Pub Philosopher

Blasphemy law abolished

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill received Royal Assent yesterday so the antiquated blasphemy laws have finally been abolished.

Good riddance. Religions should not have protection from ridicule that is not afforded to other groups or individuals. While I respect someone's right to follow a religion, it doesn't mean that I have to respect that religion. We should be free to criticise and to lampoon any ideas, or historical figures, even if some people consider them to be sacred.

That is not the view in most of the Muslim world though. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is pushing for a worldwide blasphemy law, although the EU recently ruled out such legislation.

Effectively, though, we still have a ban on blasphemy against Islam because newspapers, theatres and art galleries face threats of violence if they publish anything even a handful of Muslims might find offensive. It's not only the state that restricts free speech. Violent religious fanatics can do so too.

Boris's booze ban

So Boris's first headline policy is to ban people from drinking alcohol on buses, trams and underground trains.

A rather strange move from someone usually thought of as a libertarian. He seems to be pandering to that Hyacinth Bucket tendency in the Tory Party which always wins out in the end.

Is there any evidence that drinking on the Tube is a problem? I have lived in London for twenty years and I have never seen anyone with a drink causing trouble. Mostly, they just want to engage you in bizarre conversations. The drunks who are aggressive usually get tanked up before they get on the train.

Boris claims that London transport staff and police will enforce the ban. That's interesting. Would that be the same transport police force that arrested a train guard after he fought to defend himself against a violent passenger? Or the force that charged a station guard with assault after he had tackled a violent drunken fare-dodger?

Railway bosses and the transport police do not have a good record when it comes to backing up railway staff who try to tackle violent behaviour. If you were a Tube guard, would you be confident that your employer and the police would back you up if a confrontation became violent? And even peaceful drunks tend to get upset i someone confiscates their booze.

Bob Crow wants to know if Boris will turn out to help his members confiscate beer from football supporters on match days on match days:

Perhaps the mayor will come out with his underpants on over his trousers like Superman one Saturday to show us how it should be done, and maybe tell a crowd of Liverpool supporters that they can’t drink on the train.

I'm with Bob rather than Boris on this one. Unless there is a significant increase in both the number of London Underground staff and in support from their employers and the police, this ban will be unenforceable.

To enforce it effectively will be expensive but I'm yet to be convinced that there is a problem needing to be solved.

Boris's booze ban looks to me like an attempt to pander to that petty authoritarianism that is just as strong in the Tory ranks as it is in other political parties. It's unnecessary, it's expensive and, in all probability, it won't work.

Zimbaweans threaten to disrupt 2010 World Cup

Zimbabwean opposition groups are threatening to disrupt the 2010 World Cup in South Africa in protest over Thabo Mbeki's support for Robert Mugabe. They aim to force FIFA to move the competition to another country.

In recent weeks, Tibetan activists have shown how the publicity generated by a major sporting event can be turned against a dictatorship. Anti-government groups in Zimbabwe are hoping for a similar result.

There is already an online petition calling for a boycott of the competition but some activists appear to be advocating more direct action.

It is time the two million or so Zimbabweans in South Africa, who loathe and detest Mugabe, stood up for themselves and their country and conveyed strongly to Mbeki the message that he has a choice:  either he prevents Mugabe from stealing the election, whether he likes it or not, or they will disrupt the 2010 World Cup and force its relocation to Australia.  It must be made crystal clear to Mbeki that this is not an idle threat, but that they REALLY WILL DO IT!

Two million Zimbabweans could make trouble for the South African authorities if enough of them take action. Their compatriots around the world could cause some trouble too.

But, however much pressure they bring to bear, the competition is unlikely to be moved. Aside from the expense, would not want to relocate the first ever World Cup to be hosted by an African country.

The activists probably don't think they have much chance of depriving South Africa of its tournament either but, by mounting an active campaign, they can embarrass Thabo Mbeki and draw the world's attention to his support for Mugabe's murderous regime.

