Skip to main content

Why, what, when?

As with the incidents in New York, Bali and Madrid a question people ask about yesterday's atrocity is "Why?".

The "Why" should be relatively straightforward. For a society which is as peaceful as the British society normally is it is difficult to understand the reasons why people do this sort of thing.

In a sense I picked up more understanding when I visited Lyon as part of a local government based approach to peace in the Middle East. We had a wide range of local politicians including some Mayors who had been in the IDF.

It was quite clear that although everyone there was committed to finding a peaceful solution that this is not the case for everyone in the Middle East. The situation between the two groups is such that some people wanted revenge far more than they wanted peace. At times the lust for revenge is so strong that people resort to terrorism.

A similar situation exists worldwide where disputes escalate from smaller incidents into larger developments.

Atrocities like yesterday's bombings should never be trivialised. They will, however, not directly undermine the British way of life - nor should they be allowed to. The Birmingham Blitz during the second world war killed over 2,000 civilians and injured many more. This, however, was not allowed to undermine life in Birmingham. There will, of course, be a media frenzy on this story for about a week, but life will continue.

Indeed we should not allow such an event to derail ordinary life although we must show our repects and share condolences with the bereaved families.

This does not conflict with people continuing to go to films, plays and concerts. To do anything else would be a victory for terrorism.

Clearly the police are taking the right steps in keeping the sites sealed off so they can identify evidence to be able to identify the culprits involved in this so that anyone responsible can be brought to justice.

The organisers would be clearly aware of the fact that the bombings could not undermine the UK directly. The question is what they were looking for. To that extent I agree with Ken Livingstone that their objective was to divide society. If they can stimulate the UK into an indiscriminate, intemperate response then that has the potential to increase support for the terrorists.

The mechanism is simple. If the UK takes action against people who were not responsible then the families of those will see the UK as their enemy. It is crucial that the UK only takes action against people who can be shown to be responsible for the dreadful deeds. Such action would be seen by the world as clearly justified. I do think that the government understands this issue better now than was the case previously.

We must remain vigilant. However, we must not allow this evil act to derail our society. We must not give in to terrorism.

At the same time, however, Britain does need to think carefully about how it is perceived in the world. In countries in which Britain was seen positively, the attitudes have now changed. By being too closely linked to the arrogant US Foreign Policy, British people are now tarred with the same brush.

We can see this sort of conflict operating in Iraq. The argument used by the UK government against an early withdrawal from Iraq refers to "defeating" the insurgency in Iraq. Even the US government has recognised that the insurgency cannot be defeated in a purely military sense. Their attack on Fallujah strengthened the insurgency by driving more people into the camp of the insurgents. The insurgency is a response to the presence of US troops particularly and also British troops.

This feudal type of battle is very similar to the international disputes that result in terrorism. The actions are often driven by a lust for revenge and tit-for-tat retaliations.

Action does need to be taken, but it must be proportionate action against people shown to be the right people. Otherwise things escalate.

We face substantial problems globally in part from the situation we are currently in with substantial anger (as evidenced at G8) and resentment at the arrogant way in which the world is being run. This will be exacerbated by the materialist society in which we live going through cold turkey as it encounters the withdrawal symptoms from the reducing availability of cheap fixes to the fossil fuel addicted economies.

This can act as a stimulus for greater conflict or we can hope that our governments may realise that arrogance is the enemy of peace.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: