Noam Chomsky, Billionaires and Lord Hutton



J K Rowling

It has been a good year for billionaires. Amidst the economic gloom, the annual list by Forbes Magazine shows that the wealth of the world's billionaires jumped 25% to $4.5 trillion and an average net worth of $3.5 billion. With 1210 people listed, Forbes described it as a 'record year for numbers, money and impact.' The UK has 32 billionaires on the list including the Queen and JK Rowling. Remarkably, that is three more than last year. The property empire of the Cavendish and Grosvenor family continues to top the domestic league with a value of $13 billion - some way short of the $74 billion of Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom magnate, who topped the list for the second year.

The Forbes list, however, was not the main story in the UK. At home, millions of public sector workers have been warned that they will have to work for longer, pay higher contributions and receive lower pensions. Lord Hutton's independent review concluded that by 2015 pensions should be related to average salaries over a career rather than final salaries. Hutton's recommendations will affect millions of people in the civil service, the NHS, teaching, local government,  the police, armed forces and the fire service already dealing with large job cuts, reorganisations and a pay freeze. Lord Hutton described the changes as a "comprehensive reform" that would "strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer." 

The BBC news website led with the pension announcement while the Forbes list was relegated to a far less prominent position. Yet, both stories are equally significant. Last night, Noam Chomsky, an 82 year old Professor of Linguistics at MIT, was in town to deliver a speech at UCL. Academic speeches are rarely sell-outs, yet, not only was this the hottest ticket in town but it was broadcast live to thousands. Why? Chomsky is not only the foremost academic in his field but, whilst largely working outside the usual channels of political debate, he has become known as 'America's leading dissident' and has been dubbed by the New York Times as 'the world's greatest thinker'. For five decades he has been a highly influential critic of the US government and more recently global neo-liberalism. He is a profound thinker, a public intellectual - unafraid to confront controversial issues - and a beacon for change across the world. 

I first read Chomsky during my History BA. After Thatcherism and the fall of communism he was regarded as a marginal figure by many commentators and not in-tune with the 'new world order.' Capitalism, after all, had won. However, even at the high water mark of US authority, his fierce logic  and presentation of evidence was extremely influential on me. His work provided an analytical framework with which to view political events. It is heartening to see his ideas have, once again, found a broad audience. This visit, in the context of our current political upheaval, seems particularly timely and the clamour for tickets reflects the widespread disenchantment that many people feel with the political mainstream.

Why the disenchantment? Why the sense of unease? In our lifetime we have seen a move from a relatively even distribution of wealth to a country with an increasing divergence in wealth. The rich are getting much richer, while there is less opportunity for everyone else. This outcome has been achieved through free-market reforms, introduced by all parties, that have been sold to us by a promise of choice, efficiency, greater opportunity and greater affluence. In a properly regulated economy it is possible that all these things could be true, but the latest economic crisis has cracked the veneer of credibility of the present system and we are all confronted with the stark facts. Banker's bonuses and high student fees are the obvious symbols of the injustice laid bare. Billionaires 25% richer and public servants losing pension entitlements. Are we all feeling the 'pain' equally?

Chomsky

Sounds like 'commie' talk, I can hear you cry. Try and rein in that impulse and consider who is providing us with the messages? Where have our basic assumptions come from? Much has been made of Murdoch's control over the media but as I pointed out yesterday - how much freedom of maneuver does the BBC really have? Manufacturing Consent is one of Chomsky's most important works and demonstrates how our media actually limits the scope of political debate. As with any worthwhile intellectual work, Chomsky, does not lend himself particularly well to soundbites. His books are fully researched and tightly argued. Read them or catch his film Manufacturing Consent on YouTube (http://bit.ly/FeHLG).

As Chomsky notes in his book, New World Orders, Adam Smith the 18th Century philosopher and pioneer of economic theory argued in his influential book The Wealth of Nations that the rich follow, 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves, and nothing for the people.' Smith warned that merchants not governments 'were the principal architects' of policies designed to advance their own interests, however 'grievous the impact on their own populations'. It is perhaps evidence of the 'market's' control of the debate that Adam Smith is generally regarded as a founding figure of unrestrained capitalism rather than someone cautioning against its excesses.

