Bakri said that the ban was ”the gravest mistake,” describing his group was peaceful think-tank whose younger members would be pushed toward violence if it were driven underground.

[ . . . ]

”We (were) never involved with any violence, yet,” he said.

Yet, eh? Sounds awfully close to a threat, there.

Now, normally I would be inclined to agree that banning any group for holding views, however offensive or despicable, is a violation of freedom of speech as long as no other laws are being transgressed. But in this case, we’re not just talking about pissing people off by marching:

Bakri’s group argues that, as Muslims, they’re not bound by British law and has expressed support for bin Laden and al-Qaida. In its previous incarnation as al-Muhajiroun, the group was linked to several terror suspects and was accused of recruiting British Muslims to fight in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Bakri has acknowledged that some of al-Muhajiroun members have engaged in militant attacks but says the group can’t be held responsible for their actions.

Bakri, who was deported from Britain in 2005, added that, whatever happened, his followers could regroup under a different name.

”Tomorrow we can call ourselves whatever we think is suitable for us,” he said.

He’s right, of course. Banning the groups won’t erase the sentiment. But allowing them to openly collect funds and organise isn’t the answer either. The British government might have reacted to the wrong thing – moral outrage at the group’s planned (and cancelled) protest march through Wootton Bassett – when they implemented the ban. But it’s clear that we’re not just talking about distasteful speech here, but illegal actions. And that’s where the line gets drawn.

And they can always ban whatever the group decides to call itself tomorrow, too.

Cheques will disappear within eight years after the Payments Council decided today to abolish the 350-year-old payment method by October 2018.

[. . . ]

The decision will save banks hundreds of millions of pounds a year, as each cheque costs banks about £1 to process – that is four times more expensive than electronic payments.

So far, no sign that Canada plans to follow suit. But it wouldn’t surprise me too much. Just to give you an idea of how often I actually write cheques, mine are so old that they still have my previous address… from two moves ago.

“We are absolutely determined to do whatever we can to protect our customers from this appalling, unjustified decision from Unite,” BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh said in a statement. “We do not want to see a million Christmases ruined.”

The planned strike, from Dec. 22 to Jan. 2, follows a dispute with cabin crew over job losses and changes in work practices. BA plans to cut 1,700 jobs, freeze pay for current staff and offer lower wages for new employees.

The airline is appealing to the courts for an injunction to stop the strike, on the grounds that there were “voting irregularities” in the balloting. But if you’re one of the millions of people with a BA airline ticket for Christmas break, you’ll probably want to watch this one carefully.

One of these days, labour and management will figure out how to have it out without getting millions of bystanders trapped in the crossfire.

Update 9/17: A court injunction has been awarded to British Airways to block the strike.

The O2 Arena, Europe’s most state-of-the-art entertainment venue, will stage the historic games on Saturday, September 29 and Sunday, September 30.

“Our commitment to grow the game globally has never been stronger,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said. “The NHL is extremely proud to be represented in London by two great hockey organizations in the Ducks and Kings as well as to be recording NHL history at such a fantastic facility in the O2.”

Something tells me that the Brits won’t suddenly fall for hockey en masse. Though the sport is not all that different from their beloved football, it suffers from a few massive drawbacks in translation; namely, the hiding of players’ hairdos under helmets, the low tolerance for diving, the game’s general absence of irony in favour of straightforward vulgarity, the utter and complete lack of any good hockey songs (Stompin’ Tom Connors doesn’t count), and the fact that – especially with the new format – more than one goal tends to be scored in a game. Not to mention the whole pesky played-on-ice thing.

On the other hand, there are probably enough expat Canadians living in London to fill the arena. Which begs the question of why they’d send two California teams instead of two Canadian ones. Retribution for David Beckham, perhaps?

The threat level to the UK has been raised by MI5 to critical after the arrests in London, High Wycombe and Birmingham.

Critical threat level – the highest – means “an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK”.

Three US airlines are believed to have been targeted.

Mr Reid said had the attack gone ahead it would have caused a loss of life of “unprecedented scale”.

Scary stuff.

We’re going to be hearing a lot of skepticism and moonbat conspiracy theories in the next few days. But I’d much prefer to deal with those than with the innocent loss of life that could have resulted here. In six months, probably nobody will remember this – but better that than a repeat of 9/11.

Pieter’s not impressed and, as he rightly points out, the situation mirrors that of the Canadian Liberals a little too closely:

Many have pointed to the analogy with Canada where a defiant and successful ten-year stint in office was not sufficient for Jean Chrétien to ward off the coup by his former finance minister, Paul Martin. What is telling is that Martin’s successful attempt to dislodge Chrétien – who like Blair had long outlived his popularity – was not based on any justifiable policy difference or other quantifiable ideological rift, but on the simple logic that it was Martin’s turn. Not the greatest rationale for seeking the highest office in the land, and we have all witnessed the incredible mess that ensued as it became painfully clear that the absence of any sound content turned Martin’s tenure at Sussex Drive into an utterly forgettable one. It was a power grab for power’s sake, nothing more and nothing less.

It is too early to tell whether Brown’s move into Downing Street will yield the same sorry spectacle, but given the relatively late stage of Labour’s tenure and the strength of a resurgent conservative opposition, it may not be a very pretty one.

What is it with these finance ministers and their sense of entitlement, anyway?

Since I’ve never missed an opportunity to quote the West Wing, why start now? Here’s a quote from season four, shortly after Bartlet is re-elected for his second term, when Josh finds out that Vice-President Hoynes is already lining up precinct captains for the next election:

Josh: We got [Hoynes] on the ticket by convincing him it’s not his turn. We kept him out of the center ring ’cause it wasn’t his turn, and now…

Toby: There aren’t any turns.

When did Canada, the US or the UK turn into Cuba or North Korea? We’ve got politicians getting elected because of who their fathers were (*ahem* Dubya), politicians assuming it’s their “turn”, and power being handed over as though it was someone’s to hand.