Councillor wants swimwear advert banned from Muslim area

Three years ago, retailer Matalan upset Muslims in the West Midlands by selling t-shirts with the Arabic word for Allah printed on them. The offended Muslims protested and Matalan duly withdrew the shirts from its stores.

Now, the chain has managed to annoy another group of Muslims in neighbouring Birmingham. Posters for its new swimwear range have been put up in an area of the city with a large Muslim population. The adverts, which feature scantily clad models, have been defaced and Muslim leaders are demanding that the city council ban the posters from the area.

The council has no power to do this unless the adverts break the law. At the moment, it is perfectly legal for these posters to be displayed on any hoarding in the UK. Making an exception to the planning laws in response to the demands of religious minority would set a dangerous precedent. It would effectively give so-called community leaders a veto over what was publicly displayed in a given area.

Of course, there are plenty of countries in the world where posters like the Matalan adverts would be banned at the whim of a local bigwig. Perhaps Councillor Talib Hussain would like to go and live in one of them.

Shoreditch or Banglatown

Here's another great story from Tower Hamlets.

Bangladeshi groups in and around Brick Lane are campaigning to have the planned new railway station at Shoreditch High Street renamed 'Banglatown'.  Having effectively banned the filming of the movie Brick Lane in the area, those the local paper describes as "businessmen and political power-brokers" are, no doubt, keen to have a visible symbol that these streets belong to them.

Local estate agents already call the area Banglatown as, it appears, do the Metropolitan Police.

But the name of a station is something much more permanent. As the local GLA member John Biggs pointed out, several waves of immigrants have passed through the area. If a similar argument had been applied eighty years ago we would now have a station with a Jewish name in the area, even though most Jews have long since left for more salubrious parts.

It is a daft idea and clearly an attempt to mark territory but with last weekend's change of regime at City Hall, I  doubt that this proposal will be approved.

I hope I don't need to eat my words.

Muslims for Secular Democracy

A cautious welcome to Muslims for Secular Democracy and to co-founder Yasmin Alibhai Brown's warning against government pandering to pressure from Muslims. As she said:

The government has found a way of placating Muslims in a way that will only damage us in the long term, Muslims wanting separate schools or different measures. There must be one law for all.

This differential accommodation leads to us being pushed to the edges. How is it that the Sikhs and Hindus can live in democracy but not Muslims?

The perception is that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention and funding and that perception is justified. This ridiculous, distorted, exaggerated single identity has made us no friends.

But, as Indigo Jo says, Sikhs have indeed demanded and been given preferential treatment. They get to ride motorbikes without crash-helmets. It was also Sikh militants that forced a play to close in Birmingham three years ago. Unfortunately, Jo then ruins his post by lapsing into Muslim sectarianism.

Still, in an organisation ostensibly of British Muslims for anything, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Taj Hargey really are completely out of place as they are not Muslims. Alibhai-Brown is an Ismaili, a sect rejected (for centuries, I might add) by the mainstream of Islam, while Taj Hargey is part of one of the hadeeth-rejecting cults....

That's rather like the Bishop of Rome's declaration that non-Catholic denominations are not true churches. Ismailis consider themselves to be Muslims. For Jo to assert that they are not is is both insulting and chauvinistic.

Sunny also has some comments on BMSD. At the launch, he challenged the Muslim Council of Britain's representative:

If Inayat Bunglawala considers secular democratic principles to be compatible with Islam and quite a good system - then why the need for a Khilafah (caliphate)? I’m not saying this to take a pot-shot at him, but merely asking why there is so much rhetoric around the need for Muslims to form a country governed by a religious authority? I asked him the question but he ducked it by saying people can decide themselves by voting if they want a religious state. But do they have the choice to go back if they don’t like living in a religious state? And when Asim Siddiqui writes about secular democracy on CIF, Inayat always challenges him by saying Muslims should always strive for a Khilafah. I think he’s still confused. 

As, no doubt, are many Muslims who get conflicting messages from their so-called leaders.