What has brought Chomsky to such a wide audience? The cataclysmic failure of our financial system and the political and economic choices being made by our politicians make his central assumptions seem self-evident. Nowadays, it is much easier to conceive a situation in which: rich men rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of the wealth and power, using governments as agents of their policy and suppressing dissent either through violence (in poorer states) or through media control (in countries like the UK). The idea is not so outlandish as it once may have seemed? If you are not from a 'left-wing' political background it may sound like a grand conspiracy, but if you consider our present situation, the assumptions underpinning political action are clear. 'Follow the money' is a good rule when it comes to finding who pulls the strings. It will probably lead to those billionaires.

Well, perhaps not J K Rowling...but then again....

Good news from the BBC

Good news, at last! We can all breathe a little easier. According to the BBC website, February saw the 'fastest rise in permanent staff placements in ten months' and the 'sharpest increase in temporary positions since May 2007.' Despite my constant talk of a 'double dip' recession, faltering growth and the need for a 'Plan B', perhaps we have turned a corner? I hate to admit it but it would appear that the Chancellor has backed the right horse. Thank good...oh hang on a minute. What's this?

Only last week, as the media spotlight fell upon Rupert Murdoch's News Corp takeover of BSkyB, a little story emerged that I thought was just as significant. While the new and old media outside the control of Murdoch were predicting the end of press freedoms in the UK, I was distracted by a report from the Liberal Conspiracy website that revealed, 

'BBC journalists have been instructed by senior editorial staff to use ‘savings’ instead of ‘cuts’ in their news coverage, Liberal Conspiracy has learnt, in order to offer a “rosy” picture of government announcements.' 

Liberal Conspiracy reported that senior BBC management told journalists at BBC London that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. The pressure on the BBC has grown after David Cameron publicly 'blasted' the 'British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation' in an interview in February for reporting every reduction in spending. The Daily Mail said that Downing Street was 'increasingly frustrated with the way the corporation is reporting the Government’s austerity programme.'

A BBC spokesman issued the following response to the suggestion that they were bowing to pressure, 

'We are reporting impartially on reductions in council and government spending and no instructions have been issued about terminology to be used in our coverage.'

However, Liberal Conspiracy reported that the official BBC statement had been contradicted by people working at BBC London and two separate journalists confirmed that the 'editorial decision at BBC London had been challenged several times this week in evening meetings.' Elsewhere, across the Corporation, a number of staff confirmed that discussions had taken place on the 'biased' reporting. 

So I arrive at today's BBC story, under the headline,  

Job market growth 'increased in February'

The article goes on to support the headline with some positive economic news. However, if you read beyond the first few paragraphs it quickly becomes apparent that the sums don't add up. In fact, the article actually says that unemployment increased,

'the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said unemployment had increased by 44,000 to almost 2.5 million in the three months to the end of December.'

The ONS also highlighted that the vast majority of the reported 40,000 new job vacancies were temporary jobs related to the 2011 census. Excluding these posts made the total vacancies, only 8,000. So much for a recovery driven by the private sector. 

Unemployment rose. That is the bottom line. Is this a good news story? I don't think I'll start cracking open the champagne or even ordering a take-away just yet. All the organisations mentioned in the BBC article, the ONS, REC and KPMG who carried out much of the research, report prospects for the economy are bleak. So why the spin? Does the information in the body of the article justify the positive headline? After all, how many people don't get beyond the first few lines of an article? If that is the case, what sort of impression would they have taken from the story? I hope they're not celebrating with a chicken madras.  

​I've always been aware that Murdoch's media empire has strong political bias, perhaps we need to worry more about who is influencing BBC editorial policy.

Of course, I can assure you that my posts will continue to be as impartial as ever. 

"We are not amused."

Is Prince Andrew about to get the chop? The pressure is certainly mounting. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an article entitled 'The Lowlife World of His Royal Highness', while in Prime Minister's Questions last week, Chris Bryant, the former minister for Europe, demanded that Andrew be stripped of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He later described him to BBC Breakfast as a "national embarrassment". On the BBC news website, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has indicated that there will have to be "conversations" about Prince Andrew and 'Downing Street sources' have indicated that 'one more serious story could make the prince's role untenable'. 

