Zaoui Hearing Underway

About bloody time. But it is still rank that he's been tried behind closed doors and will face charges that have been kept secret from him.

Mr Zaoui's lawyer Deborah Manning said before the hearing began this morning that the process was not a common one.

"It is very difficult of course to prepare for any hearing when information is secret so I don't think anyone's under any illusion that this is a normal fair hearing because it is based on secrecy."

(http://www.stuff.co.nz/4121958a11.html)

Zaoui was part of an Islamic party in Algeria, that was driven underground when it looked like it would win the 1991 election. In a fit of absurdity that only national governments are capable of delivering, the Algerian government cancelled the democratic elections on the gorunds that the Islamic Salvation Front's victory would endanger democracy.

Zaoui and his lawyers have already rebutted the claims made against him when the High COurt told the SIS to give his defence team a partial summary, excluding classified information (http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/ACFUAAAAayEh.pdf).

Classified information can go fuck itself. We're talknig about a human being here and he has rights which should be observed. Until now, he has not been told why he is being detained. New Zealand's treatment of Zaoui is shameful, a blot on our record of being relatively sensible about this whole war on terror fiasco.

Deborah Manning says a decision is likely by the end of the year. Get on with it.

Hullaballoo About Murderer's Leukemia Treatment

This story was brought to my attention when it was discussed on National Radio this afternoon.

Jason Reihana, 35, was sentenced in the High Court at Rotorua last month to life in jail with a non-parole period of 21 years. He was convicted of murdering Teresa Gunn, the mother of his two sons, and her new boyfriend Andrew Grabner in a frenzied knife attack.

It was reported yesterday that Reihana has leukaemia and will receive a bone-marrow transplant – at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of $1 million. (1)

It was discussed on Jim Mora's show, with Julia Hartley-Moore and John Bishop. I can't remember what John Bishop said, but Hartley-Moore managed to annoy me intensely.

Basically, she argued that as a double murderer we shouldn't treat him. H e had - yawn - given up his rights by becoming a killer. The surreal comparison was made to him being denied the right to vote. Apparently, because we exclude killers from our decisions about how we run our society, they can anlso be left to die, miserably.

Yeah, yeah, I know. He did that ... he deerves no better ... animal ... monster ... don't you understand what he did ... you think its okay ... he's laughing at us ... the victims got nothing, why should he ... All specious, bullshit arguments, attempts to manipulate emotions. That isn't how justice work. You don't deliver justice in a fit of rage or with desire for revenge eating you up.

Hartley-Moore misunderstands - deliberately, I think - the difference between civil rights and human rights. By committing murder, Reihana sacrificed his civil rights - the right to liberty, the right to vote, and so on. He remains a human being and, as such, retains the basic sub-stratum of rights we ascribe to human beings - one of them being the right to life. I suspect Hartley-Moore was angry that Reihana hadn't been given a death sentence and was advocating capital punishment by proxy, only it wouldn't really be proxy. We'd be culpable for his death, just as if we with-held food or water from him.

Ultimately, if we withhold treatment (Hartley-Moore said, with impressive lack of logic, that prisoners should receive routine care but nothing more) we kill him. Thankfully, in New Zealand we don't do that. Humane treatment of the worst and the wicked is how we demonstrate we're better than them. We don't give into our instinct to exact justice the way he did. We have laws and proceedures and a civilised standard of behaviour.



1 - Anger at $1m health bill for double killer, Dominion Post, 9th July 2007. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4121652a11.html

Police Infiltrated by Al Qaeda: Specious Bullshit from the Daily Mail

The Daily Mail, a mid-brow tabloid with a penchant for prattling about 'political correctness,' the evils of the EU and/or Labour, and of course, Muslims, has claimed that the British police have been infiltraed by fanatical supporters of global Jihad:

Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police (but they don't dare sack them)
By STEPHEN WRIGHT - More by this author »
Last updated at 12:12pm on 7th July 2007

Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda.

Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Their names feature on a secret list of alleged radicals said to be working in the Metropolitan and other forces.

The dossier was drawn up with the help of MI5 amid fears that individuals linked to Islamic extremism are taking advantage of police attempts to increase the proportion of ethnic staff.

Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them.

