Friday 19 February 2010
Thursday 18 February 2010
Hi guys, here's the second show of the semester, we had some great articles as ever. If anyone fancies writing for the News Team get in touch at nsr.news@ncl.ac.uk, or if you'd like to comment on any of the articles below.
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Hello all, here are the articles from the first show of this semester, which aired on the 3rd February...
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
