The EAW Continues to Mock Justice

The man responsible: Liberal Democrat MEP Graham Watson, second from left. Picture by the EPP.

'All that is required for the deportation of a suspect under an EAW is basic information about their identity and an alleged offence.' No evidence. No proof. No chance to stop it. If another country forwards your name onto your local constabulary, and some description of a crime, there's nothing that you, the courts,  or even the government can do: that's where you're headed to face trial. You might spend months or even years in post-Soviet prisons, where none of the basic amenities of home are available, and none of what you might think your basic legal rights afforded to you; only, at the end, to stand before a court in a country where the law is not as mature as, say, France or Germany, where corruption is rampant, and where judicial delays and oversights are par for the course.

If you are found innocent, which a shockingly high percentage of those subjected to such conditions are, you'll likely have spent your life savings on proving it, and, depending on the country that called for your extradition, you may still be on a database of some kind. And it really could happen to you: because there is no requirement for the country requesting extradition to offer any kind of proof at all - not even flight records showing that you even visited - literally anyone could be plucked from their humdrum routine and thrust into the world of 'pan-European justice.' Don't take my word for it - Fair Trials International, an NGO that usually spends it time campaigning against and shedding light on the intricacies of the law under Third World despots, has said the same thing in their report on the subject.

Britain is about to opt-in to a European treaty (the Prum Treaty - no, I've not heard of it either) that requires the sharing of driver registration details amongst the twenty-seven nation bloc. Owing to the UK government's prized DNA collection - the largest on earth - that puts British citizens especially at risk of allegations arising from 'false positives.' That could lead to an increase in the numbers of people, rattled through a haphazard multinational court system at great personal and financial cost. Most worringly, research in Holland suggests the EU scheme only has a 33% success rate, meaning that most - not some, but most - of those hauled into such a situation will be innocent. What's stopping you, as a law-abiding citizen, being one of them? Nothing, that's what.

What can we do about it? We can't change the EAW through voting: it's beyond us. Nor will writing to MPs, signing petitions, or sending in angry letters stop the government from doing as it pleases. No amount of amateur activism will help our cause. So, what do you do when amateurs can't get the job done? Send in the professionals. The following is a template email to Fair Trials International, which is very much leading the charge against the EAW at the moment, and can be contacted here:

Dear Fair Trials International,

I would like to express my admiration for your work in fighting the European Arrest Warrant. At a time when the coalition government is largely silent on the issue, it is vital that there is someone who continues to strive to bring this systemic reduction of judicial standards to the attention of the people. I feel that there would be a groundswell of public anger, if only more people kneww about it, and I suspect that, as a campaign group dedicated to opposing it, you feel the same. On behalf of people who have and will have their most basic expectations of the law and the sanctity of their personal lives dragged through the mud, please continue your work, and please do more to publically take the government to task on this issue. They will listen to no amount of public outrage: but a resourceful and respected campaign group they just might.

Thank you kindly.

Yours sincerely, ...

Or, you could always invest in your future rights, i.e. donate. Fair Trials International is the only charity fighting these abuses: if it can't, there's no-one.

UKIP and the BNP have Nothing in Common

Extreme-right parties do not do this. Picture by Editor5807.

Matthew Goodwin, renowned expert on the far-right, has alleged in the Guardian that UKIP 'shares far more with the far-right than it admits.' Following on from a study by himself and Professor Jocelyn Evans, he writes that similar proportions of supporters of the two parties agree on a series of questions asked of them. But all this amounts to is cosmetic similarities: arguing that UKIP and the BNP are the same because the same proportion of supporters, give or take 20%, agree to the same broad questions is equivalent to saying that Gordon Brown is a fascist because he once championed 'British jobs for British workers,' or that David Cameron is an ecologist because of his green policies. Any politician, anywhere, can say the same things as someone else: it doesn't mean they agree on everything. Ideology is where the true distinction lies, and, ideologically, UKIP and the BNP are polar opposites.

The BNP is a nationalist party. Cultural nationalist, in fact. Cultural nationalism is by definition collectivist, authoritarian, and anti-permissive; the government promotes a cultural ideal that it declares to be the 'norm,' and will often chastise non-conformists through the tax or legal system, depending on its level of extremity. This is staunchly conservative thought that well and truly belongs on the right of the spectrum. UKIP, by contrast, is libertarian: libertarianism literally means the belief in liberty. It is a liberal philosophy placed on the right of the spectrum due to its 'if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it' attitude, commitment to low tax and spending, and rejection of identity politics. It is by far the most individualistic ideology outside of anarchism, and, due to its firm commitment to local democracy and referenda, could not be further away from the BNP's big state authoritarianism if it tried. The only other party that even comes close to it in this regard is the Greens.

There's also quite major economic differences. The BNP is heavily interventionist, to a greater extent than Old Labour, advocating mass-nationalisation of land and industry, a commitment to full employment, anti-globalist, anti-free market and protectionist. UKIP, by contrast, is a free-market party, which remains strongly supportive of capitalism (even though it opposes the bank bailouts and connections between government and big business, which it - like all libertarians - thinks of as 'corporatist' and anti-capitalist in nature), especially small and medium-sized businesses. It is firmly committed to meritocracy, and opposes the BNP's 'native Britons first' mantra was a matter of course.

Furthermore, none of the things that Mr. Goodwin alleges are aspects of the 'extreme right' actually are. Opposition to uncontrolled immigration, for instance, is near-universal: the key word being 'uncontrolled.' You can cover the entire spectrum from the National Front to the SWP, and not a single voice is calling for restrictions to be lifted entirely. Does that make them 'far-right?' No. It means they have a modicum of common sense. Likewise, tighter border controls is quite a typical stance, especially after that furore in the summer where it turned out that many of the border controls we thought we had were, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. Deporting illegal immigrants can be adequately justified by the word 'illegal' - they're breaking the law in being here, why should we let them stay? - and criticism of multiculturalism is now mainstream. Germany, France, and the UK have all officially abandoned it - and, contrary to what some of the commenters on Comment is Free would have you believe, none of them are ruled by 'extreme-right' governments. No extreme-right government on earth would tolerate Nick Clegg.

'1,505' UKIP supporters out of 2,000 interviewees in total is quite a large 'control group,' not to mention an odd one: why not Labour, or the Tories, the two parties considered 'mainstream?' Why UKIP? And the ommission of ideology in favour of superfluous number-crunching is a glaring oversight - especially from someone with a first class honours in politics. In the end, if he did not intend to smear UKIP by associating it with the far-right ring, why did he do it?

Ken's Extremist Connections Should Not be Brushed Under the Carpet

Ken Livingstone invited this man to speak in London, as a 'reformer.'

A new poll has shown that Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson are now neck-and-neck in the run-up to the London mayoral election. The Labour candidate is now thought to be more 'in tune' with popular concerns, including but not limited to budget cuts, the Olympics, and rail fares. The Guardian has jumped on the bangwagon, publishing a piece by Rabina Khan - cabinet member for housing on Tower Hamlets council - attacking those who claim that he associates with Islamic extremists. She puts these claims down down to the 'rightwing press' appealing to the lowest common denominator and the 'politics of fear.' But the truth is rather more nuanced than that.

One of Mr. Livingstone's long-standing allies is the 79-year-old Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, styled by the BBC as an 'Islamic scholar:' It was Livingstone who invited him to London, and welcomed him to City Hall, calling him a 'reformer.' Let's take a look at these 'reforms:'

Not intermingling with men in such way that their bodies come in contact or that men touch women

Flirting and seductive behaviour are characteristics of wrong-minded women

If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas

Try as he might to make this sound remotely civilised, it still amounts to 'obey me or I'll hit you' - an attitude the UK grew out of in the 1800s. Now, on the subject of homosexuals:

This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man's sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females

tthose who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living

And racial integration...