Memo to the British Labour Party: Pieter’s right. The Canadian Liberals haven’t recovered from the Chrétien-Martin fiasco, and surely there’s a warning in there somewhere for you as well.

There was little evidence of the scene a year ago as I rode the Underground around London last week. There are posters up everywhere urging vigilance about things like unattended baggage or suspicious characters, much like those in the New York City subway, but for the most part it seemed to be business as usual (complete with typical line delays and suspensions wreaking commuter havoc).

One year ago, people were reacting in shock and horror. But today, even as memorial services are held, what has changed? Can we really say that things have improved, any more than we were able to say so a year, or two, or three, or four after the 9/11 attacks rocked New York? Whether people are fearful of threatened “anniversary attacks”, still mourning personal losses, or trying to come to grips with “what it all means”, it’s hard to find any lessons to learn here. Maybe that is the lesson after all; terrorism is senseless and teaches us nothing beyond what we already knew, that it is terrible and must be wiped out. Maybe to reach for any other lessons is to attribute too useful a purpose to such a senseless act. I don’t know, and I don’t pretend to have the answers.

Today, London and the whole world remembers. Another senseless anniversary, another senseless tragedy.

The Israeli embassy last night became the latest critic of George Galloway after it denounced him for choosing Interpal as his nominated Big Brother charity, claiming it is a front for Palestinian terrorists. The organisation vehemently denies the charge.

[ . . . ]

However, UK ministers are coming under increased pressure to ban Interpal. In August 2003, the US administration claimed it was “a principal charity utilised to hide the flow of money to Hamas”, branded it a “specially designated terrorist” organisation and froze its assets in America.

Interpal was also banned by Israel in 1997.

Surprised? Nah, not really. Galloway’s true colours have been clear for a long time, and this is far from the most shocking thing he has done. Then again, raising money for terrorists who blow up innocent Israelis is probably considered a good thing in Galloway’s twisted mind.

(Hat tip: Tom).

Shudder.

Some 2,200 companies, including major concerns like DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Volvo, made illicit payments totaling $1.8 billion to Saddam Hussein’s government under the U.N. oil-for food program, a report said on Thursday.

[ . . . ]

Among those named in the report as receiving oil vouchers that could be sold for a commission were British lawmaker George Galloway, former French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Bernard Merimee, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and Russian ultranationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

All those people who had been counting on Galloway to be motivated by genuine hatred instead of garden-variety greed should be weeping right now.

Well… nu?

I would like to know what has been done on this issue in the past two years. From the looks of it, not a whole lot.

Promises are easy to make. They’re a lot harder to fulfil. And post-Gaza disengagement, this issue may well be even more relevant than ever before.

Then again, I suppose the British government is just continuing its long tradition of broken promises to the Jews…

Advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings are proposing to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is regarded as offensive to Muslims. They want to replace it with a Genocide Day that would recognise the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths.

[ . . . ]

The committees argue that the special status of Holocaust Memorial Day fuels extremists’ sense of alienation because it “excludes” Muslims.

[ . . . ]

Ibrahim Hewitt, chairman of the charity Interpal, said: “There are 500 Palestinian towns and villages that have been wiped out over the years. That’s pretty genocidal to me.”

I’d call it chutzpah of the worst kind, but that would be an insult… to the term.

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone could be banned from office for up to five years for likening an Evening Standard reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard if he is found guilty by an independent panel.

Livingstone will have to attend a disciplinary hearing, which will decide whether he is guilty of failing to treat others with respect, or bringing his office into disrepute.

The decision to refer the dispute for adjudication was announced by local government watchdog the Standards Board for England, which said yesterday that it had “concluded that the issue should now be considered at a hearing held by the independent Adjudication Panel for England”.

The panel, whose members are appointed by the lord chancellor Lord Falconer, has the power to ban people from office and to instruct those brought before it to make an apology. A public hearing is expected to take place this December, during which Livingstone has the right to bring in his own legal team.

(Via Lynn).

Update: I should probably mention that I’m generally uncomfortable with hate speech laws even where there is clear evidence of real antisemitism (see my postings on David Ahenakew, for example), and that arguably Livingstone’s comments were just idiotic, not necessarily evidence of the kind of virulent antisemitism that someone like Ahenakew displays. Furthermore, I don’t really agree with the idea of forcibly removing someone from office for making hateful comments. Theoretically, if someone holds and spews such views openly, and the people vote for him anyway, then those people are getting exactly the leadership that they deserve. Such is democracy.

Anyway, I’m fairly sure that all the panel will do is possibly censure him or force an apology. But I’m concerned of what message about freedom of speech it will send if they impose harsher penalties – and about what message about antisemitism it will send if they find him not guilty.

It’s not entirely a lose-lose situation, though; the panel is evidence that the British government is taking antisemitism seriously, and holding elected officials to a higher standard. And, in the publicity this is sure to generate, at least more people will see Ken Livingstone’s true colours. Maybe it will affect their behaviour next time they go to the polls, and they’ll kick him out on his arse and vote in someone more worthy.

I guess I’ll have to think of another reason to mock you guys, now…

The leadership of Oglaigh nah Eireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon.

All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever.

So was it the 7/7 bombings that made the IRA realize that – wait a second – terrorism ain’t cool? That might have motivated the timing of this announcement, but it was probably more of an inevitable end to a struggle that most people in Ireland no longer support. It will remain to be seen whether the IRA actually follows through with this promise – but hey, there’s a chance it’ll happen; after all, they’re not the Palestinian Authority.

Here are some reactions to this shocking announcement.

Minor explosions using detonators only have sparked the evacuation of three Tube stations and the closure of three lines, a BBC correspondent has said.

Police cordoned off large areas around Warren Street, Oval and one of the Shepherd’s Bush Tube stations.

