US threatens Iran with ‘punitive’ measuresCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 6 Aug 2008Summary: WASHINGTON (AFP) ? The United States and its allies want “punitive” measures against Iran over its weak reponse to the international offer to persuade it to freeze its nuclear program, the White House said Wednesday…....Iran’s latest letter, made available to AFP on Wednesday, said it was ready to give a “clear response” to the international offer but demanded a ”’clear response’ to our questions and ambiguities”. source: AFPread more
I’d rather be a hypocrite than a cynic like Julie BurchillUKWatch.net - 6 Aug 2008In her new book, Not In My Name, Julie Burchill reserves her grandest fury about hypocrites for environmentalists. We are, she (and her co-author, Chas Newkey-Burden) say, pious, sexless and contemptuous of humankind. We are all are posh and rich, and have found in environmentalism a new excuse for lecturing the poor. We tell other people to live by rules we don’t apply to ourselves. Like all stereotypes, these claims are lazy, familiar and sometimes true. Burchill knows nothing about environmentalism, and, almost as a point of pride, hasn’t bothered to find out, but when you use grapeshot you are bound to hit someone. Yes, many prominent greens are posh gits like me. The same can be said of journalists, politicians, artists, academics, business leaders ? in fact, of just about anyone in public life. But it is always the greens who are singled out. In truth, while the upper middle classes are, as always, over-represented in the media, the movement cuts across the classes. A recent ICM poll found that more people in social classes D and E thought the government should prioritise the environment over the economy (56%) than in classes A and B (47%). Environmentalism is the most politically diverse movement in history. Here in the Kingsnorth climate camp, I have met anarchists, communists, socialists, liberals, conservatives and, mostly, pragmatists. I remember sitting in a campaign meeting during the Newbury bypass protests and marvelling at the weirdness of our coalition. In the front row sat the local squirearchy: brigadiers in tweeds and enormous moustaches, titled women in twin sets and headscarves. In the middle were local burghers of all shapes and sizes. At the back sat the scuzziest collection of grunge-skunks I have ever laid eyes on. The audience disagreed about every other subject under the sun ? if someone had asked us to decide what day of the week it was, the meeting would had descended into fisticuffs ? but everyone there recognised that our quality of life depends on the quality of our surroundings. The environment is inseparable from social justice. Climate change, for example, is primarily about food and water. It threatens the fresh water supplies required to support human life. As continental interiors dry out and the glaciers feeding many of the rivers used for irrigation disappear, climate change presents the greatest of all threats to the future prospects of the poor. The rich will survive for a few decades at least, as they can use their money to insulate themselves from the effects. The poor are being hammered already. In reality, it is people like Julie Burchill ? who is, incidentally, far richer than almost any green I have met ? who treats the poor with contempt. So that she can revel in what she calls “reckless romantic modernism”, other people must die. But at least you can’t accuse her of hypocrisy: she cannot fail to live by her moral code, for the simple reason that she doesn’t have one. Sure, we are hypocrites. Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. Greens have high aspirations ? they want to live more ethically ? and they will always fall short. But the alternative to hypocrisy isn’t moral purity (no one manages that), but cynicism. Give me hypocrisy any day.
Tasers: less lethal, but still potentially deadlyUKWatch.net - 6 Aug 2008The recent Home Office figures revealed that Tasers have been used more frequently over the last 12 months. While this report gives us cause for concern, essentially it is inevitable. Since September last year, more officers have had these potentially lethal electro shock weapons at their disposal. The Home Office piloted a 12-month trial across 10 police authorities, enabling some non-specialist firearms officers to use Tasers, and allowing the weapon to be used in what was nebulously described as a “wider set of circumstances”. It’s exactly this lack of clarity and the easing of restrictions that is causing Amnesty International real concern about the usage of these weapons. Let me be clear: Amnesty International is not opposed to the use of Tasers by the UK police force. In fact, we recognise that there are circumstances when Tasers should be deployed, in response to life-threatening situations. But the level of training should be rigorous and to the highest standards before they are widely deployed. Tasers are potentially lethal and highly dangerous weapons. People have died after being shocked by a Taser. Many may recall the video footage posted on YouTube of a Polish man who died after being stunned with a Taser by Canadian police in Vancouver airport. According to Amnesty’s latest figures, more than 300 people have died after being shocked by a Taser in the US and Canada since 2001. Just last year, the UN committee against torture described the impact of the Taser weapon as “provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture and that in certain cases it could also cause death.” Clearly the UK government has to ensure that the most stringent safeguards are in place when this weapon is being used. The Home Office minister Tony McNulty said yesterday that police should be equipped with the necessary tools required to carry out their duties. I completely agree with that. I also appreciate that police officers have a duty to protect themselves and the community at large from violent situations across Britain. But I refute the claim that arming officers with Tasers without the necessary safeguards and appropriate training is the answer. Any officer carrying a Taser should be trained to the same high standard as they are for using a firearm. This means that their training should be intensive, ongoing and rigorous to ensure that these dangerous weapons are only used in the appropriate situations. And even in those circumstances, roll out of Tasers should be highly restricted. We do not want to have the same situation as in the US where police officers are routinely armed with Tasers. Amnesty has always feared that the wider deployment of Tasers could be the start of a slippery slope towards arming all UK police officers. With the latest Home Office figures suggesting a clear increase, it is highly possible that our fears may yet be realised.
Book review: “Thinking Palestine”Electronic Intifada - 6 Aug 2008rr r r r rr r rr r rr r rr rr rrr rBecause its contributors—sociologists, historians, legal experts and cultural critics—work from within an activist perspective, the new volume Thinking Palestine should be read closely by serious pro-Palestinian activists wishing to sharpen their conceptual tools in the ceaseless battle against Zionist propaganda. Raymond Deane reviews for The Electronic Intifada.
Crossing the Line focuses on Obama’s trip to the Middle EastElectronic Intifada - 6 Aug 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rThis week on Crossing The Line: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently wrapped up a tour of the Middle East during which he assured Israelis that the United States will always be their friend and reaffirmed the “special relationship” between the two countries. But as Obama made visits to Jerusalem, the southern Israeli town of Sderot and a brief stop in Ramallah, he neglected to mention Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories. Host Naji Ali speaks with Bruce Dixon, investigative journalist and managing editor of Black Agenda Report, about Obama’s tour and his blindness to Israeli apartheid.
Olmert’s departure: The perfect alibiElectronic Intifada - 6 Aug 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rThe conventional wisdom quickly developed among peace process industry analysts that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s departure would be a “setback” for ongoing negotiations with the Ramallah Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, endangering the much-touted goal announced at last November’s Annapolis summit of reaching a final agreement by the end of this year. However, Hasan Abu Nimah comments, there is not a peace process to mourn.