If the number of Muslims in a country is small—for example, if they are immigrants residing in a non-Muslim country—their men ought to be prohibited from marrying non-Muslim women because, since Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslim men, their marriage to non-Muslim women means that many Muslim girls will remain unmarried

All this comes from an article, entitled 'In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam,' available online and penned by the Sheikh himself. Feel free to take a good, long read: even the most hardened Guardian contributor might, after a hundred and fifty pages, come to realise why having a Mayor of London who once counted this man as an ally is such a bad idea. He is homophobic. He condones spousal beating. He supports FGM (provided it does not 'physically harm' the female). He endorsed the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He is considerably more racist than even the most hardened 'far-right' activist:

Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people...this Jewish, Zionist band of people...do not spare a single one of them

If opposing a man who says something like that makes me 'right-wing,' then so be it.

Why is the Guardian, supposedly a 'liberal' paper, allowing space to people who try to defend Ken Livingstone's association with a man who is in every respect the antithesis of liberalism? Why did a right-on 'progressive' such as Ken Livingstone make a point of inviting him to London in the first place? And why is not wanting a future Mayor of London to have such close links with him considered 'bigoted?' It strikes me as profoundly sensible. To my mind, sharing a platform with a man who thinks that women can be beaten and says that about the Jews should render one unelectable for life: it probably would, had said mayoral candidate been a Tory, or a member of any smaller party.

And it cannot be excused as a simple error of judgement. Qaradawi is not the only radical Islamist that Ken Livingstone or his administration forged close links with. The Islamic Forum of Europe, a multinational group whose leader was quoted espousing shari'ah by an episode of Dispatches, is based in the East London Mosque, which received hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money during Ken Livingstone's time in office. An IFE-linked lobby group, Muslims 4 Ken, unsuccessfully campaigned for Livingstone's re-election in 2008. The connections between Ken Livingstone and radical Islamist preachers run deep. Re-read those quotes of Qaradawi the reformer, and read the transcript of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the IFE, then ask yourself: is this man, who sponsored and supported these people, really who we want as our mayor?

That is the antithesis of the harmonious, tolerant, and open-minded city that London is, and that most Londoners want it to be. Surely we do not want a mayor who associates with them?

UKIP MEP: Greece 'heading towards revolution'

The 'flower of Greek youth' is waxing. Picture by Kanibalos.

RT's commentary on the bailouts (blindingly simple compared with ones offered up by the UK media) usually contains quotes by individuals that wouldn't be on the top of the list for most major nationals here. Paul Nuttal, as one of the most prominent lights of the pro-withdrawal movement in Brussels, is one such individual. Quoted by RT (formerly Russia Today), he said:  "you just have to look at the amount of people who are out on the street demonstrating at the moment. Suicide rates are up. The minimum wage has been cut. There’s mass homelessness in that country at the moment. All the European Union is doing down this line is it’s encouraging the cradle of civilization to head towards revolution, because that’s what will happen if we continue with these austerity measures." It was only a month after Nigel Farage appeared on the same programme, saying a similar thing.

It sounds like a dire prediction indeed, but, whatever you think of UKIP, it's worth remembering that not a single Eurosceptic economic prediction has turned out wrong. It was Eurosceptics who surmised there'd be a need for a bailout in the first place, and then that there was a risk Greece would default on its debts. EU officials flatly denied both statements, but they turned out to be spot-on. Likewise, the bailout of Ireland; the bailout of Portugal; the second bailout of Greece; the doubling of the 'stability fund,' thoughts of an exit from the Eurozone, etc. These are all things the EU and national governments thought impossible, which, nonetheless, happened. Whatever the flaws of Eurosceptic parties, the pro-withdrawal movement as a whole is the only one that comes out of this sordid mess with an unblemished economic record.

