Dying to tell the Truth

People sometimes ask me why I as a Christian want to go into journalism. Especially as every time you hear about the press in the news right now it’s usually in connection with the phrases “Leveson Enquiry,” “Phone Hacking” and “Operation Weeting.” In short, Journalists are bad people. In the eyes of the general public, the entire Fourth Estate is populated with people with the moral fibre and backbone of frogspawn and why would I want to be part of that?

I want to be a Journalist, because of people like Marie Colvin.

For those of you who don’t know, Marie Colvin was a foreign correspondent for the Sunday Times specialising in war reporting. She’d reported from pretty much every war zone on the planet over the last twenty years, from Sri Lanka to Libya. She was the journalist who arranged the only interview with Colonel Gaddafi during last year’s Libyan uprising.  She went wherever she was needed in search of not just the main story, but the stories that mattered. The stories that would echo in the hearts of the ordinary people back home.

This week, she died. She was killed in a missile strike while covering the Syrian Governments bombardment of the town of Homs. In an effort to prevent news of his regime’s atrocities reaching the western world, forces loyal to President Al-Assad destroyed the building being used by the foreign media, killing Marie Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik and wounding two others.

Homs is a dangerous place to be, and all the eulogies that have been said have made it clear that Colvin knew that. But they also say that she knew she had to go there, that she had to find the story.  The story that mattered to the people.  The story that might just shake up the world.  If she was going to have a say in the manner of her death, I would say that this is how she would want to go, informing the world.

That’s what draws me as a Christian  to journalism. That power, that ability to change the world even a little at a time. Bit by bit, inch by inch, story by story. For every journalist who is hacking phones in Wapping there is another bedded down with the troops in Helmand Province, or dragging themselves hither and thither across great distances, in search of that one story that matters.

That’s what we look for. That’s what we long for. Every minute we spend writing about a village fete will be vindicated when we finally find and break that story that will change the world. That will change how people view the world and how they understand it.

Yes journalism has a bad name at the moment. But at its heart it is a noble profession, tasked with possibly the most important assignment any man or woman can perform. Uncovering and reporting the Truth. We are truth-seekers and the knowledge of that more than makes up for the few bad apples in the journalistic barrel

“Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that rough first draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.”  - Marie Colvin – November 2010.

Entrapment

No, I’m not referring to the film with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery. Rather I’m referring to what the Oxford English Dictionary defines as:

“The action of entrapping; the condition of being entrapped or caught by artifice.”

Something I suspect that august body the Federal Bureau of Investigation of being guilty of.

Those of you  who keep an eye on the international press may have noticed yesterday that the Americans were taking a break from rehearsing Carry On Mr President – sorry, the Republican primaries – and were instead jumping up and down and praising the FBI for stopping a potential terrorist attack on Washington DC. A Moroccan immigrant named Amine El Khalifi was caught heading towards the Capitol Building with a load of explosives. He was duly arrested and hustled away to be charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against US property. Well done the FBI, you’ve caught another terrorist.

Or have they?

‘No’ is the answer. For one thing Mr Khalifi didn’t have any explosives. At least not any that worked. His big old suicide vest contained explosives already rendered harmless. The gun he had also didn’t work. Was this because Al-Qaeda is getting sloppy now that they are comparatively leaderless? No. It was because Mr Khalifi was not connected with Al-Qaeda at all. What had actually happened was that a group of FBI agents pretending to be Al-Qaeda operatives had approached him and asked him nicely if he would be interesting in engaging some acts of terrorism. All so they could arrest him. Now apparently he had already been under investigation for over a year. But…

Does that stink to anyone else?

 I know I’m running the risk of sounding like a supporter of terrorism and Islamic extremism but once again here is an example of a country – that purports to value freedom above all else – bending the law in order to suit its own ends. Yes he was under investigation, but to my knowledge Mr Khalifi had neither broken any laws – other they overstaying his visa by something like twelve years – nor was actually connected with any genuine agents of Al-Qaeda. I can just imagine the conversation at FBI headquarters.