Democracy isn’t just about voting once every 5 years. It’s about freedom of choice and even local decision making. One of the many reasons why British Muslims (Sikhs, Hindus too, to a lesser extent though) don’t embrace democracy so readily is that they’re not empowered by democracy and choice within their own communities. Because of the biraderi (elders) system - people are told what to do. There is little sense of taking reponsibility for decisions (even for something like marriage!) hence the lack of a build up of that democractic knowledge. This is also why many young Muslims are attracted towards religion - to escape the oppression that comes with the culture. They see it as a form of self-empowerment when they have little other ways to express it.

That'll be those same community leaders stifling the freedom necessary for democracy to grow.

The MCB (like its Sikh and Hindu counterparts) is profoundly undemocractic itself, so I don’t know how it can claim to like democracy. For a long time they claimed to represent the voice of Muslims without any democractic accountability. All these religious organisations are affiliated with orgs that are mostly run by middle-aged men, are out of touch with the youth and there are no ‘elections’ are such that are open. For them to talk about how great democracy is, is rather amusing.

In other words, the unelected religious leaders are happy to pay lip-service to democracy provided that their vice-like grip on their own communities is not threatened.

It is not Muslims in general that the government panders to but the community leaders like Inayat Bunglawala and Iqbal Sacranie who have been allowed to set the agenda. These men usually have reactionary views and use religion to cement their control over their communities, hence the demands for seperate schools.

When I saw Yasmin Alabhai Brown speak a year or so ago, I asked her whether she thought the government paid to much attention to unelected community leaders. Her answer was a definite 'yes' followed by an eloquent criticism of men like Iqbal Sacranie. On that, at least, she and I agree. One of the challenges Muslims for Secular Democracy will face is how to circumvent the theocrats who still dominate many of Britain's Muslim communities.      

Mugabe may yet get his Chinese weapons

Remember Mugabe's shipload of Chinese weapons? The world's media lost interest when it appeared to be heading for home. Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal commented on how Beijing had caved in to international pressure over the arms shipment.

The only problem with this story is that there is no evidence of the An Yue Jiang going back to China. Once the media attention shifted elsewhere, it appears that the ship may have doubled back or even just hidden out at sea for a while. The International Transport Workers' Federation believes that the An Yue Jiang is still anchored off the coast of Angola. South Africa's Mail and Guardian reports that Lloyds Maritime Information Unit has no idea of the ship's position and that some of the weapons may already have been unloaded in Luanda. Senior military officers from Mugabe's regime flew to the Angolan capital last week.

Angolan unions say their members will refuse to unload the ship if it docks again but there are fears that, as the An Yue Jiang has its own cranes, it may be able to offload its cargo in secret without needing to use dock labour.

Anyone who thought that Beijing would be forced to throw in the towel so easily must be very naive. The Chinese regime is determined to keep its proxy ruler in power. Those weapons may yet be used against opposition supporters. Mugabe may even have them in time for the election run-off.

Hat Tip: Sokwanele

Local elections

Unfortunately I'm too busy today to say much about the elections. Although there is a lot of hullabaloo, I wonder how much difference Boris being Mayor will make, or, for that matter, Dave being Prime Minister, which now looks on the cards.

Laban Tall reckons we're still doomed. I like to be a bit more optimistic but I wonder, for example, how Boris is going to cut gun crime when its roots run so deep. How much can he do, given the constraints of the judicial process and police procedures?

More entertaining is the spluttering fury at the BNP's solitary win on the London Assembly.  The usual suspects are already planning a protest rally.

This made me laugh too. Pink News has welcomed Richard Barnbrook as another addition to the small number of openly gay London Assembly members.

Mr Barnbrook who directed a gay erotic film in his youth was elected alongside a number of other London "list" assembly members.

He joins gay Conservative former Hackney councillor Andrew Boff , Victoria Borwick, Gareth Bacon. Labour former Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, Murad Qureshi. Liberal Democrat Mike Tuffrey, Dee Doocey, Caroline Pidgeon and gay Green Darren Johnson.

I doubt that Richard Barnbrook will be boasting about this show of support.

100 days until the torturers' Olympics

Amnesty International has produced this cartoon to mark 100 days until the Beijing Olympics. They have also launched a new website which will focus on human rights violations in China.

