Archive | December, 2011

United States Invade Iran’s Airspace

28 Dec

Iran has been accused of downing and refusing to return a United States spy-plane drone over its airspace.

As reported in the Washington Post, but later removed from its website, Ahmad Vahidi said the United States should apologise for invading Iranian air space instead of asking for the return of the unmanned aircraft.

Despite whatever opinions we have about Iran, Ahmad Vahidi is absolutely right to demand and expect an apology from the United States.

If I might use the analogy of an occurrence from my childhood: if I throw a ball into a neighbours garden, I would be expected to apologise before its return and remedy any damage caused.

That the “ball” in this instance, was essentially a military piece of equipment used to spy on Iran; and illegally in its airspace, makes this far more serious than any childhood mishap.

This incident is about the politics of diplomacy and maintaining stable, international relations between Eastern and the Western nations to prevent further wars and loss of life.

That the United States refuses to apologise is not only childish; but an embarrassing admittance of its unlawful actions, and further ammunition for Iran and its allies to continue to demonize the West and its intentions.

Silly petulent children: When will they learn?!

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,United States Invade Iran’s Airspace, Middle East, Iran, Spy plane, Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, Barack Obama, RQ-170 Sentinel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nuclear War, Hamid Rasaei, Parviz Sorouri

Advertisements

Christopher Alder: Another British Police Cover Up!

28 Dec

As one of many such cases, Christopher Ibikunle Alder, a former paratrooper, died in British police custody in the Queen’s Gardens Police Station, Kingston upon Hull, in April 1998.

The night he died, he was assaulted and was taken to hospital to treat his injuries. As he was also drunk, it was in hospital he was detained due to his apparent behaviour, and was subesquently discharged and taken into police custody.

Whilst in custody, he stopped breathing and died in his cell. His inquest ruled that he was unlawfully killed and could not have died from the injuries he had received due to the assault, but no answers were provided as to what else could have caused his death.

Despite refusing to answer questions, on the grounds doing so would incriminate them, the officers on duty were charged with misfeasance. This was later quashed, on the grounds of bias and improper conduct and following of procedure by a juror and the coroner.

Whether there was overt racism involved in allowing Alder to die, is not the real issue, because all accounts suggest that this is not exactly clear. What is up for discussion, is whether his treatment would have been different, and withheld, if Alder were not black. Equally, why, when all evidence supports neglect, the officers involved, and the Police Federation, would refuse to cooperate with all subsequent investigations, and contest the coroners findings, at every turn.

More recently, it has been discovered that Alder’s body was never buried, and that a black women was buried in his place, which means his body has lay in the morgue for the last 13-years. It appears, at every turn, Alder, is just another black man, and a victim of racism throughout the system.

If there is to be any justice, there now needs to be an investigation into why a women was buried in his place, and why his body lay in Hull City Mortuary unnoticed.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Mark Duggan, Nick Hardwick, Metropolitan Police, British Society, Kingston Upon Hull, Leon Wilson, Queen’s Gardens Police Station, IPCC, Moral Panic, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Christopher Ibikunle Alder, Hull City Mortuary, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Mark Duggan, the Police and the UK Riots

28 Dec

Initially, when Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old black man, was shot on 4 August 2011 by police attempting to arrest him in Tottenham, London, United Kingdom, it was claimed that he was in possession of a gun, and tried to use it. Both the British Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), then the Media, all claimed that he had a gun and tried to use it against officers, giving them cause to return fire on him.

However, when the family were informed of his death, they were not given details of this, just that he had been shot, resulting in his death. His family, other relatives, and friends sought additional information as to how he was shot, by visiting the local police station. Although they did receive some information from a police officer, other information was withheld, and requests to speak with another officer and be given detailed answers were ignored.

After this uneventful gathering, local community leaders reported to the police and local council officials, in a meeting, that something was brewing within the community, and that there may be reprecussions for what had occurred and the lack of information.

Neither the local council, nor the police responded to this, and so, the first of the riots occurred, that spread throughout the country, to Birmingham, Croydon, and Salford. The police were forced to issue an apology, but it was too late, and the protests turned into a frenzy of looting and arson.