“We have to do something about this guy.

“Why?”

“Why? He’s a terrorist.”

“But he hasn’t done anything that suggests that. We’ve been watching him for over a year.”

“What if we set him up? Provided him the means and then arrested him?”

 “Wouldn’t that be illegal?”

“Hmm. Nah don’t think so.”

Civilised societies cannot act like this. Not if they want other nations to take them seriously. If the FBI could provide some evidence that Khalifi had actually been in contact with Al-Qaeda at some point and thus argued that its actions were preventative, or even waited until he had actually been contacted by Al-Qaeda that would have been fine and within the bounds of the law. But they didn't. And apparently this isn't the first time. Stings like this are apparently the standard strategy for dealing with "potential" terrorists.

So now Mr Khalifi is facing life imprisonment for something he wouldn't have done had the US Government not provided him with the opportuinity. I can only hope he has a good defence lawyer.

That won't matter in the end of course. A dangerous terrorist is off the streets and I'm sure the FBI and the US Government will argue that the ends justify the means. That's what they said about Guantanamo Bay and the water boarding.

Unfortunatly none of that will be any comfort to the flasely imprisoned Amine El Khalifi.

Do Unto Others

I’m hardly a fan of Islamic Extremists - I think they bring shame upon an ancient, and, in many respects, otherwise noble, religion – but having over the past week watched the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary jump up and down over the release of Abu Qatada I can’t help but think that we are running the risk of taking things too far.

Yes, I know, he is considered Al-Qaeda’s spiritual leader in Europe and is therefore bad news. But the only crime he may have committed under British law is incitement to racial hatred. Even the Law Lords ruled that holding him without charge simply because he is a “suspected” terrorist was unlawful. Yet we treat him as if he has been found guilty of blowing up Tower Bridge. Now rather than simply put him under surveillance we put him under some sort of draconian house arrest, monitoring his every contact and movement. Also, for once, I agree with the

European Court

on Human Rights. To send Abu Qatada back to Jordan at the moment would be a direct contravention of his right to freedom from torture as outlined in Article 5 of the UN Convention on Human Rights

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Now I know what you’re thinking. Aren’t there times when we should just ignore those rules because the Daily Mail said we should? ‘No’ is the answer. There is never a time when that is appropriate. Abu Qatada may be a nasty, bad, evil, naughty, man who wishes to crush the infidel scum, but he is also a human being and, as such, he is entitled to the same rights as everyone else. He has yet to be convicted of any crime under British law and thus is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The rights and privileges that come with being a human being must be upheld at all costs. We can’t simply change the rules where a specific person is involved because we don’t like them or the stuff that they say. If we could then Nick Griffin would already be languishing in a jail cell somewhere.

I love my country because of our attitudes towards tolerance, fair play and the belief that everyone deserves the same rights and opportunities in life (mostly). The code of our society may very well be “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” (something the Tories would do very well to remember). If Jordan can assure us that Abu Qatada will receive a fair trial and won’t be tortured then I will put him on the plane myself. But until then we cannot and should not send him back. Firstly because if the situations were reversed I’d hope he’d do the same for us. Even though secretly I know he wouldn’t. And secondly because if we allow our common decency to be stripped away like this, then the extremists have already won.  

Local Government and how it could be better.

So according to the news on the third of May some of the UK’s major cities – Bristol, Liverpool and Wakefield among them – will be holding a referendum to decide if they want to have an elected Mayor, London style,  to oversee the administration of these mighty conurbations. I quite like this idea.

Then, because my brain is a weird and wonderful place,  I moved from thinking about what a great idea elected Mayors would be (especially as up north they would be form a block of Labour strongholds) and onto the issue of local government. Or, more precisely, why local government doesn’t work.