A number of recent stories have brought Prince Andrew's judgement into question. In a 2009 court case, Paul Page, a royal bodyguard documented how the prince repeatedly broke Buckingham Palace security protocols in order to entertain late night female visitors. Page also recorded that when challenged on one breach of the rules, the prince, who was regarded as one of the rudest royals - any bets on who the rudest royal is - told Page, 'This is my f***ing house, I can go where I want. Now f*** off!' Nothing quite like the Queen's English is there?

According to the Sunday Times, a number of former diplomats have criticised his 'rude' manner and poor judgement. This was illustrated over the weekend by the revelation that he hosted a business lunch for Sakeher el-Materi, the son-in-law of Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali,  just three months before he was deposed. Such unsavoury associations, however, would seem to be in keeping with the prince's general tastes. The Sunday Times article discussed a number of unlikely friendships and speculated about 'Andrew's penchant for being around people who have access to pretty women.' 

On the whole, most of the story seems a bit thin. A rude royal. A man with a taste for pretty women. A member of an extremely wealthy family with a few dodgy social connections. Not particularly shocking is it? The business lunch? Certainly, it is embarrassing, especially, as the Daily Mail has discovered the meeting was not an official engagement but initiated by the prince. But whether public or private, the meeting was attended by dozens of British executives all looking to get their share of the same distasteful pie. Are the papers going to call for them to be sacked? Difficult to criticise the prince for having the same degree of foresight as the British intelligence services. They didn't see Tunisia coming either. Observe Mr Cameron - it is much easier to try and do the right thing after the event. 

Epstein

Most damaging of all are the photos published in the New York Post, showing Prince Andrew walking through Central Park with convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, the man who paid off the Duchess of York's personal debts. 'Prince and the Perv' ran the headline. He was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and received an 18 month prison sentence but only after a plea bargain. There were allegedly many more victims and according to FBI documents, a witness claimed on one occasion Epstein had three 12 year old girls flown over from France. 

According to the Sunday Times, Epstein has been a guest at Windsor and Sandringham, while Prince Andrew has stayed with Epstein at his homes in New York and Florida. However, that is not all the two men have shared. Both have been romantically linked with Robert Maxwell's daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, although court papers indicated that she had developed a business relationship with Epstein. 

The article noted that one girl, Virginia Roberts, who was 'recruited' to work for Epstein and abused by him when she was 15 years old, was also introduced to Prince Andrew by Ghislaine. Roberts has not made any claims about Prince Andrew's conduct, however, Ghislaine is considering what action to take in relation to accusations about her role in the Epstein case made by two other women. 

It may be a collection of gossip and innuendo at the moment but what a terribly sordid world is emerging. Andrew's lifestyle is certainly a story. Dictators, prostitutes, paedophiles and our dear royal family all in the mix. After the news of of Kate and Will's wedding and the success of The King's Speech at the Oscars, "cor blimey gov'nor, don't yer just love Colin Firth", I-I-I am sure the palace was hoping for a run of more sympathetic coverage. Just why is it that a family that has risen to power through a history of violence, interbreeding, loveless marriages, luck and deceit, can't seem to stay out of trouble? Happily, for the Windsors, they are still very well protected and so far I find this aspect of the story just as disturbing. 

Roy Greenslade asked in his Guardian blog today, 'Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew Story?'. He notes the majority of the mainstream newspapers have 'overlooked' it so far, including the Guardian. Isn't paedophilia and public figures meat and drink to papers, he asks? Only the Mail and Sunday Times have pursued the story. Why is it being ignored? Is it the same reason that the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, stated during Prime Minister's Questions, that all future references to royals were to be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'? I didn't realise that the Speaker had a constitutional role to define the breadth of a debate in the Commons?

Why the special treatment? Are papers worried about not getting good seats for the wedding? Surely the royal family's position requires the House of Commons and our newspapers to hold them, and their staff, to the very highest levels of scrutiny and standards of public behaviour. Yet, as the has reported today the prince's representatives gave the impression that the meeting with Sakher el-Materi had been organised by by the Government's Trade and Investment Bureau and the prince's press secretary, Ed Perkins, tried to patch up a deal with UKTI, ‘Am deploying the line that he (Materi) was vice chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Will UKTI stand behind him? We need some govt backing here . . .’ 