After the arrests and prosecution of the mindless rioters, we now learn that Mark Duggan died for no reason. It transpires that both the British Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission had deliberately lied about Mark having a gun and conspired with one another to mislead and withhold information. The Media joined in and stoked the fire, that cost the British economy millions in insurance claim damages and lost revenue.

If we are to move forward, as an open, inclusive, and progressive society, there are lessons to be learned from this pointless death, destruction, and conspiracy. At the heart of this, is crime, corruption, media panic, and transparency for both communities affected and the authorities who govern and determine order.

Need we be reminded of the needless death of Jean Charles de Menezes and police cover up. Unless we address these issues, there will always be another, and there will always be resentment and tensions.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Mark Duggan, UK riots, Metropolitan Police, British Society, David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, Operation Trident, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh, IPCC, Moral Panic, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Metropolitan Police Commander Adrian Hanstock, Broadwater Farm, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Luis Suarez: Nigger Lover?

28 Dec

Luis Suarez has received an eight match ban for allegedly using a word similar to that of the term used in English speaking countries to (putting it mildly) cause offence to people of African and Caribbean origin.

The term in English is the word “nigger”. In Portuguese, Suarez’s language, the word used is “negrito”, which his supporters claims is not intended to be offensive.

Well, I am sorry for these people, because if it is used on the pitch in a moment of anger, then it is intended to be offensive, especially so, when directed a “black” player.

That aside, the root of the word “negrito” derives from the Spanish/ Portugues word “neger”, and the Latin root before that, which is used to describe, or refer to people of African and Caribbean origin.

The use of the word “neger” then became Anglocized into the term “negro”, and later “nigger”, but was always a term used in the pejorative, to cause offense.

That the word “negrito” may not have the same power of connotations today, is irrelevant. That Suarez, himself, knows the power of the word “nigger”, and used the word “negrito” to refer to a fellow player on the pitch in a moment of anger, is proof enough that it was intended to cause offence.

Those, such as the former England player, John Barnes, who would defend Suarez, are nothing more than apologists, who allow racism in football to continue by their refusal to rid the game of any such behaviour.

In summary, it was racist of Suarez to use this term, as he intended it to be, and there is no place for it in a modern, progressive society.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Luis Suarez, Racism in Football, John Terry, British Society, Patrice Evra, Negrito, Nigger

Is Britain Great?

15 Dec
That Britain has lost its position in the world, including its empire and territories, economic, cultural and political clout, is no doubt, a clear message that Britain is not as great as it once considered itself. That Britain refuses to involve itself in Europe as much as it may derive additional benefit, and continues to involve itself in contentious, geopolitical issues, also serves to diminish the greatness of Britain. That MP expenses, and journalists tapping phones, has created scandal, is further evidence of this.
But can we see a light at the end of the tunnel? One might consider of what it is to be British, and what Britain stands for as a nation. Britain, if you pardon the cliché, is a melting pot, of ideals, cultures, views, faiths, and experiences. This is part of what enables Britain to retain its greatness. It validates who the British are as a nation, and makes Britain one of the most progressive and inclusive nations in the world today.
We need only look at how far Britain is prepared to scrutinize itself, in the gaze of the world, to find solutions to those parts of society and social order, that are damaging to British society, as a reflection of its continued greatness. For, nowhere else in the world, would there be a Leveson Inquiry into press intrusions and illegal surveillance. Not in the United States, France, Australia, Brazil, Russia, or China. These countries prefer to ignore, condone, or sweep such issues under the proverbial carpet, out of public view and disdain.
Indeed, nowhere else in the world, would any other nation, consider the basic rights of Katia Zatuliveter, a Russian, suspected of spying against British interests. And, even if they did, nowhere else in the world, would the government or judiciary of another nation find in favour of the rights of a suspected, female, Russian spy.
As for the British public, who make Britain great, no where else in the world, would the people of a nation complain in their tens of thousands, against a national broadcaster, against the ranting of Jeremy Clarkson, a car journalist and TV presenter, who believes striking teachers, nurses, and care workers, should be shot in front of their families, because they are striking to protect their futures and livelihoods, because their pensions are being raided to plug a financial hole created by bankers.
Neither would the people of another nation, as the British public did, voice their outrage at the ranting of Emma West, a single, female parent, in receipt of social security benefit, who launched a tirade of racial abuse on public transport in Croydon, south London.
Although Britain has a long way to go, it is certainly a fairer, and more equal society, than anywhere else in the world, which is why, I say, Britain is still great!