You see local government is quite complex animal in the UK, made up as it is of a mix of boroughs, unitary authorities and metropolitan areas.  Now while I’m sure they do a good job (I mean the country is still standing so they must be) I do feel as if they are neither very accountable nor very well known. I would bet you any money you like that if asked people would be unable to name their local councillors. Now when it comes to representative democracy and making decisions on behalf of the people I don’t really think that’s good enough.

These two thoughts – local government and the concept of elected mayors – then came together to form the nucleus of a new local government strategy. A strategy that would be both representative and effective. 

Firstly we need to abolish the current mix of unitary authorities and metropolitan areas, instead setting up London style assemblies and assembly wards across the country. Some counties such as Yorkshire may have to be split into two or three assemblies but mostly these could be done along county lines. Then the residents of those wards would elect members to sit on those assemblies. They would also elect a Mayor to chair the Assembly as is done in London. The Mayor would then select from among the Assembly members a miniature cabinet, the members of which would be responsible for the overseeing of a specific department such as education, the budget or policing within the Assembly’s boundary. The rest of the Members would be responsible for acting as check on the cabinet, debating ideas that are put to  them. Essentially each Assembly would act as a miniature Parliament and would do what the current Councils do now, only there would be more of an obvious link between the residents and the members.

Of course there would still be room for the Westminster Parliament in this system. They would still draft the laws, set the budget and have overall control over hospitals, policing and schools. However the assemblies would implement these on a local level. In order to be truely accountable local decisions need to be made on a local level, similar to how state decisions are made by the State legislature in the US.  Also under this system if something happened within an assembly ward – such as the building of a new supermarket over a playing field – the first port of call would not be the MP but the Assembly Member. MP’s roles would relate to country wide problems. Also of course a period as an Assembly Member would serve as a good starting point for a career as an MP.

In conclusion I think under this system there would be far more accountability at the local level and a far better level of management. By devolving power to the regions, Westminster would be freed up to deal with the bigger picture.

Plus. I just think it would be more democratic.

We Believe

Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist. And if they did I certainly wouldn't be one of them.

In this world, in this day and age we get used to discovering our heroes have feet of clay. Footballers have affairs. Musicians do drugs. Politicians lie and cheat and steal. We watch the newspapers tear them down bit by bit day after day until their reputations lie in shreds. Then we shake our heads and say that they deserved it. Maybe because they did. Or maybe it's our way of coping with discovering they weren't the people we thought they were.

Sherlock Holmes wasn't real. He was a character that existed on paper, on the internet and on TV. But somehow watching him being torn apart in The Reichenbach Fall hurt even more than watching it happen to people in the real world. I kept expecting him to find some way out of it. Someway to salvage his reputation and taken Morairty down. He was Sherlock and he always had a plan. Maybe he wasn't a real person. But he was real to me.

Never mind what he said. Sherlock was a hero. He was a good man. Even if his motives for going out and solving crimes weren't alturistic - even if they were money and an attempt to alleviate boredom - he still helped people. He still helped put criminals behind bars. Even if he did treat his friends as if they were people who he simply put up with, as if they didn't really count, they so obviously did matter to him. Molly mattered. Lestrade mattered. Mrs Hudson mattered. John Mattered. I liked knowing that in some alternate universe, if some alternate version of me got into trouble, there was someone I could go to for help.

Moriarty said that "Falling is just like flying. Only there's a more permenant destination.". He may have thought that he had bought about the Fall of Sherlock Holmes. But people like me, to whom Sherlock was real in some way shape or form. We will make sure that Sherlock Flies.

Sherlock Holmes was my hero. And I believe in him.

I Believe in Sherlock Holmes.

Here's the Cart. Where's the Horse?

This week I’m going to take a break from the Americas and look at something a little closer to home.

Independence for Scotland has always been a central aim of the Scottish National Party – hence the name – and no one has been a stronger crusader for this than current SNP leader Alex Salmond. Now the waving of the saltire has been taken to the extreme with Salmond – the Scottish First Minister – setting out a time table for a referendum on Scottish independence. Despite attempted meddling from Westminster with David Cameron trying to limit Salmond options, a date has now been set, the autumn of 2014.