Rather embarrassingly, Perkins sent the email out to the media rather than the UKTI so that particular lie couldn't be fed through. No matter, the waters are being muddied. His followers are closing ranks. David  Cameron has offered Prince Andrew his 'full support' and William Hague has said he has 'done a jolly good job.' Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, told the BBC there had been a 'rather irresponsible harassment of Andrew by the press.' Accusations of close connections to a paedophile and it is described as 'irresponsible harrassment'. Would that be the case for any other public figure outside the royal family? No, but instead the focus of this story seems to be drifting to the rather irrelevant question of whether the prince remains a trade envoy. 

Hurrah for George VI

Vince Cable told the BBC "I think we need to remember he is doing this as a volunteer, he is not a government appointee, he is not somebody who is appointed and sacked." What wonderful logic -  so does that mean the Government can't get rid of him even if they wanted to? Perhaps doctors and nurses should pull the same trick and just claim 'expenses'. The BBC political correspondent, Gary O' Donaghue believes "It's unlikely the government would actually sack Prince Andrew but may choose in the long run gradually to downgrade his activities, avoiding a damaging and embarrassing row between ministers and the Royal Family." 

Embarrassing for whom? Damaging for whom? I think Minette Marrin, in the Sunday Times, yes a Murdoch paper, got it half right when she said this is a story about a prince corrupted by deference. Yes, I agree, but I think deference has also corrupted our media and politicians. 

It doesn't particularly bother me if he keeps the trade envoy job. His official engagements look like a tour of the 'axis of evil' + Germany - not sure if they are included or not. Compared to his friends, letting him hang out with tyrants would be less embarrassing to the country.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Dan Jarvis

A terrible night for the Coalition at the Barnsley Central by-election. While Labour retained the seat with an increased majority, the Conservatives were comfortably beaten into third place by UKIP and the Lib Dems scraped sixth place, behind the BNP but just beating the Monster Raving Looney Party. The result is particularly humiliating for the Lib Dems who were second in the May election. Liberal candidate, Dominic Carman, summed the night up by telling the BBC that his party had been given "a kicking".

The victorious Labour candidate, Dan Jarvis, a former major in the paratroop regiment and who served in Afghanistan, said the result sent:

"the strongest possible message to David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Your reckless policies, your broken promises and your unfair cuts are letting our country down." 

The Lib Dem president Tim Farron played down the result saying that it was no surprise, while on Twitter, Verity Harding, senior policy manager was stating, "Barnsley result painful but not terminal. People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore - not a surprise!" Not terminal? Many commentators are suggesting it could be. Just how bad is the situation?

Johann Hari, the Guardian columnist, is today predicting Nick Clegg to lose his seat (if he runs again) while Mark Ferguson, editor of Labour List, suggested that the Lib Dems could see support recede to their historically peripheral regions of the South-west and North of Scotland. Why? Ferguson argues that the Lib Dems can no longer be seen as a credible alternative to Labour in many regions and the old line that they are positioned to the left of Labour has been shattered. Without the reservoir of support from disgruntled Labour supporters where will they turn for votes?

The apocalyptic visions of decline are lent a little credibility by the Lib Dem spokespersons themselves. Less than a year into the Coalition Government and a decline in vote from 17.2% to 4.1% is seen as 'no surprise'. Expectations must be pretty low at headquarters, after all, Barnsley is not a hotbed of student radicalism. Harding's analysis of "Painful but not terminal", is probably closer to the mark, but the fact that the comment is being made suggests that, in digesting the result, senior Lib Dems have considered the possibility. Harding's comment, 'People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore' recognises Ferguson's point that the Lib Dems position as the credible party of protest has been dealt a severe blow.

So what will Clegg do? Another skiing holiday? Probably not, no matter how appealing it might seem at the moment.The only thing he can do to rescue his party is to start defining some space between the Lib Dems and Tories. So far he has failed in his attempts. As I noted in a previous post (http://bit.ly/guD5Jq) he was tying himself in knots trying to square the circle of higher university fees with fairer access. The stream of universities announcing they will charge the maximum £9000 fees is a continual embarrassment to Clegg who has argued that the maximum fee will be charged only in exceptional cases. Also, his insistence on fair access to the top universities, which brought strong criticism from the Tories, was dealt a blow this week by Oxford and Cambridge indicating they would not 'lower' standards to increase admissions for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Only a month ago Cameron condemned multiculturalism as a failure and laid out his vision of a 'muscular liberalism' defeating extremism. Yesterday, saw yet another attempt by Clegg to separate himself from Cameron. Giving a speech in Luton, Clegg stressed the importance of multiculturalism in an 'open and confident society'. Shadow communities secretary Caroline Flint said: "Nick Clegg's speech has exposed a lack of clarity at the top of government over its view of multiculturalism."