A route 26 bus in Hackney Road in Bethnal Green had its windows blown out by a blast. There were no injuries.

Police in London say they are not treating the situation as “a major incident yet”.

My first thought is this is too small-scale to be Al Quaeda again, and it sounds like lamebrain copycats. (Though anyone who would launch a copycat attack of one of the worst terrorist acts in history is, well, I can’t think of a rude enough word to describe them).

Details seem extremely sketchy at this stage. More to come, surely. I just hope everyone is okay.

Sickening.

Sure, because everyone knows the first thing we should do after being hit with a terrorist attack is give money to terrorists…

We can all (well, those of us who aren’t of the terrorist persuasion anyway) agree to be shocked, horrified and sympathetic when something like this happens. As far as that goes, we’re all united for about 10 seconds.

But then the next question is “what now?” And that’s where the divisions start, because that’s where everyone starts telling people that today’s attacks “mean” that… (insert their political viewpoint here).

Some examples:

• Anti-poverty activists are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that the fight to eradicate third-world poverty must be stepped up, because only that can solve terrorism.
• Anti-Americans are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that Bush’s foreign policies, especially in Iraq, are disastrous and responsible for the bombings today, since Blair is an ally of Bush.
• Defenders of the Iraq war are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that going into Iraq was the right thing to do after all, and that the world’s leaders should unite with the US and Britain.
• Socialists are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that the capitalist system is a failure and that only when true social harmony exists under a socialist system will terrorism be eradicated.
• I’m willing to bet that sellers of blue cheese are saying that today’s attacks “mean” that people should eat more blue cheese.

See what I’m saying?

The only thing that today’s bombings in London “mean” is that dozens of people are dead and hundreds more are injured in a cowardly attack. All the rest is just politics.

What would justice be for them, I wonder? A trial and sentencing to imprisonment or death? Torture? Mass murder?

No, I think justice – true justice – for them would be having to observe freedom persevere and win the fight.

These terrorists aren’t afraid of death and aren’t terribly bothered by imprisonment. Torture to them would be a propaganda tool. But what they truly fear – what they truly can’t stand – is freedom.

Justice would not be revenge, it would be victory.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life. I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others – that is why you are so dangerous.

To be fair, the rest of Livingstone’s speech was forceful and defiant in the face of terror. But I can’t help but wonder if he meant to stroke Al Quaeda’s egos with that statement, or if it was just an accident.

In the meantime, here’s CNSnews on why Livingstone is no Guiliani (via Israpundit):

London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s previous support of a Muslim cleric who advocates suicide bombings may cause him some embarrassment as he now must speak for the city in the wake of Thursday’s terrorist bombings.

Despite Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s support of suicide bombings and the targeting of American allies, Livingstone dubbed him a “man of peace” and a “moderate.”

The mayor invited Al-Qaradawi to London’s City Hall last year as an honored guest, and Livingstone appeared in a video shown at a solidarity conference for the sheikh on Feb. 17 of this year in Doha, Qatar. Livingstone has publicly defended the sheikh against critics in the media and various grassroots organizations.

Attacking Livingstone now may appear to be in bad taste. But in the coming days, as more people crawl out of the woodwork with their conspiracy theories, it’s useful to remember that appeasing terrorism can only ever lead to disaster.

But I’ve decided not to, and here’s why:

I don’t view today’s terorrist attacks in London as just an attack on Great Britain, just as I don’t view 9/11 as an attack only on the United States. On the contrary, those viewpoints are very risky because they allow others – including us Canadians – to divorce ourselves from the fight and think of ourselves as outside sympathizers instead of as members of what was attacked.

Make no mistake: we were attacked too today. All of us. Every time there’s a bus blast in Tel Aviv, it’s an attack on you and I. 9/11 was an attack on us personally, as was the Madrid train bombing, the blasts in Bali, and dozens of other terror attacks. They weren’t attacks on specific nations; they were attacks on general freedom.

If there were some sort of unifying symbol out there to represent our collective freedom that was attacked, I’d post it. But there aren’t any that I know of. So to the people of London, of England and of the UK: my thoughts and prayers are with you, but I won’t post your flag, because you’re not alone. An attack on freedom is an attack on each and every one of us.

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, responsible for many suicide attacks on Israelis, condemned the London bombings.

“Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected,” Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chief of the group’s political bureau told Reuters in Damascus by telephone.

Is that so? So all those bus bombings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa and Beersheva were what if not attacks on “civilians in their transport means and lives”?

Excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.

Okay, she didn’t say it exactly like that. But that’s essentially what the meaning was.

Us Canadians have been pretty smug this whole time, pointing fingers at our American neighbours as they try to fight a force that has yet to attack us on our soil. But if we think we’re exempt, then we need a serious reality check. I only hope people realize that before it’s too late.

In the meantime I had to shut off my radio in disgust, because the callers claiming that the terrorism would continue “until the US and Britain change their foreign policies” was making me angry and I was liable to punch something.

The claim of responsibility from an Al Quaeda group also contains threats against Italy and Denmark:

“We still warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan,” it said. “We gave the warning, so we should not be blamed.”

Right… And, of course, the statement said that this was an attack on the “Zionist British government”. I wonder if their version of the “Zionist British government” includes the likes of George Galloway or Jenny Tonge?

Update: Speaking of George Galloway, I didn’t have to wait long to find out what his reaction would be:

Respect MP George Galloway says: “We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings.”

In other words, blaming Blair for the attacks. Pretty much what we’d expect from the likes of Galloway. (Via Democracy Guy and Instapundit).

A casualty is taken away on a stretcher at London's King Cross station in London (source: Reuters)

The phases will be familiar to people who have gone through it all before. Shock and horror at the news. Frantic checking on everyone we know who may have been in the area to make sure they’re okay. A wave of sadness and sympathy for the victims and their families.