The question the coming referendum raises is ‘how feasible is Scottish independence?’ For all the SNP’s rhetoric about a “Better Scotland,” a “Wealthier Scotland” and a “Fairer Scotland,” Scotland has been run from London for over 300 years, ever since Elizabeth the First died without an heir, putting her Scots cousin James on the throne of England . Despite the powers devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, Westminster still controls a lot what goes on north of the border.

If, theoretically, Scotland gained independence tomorrow, it would suddenly have to oversee border control and a police force, construct a credible military – most likely regiments pillaged from the British Army – and create new political and trade relationships with countries that it previously related to as part of the United Kingdom. This is, of course, on top of constructing a stable, manageable economy.

Figures from the Government Expenditure in Scotland report show that public spending in Scotland from 2004 – 5 was £47.7bn while revenue was £36.4bn. That leaves a deficit of £11bn. While Scotland does have the devolved powers to raise its own taxes it also receives a large amount of money from Westminster. If you removed that subsidy then the Scots would have to come up with a new source of revenue quite quickly or watch themselves collapse into an Ireland like period of economic downturn.

Now I’m sure that Alex Salmond, who is, as Nick Robinson says, possible the canniest political operator in the UK at the moment, has thought these problems through. He may even have ideas how they could be overcome. However, as of yet, I have seen no evidence of this. At the moment it looks like Mr Salmond is putting the cart a long way in front of the horse. About twenty miles in front I would say.

I’m all for the Scots voting on their independence. They have the right. I’d just like to see some evidence that they are ready for it first.

Playing the Long Game

“The first job of a political party is to get into power.” I was told that during one of my first A-Level politics lessons. It comes as a surprise therefore that the Republican Party seems to be doing everything in its power to make sure it doesn’t take the White House next autumn. Aside from Romney the other candidates are all pretty much unelectable and even Romney isn’t a particularly strong contender.

When faced with these two disparate points I’m forced to wonder, why it is that the Republican National Committee hasn’t chased after a more moderate candidate and asked them to run for the nomination. Could it be that the GOP doesn’t, in fact, want to win in 2012?

When you think about it this isn’t such a daft idea. Obviously the GOP can’t not put forward a candidate, but it’s also obvious that 2012 is not their year for at least two very good reasons, and possible more.

For starters it’s clear that there are problems within the GOP. The rise of the Tea Party has led to an increase in the number of – well I believe the polite term is crazies – and a move away from the moderate centre and towards the extreme right wing.  Now, while people may agree with people like Rick Perry’s stance on things such as abortion, I have yet to come across anyone who thinks that Perry or Bachmann’s desire to turn the US into a conservative theocracy is in any way a good idea. It is possible that by fielding the most impossible candidates the RNC is hoping that a loss either in the primaries or in the main election will force the crazies out of party and allow a shift back towards the moderate centre.

 The other problem is that the US (along with the rest of the world) is still knee deep in the worst recession this side of the Great Depression. Considering that the Republicans have a reputation as the party that is funded and supported by, and therefore looks out for, Big Business and given that in recent weeks they have shown again and again their dislike for the squeezed middle – to borrow a phrase from Ed Milliband – the RNC may believe that their chances of getting elected at this time are slim at best, so they aren’t really trying.

There is of course the chance that the GOP has just lost the plot but I think that is unlikely and maybe I’m just looking at this all the wrong way. Maybe the RNC does think it has a chance of getting elected with one of its current crop of clowns. But if I’m not wrong, then it is in fact playing a very long and very clever game. As mentioned above the Republicans can’t just sit this race out. But they may be willing to take a hit this time around, so that come 2016, by which time hopefully the Tea Party will have faded into memory and the economy will have righted itself, they can field a moderate candidate such as Chris Christie who will take the White House.

Time will tell.