(here - or 1, below)

In the wake of the absurdly incompetent terrorist attacks, my main worry is that the police
might be so desperate for recruits they might employ goons who can't even blow themselves up properly. If they can't break the law effectively, how on Earth dcould the be expected to enforce it? On inspection, however, the Mail article starts to look very shabby.

First of all, bear in mind that none of the staff in question has actually been provend to be a terrorist, a sympathizer, or anything of the sort. They are "suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda." Suspicion, remember, does not mean guilt. The British have a long and ignoble history of arresting and jailing Irish nationals incorrectly.

Also, these are not all police officers. The article refers to 'eight police officers and civilian staff.' We might be talking about cleaners and canteen staff. While a fanatic might be able to slip some laxatives into the canteen tea urn, they aren't going to have access to polcie information.

What are 'extremist groups,' anyway? It could cover a huge range from al Qaeda, Palestinian support groups, kurdish national organistations, Greenpeace, PETA, the Scottish National Party, many religious sects, the BNP and the Natioinal Front. It is interesting that the religious or cultural background of the staff in question is never made clear - the assumption we make, immediately, is that they are Muslims. This is not stated in the article, however, other than in the ridiculous headline - which is undermined by the very first line of the story. They might be eight Muslim fanatics, but no-where does the Mail providing evidence to back up the claim made in its headline.

Then we learn "Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps". So it isn't known for sure, and there may not even be credible evidence. Iqbal might have saved up all the money earnedf working in the canteen to go to Pakistan, and he might have visited a terror training camp (whatever that may mean) but equally he might not have. Towards the bottom of the article, we are smugly informed that new recruits to the police may not have been vetted properly because

it is often impossible to carry out satisfactory checks on recruits who were raised overseas or who have spent considerable periods out of Britain before applying to join the Met.

In such cases, the Met has to rely on overseas agencies to carry out intelligence checks on their behalf. Privately, officials doubt whether certain countries in Africa, Middle East or the Indian sub-continent are able to carry out meaningful vetting. (1)

Yet these are the same intelligence agencies who are claiming that Iqbal or Hamid may have visited the mysterious 'terror training camps.' Anyway, how many is 'Some'? One? Two? Or all eight 'Al Qaeda fanatics'? Two lines in and there is already a distinct smell of bullshit about the story.

But it gets better: "Their names feature on a secret list of alleged radicals said to be working in the Metropolitan and other forces." Note again that they are 'alleged,' not proven and perhaps not even indicated by any credible intelligence, from home or abroad. And again, the vague term 'radical' begs questions. Radical about what? Islam? Global warming? Organics? The racial purity of the Aryan race? I don't see why the Mail is being mealy-mouthed about this, especially after scorning the idea of not linking Muslims with terror (2). Unless they are trying a smoke and mirrors routine. But the Mail wouldn't do that, would it?

Then their supposed unsackability: "Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them" and "Political correctness is blamed for the decision not to sack them." The latter sounds very like the Mail's take on what the dossier said, rather than an accurate rendering of its contents. I doubt a police dossier would blame political correctness, but the Mail does like to attribute everything to the vileness of PC. If the dossier did say something like 'Political correctness is blamed for the decision not to sack them', why not quote directly? Why would it miss an opportunity to show how it is jeopardising our national security? And would a police memo allocate 'blame' in that way? Sounds far fetched. It might say "We have decided not to sack the staff in question because of our preference not to unnecessarily offend ethnic and religious minorities." It wouldn't say "We can't sack them because of the poxy culture of PC that has crippled our fine police force."

The suggestion rthat they will be unsackable is bollocks anyway. A few lines later we learn, "it is understood that a policeman was removed from his post after concerns about his conduct in the aftermath of a major anti-terrorist operation in the past two years" - so in fact staff who are corrupt, are guilty of misconduct or otherways deliberately failing in their duty can be dealt with. It is down to evidence, not political correctness.

Not being able to sack people on suspicion is a GOOD THING. Guilty by suspicion was popular in Iraq and the Soviet Union. We're better than they are, and not relying on hearsay or giving in to paranoia is one of the ways we show this moral supeiority. If it can be shown they are guilty of misconduct, inappropriate behaviour, or any sort of terrorist activity, then appropiate steps can be taken. In the meantime, sqealing in a Mailesque manner doesn't accomplish anything but made people paranoid and frightened. Which is what the terrorists would like.