Admittedly, this isn't solely economics: though they may not be the Colonel Blimps of Guardian demonology, a Grecophile the average Eurosceptic isn't. But it's not just Eurosceptics who've cottoned on to the threat of upheaval: the CIA itself warned that there may be a military coup if the current austerity march continued, and that was two years ago. Hundreds of billions of pounds of debt has been heaped on the benighted country since then - through the bailouts, no less, that very mechanism that is meant to save it - and its social, political, and economic infrastructure has been shattered. The democratic option has been firmly closed by the imposition of Lucas Papademos, a former European Central Bank vice-president, as the Greek premier (current polls suggest a hung parliament, of which Papademos or another placeholder will surely be appointed head), and already comparisons of government officials to Nazi collaborators have slipped into popular culture. That's all well and good until you realise that they're bloody serious: Greece's largest police union has threatened to issue arrest warrants for leading IMF/EU officials for 'covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty.' Most worringly, a survey by respected polling company Public Issue found that over half of Greeks think that 'deep change' is needed, and that a further third would support a 'revolution' towards that end.

It's easy to believe when you look at what's being 'asked' of them: the full list of austerity measures is too long to summarise. And that's just the terms of the previous bailout. Who knows what yet more 'solidarity' will bring to a grateful Greek population? All in all, it's a very bad time to be a member of the Eurocracy in Greece: although far from inevitable, a revolution is also not unthinkable, and by pursuing the same course of action over and over, with increasingly catastrophic results, the 'troika' and the Greek parliament may be careering towards one.

Falklands Are a 'Colony?' Tell that to the Falklanders

The Falkland Islanders don't want to be sold out by their fellow citizens.

Much has been made of Sean Penn's latest verbal escapade, and there's not much more that can be done, other than mentioning this. I just thought I'd bring you all some good news from the South Atlantic that flies in the face of Argentina's pretensions: the people of the Falkland Islands have held a voluntary procession along the islands' main thoroughfare, waving British flags and calling for their UN-enshrined right to self-determination to be respected, by both world leaders and right-on celebrities alike. One local, noting that the inhabitants donated several pounds per person to the Haiti earthquake fund which Sean Penn was deeply involved with, deliciously told told the American celebrity - known for his world around the world - that 'we have rights too.'

British people were the first to permanently settle on the islands, and, barring brief interludes of abandonment or conquest, the islands have been British for all of their recorded history. Aside from some in a small community of Chilean citizens (who held a similar demonstration to declare their support of the UK), almost all of the residents have British passports and full British citizenship. Their simple gesture proves at a stroke not only that the usual accusations of colonialism and jingoism are wrong, but that to call for their handing over to Argentina is to set yourself against the democratic will of the people.

The Prolier-Than-Thou Cult of Celebrity

Wear a picture of a smoking mass-murderer? You're 'hip'! Wear a picture of a Tory? Crossing the line there, pal...

Am I the only one who thinks that an odd assemblage of music personalities falling over themselves to be prolier-than-thou actually rather funny? First we had a long list of self-appointed men of the people publically forbidding Republican presidential candidates from using their lyrics, following on from our own home-grown storm in a teacup when UKIP leader Nigel Farage attempted to use Tubthumping by British alternative rock (and anarchist) band Chumbawamba. The band reacted with 'total and absolute outrage and horror,' helpfully adding 'Nigel Farage is an arse' by way of justification. Oh, and Morrisey banning David Cameron from liking his music. Now, we have Noel Gallagher explaining comments he made about Lady Thatcher, which, he claims, were misconstrued.

Originally, media reports had him praising her, stating that 'under Thatcher there was a work ethic,' and it was better culturally, to boot. He even seemed to take a dig at modern celebrity culture, noting that under Labour and the 'coalition thing' all people want to go is get on television. Sadly, for those right-wing celebrity watchers who thought someone from the music industry was finally coming out of the world's deepest closet, it was not to be: he later claimed that his comments were misinterpreted, saying on his blog that 'all great working class art...came about in spite of that woman and her warped right-wing views, not because of it.'

In doing so, he's obeying two rules that prominent critics of Thatcher have to adhere to: one, they have to be tremendously rich. Three years ago, he was worth $27,000,000 (£14,000,000), which definitely puts him in the '1%' category. He then added 'if anyone's reading this - particularly from the Inland Revenue - I haven't got fourteen million quid in the bank...not in cash, anyway.' Not what I'd call a man of the people, but he certainly fits in well with New Labour. Two, his experience of the Thatcher years is limited. Unlike most of her critics, he was actually alive at the time, which I guess is something - but I doubt he was a prominent conniseur of working-class art at the time. Examining the finer points of proletarian expression is not that high on the list of priorities for a twelve-year-old, just below buying a skateboard and climbing trees. Not to mention finding a new source of milk after that warped right-wing witch took it all.