A few of the Chinese regime's supporters have started replying to my posts on China saying that this is all western propaganda and anti-Chinese racism. Well the author of this cartoon is half Chinese and spent most of her summer holidays in Hong Kong.

It's not just Tibetans and Uighurs being tortured in China. Ethnic Chinese who have complained about being turned out of their houses, for example, have also been brutally treated. 

Incidentally, the person who sent me this cartoon also tells me that a pro-Beijing stooge punched a Chinese exile during the London protests against the Olympic torch. So it's not only Tibetans in Seoul they are kicking. The regime's bully-boys are beating up ethnic Chinese dissidents in London too.

Where the hell is Peter Tatchell?

I just don't understand the Green Party's strategy in the London elections. They have gone into this strange pact with Ken Livingstone whereby they have urged their supporters to give him their second preference votes in return for Ken asking his voters to do the same for Sian Berry, the Green candidate.

It's easy to see what Ken gets from this but there is nothing in it for the Greens who stand no chance of being in the final run-off.

It gets worse though. The Greens have even been out campaigning with Ken. What can they possibly hope to gain by hitching their campaign to someone whose popularity, even among people on the left, is on the wane? It's not even as if Ken has treated the Greens well in the past.

Are the Greens a proper political party or not? Do they actually want to get any political power in their own right or have they resigned themselves to doing deals with those they think might just put some of their policies into practice.

I know a number of liberal-ish types who are concerned about the environment but who are sick to death of Ken. A couple of them are gay and object to Ken's friendship with an Islamic cleric who would stone them to death. Others are just angry about his cronyism and arrogance.

Their only option today is to give a first preference votes to the lacklustre Brain Paddick and, if they really want to get rid of Ken, to hold their noses and give their second preferences to a Tory. There was room in this contest for a charismatic and principled liberal-left candidate. Someone who stands up for human rights and free speech and who, unlike many left-wingers, is prepared to criticise the regimes in Zimbabwe and China. A candidate who attacks bigotry wherever he comes across it, even if the bigots are Muslims and Jamaican rap artists.

That candidate, of course, is Peter Tatchell, a prominent member of the Green Party. With his profile and his reputation, he would have attracted a lot of votes that will otherwise go Ken. If he had stood it would have been a real three way contest. Even if he hadn't won, the momentum of his campaign would have given the Greens more votes in the London Assembly elections.

I don't agree with a lot of what Peter Tatchell says but he would have offered a genuine radical alternative in this election. If the Greens were at all serious they would have selected him as candidate. Of course, it may be that they approached him and he wasn't interested but somehow I doubt it. I can't see Mr Tatchell turning down a platform like that.

When the Greens launched  their party they said that they wanted to change politics. Instead, they seem to have lost their nerve and resorted to an under-the-table deal with the thoroughly discredited Ken. In doing so, they have left a number of voters with Hobson's choice.

The Greens have missed an ideal opportunity to make a breakthrough in this election. Perhaps they just don't have the will and the killer instinct for real political power.

Simon Heffer's attack on Boris

There is a lively discussion at Conservative Home about Simon Heffer's attack on Boris Johnson in the Torygraph.

I suspect much of this outburst is based on personal animosity from when both of them worked at the Spectator. Old office politics spilling over into the political arena.

In his superb biography of him, my colleague Andrew Gimson outlines the practice that has allowed Mr Johnson to get so far in life: he has used his charm, to which only a few more seasoned hands are immune, to enlist at every stage what Mr Gimson calls "stooges" to help him advance.

There were stooges when Mr Johnson was en route to be president of the Oxford Union. He has had stooges all through journalism, who did significant parts of his various jobs for him, usually with little thanks or reward. And now there are stooges in politics.

If Mr Johnson became Mayor tomorrow, he would be the front man for nameless others who would run London. That may well be better than more of Mr Livingstone. It would not be what people think they are voting for.

Sour grapes, perhaps? Was Mr Heffer one of those duped into being a Boris stooge?