And then, incredible anger at the terrorists and anger at the fact that their brand of terror is being allowed to succeed – at changing the G8 agenda, at getting people to point fingers the wrong way, maybe even at scaring other European countries into surrendering. What they don’t realize is that surrender isn’t an option; sooner or later there is a line that no country can cross, and by the time they reach it, it might be too late.

If the only defense against terrorism is its 100% failure rate, than what does it mean that it has been so incredibly successful as of late? What of the Gaza disengagement – agree or disagree, it is being interpreted by the Palestinian terror groups as a victory. What of Spain’s election of a leftist government that capitulated to the terrorist demands to withdraw troops from Iraq after the Madrid train bombings? What of small victory after small victory that has enabled the terrorists to isolate the US and Israel from the world, get other European countries to back down, and cause fear among millions of people?

Terrorism will contine as long as it keeps attaining victories. Tony Blair is vowing to stay resolute. But what will happen is anyone’s guess.

He didn’t have to wait long. Only thirty seconds later, Egbert Gay – who can always be counted on to disagree with Tommy on pretty much everything – started insisting that we view the attacks in a “global context”.

Well, I don’t have to tell anyone what that means.

In the meantime, we can always count on the idiots at Indymedia for conspiracy theories; within minutes of the news, there were comments over on their site blaming the CIA, MI5, and the Israeli Mossad for the attacks.

Blair says the terrorists won’t succeed. I sadly suspect they may have succeeded already.

Two people have been killed and scores have been injured after three blasts on the Underground network and another on a double-decker bus in London. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was “reasonably clear” there had been a series of terrorist attacks.

He said it was “particularly barbaric” that it was timed to coincide with the G8 summit. He is returning to London.

An Islamist website has posted a statement – purportedly from al-Qaeda – claiming it was behind the attacks.

There’s chaos right now and details are sketchy. There seems to be at least six separate attacks within minutes of each other, all in Central London on major buses or tube stations. It’s looking like the numbers of those dead or injured from the attacks is going to rise quickly as details emerge.

This is truly horrifying. Sadly it’s not nearly as shocking anymore as 9/11 was four years ago. The first priority will have to be treating the victims and assessing the damage. But Tony Blair is not likely to back down in the face of terror.

It’s too easy and hyperbolic to call this England’s 9/11, though I’m sure we’ll be hearing some of that shortly as well.

Update: CNN is now reporting at least 40 people dead and hundreds injured. These numbers are sadly sure to climb in the course of the day.

This will be the story everywhere today, without a doubt.

Regardless of how they feel about the Olympics, there’s sure to be a lot of smug satisfaction in England today about having one more thing to stick in the collective ear of the French.

Yesterday, for anyone who’s been living under a rock lately, was Live 8. In nine cities around the world including Barrie, Ontario, acts such as U2, Coldplay, Pink Floyd, Elton John, the Who, Green Day, Bon Jovi, Dave Matthews Band, Our Lady Peace, the Tragically Hip, Blue Rodeo, Jet, Great Big Sea, and many more took to the stage in a massive free concert with the lofty goal of ending world poverty.

But with such a stellar lineup of mega acts, the show basically overshadowed the message. Millions of people watched the concerts, but I’d venture a guess that most were tuned in for the music and not for the politics.

In the meantime, will governments really drastically increase foreign aid just because a bunch of rock stars sang their hits? Despite Bob Geldof’s insistence that it will, I have my doubts. According to a poll, 60% of Canadians believe the concerts can help alleviate global poverty, but an equal percentage believe that instead of spending an additional $12 billion on foreign aid, the Canadian government should spend it on domestic priorities like healthcare or social programs.

With the debate raging on whether foreign aid is even the answer to help poverty, it’s worth noting that simply throwing money at a problem is not a good way to make it disappear. Prominent voices in Africa have been calling for reform over funds for a long time. Isn’t it about time we started listening?

Meanwhile in Edinburgh, a friend who is currently travelling there had this to comment about the protests in advance of the G8 summit (no link because she wrote the comments on a personal travel blog and probably doesn’t want a bunch of strangers showing up):

I don’t know if you are all aware of this, but there is a G8 summit going on in Edinburgh in about 2 days. The ‘festivities’ started today with the ‘Make Povery History’ protest. There were well over 100,000 people marching through Edinburgh. [ . . . ]

In general, it did not disrupt our day of touring at all. The march seemed peaceful, so all was well. At one point in the afternoon [ . . . ], I watched the protest go by. As I did so I got more and more frustrated. I think that you all are aware of my generally left of center views. I believe in excusing third-world debt, and in ensuring that every person have a minimum standard of living. Nonetheless, much of what I saw at the protest made me angry. (Warning, I’m going into a rant. Either brace yourselves or stop reading here.)

- This was a protest for poverty, so why confuse the issue? People were walking around with Palestinian flags. While there is a time and place for presenting that opinion (and it is an opinion), why at the voicing of a cause that is so overarching?

- Many of the placards carried were for the Socialist Workers party. In addition, there were a few communist flags about. I see this as changing the issue. Why alienate the crowd? This is about solidarity, not about highlighting separations.

- Parents brought their children who were often infants. Why make an ideological choice for someone who is too young to make it themselves?

- There was so much garbage thrown on the floor. If you are going to discuss a global issue, why ignore another one? Pollution is as much of an issue as poverty. How could anyone in that crowd be so single-minded? Isn’t their point that they are aware?

I dealt with closed-minded people who are under the opinion that they are open-minded all year. It was my job. I didn’t need this on my vacation. People are stupid.

I can’t say I’m surprised – these summit protests frequently attract a wide variety of people, most of them well-meaning and many of them not so well-intentioned. I just hope that things don’t devolve into the type of violence that we’ve seen at these things in the past.

(Via Imshin).

