we have it: a plurality of definitions and no two the same. This is Babel. It's not possible for two people to have a debate about the truth of a proposition, if they are both considering different propositions: you ask me if I think apples are tasty, and I tell you that oranges are delicious. The debate was ultimately farcical, a mix-up, a fruit-salad of a debate. Philips was talking about apples, Malik about oranges, Kundnani about pears and Khan about goodness knows what.

Take Khan's definition, "mutual respect based on common ethics". Who on earth would think that "mutual respect based on common ethics" could encourage separateness? Surely not even Trevor Philips, the bane of multiculturalists? And isn't Khan's definition as far from Philips's as you can get? Khan's "common ethics" might arguably be opposed to Philips's "valuing the things that divide us more than the things that unite us". Here are two almost diametrically opposed and certainly inconsistent definitions.

Which definition is right is irrelevant: the point is that without a common definition, there's no sensible debate, just a multiculturalism debate gone mad. When pressed, we see that the panellists reached for "thin" definitions, which invariably are not robust or controversial enough for divisions to show or which, alternatively, build in the arguments their advocates seek to advance.

There is, however, a way out of these sorts of thin and unsatisfying discussions. But it requires courage, something touched on by Malik, who brought a shaft of light in an otherwise dreary debate. Multiculturalists, he said, want public affirmation of cultural difference and this undermines much of what is good about diversity as a lived experience. By affirming those differences, we limit the scope of disputes, of a healthy kind, from taking place. After all, Malik observed, what is diversity good for? "It allows us to consider alternatives and thereby enhance debate. These clashes and conflicts are what multiculturalists most fear."

We need culture clashes and conflicts, not race riots but lively debate and discussion. While we discuss abstract distended nouns of unwieldy "ismic" proportions, like multiculturalism, we must make greater space to pose challenging questions and say difficult things about "thick values". Are women being held back by your culture's values? Your culture doesn't value marriage and that's wrong. Do you value friendships with non-Pakistanis as much as you value your friendships with Pakistanis? Your culture doesn't value family enough: you abandon your elderly.

Creating space for a diversity of views means ending the state- and establishment-endorsed fetish for celebrating diversity of ethnicity and faith. But a diversity in the views we ventilate is not an end in itself. Clashes and conflicts are vital for creating the circumstances in which citizens engage in a discussion about values so that society and culture can evolve in directions that draw everyone in.

Source



Australia's most "incorrect" politician is back

Former One Nation party founder Pauline Hanson has put her name to a new party which she hopes will help her win a Senate spot at the next election. More than a decade after she first entered federal Parliament, Ms Hanson has launched a new political party - Pauline's United Australia Party. The party structure will help the former fish and chip shop owner improve her chances of stealing a seat from the bigger parties. "I am standing as a Senate candidate for Queensland and it was essential for me to have a party structure so I can have my name placed above the line on the ballot paper," Ms Hanson said. As an independent, she would only get votes from people bothered with numbering their entire ballot paper.

Ms Hanson entered politics in 1996 when she won the federal Queensland seat of Oxley as an independent candidate after being dumped by the Liberals for her strong views. She shocked many when, in her maiden parliamentary speech, she warned Australia was in danger of being "swamped by Asians". Ms Hanson attacked the big parties as untrustworthy and indicated she retained her firm views on immigration.

"Labor's union thugs will bash up small business and the farmers, and we will all suffer. "Mr Howard has sold us out by not halting further Muslim immigration and dumping hapless refugees from Africa on us without any consultation. "Australia must withdraw ASAP from the 1951 UN Convention on refugees."

She warned Queenslanders of the threat they faced from Labor at both state and federal levels. "Queensland coalminers and their families and all those involved in the industry are under threat from Mr Rudd and his greenie mates while another Rudd mate Peter Beattie is creating havoc with council amalgamations and his inability to solve our water problems," Ms Hanson said.

Ms Hanson predicted she would be attacked for standing up for ordinary Australians. "I will be attacked by all the usual suspects but I am used to that," she said. "I intend standing up for all those ordinary Australians who have been ignored by the big party politicians for so long."

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************