I doubt it. If anything, it was the other way round. The comments about Liverpool in the Spectator, for which Michael Howard ordered Boris to wear sackcloth and prostrate himself before that city's self-righteous bigwigs, were actually written by Simon Heffer. Who dug who out of the hole here?

I take very little of what Simon Heffer says seriously and this article looks very much like an attempt to settle an old score. I don't know either of them but I'd sooner have a pint with Boris than with his pompous and boorish former colleague.

Time to get rid of Ken

The left-wing media and bloggers keep coming up with good reasons to vote for Boris Johnson. Apparently, some have even claimed that Boris would ban the Koran. The article by Andrew Gilligan, which referred to leaflets in Bengali from a pro-Ken Muslim group, has mysteriously disappeared from the Evening Standard's website but a few bloggers had already posted part of it. Liberal Democrat councillor Meral Ece also claims to have seen the leaflets being handed out in her own constituency.

Of course, Boris won't ban the Koran. This is just another of the quotes taken out of context. According to the Muslims for Ken website, the ban-the-Koran story is based on this comment:

The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia.

Bang-on I'd say. Passages in the Koran do indeed incite hatred of non-Muslims. Boris was using this example as a way of showing the absurdity of Religious Hatred Act. He was not advocating a ban on the Koran.

Likewise, Doreen Lawrence's charge that Boris would destroy multicultural London has been rolled out again. This is also ridiculous. Much as it might be a good idea to stop the state subsidy of the ethnic segregation which Trevor Phillips warned would lead to a racial cold war,  as mayor, Boris would not have the power to do this. He could stop the GLA handing out money to poorly run businesses just because they are run by black people but he could not dismantle the whole apparatus of multiculturalism in London.

The thirty-two London boroughs would still spend a fortune on providing interpreters and on translating information into dozens of different languages. Each would still have its own race equality council doing God knows what but spending your money doing it. Councillors would still buy ethnic minority votes by offering various cultural festivals and the Metropolitan Police would still have its thirteen different ethnic and religious associations.

Much as the wailing of leftie newspapers and bloggers might raise your hopes, a Boris regime in London would probably not change much. Boris might be a clever bloke but he isn't superman.

That said, at least if Boris were in charge things wouldn't get any worse. If re-elected, Ken plans to spend even more money on cultural events. He has also pledged to raise money to build a minaret at a Brick Lane mosque. If Ken wins tomorrow, expect a lot more of this. He would almost certainly increase his subsidy of the various minority groups, led by unelected community leaders, that he has favoured in the past.

But surely the most compelling reason to vote for Boris, or at least to vote against Ken, must be the mayor's arrogance. The contempt with which he treats anyone who asks him difficult questions shows that he believes himself to be beyond reproach. On a number of occasions, he has responded to challenges from the London Assembly with sneering ad hominem attacks. His blasé response to  the lies of his aide Rosemary Emodi is further evidence of Ken's sense of being above the rules that apply to other people.

If, after all the cronyism, corruption and dodgy dealing, Ken is re-elected he will believe himself to be invincible. All challenges from the London Assembly or London MPs will be dismissed with a nasal sneer and a haughty wave. He will continue to do just as he pleases, only more so, and will use Londoners' hard-earned cash to do it.

I will not be putting a cross by Ken's name tomorrow and I hope that a majority of Londoners won't either. After eight years of Ken it really is is time for a change.

The plight of apostates

Remember Nissar Hussein and his family? They were the Christian converts from Islam who were terrorised in their Bradford home for being apostates.

It appears that Mr Hussein never did get justice or any police protection for that matter. According to a report  by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, he was told to "stop being a crusader and move to another place”.

The report, due to be released tomorrow, draws attention to the brutal treatment of Muslim apostates around the world. As you might expect, there are serious legal penalties for apostasy in many Islamic countries but the report also highlights the aggressive response to Christian converts from Muslim communities in the West.

In its press release, Christian Solidarity Worldwide says:

This report calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.

Perhaps they should have included West Yorkshire Police on that list too.