Of course, the Palestinians are reacting predictably:

Meanwhile, Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh, who last week urged an end to the boycott, has been under attack by many Palestinians who have been calling for his dismissal from his job as president of Al-Quds University.

Several Palestinian political and academic groups issued statements strongly condemning Nusseibeh, accusing him of normalizing ties with Israel and acting against the interests of the Palestinian people.

Leaflets distributed in some areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip branded the widely respected Nusseibeh a “traitor” and “collaborator.”

Nusseibeh co-signed a letter with the president of Hebrew University calling for an end to the AUT boycott, which is what some think was the deciding factor in the reversal. The letter called for “problems to be resolved through dialogue”. Needless to say, those passing out leaflets branding Nusseibeh as a “traitor” don’t agree with that statement.

(Hat tip: Lynn).

My friends in England have their gripes about Blair, but on the international front he’s been reasonably solid. I’m sure this election will be anti-climactic and not much will change.

Hey, anyone but George Galloway, I say.

Update: As predicted, Blair won a third straight majority, albeit a slightly reduced one. The bad news is that George Galloway also won his seat, narrowly upsetting Labour candidate Oona King thanks to his virulently antisemitic tirades that appealed to many in his constituency.

The Israeli Embassy in London released a statement condemning the boycott as a biased and adverse move which, far from promoting peace efforts, it ignores and sabotages progress made between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The resolutions are as perverse in their content as in the way they were debated and adopted. The AUT ignored overwhelming academic and public rejection of the proposed motions.

“The fact that no AUT member who wanted to argue against this decision was allowed to speak, and the case for the Israeli universities was not presented to delegates, speaks volumes about the relevance and fairness of this debate,” the embassy statement read.

If three years at Concordia taught me something, it was that the notion that academia supports a free exchange of ideas is utter hogwash. The academic milieu is perhaps the most totalitarian, dictatorial, one-sided environment imaginable, where you either toe the party line or find yourself pounding the pavement.

But this goes beyond the pale. A mob of anti-Israel, politically-motivated professors decided that these top-quality, world-renowned Israeli universities are not acceptable to them, and here are some of the reasons why:

Pro-boycott activists were hopeful that their motions stood a better chance of being passed this year after they were turned down in 2003. One reason for their optimism, they said earlier this month, was that they have now received the unequivocal support of the Federation of Unions of Palestinian Universities’ Teachers and Employees, a sister union of the British association. The Palestinian federation has recently released a statement endorsing the British call to boycott Israeli universities.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post earlier this month, Sue Blackwell, a Birmingham University lecturer and one of the leaders of the boycott proposal, told the Post that she “completely agreed” with comparisons between Israel and the former Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Universities are supposed to teach truth, not propaganda. But with the twisted “truths” currently being taught in Britain and in campuses across Europe and North America, it’s hard to imagine what will soon pass for “truth” among new graduates.

And now we have a better insight into why. Livingstone’s twisted political views clear things up nicely (via Allison):

The dispute between London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Britain’s Jewish leaders was reignited Thursday night when Livingstone branded Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a war criminal, the Independent reported on Friday.

Livingstone launched a provocative critique of Israel with accusations of “ethnic cleansing” and demonizing Muslims before calling for the imprisonment of Sharon, according to the British daily.

He also claimed in his article that the Israeli government presented a “wholly distorted picture of racism and religious discrimination in Europe in order to convey the impression that Jews suffer most discrimination.

“The reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims – and they are the primary targets of the extreme right.”

But wait, it gets worse:

“Israel’s expansion includes ethnic cleansing,” he wrote. “Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of the Israeli state.”

He added: “Today the Israeli government continues seizures of Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into surrounding countries and denial of the right of Palestinians expelled by terror to return.

“Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in prison not in office.”

Hmmm, I can think of someone who has no business being in office here. But it certainly ain’t Sharon. Here’s hoping that Londoners will teach Livingstone a message come next election and toss him out on his antisemitic arse.

Ken Livingstone today refused to apologise for his “German war criminal” jibe delivered to a Jewish Evening Standard reporter.

His refusal came as he was referred to an official standards watchdog for comparing reporter Oliver Finegold to a “concentration camp guard”.

It also came despite a unanimous call by the London Assembly for him to back down and withdraw his remarks.

The fact that a politician could make those kinds of remarks on the record, in a friggin’ microphone, baffles me. And his unabashed attitude reminds me that these things don’t happen in a vacuum. With heightened levels of antisemitism in the UK, Livingstone’s remarks are that much worse. He may have just been seeking an insult against a reporter he didn’t like, but that doesn’t excuse or justify what he said.

Early editions of Thursday’s issue of “The Sun,” showed Prince Harry, the second son of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, clutching a cigarette and a drink and wearing a swastika armband.

The newspaper said the 20-year-old prince had attended a fancy dress party in the uniform of a fascist soldier.

In a statement, the prince said he was “very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone.” He added, “It was a poor choice of costume and I apologize.”

That’s all very well and good but what on earth would possess him to think this is a good idea in the first place?

Maybe he should have tried wearing his costume in France instead, where – according to Jean Marie Le Pen, the Nazi occupation of France was “not particularly inhumane”. (Hat tip: Damian.) I bet the French would have laughed.

It’s starting to become clearer that the rise in anti-Americanism in Europe is not entirely unrelated to the increased whitewashing of the Holocaust. When the US replies to anti-American sentiment with a “well, you weren’t complaining when we saved your collective asses from the Nazis”, the Europeans can just respond with a “hell, those Nazis weren’t so bad”.

History has a way of lessening the emotional impact of the very terrible or very tragic. And right now is a historical turning point. The survivor generation that bears witness is dying. “Nazi” is being used as an epitheth to describe just about anyone, from the “Zionists are Nazis” crowd to the “soup Nazi” on Seinfeld. The Holocaust is starting to be viewed not as anything particularly horrible or unique, but just as yet another chapter in the endless saga of the human race’s capacity for cruelty and evil and destruction. Maybe it’s even inevitable. When, only sixty-five years after Churchill’s “blood, sweat and tears” speech, a British prince is sporting a swastika, that has to mean something.

