further iran

I think it is safe to say as we all, apart from a few wholly worthless cunts, oppose the present regime. But there is a difference over how best to show our opposition of it in a way that really will help.

I am thinking that our best way of showing solidarity may well be to offer asylum to a few thousand of the leading oppositionists. We could easily combine it with reducing overall immigration. They are educated, liberal professionals who hate Islamism- exactly the sort of people we want, & a standing rebuke to those who still accept the "argument" that brown people have all got to shut up & submit to "community elders" & follow sharia because that's all they're good for.

The question is whether they would do more good in Iran or out of it.

Great Britain has a long & proud tradition of taking in freedom lovers from abroad who have then gone on to coordinate resistance in their home countries. My own grandfather was a member of the Polish forces which were organised & trained here. The Islamic Revolution was itself partly orchestrated from Paris, perhaps the resistance could be likewise. The Iranian diaspora are already right getting to work.

Of course it may be that this would have bad consequences (such as the withdrawal of leadership on the ground for oppositionists), but I definitely think the idea should be entertained. I am impatient at not being able to "do something", but grandstanding of the kind that we pundits can do without consequences doesn't seem like an option for politicians. We do not want to give Ahmedinejad cause to repeat his utter lies about the opposition being western puppets, but a bit of discreeet nudging & winking by the Home Office could be of use.

iran

In my own insignificant way I must register my own support for the legitimate victors of the election in Iran (which no one on our parochial "blogosphere" seems to be following, hence I've forced myself out of hiatus to comment on).

We have been given one long procession of links by the likes of Andrew Sullivan to blogs by Iranians themselves, those who can still express themselves despite the repression they are subjected to, & experts on foreign policy.

I am now thinking whoever rigged this election (& it's hard to see who that actually was given that so many leading clerics & other figures are condemning Ahmedinejad) have well & truly fucked this one up.If they had a brain between them, they'd have accepted Ahmedinejad's unpopularity & prepared for him to lose. They could easily have come to terms with Mousavi- who is hardly Richard Dawkins himself, & is in fact very conservative & Islamist at least by my standards, & is basically amenable.

In fact he could have solidified the Islamic Revolution, & that would have been something worth regretting for us liberal secularists. But, they had to go into panic mode & come up with some totally implausible results to keep the only man they deem acceptable in power. To my mind it shows that they are desperate, & as Iran becomes more young & urban & poorer, despite Ahmednijad's lying claims to represent the working class, they haven't got much longer. I only hope that a peaceful change is brought about by Iranians themselves, rather than the alternatives which I dread to imagine.

I leave you with this thought though. You have only to look at some of those young women & see their intelligence, their passion & their beauty on display. If there was a god, would he really want his own creation to be buried alive under a veil rather than open for the whole world to delight in? I think not- & this is why we must support the Iranian people's aspiration to a free life.

UPDATE- In the general shite over this I also had the following to say:

I would further argue that this, & the overseas role in general, vindicates the BBC against those who would like to tear it down & replace it with a British Fox News. Really, which is a better ambassador for this nation & its values- the World Service or right-wing libertarian bloggers?

obligatory post on the environment etc

I am, & have long been into protecting the environment (not sure if this makes me "green" though), & examples like this indicate why I do not, in general, take a statist approach to the matter.

Many, especially New Labour types (who are far more into statism & managerialism than protecting the environment), have the thought process "X is green, therefore the government needs to impose X now".

The problems with this are threefold.

1. The government doesn't actually know what is good for the environment half the time.
2. Nor does it care- meeting targets & having something to boast about, however meaningless in reality, come first.
3. The litany of government inefficiency, especially in this area, where they so often back the wrong horse, as also evinced by support for the Severn Barrage (to which I am certainly no friend), government subsidies for "biofuels" which are often worse than nothing, & the third runway shite which doesn't even pretend to be green.

This puts people off conservation altogether, which is unfair as New Labour hypocrisy hardly discredits the original aims, but is understandable.

You can disentangle selective action, which doesn't require cumbersome statism, from whatever authoritarianism this government dreams up & you'll actually find the former more effective. The best weapon is always the willing support of local people who want to live in clean areas & have good open spaces for their children to play in. (Of course, energy efficiency in the home & the workplace is already being taken up by individuals & companies who can see the financial gains to be had). They would welcome restrictions on pollution & emissions & other external factors if they had minimal impact on business being transacted & that.

Such policies can be imposed with a light touch & at the local level. Also to be encouraged is shite like local food production, farmers' markets & just about anything which involves local conservation groups & people volunteering to improve the quality of their local environment. At the same time, we should be listening to local people's concerns about mass new house building & eco towns (another daft government imposition) & aiming for a stable or slightly falling population by restricting immigration & the acceptance of an "ageing" society as nothing to be afraid of if handled properly.