A gold medal for thuggery

There are several videos on YouTube showing the violence by pro-Beijing Chinese students at the Olympic torch relay in Seoul. This morning, the Korean government has rebuked the Chinese ambassador over the students' thuggish behaviour.

Here, a lone protester is attacked by a baying mob. You can just see the Tibetan flag disappearing as the blows rain down.

The same incident is slightly clearer in this Korean news video, which also shows Chinese students pelting human rights demonstrators with various missiles.

In this video, Chinese students appear to have taken over a hotel lobby, forcibly excluding the other guests.

Here a Chinese student delivers a flying kick to a Tibetan, while his accomplice holds the man in place.

This will not be the last we see of Beijing's shock troops on the streets of democratic countries. Expect more anti-China demonstrations to be met with violence in the run up to the Olympics.

Beijing's fifth column

The Chinese government has recovered from its initial shock at the level of opposition to its Olympic torch relays and has started organising its citizens to attack the protesters. A couple of incidents were reported in Paris and a carload of Tibetans was mobbed by Chinese students in San Francisco. 

Since then, the pro-regime Chinese have been getting steadily more organised. Around 10,000 were mobilised against the protesters in Canberra. Organised by stewards with radios, they attacked the Tibetans, Uighurs and human rights protesters who had turned out to demonstrate against the regime. There were similar clashes in Japan yesterday and 6,000 Chinese are reported to be on the streets of Seoul where the torch is currently being paraded. A group of anti-regime protesters was beaten up by Chinese students earlier today.

That the mobilisation of these counter-demonstrations has been orchestrated by Beijing is beyond all reasonable doubt. Australians and Koreans should be worried that there are thousands of people in their countries who, at the command of the Chinese regime, will come out onto the streets to use violence against people exercising their rights to protest.

Not that we should be complacent in the UK. Who knows if similar incidents might not have occurred in London had the Chinese government been better prepared. How many people could Beijing have ordered onto the streets of London to attack those protesting against the torch relay?

Supporters of the Chinese regime been printing t-shirts with slogans like " Tibet was, is and always will be a part of China". It's almost impossible to imagine "Ireland was, is and always will be a part of Britain" or "Algeria was, is and always will be a part of France" but the Chinese clearly don't do imperial guilt.

The Chinese regime's ability to mobilise demonstrations both inside and outside China shows its awesome power over its people. It is prepared to go to great lengths to stifle free protest at home and beyond its own borders. The action by Chinese students in Canberra and Seoul is a foretaste of what a Chinese dominated world will be like. 

Dog attacks

Sorry for the break in transmission; I've been in Italy for a few days.

BBC World only gives the news that might be of international interest so I have missed some of the stories from the last week or so, including two incidents of dogs being used in violent assaults.

A gang set dogs on a pupil at a south London school and muggers used two dogs when they robbed a boy in a park in Bradford. I wonder if they started by getting their animals to attack cats.

There have been incidents of people being attacked by vicious dogs for as long as I can remember but they were usually due to the negligence of the dogs' owners. The use of dogs as part of a pre-meditated assault is, as the police in Bradford said, unusual. At least, it is at the moment. Let's hope it doesn't catch on.

Update: Looks like it might be catching on after all. At one time, your typical pit-bull owner was a white working class bloke, usually somewhere between his late twenties and forties. Recently, I have noticed that gangs of teenagers are now wandering around with large dogs and that more black and Asian people seem to have them. A BBC programme Mad Dogs and Asian Men broadcast earlier today seems to confirm my anecdotal data. It appears that young Asian men are not only arranging dog fights but are also using the animals as weapons. The RSPCA inspector interviewed on the programme said:

Over the last three or four years we've noticed a marked increase in the number of young Asian men, particularly young Asian Pakistani men, obtaining these dogs with the sole emphasis on training them to fight.

Over the past three years of all the dog fighting cases I have dealt with, about 98 per cent have been of Asian males, particularly of Pakistani origin.

That's funny, I thought Muslims weren't supposed to have any contact with dogs.