And of course, it’s easier to rationalize hating Jews if you believe that the Holocaust was just a minor blip, and that the concentration camps were just summer camps with bad food.

The centerpiece of Blair’s visit is his initiative for a conference in London focused on strengthening the new Palestinian leadership. Sharon said Tuesday that Israel will support the conference but will not attend. He said the conference is meant to influence the promotion of reforms in the PA, and to consolidate support for a sweeping plan to rehabilitate Gaza and the Palestinian economy.

Analysts are saying that Blair sees an opportunity with Arafat’s death and is trying to capitalize on it.

Blair sees an opportunity alright… but it has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians, and everything to do with his own political career.

Ever since Blair cast his lot with Bush by joining the campaign in Iraq, his political stock among Europeans and a good number of Britons has plummeted. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is his pet project to try to score back some brownie points.

And while he seems to be proceeding cautiously for the moment, I can’t help but think that Blair is wading into waters that are much too deep for him. I only hope the Israeli people don’t pay the price.

The survey found that 45 percent of those surveyed had not heard of Auschwitz. Historians estimate that anywhere from one million to three million people, about 90 percent of them Jews, were killed there.

Among women and people younger than 35, 60 percent had never heard of Auschwitz, despite the recent popularity of films such as “Schindler’s List,” “Life is Beautiful” and “The Pianist,” which depict the atrocities of the Holocaust.

“The name Auschwitz is quite rightly a byword for horror, but the problem with thinking about horror is that we naturally turn away from it,” Rees said.

The BBC said the research was based on a nationally representative postal survey of 4,000 adults 16 and older.

Well, that explains a lot. After all, it’s easier to let those equivalences between Jews and Nazis roll off your tongue when you have no idea what you’re talking about.

This January marks the 60th anniversary of the death camp’s liberation, and world leaders are set to attend – including Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac.

I wonder how the French press will explain that one. Auschwitz was terrible, but Arafat’s a hero for wanting the same outcome as the Nazis?

Absolutely disgusting. But the real question is, will the letter-writer be sacked for his opinion? What percentage of the general public in London these days secretly agrees with him?

Let’s see… one-sided criticism of Israel? Check. Editorial characterization in guise of fact? Check. Quotes from the MP, Ian Gibson – who, it should be noted, was in Ramallah for a suitably vague reason (”guest of a medical charity”)? Check. Quotes from unidentified “Palestinian sources”? Check. Accusations against Israel for violating international agreements? Check.

Israeli sources?

Anyone?

No mention of any Israeli sources being interviewed at all.

No mention that the reason ambulances are often delayed or turned back at checkpoints is that terrorists use them to smuggle suicide bombers or explosives – a severe violation of international law on several counts.

No explanation of why Gibson was so insistent to be taken to a Palestinian and not Israeli hospital.

This is what passes for “journalism” by the Guardian’s standards.

But it wasn’t a mistake. And neither is Iran’s uncooperative attitude with UN weapons inspectors. Taken together, you gotta wonder whether there’s something else going on here, and we’re just ignoring all the signs. I don’t know, but I don’t like it one bit.

Eleven charges were announced Thursday by U.S. authorities against Abu Hamza al-Masri, whose real name is Mustafa Kamel Mustafa. He was arrested earlier in the day by British police and is being held in London pending extradition proceedings.

Charges outlined Thursday of providing assistance to terrorists could spark a 100-year prison sentence for Mr. al-Masri, 47. He could theoretically receive the death penalty on the hijacking charge, though the United States probably will have to foreswear that option before Britain, which has abolished capital punishment, will consider extraditing him.

Further complicating the case is the fact that Britain is already considering charges against Mr. al-Masri. Yemen is also seeking his extradition.

“This case could take months and months to sort out,” a senior British security source told Reuters.

This is not a nice guy. He held services at the same mosque that the Shoe Bomber and one of the September 11th hijackers attended. He’s also implicated in working directly with the Taliban and Al-Qua’eda in Afghanistan. Britain was so threatened by him that they’ve been trying to deport him… but now it seems like they want to keep him so they can put him on trial.

Al-Masri, for his part, is sure to do everything in his legal power to stay in Britain and avoid extradition to the U.S. He knows full well that sentencing will be lighter there, and media coverage much more favourable. He’s probably counting on becoming a “martyr” through media coverage and attention, and the British press is sure to oblige.

Yippee. I can’t wait.

Update: The nauseating “political-pawn” articles are already beginning.

I have no problem with accessibility, but the double-decker bus is too quintessentially London to simply disappear. Couldn’t the busses be refitted to make the first level wheelchair-friendly but still keeping the second story?

Update: Thanks, Tom, for saying it ain’t so. Not all the double-deckers are on their way out; only the cool vintage ones. So I guess it’s only partially so.

Tom, they may be a bunch of wankers. But I’ll give you an honourary nomination right here. Maybe you’ll garner votes as a write-in.

Mind you, I can’t imagine what Hebrew-speaking broadcasters would actually want to work for the BBC…

Damian was far from the only one to be outraged. Latest reports are that Tonge has been fired for her insensitive remarks:

Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge has been sacked for saying she would consider becoming a suicide bomber if she were a Palestinian, remarks that caused widespread outrage.

Speaking late on Thursday, eight days after a Palestinian woman suicide bomber killed four Israelis at a Gaza Strip border crossing, Tonge said she understood the attackers’ “desperation”.

“There can be no justification, under any circumstances for taking innocent lives through terrorism,” Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said in a statement on Friday, announcing Tonge’s dismissal as party spokeswoman on children.

“Her recent remarks about suicide bombers are completely unacceptable.”