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural_Analysis, Debating Culture,Is Britain great, Emma West, Jeremy Clarkson, British Society, Great Britain, British Justice, Katia Zatuliveter, Racism and Society, Russian Spy, Leveson Inquiry

Douglas Murray and Neoconservatism

15 Dec

In short, Murray is an Imperialist Conservative and an extremely conservative one at that. His candour is often superior and dismissive, though this likely stems from an insecure childhood, possibly due to bullying and ill health. Murray is the sort who steps over a homeless person when leaving the theatre.
If this seems like a character assassination, then it is! I cannot stand this individual! Notice I do not call him a man, or a human being!
His views on other cultures and non-Christian faiths are simply that of Conservatism in a different guise. This is partly evident in comments he made on an episode of BBC 1’s Question Time programme, in which he stated that westerners behave better than those in the Middle Eastern countries.
Although he is thought to have been referring to Islamic Fundamentalists, one might aver that he was in fact referring to all in Middle East, and that the British in particular, are the better behaved and more civilized. ;
We might call this ‘Murray’s burden’ to cleanse the world of Islamic extremism and bring civilization to the disparate people of the Middle East. The short answer is that we are neither better behaved, nor more civilized.
Note:
(During the showing of Question Time, I might add that I sent him an email (in quite a drunken state) issuing a fatwa against him, although I am not Muslim or Arabic, which I later apologized for when I sobered the next morning) ;
In any event, his hatred of Islam is clearly evident. We only need look at the constant references and comparisons he makes between Islam and Nazism. Further, he states, Middle Eastern countries “are presently run by despots, crackpots and crime-syndicate families”.
(One might secretly think that he longs for Hitler to be resurrected as a modern day messiah, so that he can wipe out the scourge that is Islam).
We might also question Murray as to how “philosophical” and “moral” and righteous it is of him to perpetuate such tripe of religious and cultural division, in his diabolical generalisations of millions of people residing in the East and the West. ; I must say, the only thinking in Murray’s “thought-world” that has gone bad, is his own, and his pernicious vitriol (if unchallenged) will turn others thoughts bad or worse.
By his own assertion, he is a traditionalist, who prefers the status quo, that is, one akin to the ideals of the fallen and forgotten British Empire. Rather than embrace the processes and cultural artefacts of increasing globalization, he prefers the ‘not-in-my-backyard’, unless on my terms approach. Well, sorry Murray! There is now a new world order, and it does not involve Britain or the United States in the driving seat.
Murray also appears to applaud the atrocities committed by acts of rendition on the frontline (as with the US soldiers who photographed themselves encouraging their captives to sodomize and perform tricks on each other) and the beatings and water-boarding that took place in Guantanamo. Does Murray really think this kind of treatment makes westerners better than anyone else?
His apparent idea that the West is somehow superior is also defined by his constant references and unnerving animosity toward Islam and the Middle East as being the “enemy”. That the West is now on a path to “auto-self-destruct”, is one of its own making. The truth is that, it is the West that has created these “fissures”, and it is Murray who is perpetuating them.
That Murray deludes himself, and others, that we are “are winning comprehensively on the field of foreign battle; but we are losing this war at home”, is a further example of his imperialist intentions and nihilism of anything that is not Christian and therefore more civilized. Where are his words of compassion, of understanding, of acceptance, community, and of peace?
These important attributes and ideals ought to be the foundations of our co-existence. They are not, so-called signs of “dhimmitude”, as Murray would have everyone believe. The key fact to note here, is that the advocation of such human qualities, are not signs of capitulation or subjugation. They are signs of a progressive and civilized society. It is certainly not the belief that “all cultures are equal”, but, that “all cultures should be equal”.
As Murray said, “Grievances become ever more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to”. So, do not pay him any attention, unless we wish to divide societies and cultures ever more.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural_Analysis, Debating Culture, Douglas Murray, Centre for Social Cohesion, Imperialism, Politics of Co-existence, Islamism, dhimmitude, Fundamentalism, Neoconservatism, Henry Jackson Society, BBC Question Time, Terrorism, Islamaphobia, Murray’s Burden, Middle East, thought-world