Then we're told that "one suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating Internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq." Sorry, but so what? These pictures are everywhere on the internet. If emailing images of terrorist barbarity is what makes one a 'suspected jihadist' then there are many of them, most of them professing to hate Islam and its evil, backwards mediaval attitude. A ghoulish interest in cruelty doesn't make one a terrorist, merely a bad human being.

The Mail also claims'It is thought that intelligence files on those who frequently visit pro-Jihad websites and who have associated with so-called preachers of hate were also compared to details of officers and civilian staff in the Met.' Again, this doesn't mean much. Many people visit web-sites that could be termed 'pro-Jihad' - whatever that stupid formulation means. Many of them are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizer, but people wanting to see what is being said on these websites, and again these people are not Jihadis but often people fired up about the perceived wickedness of Islam, who trawl these sites so they can bleat about the inane ramblings in Muslim discussion groups. And how on Earth does a term like 'so-called preachers of hate' find its way without arttribution or justification into an article in a supposedly serious newspaper?

Basically, the article is shoddy, failing to backing up the wild claims it makes. One would have thought, if they had seen the dossier in question, they would have managed to find something more substantial in it. Instead they fall back on the usual tricks - partial quoting, reported speech rather than direct quotation, implication and generalisation. Piss poor journalism, in other words.


1 - Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police (but they don't dare sack them), By Stephen Wright. Retrieved Sunda, 8th July, 2007. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=466832&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
2 - Terror-spooked EU: 'Don't say Muslims', no author given. Rerieved Sunday, 8th July, 2007. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=466130&in_page_id=1811

Who Moved My Cheese?

This is an old rant I found tucked away in a corner. You might debate the relevance of dargging it out now, but, as remarked further down, no excuse should be missed toheap scorn on this 'book':

Possibly the worst book ever written is the toe-curlingly awful Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson, MD. It really is one of the most remarkably awful things I've encountered in book form, and no opportunity to scorn it should be missed. Frighteningly, it sells by the ton and has received four hundred and thirtynine 5 star reviews on Amazon (so far ...) (1), though, hearteningly, it has also received 398 1 star reviews. Websites have been set up to spread the message further(2). Many people I know who are sensible and successful - far more sensible and succesful than I - swear by it, and cite it as a inspirational book, second to none. But it is awful.

I read it when my wife was loaned a copy through her work, when that company was going through one of its regular restructures (as it is again, now). The book tells you how to regard these changes as opportunites and challenges, not as obstacles. So, basically, when your employer tries to piss all over you, instead of protesting or - Heaven forbid - involving the union - you have to thank them for giving you a chance to explore your potential elsewhere. I kid you not. It doesn't advocate biting the hand that feeds you, so much as kissing the hand that slaps you.

The means of putting this wondrous message across is ... um ... cheesey (I suspect I may not be the first person to make that joke. But what the Hell.) A group of old friends meet up and discuss their lives. One of them starts to tell a story that is mean to illustrate the correct way (in the opinion of the good doctor) to face up to change. He mentions that , when his company was gonig through changes, some people clung onto their old fashioned ideas and sufferred losses as a result. How foolish of them to think they 'might have had any rights what-so-ever.

The story is short, which is the best thing that can be said for it. It describes the experiences of two 'Little People' (That is proles, like you and me), and two busy little mice. For reasons that are never made clear, they live in a maze, and every day they eat cheese which is delivered to the same spot by POWERS UNKNOWN. Then, one day, the cheese isn't there. The little people sulk and protest, unable to accept that SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. The mice immediately scurry off through the maze, and find more cheese.

Eventually, the little people realise that they should follow the example of the mice and go in search of new cheese, instead of sitting about bewailling the change that has befallen them. As they go, they daub the walls of the maze with maxims, just incase the readers of the book are too dim to work out the lesson for themselves. It one of the most patronising books I've ever read. And it is wrong. No consideration is given to the idea that a change may not be appropriate, or that the 'little people' should protest when their jobs are out-sourced to China, that workers - for the book is really telling workers that they need to accept just that sort of thing, hence the reason it appeared in Mrs Lurgee's workplace when the 'little people' were ahving their cheese moved - might have a say or a stake in the company they work for. Change is always good, especially if it involves you losing your job. Be grateful, grasshopper, for the chance to experience poverty, insecurity and hardship.