Nice to see that at least some people in Britain still have a moral compass. I don’t necessarily agree with firing people for their comments – it has that unpleasant odour of censorship – but I do think that there are certain lines that an elected representative of the people shouldn’t cross. And Tonge crossed one of them – to a great enough degree to piss off the Liberal Democrat party enough to fire her from a job involving putting forth party views.

I wonder if Svend Robinson is paying attention…

SHE WAS at Winston Churchill’s side during Britain’s darkest hour. And now Charlie the parrot is 104 years old…and still cursing the Nazis.

Her favourite sayings were “F*** Hitler” and “F*** the Nazis”. And even today, 39 years after the great man’s death, she can still be coaxed into repeating them with that unmistakable Churchillian inflection.

I wonder what my parrot would say. Hmmm…

The terrorist networks carrying out these attacks are showing a marked shift in tactics. They’re looking to operate in countries not traditionally associated with terrorism, but where they can still gain a foothold – such as Morocco or Indonesia and now Turkey. And they’re also progressively upping the ante with their targets. Last weekend, they targeted Jews. Today they targeted the British. Who will be tomorrow’s target?

Martin Niemoller’s famous Holocaust-era quote comes to mind:

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

They come for the Jews first, because there are far too few in the world willing to speak out for the Jews. But the terrorists have become emboldened. They are realizing they can take on the Australians, like in Bali, or the British, like in Turkey, or even the Americans, like on 9/11.

Us Canadians tend to think like Niemoller did: nobody will ever come for us, we figure, because we make nice with everyone and do our fence-sitting act and don’t piss anyone off. So we have the luxury of not speaking out.

But if we don’t react when they come for the Jews, and for the Americans, and for the Australians, and for the British… who will speak for us when it’s our turn?

Stressed-out Britons are set for a day of doing nothing as workers and managers alike are being urged to relax and slack off on Friday.

Organizers of National Slacker Day are calling on people to “stand up for your right to sit back down again” as a reminder that life does not revolve around the office.

Oh well, those lucky Brits have an excuse tomorrow. We’ll just have to keep on slacking anyway, even without a “day” for it.

British officials have promised to make “every effort” to highlight the cause of Jewish refugees from Arab countries within the European Union.

[ . . . ]

The JJAC report, entitled “The Middle East’s Forgotten Jewish Refugees,” notes that just 8,000 Jews now live in Arab countries, down from 900,000 in 1947.

It is seeking international recognition of the “de facto population exchange” of Jews and Palestinians, which “refutes the Arab claim for a ‘physical’ right of return.”

The difference between the two refugee groups – which numbered roughly the same – was that the Palestinians were sent to live in refugee camps behind barbed wire and left to rot in squalid conditions by their Arab brethren, so that their hatred and resentment could build and they could be used as political pawns against Israel.

In contrast, Israel accepted all of the Jewish refugees who wished to enter with open arms, housing them, educating them, and integrating them into Israeli society. Today their families are second- and third-generation Israeli citizens. And Israel resettled them with far less land, money, and resources than the Arab countries had available. Israel managed this because compassion for the plight of fellow Jews demanded as much.

So today, while the world moans about the stateless Palestinian refugees, nobody seems to remember that Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, all had an influx of refugees and all denied them citizenship, rights, or anything resembling a life. And now these countries are asking Israel to pay, while at the same time lobbying to deny any kind of compensation or even recognition of the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

The recognition of the issue by the British government is a good start. If more EU states took notice, that would be even better.

The CST blamed the sharp rise in anti-Semitism on anti-war campaigners who linked the Iraq conflict to the situation in Israel. Mike Whine, CST’s media director, told the BBC, “The Iraq war fed anti-Semitism because groups from across the political and social spectrum alleged that the war was fought for `Zionist’ interests.”

Whine said anti-war protesters “consistently linked the issues of Iraq and the events in Israel and Palestine.”

The English and the French may not like each other much, but it seems that something they’ve got in common is their hatred of Jews. But before we get too smug over here in Canada, our own numbers aren’t looking that great either.

The rise in antisemitism may not be surprising, but it does nobody any good to be complacent either. This is a red flag that’s been waving in front of our faces for a couple of years now. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that red flags are ignored at our peril.

Closer to home, the band Styx cancelled a show (for the second time) scheduled for Montreal because of SARS fears in Toronto, much to the derision of disappointed fans. The morning show on CHOM spent a while making fun of the band and their management.

All of this despite the fact that there haven’t been any reported cases of SARS from people who were not in direct contact with an infected person.

Is all of this scary? Sure it is. But people are going way overboard. This is getting ridiculous.

5 September 1999, Jerusalem – In most parts of the world, the switch away from Daylight Saving Time proceeds smoothly. But the time change raised havoc with Palestinian terrorists this year.

Israel insisted on a premature switch from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time to accommodate a week of pre-sunrise prayers. Palestinians refused to live on “Zionist Time.” Two weeks of scheduling havoc ensued. Nobody knew the “correct” time.

At precisely 5:30pm on Sunday, two coordinated car bombs exploded in different cities, killing three terrorists who were transporting the bombs. It was initially believed that the devices had been detonated prematurely by klutzy amateurs. A closer look revealed the truth behind the explosions.

The bombs had been prepared in a Palestine-controlled area, and set to detonate on Daylight Saving Time. But the confused drivers had already switched to Standard Time. When they picked up the bombs, they neglected to ask whose watch was used to set the timing mechanism. As a result, the cars were still en-route when the explosives detonated, delivering the terrorists to their untimely demises.

Somehow I can’t work up too much sympathy for that one.

There has not been, despite what some critics charge, an unseemly rush to war on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom. Six months have passed since George W. Bush first went to the United Nations, five months since he acquired the political authority from Congress to deal with Iraq and well over four months since the UN Security Council backed Resolution 1441 and provided Saddam Hussein with his final, final chance.