Lashes for Saudi Women Who Disobey Driving Ban

14 Dec

Saudi Arabia, is one of the least progressive Islamic nations, receptive to changing or adapting aspects of Islam that often create conflict of a cross-gender, cultural and generational nature. This is not least evident in the driving ban placed on Saudi women, where they face being lashed if found driving. This is why the Women2drive campaign is one important initiative of Saudi life that can create change and bring about greater equality in an increasingly ultra-conservative society.
The basis for such a ban is that female drivers are an affront to their families and Islam itself, in that women drivers promote the denigration of Islam and Saudi society itself, through divorce, homosexuality, and prostitution. What women driving has to do with any of this, is beyond belief. Nonetheless, this is what the Saudi Royal family, Sharia court, and the majority of Muslim men, would have Saudi society and the rest of us believe.
Despite recent changes in permitting Saudi women to become involved in the Shura Council, this is one example that demonstrates male thinking on the subject of equality of women in society, and that they are not living in a period of liberation and equality under Islamic tradition.
For this to change, in respect and inclusion of Muslim women, there needs to be a complete and fundamental abandonment of a ‘minority consciousness’. This is presumably a view held by men and women, and must take place in ‘complete fidelity to the principles of Islam’, in the present and in the future context of Islam in the west, according to those such a Tariq Ramadan (2004, p141).

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural_Analysis, Debating Culture,Islam, Islamic women, Islamic women’s rights, Saudi women, Shura council, Islamic women’s equality, Women and driving, Sexist muslim men/a>, Saudi royal family, Muslim equality, Lashes for Islamic women drivers, Human rights

Victory for Vladimir Putin!

13 Dec

The current Russian Prime Minister, and soon to President, again, is no doubt facing a small, but fierce backlash from the public.

This is not least due to the integrity, or lack of, in recent electoral ballots, but also a response seen in Greece and Italy, when the public no longer have faith in their ruling, and often corrupt politicians.

Those Russians who are protesting against Putin, and his cronies, are not just protesting about the ballot, but Putin himself, and what he could possibly hope to achieve that he should have achieved in his previous years of office.

That his efforts to switch places with the current President, Dmitry Medvedev, and manoeuvre himself into position as the next President, not only seems a step to far, but is conceivably, a desperate act and corrupt in itself. It is most certainly unconstitutional and would require a change in law, which has been achieved through reforms since he was given, or demanded his current office, in 2008.

A key reason this stinks of corruption, is that Putin’s party, are required to win this current election, before Putin can re-elect himself as Russian President, for a third term. Without an overall party majority, Putin will either remain Prime Minister, or be ousted from office, if his party were to loose. So, we can see why it is that Putin has been accused of tampering with ballot boxes, which would not be the first time either.

Although he has brought change under his past leadership, which has no doubt done some good for the country and its people, Putin has always been an autocratic leader, using his experience gained in the FSB (former KGB) to bring down and silence his opponents, through forced imprisonment, exile, assassination, or confiscating their companies and assets.

This makes Russia one of the most corrupt nations of the world, the most dangerous, and undemocratic to live and do business, which Putin has exploited through his connections with the country’s crime bosses, in paying back-handers, blackmail, and falsifying evidence and swaying legal judgments of those who defy him. No wonder Silvio Burlusconi is one of his heroes.

That Dmitry Medvedev, appears to have admitted possible corruption at the ballot box, if proven true, is clear evidence of Putin, once again, exercising his powers of intimidation and persuasion to continue to assert his power over the Russian people and politik and inflate his ego as a strong man.

For Russia to really prosper and see change, in becoming a fairer, and democratic society, Putin and Medvedev must be kicked completely out of politics, and someone new, with a new approach and dynamism to effect change, must be voted in by the public. And, if that does not happen on fair terms, then the Russian people should continue to protest and riot.

Say what you think here:

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural_Analysis, Debating Culture,Vladimir Putin, Russian riots, Russian corruption, Mikhail Prokhorov, Kommersant, Democracy in Russia, Katia Zatuliveter, Russian politics, Russian Spy, Medvedev, Twitter, Andrei Galiyev