China's new colony

At last, a British newspaper has run the story about the Chinese troops in Zimbabwe. Better late than never.

Today's Independent reports:

Chinese troops have been seen on the streets of Zimbabwe's third largest city, Mutare, according to local witnesses. They were seen patrolling with Zimbabwean soldiers before and during Tuesday's ill-fated general strike called by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Earlier, 10 Chinese soldiers armed with pistols checked in at the city's Holiday Inn along with 70 Zimbabwean troops.

One eyewitness, who asked not to be named, said: "We've never seen Chinese soldiers in full regalia on our streets before. The entire delegation took 80 rooms from the hotel, 10 for the Chinese and 70 for Zimbabwean soldiers."

Officially, the Chinese were visiting strategic locations such as border posts, key companies and state institutions, he said. But it is unclear why they were patrolling at such a sensitive time. They were supposed to stay five days, but left after three to travel to Masvingo, in the south.

The paper also carries an editorial about Chinese colonialism in Zimbabwe.

As for Mr Mugabe, he marked Zimbabwean Independence Day yesterday by complaining of neo-colonialism and how Britain wants to retake control of Zimbabwe. He and other African leaders should think more carefully. There is a danger of their countries becoming a victim of a re-colonisation. But the threat is not from the West. It comes from the East.

As I said, better late then never.

Dockers refuse to unload Mugabe's Chinese weapons

At last, a crumb of good news for Zimbabwe. Dockers at Durban are refusing to unload Mugabe's shipment of Chinese weapons. The consignment includes:

3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and small arms;

1,500 40mm rockets;

2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre;

93 cases of mortar tubes.

That's some shopping list. No doubt those rockets and bullets have the names of MDC activists on them.

South Africa's Transport and Allied Workers Union, which represents dockers and truckers, said that its members will not move the weapons and demanded that the ship be sent back to China with its cargo. At least workers in South Africa are taking a stand against Mugabe, even though the country's government is unwilling to do so.   

The First Post has a report on those Chinese troops spotted in eastern Zimbabwe:

[T]he presence of the Red Army on the streets of any African nation would constitute one of the biggest crises of the decade, uniting the twin headaches of African bad-governance and Chinese foreign policy.

Moses Moyo, writing from Harare, has a report from local people in Mutare who claim that Chinese troops took part in action against activists taking part in the MDC's general strike earlier this week.

The Chinese, witnesses say, patrol in full uniform, and carry pistols, and their sudden appearance has terrified some local residents. The unit formed part of a heavy security deployment in the city centre, used to crush the MDC's nationwide strike designed to force the release of the election results.

The China's Embassy in Zimbabwe has denied that its troops are operating in the country and suggests that the armed men are simply a private security force employed to protect Chinese business interests.

Yeah, right. Like those blokes in blue tracksuits who ran with the Olympic torch were just ordinary athletes and not Chinese secret police.

Update: I've just noticed that today is Zimbabwe's Independence Day. From one colonial master to another in 28 years. That's some achievement, Mr Mugabe.

Chinese troops reported in Zimbabwe

This afternoon, Robert Mugabe's pals in the South African government allowed a shipment of ammunition, rockets and mortar shells from China through the port of Durban. The weapons are destined for Zimbabwe's government militias.

There are reports from Zimbabwe of Chinese troops attacking MDC supporters in the eastern province of Manicaland and of ten armed Chinese military officers appearing with Zimbabwean army colleagues in a hotel in the provincial capital, Mutare.

A contributor to this comment thread on the Sokwanele blog also claims to have seen Chinese troops.

So is this just a token force to put a bit of steel into the wobbling Mugabe regime or is it a prelude to something more sinister? Is the Chinese regime prepared to see the investment it has put into Zimbabwe go up in smoke under a government led by Morgan Tsvangirai or is it preparing a coup to protect its interests there?

And if China does intervene, what will Britain, Europe and the USA do about it?

Linking Islam and violence

MediaWatchWatch asks why, given all the fuss about Fitna, there has been no outrage over this film, which also links Islam with violence.

Strangely enough, no outcry from the UN either.