On a philosophical level, my interest in the natural world started early. I grew up in a very grotty area of Stoke. A lot of the people I grew up amongst didn't have cars, & I am the only person I know who was regularly taken to the countryside as a child. So I delighted in the views, the tranquility & that sort of shite in a way that far too many don't, & I am an advocate of opening up the country to them through schools & by organisations so on which organise expeditions for those who may otherwise remain ignorant of what nature has to offer.

The difference between me & some types was really laid bare when a friend asked me "when I became interested in the environment" as if it were some hobby I'd taken up. In fact it was bred into me: I am not like the Islington luvvies who boast about how "green" they are, or the apparatchiks who can reel off how many targets they've imposed, but someone who has it in his bones.

I actually think Cameron & a lot of his team are the same, which is why I was interested to hear this from them. I don't quite agree, but I right see their point re: National Park bureaucracy & it is illuminating to see people who basically get it* taking such views.. In practical terms, I hope you see what I'm getting at, that a lighter touch & a working with people will work better than the Miliband way. I just hope he doesn't put too many people off the whole thing & lead them to scorn anything conservationist.

In reality we should have options like nuclear on the table & shouldn't be wedded to wind farms or anything else. It is my humble opinion that we can make more than a few efficiency savings, as households are starting to do, & reduce our need for more, more, more of the same.

A stable or slightly falling population also, to be achieved by "natural" means of letting our current fairly low fertility rates produce their effect.

The main thing is always to encourage delight in the natural world & a desire to protect it for future generations' enjoyment.

*Yes- I said that. But I still expect to be opposing them if they form a government.

Won't somebody please think of STOPPING THE BNP?

After my observation of this & this, I now read fucking Kinnock demanding that Labour MPs shut up about Brown's failure to live up to the values he professes in & support whatever he does, or else.

Of course it isn't really about the BNP, it's about persecuting anyone New Labour deems unaccetable. Just as they will cite terrrsts & darkies as a reason to support ID cards & 42 days, or tell us that the "white working class" wants something (of course, we need them to articulate it for us because we're too fucking stupid ourselves) & then reels out a shopping list of right-wing shite.

I remember when Nick Griffin was arrested. The usual twats celebrated, without realising that it sets an illiberal precedent which could well end up with one of their own heroes being arrested as essentially a political prisoner.

Because the BNP are so unpopular, few would complain about restrictions on them, but they will obviously object when it happens to them. Just because they view themselves as righteous doesn't mean a future authoritarian government will, & the tools for the job of persecuting just about anyone will be all in place thanks to our own failure to oppose authoritarianism.

Just in case I need to say this, I wouldn't vote BNP as I don't share their values or agree with their particular policies. However, I get on vaguely well with those BNP members I know (of whom there are many in Stoke) & have reasonably polite exchanges of views with them. So not only do I not think they should be vilified, I also discern that New Labour are using them & their unpopularity as a trojan horse to shaft others.

We had better not jump to use the law to stop whoever we disagree with, such as those such as the sometimes sensible Huhne demanding the prohibition of Geert Wilders, because the knives are being sharpened for us to. It all starts by attacking someone unpopular, then it's you next.

Fuck it- isn't this why people support civil liberties in the first place, because they see people being attacked by the law & think "that could be me next, if we let them have these powers over us"?

Deva Kumarasiri has done no wrong

Re: this event, I am not best pleased with the hostility & reactions that have been provoked.

I find that many recent immigrants are more glad of what this country offers than indigenous Britons. This person being a case in point, & also those refugees fleeing totalitarian regimes & theocracies that the government have failed to protect by their shameless appeasement of the far-right Islamists & Christianists alike.

Yes, I am of the opinion that immigration should be restricted as it drives population growth, which is a threat to our natural environment & resources, as many environmentalists realise. But I have no objection at all to those who want to better themselves & build a new life as people. I have long held that the restrictions on asylum seekers working & contributing to society should be done away with, as many asylum seekers could make an extremely positive contribution & could in fact, given the intelligence & education many of them have, replace purely economic migrants without employers noticing the difference.

Re: learning English, it should be stressed as utterly essential. Those well-meaning sorts who have offered translation on tap have held back assimilation of the kind which should be encouraged. They are also, of course, the same people who have allowed unacceptably attitudes to thrive with terrible consequences for those whom genuine left-wingers would want to protect against the oppressive & illiberal. They have sucked on the cocks of self-styled "community leaders" who are reactionary & do not speak for the majority, who are harmed by this type of fucking toss. It is also, of course, an argument for taking ESOL much more seriously & for more humane behaviour to such immigrants as we admit.

It must also be recognised that it is often the state, not immigrants, which is the primary contributor to segregation: just as they have ghettoised the poor on monolithic estates, they have also ghettoised immigrants in myriad ways, including hidden ones such as council housing allocation. The Asian & Hispanic populations of the USA, & many immigrants in this country, are a case of what we should aspire to & it strikes me that Deva Kumarasiri is behaving in a similar way, & should be lauded.