The tedious narrative is written in a curdled style that made me want to puke. It made Woman's Realm read like Raymond Chandler. And this book sells by the million, to successful, presumably intelligent, business people. What is so wrong with the world that this is allowed to happen? Is there no God?




1 http://www.amazon.com/Moved-Cheese-Amazing-Deal-Change/dp/0399144463
2 http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/

Lefthandpalm rises, Phoenix like, from the grave ...

... Only the Phoenix's didn't get buried, did it? It built itself a pyre (clever things, birds) and cooked itself up, then a new one was born from the ashes. So perhaps the return of LHP from the dead is more akin to a zombie rising ...

Anyway, I've been veyr busy over the last month, and also plagued by an inability to log in. As is often the case, I put thae latter problem on the backburner and so didn't blog anything at all for a very long time, perhaps to David Irving's relief.

Finally managed to resolve the log in issue. Blogger come in for alot of stick on their 'Help' forum, but the answer was there for those who looked about before getting tetchy (okay, I got tetchy as well, but couldn't log in to display my tetchiness to the world. Normal, extra-tetchy service will now be resumed).

What a month to be locked out on, though! There was a lot of stuff I wanted to rant about, Like hearing self-publicist and occasional MP and journalist Debra Coddington whinging on National Radio about the departing editor of North & South, Robyn Langwell. North& South was the journal that published Coddington's infamous Asian Angst. Under her, the journal enjoyed "word by word, vigorous editing" (translation: "If I distorted my statistics to suit my agendum, it was not my fault, not my fault North & South let me." The editor had always supported "advocacy journalism backed by ... facts," though she didn't specify that facts have to be presented honestly, not twisted and manipulated to disguise the truth. And then the piece de resistance: "we will not see this sort of journalism any more." Pity. I have to admit I got a bit annoyed with Deb, then I realised she had to be taking the piss - no one could be that absurdly self righteous and precious, surely? Surely?

Langwell isn't the only person who's time at North & South was drawing to a close. Coddington was also due to depart, advising us in a small voice that her contract was't being renewed. Sadly, given her propensity for thrusting herself under our noses I suspect this isn't the last we'll see of "this sort of journalism."

And then we had Tony Blair wailing and nashing his teeth as he handed over power to Gordo Brown, who seems to have taken to the job rather well, inspite of a wave of laughably incompetent terror attacks in his first week in the job. It was hilarious to hear genuine Weegie's on New Zealand radio describing the botched attack on Glasgow Airport.

And so much more. Like the clock tower in the square. It seems to have grown several feet. Sometimes, driving down Fitzherbert, I fancy I can see the silhouette of a worryingly large cross through the covering. This is a grim development, though if it doesn't glow like the last one, at least it will be invisible half the time. Sadly, this will be when I wouldn't be about to see it anyway (inspite of my current late night frenzy). Perhaps they could have made a glass one, which would have been invisible by day and filled with glowing gas at night? Or, since the council has seen fit to endorse religious symbols on public space, they could have cluttered the square with symbols representing all the faiths on Earth, which would have looked quite cool, really, and would be a much better thing than the current concrete wasteland littered with sad looking ducks.

I've sometimes entertained the idea of runnnig for mayor, my sole policy being that the hideously gray and Stalinist council building in the square would be painted a cheerful colour. The colour would be decided by referendum, though my preference would be candy-floss pink. Remarkably, the council seem to be moving in my direction, and have announced the building is to give a lick of paint, though I suspect of a suitably drab colour.

I also became really annoyed about Tetrapaks this month. Lurgee Jnr is lactose intolerant, so now that he's stopped breast-feeding he takes soy or rice milk. This means we get through a lot of Tetrapaks, which can not be recycled in NZ. Why not? They can be elsewhere. Its just typically crap that everything plastic other than grades 1 & 2 ends up in landfill. Or why can't the compannies supplying the soy and rice milk use recyclable grade plastic bottles instead or tetras?

And so on. I might expand some of these thoughts later. But for now, suffice to say I'm back. Time to look up David Irving ...

Campaign against amnesty for illegal immigrants

Recently I described a rally in London calling for an amnesty to be granted to illegal immigrants who had not committed further crimes. I said this was a good thing and that it would be met with some predictable arguments. This has come to pass.