[ . . . ]

Now that British forces have been committed, the country should and almost certainly will rally around them. The Prime Minister deserves the support of all political parties. The peace may prove harder to win than the war, but war will still be a difficult endeavour. It rarely proceeds precisely as planned. Ulysses Grant, the general who took charge of the Union army after its rout at Fredricksburg, eventually received Lee’s and the South’s final surrender at Appomattox with the words: “The war is over — the rebels are our countrymen again.” His respectful tone was such that it prevented his men from cheering the defeat of their opponents. Mr Bush and Mr Blair must welcome the people of Iraq back into the civilised world in exactly the same spirit.

Worth reading.

The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of Iraqi policy.

These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W Bush and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in that million people there were some bravely asking him to “Leave Iraq and prevent war”, but I could not find them.

If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to the conflict – Iraq? Commentators on the march were taken by the good order of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.

[ . . . ]

In the end, under the guise of peace, this march was essentially an anti-America, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel display. A similar approach appeared to have taken hold in the various other “peace” marches in Tokyo, Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.

I agree with Barbara Amiel. While a great many people who protested over the weekend are genuinely anti-war – any war – on principle, the movement has been driven largely by interest groups who are vehemently anti-American, and especially anti-Israel. The motive isn’t to prevent war, but to bring the focus away from Iraq and its many violations of international security, back to Israel, the eternal scapegoat. Because as long as the anti-Israel rhetoric gains momentum, no real probelms in the mideast will ever have to be addressed.

Police have arrested a man carrying a live hand grenade at Gatwick Airport and evacuated one terminal. All flights out of the north terminal were suspended after the man – thought to be a 37-year-old Venezuelan – was detained under anti-terrorism laws.

[ . . . ]

The incident comes after days of heightened alert at Britain’s airports, especially at Heathrow where troops were called in.

The BBC’s Margaret Gilmore said she had learned that the Heathrow operation was sparked by MI5 intelligence that a group was plotting to shoot down an aircraft.

Two men were arrested near Heathrow airport under the Terrorism Act on Thursday afternoon, but police said they were held as a “precautionary measure”.

[ . . . ]

The government and police said the ongoing security alert was linked to fears that al-Qaeda could use the end of the Muslim festival of Eid, which runs until Saturday, as a trigger for an attack on London.

Reuters is reporting that the man arrived on a flight from Colombia. This comes on the same day as a plane carrying five Americans crashed in Colombia. In all likelihood there’s no relation, but it’s a strange coincidence.

How much snow would cause this kind of shutdown? 2 feet? A foot? No, 2 inches! That’s right, two inches were recorded in Central London, and 3-4 inches in surrounding areas.

Before we laugh at the poor Brits too much, though, let’s just remember that we in Montreal get the highest urban snowfall in North America on average, and we know what to do with it. We have snow removal services, salt trucks, snow tires, and snowplows. Most people in London don’t even have so much as a snow brush handy in their cars. I bet most of them don’t even know what one is!

Update: Damian e-mailed me to inform me that I was wrong in stating that Montreal has the highest urban snowfall in North America. According to Statistics Canada, Montreal gets an annual average snowfall of 214.2cm. That puts us in seventh place in Canada, behind Ottawa, Halifax, Fredericton, St. John’s, Charlottetown, and Quebec City. Whoops. I guess the statistics I was reading were off . . . or maybe they were referring to urban centres of above a certain population (Montreal is by far the largest of all the cities listed above).

London, however, gets such a small amount of snow on an annual basis that I couldn’t even find a published average.

I think I’ll go back to sleep.

Straw deplored Sunday’s double suicide bombing which left 22 dead in Tel Aviv, but he appeared to suggest that such violence was understandable, even justifiable, in the absence of movement toward a political settlement.

“The 6 million people who live in Israel and the 3.5 million people who live in Palestine, in the occupied territories, can only live in peace if they are going to have a future,” he told the BBC on Monday.

Straw seemed particularly displeased that he had not been told in advance of Israel s decision to prevent the Palestinians from traveling to London, noting that he had only learnt of the decision on a BBC news program.

Just more of the same moral blindness. You’d think I’d be used to it by now.

Well, Tom’s right, it does bear mentioning. In this past week alone there’s been a siege where police squared off with a hostage taker for over 11 days, negotiating and feeding the gunman Kentucky Fried Chicken. The hostage has been freed but the gunman is still refusing to surrender. Two women have been murdered, and their body parts found in plastic bags. Two men were stabbed to death in Bristol. A cab driver was murdered in Manchester. And the shooting deaths of two girls and injury of two others on New Year’s Eve who walked out of a club and into bullets apparently intended for gang rivals is leading to renewed calls for gun law reform.

Is there a full moon over there or something?

There are tons of theories out there, but I think I’ve finally got the winner: Lack of priorities. Most Europeans would rather give up sex for a month than quit smoking.

Nearly 80 percent of British smokers, almost 70 percent in the Netherlands, France and Germany and more than 55 percent in the Belgium and Spain would forgo sex rather than live without cigarettes for a month.

Well, that explains it perfectly.

Granted, the Brits seem to love to strike. From the day last July when I arrived back in London to witness the absolute chaos caused by an Underground workers strike, to the teachers, to anyone else who thinks their paycheck is too small, it seems that nobody over there in jolly old England ever goes to work.

But firefighters??? Whatever happened to the concept of an “essential service”? Labour law may have its own quirks around here, but it would only take about 30 seconds for the government to order striking firefighters back to work. Just as they did nurses, and teachers. After all, who else is going to fight the fires?

Apparently, the army:

About 19,000 army, navy and airforce personnel — a tenth of the country’s forces — have been drafted in as cover, using outdated “green goddess” fire engines up to 50 years old.

So now they can’t even use modern fire trucks???

London’s a great city, but something’s sure screwy over there.

(Thanks to Jon and Tom for input on this one.)