Is this true? Despite the soundbite headline, in the body of the speech reported on the BBC, Clegg was at pains to identify common ground with the Tories, "we come at some of these issues from different directions". But he added: "We completely agree that if multiculturalism means communities living in silos - separately from each other, never communicating, with no shared sense of belonging then we are both completely against it." It sums up the Lib Dem dilemma. Does Clegg want to project his own 'muscular liberalism' or does he want to maintain the coalition? Doing both is proving very destructive to the party's prospects.

Terminal? Not yet. We have a lot more twists and turns to come. To quote someone who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments, Winston Churchill,

"this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

A cu?t by any other name...

 Rupert Murdoch has been given the go-ahead to takeover BSkyB. After months of speculation and discussion, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt- I said Hunt- announced that News Corp has been given approval to buy the remaining 61% shares in a deal worth £9.1 billion. The news of the deal has inevitably brought criticism from the Labour Party and other media groups, but what does it actually mean to us?

From the moment that Vince Cable was caught in a Telegraph honey trap it was probably inevitable that an agreement would be reached. You may remember that Cable made a fool of himself by  bragging to young female reporters that he was "declaring war" on Murdoch. Cable was immediately replaced from the BSkyB decision-making process and authority was given to Jeremy Hunt and he was on record as stating that Murdoch had "probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person." Hunt has also been a strong critic of the BBC.

In December, Ofcom, the communications industry regulator, concluded that the proposed takeover would operate against the public interest 'since there may not be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises providing news and current affairs to UK-wide cross-media audiences.' In order to avoid the deal being referred to the Competition Commission, News Corp have offered to create a new company, Sky News, with an independent chairman and directors.

Hunt

How independent is the new company? News Corp will keep a 39% holding in Sky News and will not be allowed to increase its holding without the permission of the culture secretary for ten years. Sky has also agreed to provide a 'substantial revenue stream', in the shape of a ten year contract to buy Sky News services and to allow it use the 'Sky News' brand for the next seven years. So, News Corp will almost certainly remain the largest shareholder and it will also be the new company's biggest client. Not exactly a strong position from which to assert its editorial independence is it?

But independence and Murdoch are hardly synonymous. Andrew Neil, the former editor of the Sunday Times and founding chairman of Sky TV has spoken extensively about Murdoch's record for removing 'independent' directors and directing the editorial policy of his papers. In 2008 The Independent reported that Neil told a Lord's committee,

"If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers. There is no major geopolitical position that the Sun will take whether its attitude to the euro or to the current European treaty or to whom the paper will support in the upcoming general election. None of that can be decided without Rupert Murdoch's major input."

The BBC's Robert Peston stated that the deal meant "huge changes to the landscape of the British media industry." However, Peston noted that News Corp had been put under pressure to make greater concessions than they were originally willing to concede. All of the key documents have been published and Hunt's office should, I think, be applauded for that transparency. Both Ofcom and OFT agreed that referral to the Competition Commission was not necessary.

What is certainly worrying, however, as Peston points out, is the takeover will mean News Corp will have revenues that dwarf all of its competitors, even the BBC. Murdoch has not been averse to taking on his competitors in a series of price cutting wars strangling newspaper revenues. In 2002 the Murdoch controlled Sun saw its revenues fall by 50% in a price war with the Mirror, however, News Corp, owners of Fox TV and 20th Century Fox, in the USA, were able to cover those losses.

Meanwhile, a number of media groups, including the Guardian, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph - who initially tried to cover up the Vince Cable gaffe - in a joint statement to the BBC said, "We shall be vigorously contesting this whitewash of a proposal during the consultation period, as well as examining all legal options."