Still, Noel Gallagher's personal views aren't important. This is: if the left is as committed to stamping out societal inequality as it claims, so much so that it has put numerous examples of 'affirmative action' legislation in place to disadvantage white males, why does it not tackle what is perhaps the most glaringly public inequality of all - the total lack of right-wing celebrities? About sixty per cent of the European population is right-wing, according to election results (look at the domination of the EPP, bearing in mind that EFD, and ECR are also right-wing affiliations). Almost all the US electorate is right-wing by British standards. So why is there no celebrity worth mentioning who espouses anything to the right of Nick Clegg? There's the occasional waft of right-wing rhetoric from some virtual non-entity (as proven by the fact that you can't guess who that could possibly be), but the number of radical left-wing ideologies in comparison to moderates and right-wingers is hypocritically disproportionate.

Believe it or not, this is a serious problem. The chief argument for affirmative action is to represent society accurately. How accurately, then, can celebrities - doubtless the biggest influence on most people's opinions today - reflect society if one half of it is excluded, and the other is represented by its most radical elements, such as Michael 'capitalism is evil' Moore and Sean 'those who criticise Hugo Chavez a dictator should be jailed' Penn?

Report Claims Conservatives Are Less Intelligent Than Liberals

Does not having to read that sign make me a liberal? Picture by Peter Facey.

It’s the oldest trick in the book: to claim that your side is, by definition, more intelligent than the other side. Since time immemorial humans have been lambasting their critics and conquerors as being of somewhat less-than-average intelligence. Now, a group of Canadian academics from Brock University in Ontario have gone one stage further: they’ve had it published in a journal.

A ‘controversial’ report, published in Psychology Science, claims (with a fair few mealy-mouthed caveats) that conservative people tend to have lower IQs than their more liberal counterparts, and then went on to offer an explanation – that people who have an ‘innate’ lack of intelligence gravitate towards authority and order, as they are less capable of managing their own affairs and their own morality. If you approach conservatives from the classic (false) belief that they think all change to be bad, it makes a token degree of sense. But surely there’s enough empirical evidence to prove that all such studies are bunk?

Not only does their claim that left-wingers are more tolerant ring hollow when coupled with insinuatinfg that everyone else is innately thicker - a contradiction wonderfully exemplified by the unintentional self-satire from triumphant left-wingers in the comments section of the Daily Mail - but it fails to take into account some self-evident truths. There are ready wits and gross ignoramuses on both sides of the spectrum. Einstein, one of the greatest minds of all time, exhibited great fondness for socialism, yet some of his most worthy predecessors - virtually all the leading thinkers before 1800 - would have been ultraconservative, by today’s standards. The levels of racism and xenophobia expressed by some of our more esteemed Enlightenment thinkers and early philosophers would land then a hefty fine and a prison sentence, yet they were not stupid - not by any stretch of the imagination. Much of their work frames the modern world. And, if it is determined by innate intelligence, as the report specifically states, how and why can a person’s viewpoint can change over time?

That’s just on an individual scale - on a grand scale such a study makes even less sense. There are five hundred million people in the European Union, two thirds of whom (according to election results and European Parliament blocs) are right-wing. Are two-thirds of the European population mentally stunted? Or, as several of the aforementioned triumphant lefties in the comments stated, ‘tards?’ No. They’re perfectly functioning human beings, thank you very much, and aren’t any less so because their cross on the ballot paper doesn’t square up to that of someone else. Take a look through the comments of the Daily Mail article for the ultimate proof of how the study is wrong: watch, as the people who - it claims - are more tolerant and open-minded turn condescending, spiteful, and bigoted when someone dares voice an alternate opinion.