A petition has been started up calling on the govenment to reject the idea of such an amnesty - though at this stage there is no legislation proposing one, just a suggestion from some quarters that it is an idea worth talking about.

You can view the petition here (1). At the time of writing it has amassed a whopping 184 signitures, inspite of it being spammed onto news groups and discussion forums, which was how I first became aware of it.

The petition "was created by and written by Charlotte Lewis." I'm all for citizen activism, but I'm also all for transparency and honesty. I ran the name Charlotte Lewis through google and discoovered two very interesting things. First, there is a British actress called Charlotte Lewis, who is very beautiful and has a penchant for taking her clothes off in films. She starred in Eddie Murphy's The Golden Child, and not much else of note.

Second, there is a Charlotte Lewis who stood in the British council elections in 2006. The party she represented was the BNP - the British National Party, a collection of thugs and morons who are trying to gain mainstream credibility.

Better yet, Charlotte bent the rules in her bid to get elected. In fact, she broke them:

Charlotte Lewis of the BNP is standing in the St Helier ward in the local elections due to take place on May 4 ...

On her nomination papers, Ms Lewis claimed to live in Lind Road, Sutton, but a recent report by the Evening Standard newspaper claimed she actually lived in Thornton Heath in Croydon.

Sutton Council has since confirmed the BNP's candidate for St Helier ward is not on the borough's electoral roll.

Source: Sutton Guardian (2)

This raises questions about Ms Lewis's suitability as a guardian of democracy.

According to her comments made on the Telegraph website (3) it was"Four years ago I took the plunge & joined the BNP, & I definately do not regret it." It seems Ms. Lewis seems to have found something in her life that legitimises her sense of powerlessness and victimization. Why else would someone turn on the most helpless and powerless people in Britian - the shadow workforce of the black economy, denied civil rights and access to the amenities of mainstream society, often living in fear of both the criminal gangs that brought them here and the authorities.

It's time the British political parties addressed this issue head on. Yes, there are problems with immigration and illegal immigration. It is rediculuous that we don't know if immigrants have left the country, for example. But it is pointless wasting more money and time trying to track down illegal immigrants and deport them. Give them a chance to legalise their status, tighten up controls and then try tobreak the gangs that are bringing these people into the country and the people who exploit them.

1 - http://www.petitiononline.com/orc21416/petition.html

2 - http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/display.var.737134.0.bnp_probed_over_false_addresses.php

3 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GC4DUTALG01A3QFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/06/01/do0101.xml&posted=true&_requestid=6551

CIA ran secret prisons in Europe

The Gaurdian has seen a report from the Council of Europe that claims the CIA ran secret detention centres in Europe where they could employ "enhanced" interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects:

The CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured, an official inquiry will conclude today.

Despite denials by their governments, senior Polish and Romanian security officials have confirmed to the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2098266,00.html)

These European detention centres were operated "directly and exclusively" by the CIA, according to the inquiry's head, not proxies in far off places. Detainees in these secret camps were denied "access to the Red Cross [protected under the Geneva conventions] and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation, which critics have condemned as torture." The American government is again directly implicated in torture. But the shame doesn't stop there.

NATO states also formally agreed to allow planes carrying suspects to cross airspace, as part of the "extraordinary" rendition programme, which is the clever idea of out sourcing torture to other states which aren't as scrupulous as our leaders like to claim they are:

The council has also established that within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, Nato signed an agreement with the US that allowed civilian jets used by the CIA during its so-called extraordinary rendition programme to move across member states' airspace. Its report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories." The council's investigators believe that agreement may have been illegal.

If the report is accurate, then European political leaders been complicit in torture and perhaps murder, and made their citizens unwitting accomplices. The consequences of this will be borne by the long sufferring people of Europe, who will find themselves the targets of yet more rage and hatred. As a Brit, I was disgusted to hear that the government of my country has been helping the USA run its illegal detention and torture program. Those who were involved in this, or merely complicit, need to be named - people have the right to know what is being done in their name. But the whole thing is carried out in secret - the governments of Poland and Roumania still deny that this happened. We know our leaders lie and cheat, but there has to be an understanding that there are some things they don't do in our name - and massive violations of human rights are one of them. Why are people surprised that the West is hated? Reading things like this, I hate us, too.