What does it all mean? Firstly, the deal has yet to be completed. News Corp still have to buy BSky B and with the rising share price that is not a certainty. As a viewer, it won't make any difference. As someone concerned about the independence of news broadcasting, there are obvious concerns. However, given the concessions, Sky News is pretty much in the same position it always was, or, if there is any strength to the restrictions on News Corp, it will actually be in a much stronger position.

Of course, people tend to agree with political bias in reporting, if it agrees with their own views. The Telegraph, after all were only acting in a self-interested way by trying to hide the Cable gaff. The independence of our media can be over-stated. In the noise of the BSkyB announcement you may have missed a smaller but just as interesting story. After pressure from the Conservatives, BBC journalists have been told to stop referring to 'cuts' and instead use the word 'savings' to paint a more rosy picture of government announcements. Senior BBC management are reported to have said that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. Even our cherished Auntie has to pay the piper.

Ultimately, the greatest threat will emerge from the financial muscle that News Corp has at its disposal and how it chooses to tackle its competition. How it will end is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain. Murdoch is nearly 80 and, although he increasingly resembles a Bond villain, I suspect that You only Live Twice, is still only true in spy fiction. 

Christian morality and a death in Pakistan

Eunice and Owen Johns

'Christian beliefs lose out to gay rights' exclaims the Daily Mail headline. 'All citizens of the UK are equal but some are more equal than others' says an angry Christian, paraphrasing Orwell. 'Once again the gay community does itself a disservice by showing only intolerance for others while demanding tolerance for themselves' writes Nick in Basingstoke. Finally, Tom Norton sums up the general tone of the 652 comments on the Daily Mail website when he says, 

'There is no moral basis for this ruling, and should be appealed. The law governing this area is wrong, and should be rewritten. The gays have no justification for arguing that their preference take precedence over traditional, Christian morality. The Gays are not in charge of this world. God is.'

What has provoked this storm? As you may have heard, an elderly Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, have lost their battle to be allowed to foster children. In a landmark decision, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that the law protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against because of religious beliefs.

The couple had previously fostered 15 children before taking a break from fostering. They had applied to Derby Council in 2007 to restart fostering but despite having been described by social workers as 'kind and hospitable people', during their previous experience, felt that their application was doomed because of their belief that homosexuality is against God's laws and morals would conflict with the regulations introduced by the 2007 Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

In drafting the legislation the Government exempted organisations, that wished to 'practice, teach or advance' a religion. The rights of these groups were specifically protected by the legislation. Religious groups are allowed to organise their 'own affairs in accordance with the deeply held beliefs of their religion.' However, individuals alone and not acting under the auspices of a religious body were not exempt from the provisions.

In a just society individuals will be protected from the arbitrary expression of authority from governments or powerful groups in society. To a large extent an individual should be able to live their 'private' life as they wish as long as it does not compromise other peoples rights. The legislation attempts to balance the inalienable right of all people to be protected from discrimination due their race, religion or sexuality (among many things), guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, with an individual's freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Reason protects faith. Of course, it's a compromise but the principle protects all of us.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan we can see what happens when a a religious morality gains power. Yesterday, yet another politician was killed. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minorities Minister and the only Christian Cabinet minister, was assassinated for urging reform of the country's blasphemy laws.The blasphemy laws in Pakistan carry a death sentence and are often used to attack minority groups, including let it be noted, Christians, who, as the lowest social class, generally have little political influence. 

As a previous post explained (bit.ly/eRQIHX), Pakistan's lower regional courts are often in the hands of powerful local interest groups and uphold the death sentences. However, despite operating within an Islamic State, Pakistan's higher Appeal Courts and its Supreme Court are still powerful enough to withstand the pressures of the extremists and provide justice by overturning the decisions of the lower courts.

There are many in Pakistan who do not want minority groups to have the same rights that they enjoy. They are not willing to compromise and are willing to use any means to impose their 'beliefs'. Defending the rights of Christians and other minorities has cost Governor Salman Taseer and now Shahbaz Bhatti their lives. In Pakistan, Christians are being sentenced to death and killed because the principles of justice and the rights of minorities are quickly being eroded. People like Tom Norton in the comfort of the UK, writing on the Daily Mail website might try and consider this before promoting the primacy of any religious morality.


I wonder what a Jedi would have to say? 

Are you a racist yet?

 Do you dislike immigrants? Do you agree with David Cameron and believe that multiculturalism has failed? Do you have a fear of 'other' cultures and religions, particularly Muslims? If there was a new right-wing political party that expressed these views without the fascist trappings of the British National Party, would you consider supporting them? If so, don't be shy, because according to a new report, Fear and Hope, your views are shared by a very large section of people in Britain. 


Some 34% of white Britons believe all immigration into the UK should be stopped permanently. 52% of Britons agree with the proposition "Muslims create problems in the UK", while 63% of white Britons agree with the proposition that "on the whole, immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". In addition, 48% of Britons say they would consider supporting a new far right-wing party, if it shunned violence and fascist imagery.


The statistics have emerged from a Searchlight Educational Trust (SET) poll to explore current attitudes to national identity, religion and race. It is one of the largest surveys to explore these themes with 5054 respondents being asked 91 questions to reveal the level of fear and hate within our society.  Formed in 1992 SET is a charity that aims to to provide organisations, groups and individuals with the knowledge and tools to tackle racial hatred. The results of the this report will form the basis for a new SET project Together, which will seek to address these findings.


The Guardian reported, 


'These findings will be shocking to many. They shatter many of our liberal preconceptions. And they demonstrate conclusively that when it comes to the narrative of migration and race, our politicians and our community leaders are now running far behind those they seek to represent.'


The report's authors, Nick Lowles and Antony Painter, argue that immigration is creating a new type of politics driven by race and identity. They conclude that Britain is now divided into six 'tribes': Confident Multiculturalists (eight per cent of the population); Mainstream Liberals (16%); Identity Ambivalents (28%); Cultural Integrationists (24%); Latent Hostiles (10%); and Active Enmity (13%). The centre ground, making up 52% of the population, is dominated by Cultural Integrationists who are motived by authority and order; and Identity Ambivalents who are concerned about their economic security and social change.


It seems the more pessimistic individuals are about their future economic prospects, the more inclined they will be to have negative attitudes to immigrants. The 'Identity ambivalents' are seen as the group most likely to be swayed towards the new far-right in the shape of the identity driven groups like the English Defence League. These are either traditional Labour supporters or unaligned voters who feel their concerns were ignored by the Labour Government and are now being further hit by the deep Conservative cuts.  


On a more positive note the poll suggested that there was an appetite for mainstream politicians to take on extremism of any kind, Muslim and the far-right were identified as being as bad as each other. However, it warned the mainstream parties that they will have to adjust to the new political culture or face pushing voters towards into the arms of those extremist organisations. Are they the only ones that need to adjust to the changing political culture?


Searchlight magazine was established in 1975 to confront the growth of fascist organisations and to expose racism and anti-semitism across the country. One of the interesting aspects of the poll is the number of minority groups who are also opposed to immigration. Some 39% of Asian Britons and 21% of black Britons now believe: 'all immigration into the UK should be stopped permanently, or at least until the UK's economic situation improves.' A remarkable 43% of Asian Britons and 17% of black Britons agree with the proposition that "on the whole, immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country".

Searchlight Educational Trust should be applauded for recognising the influence of economic security, rather than pure innate bigotry, as driving the results. Racism has not disappeared, far from it, but as The Guardian noted Tebbits's cricket test has been replaced by  Lowles and Painter's 'means' test. Although it is not expressed in these terms, the report recognises that the hostility to immigration is largely class based. Many people in the lower income groups are feeling the squeeze and immigration is adding to that uncertainty. 

Boston

A report by the Daily Mail, today, highlighted how New Labour suppressed a number of reports revealing the damaging effects of immigration, particularly on rural communities and to public services. These were issues I recognised after a visit back to my hometown, Boston in Lincolnshire.  (http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2011/01/land-of-my-pilgrim-fathers-boston.html.) Between 2004 and 2008 Boston saw its population grow by 25% thanks largely to immigration from Eastern Europe and Portugal. The town has been left shell-shocked and it should be a warning to the mainstream parties who, as the Fear and Hope report highlights, not only misjudged the effects of immigration but also the appropriate response to the far-right. Of the 32 seats on Boston Council, 25 are currently held by a loosely connected group of independent councillors. There is one far-right councillor.


How many more will there be after the next elections?