1. Rwandan genocide
2. general thoughts on discussing race in the USA: sparked by reading a piece in a conservative British broadsheet, written by a journalist i have often admired and who has done, and will do, far more with their time on earth than myself
3. "Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes"
4. a regrettable and wholly incorrect dismissal of Howard Jacobson
5. Wallander
6. Dublin's Michelin stars for the year 2010-
1. We acted badly, but not only France, the world did not react well. The time for asking for forgiveness has not come yet- Bernard Kouchner,
speaking recently (he was in Rwanda earlier this month; Sarkozy should visit next month, amid
a background of improving relations and big talk from his foreign minister)
on
page 6 of the Rolling Great Lakes region thread at Dissensus (scroll down to the second post on that page), you can see that Vim introduced
this piece:
Researchers Christian Davenport and Allan C. Stam say the accepted story of the mass killings of 1994 is incomplete, and the full truth — inconvenient as it may be to the Rwandan government — needs to come out.(you may also note that Zhao and myself have some initial reactions to it further down that page.)
anyway, on their main thrust, there's not much more to say than what i said in my first sentence at the bottom of that page; if i do say so myself, and however pompous that might sound. (other than to re-emphasize that Davenport and Stam's research is all very well, but the context of the notorious hardliner group within the regime prior to '94 is something that must never be lost sight of wrt that time. it is hardly rocket science to re-iterate - and to keep re-iterating, if need be, which, well, there is need, alas - the basic truth that those who, deliberately, with intentionally malign aims, opened a Pandora's jar of pain in Rwanda that spring are ultimately culpable for all this, no matter what a statistical breakdown of the background of victims may, or may not, reveal years later.)
however, i just wanted to flag up the Mutszini report, which came out January 11th.
i want to quote a splendid and fair-minded
CSM report in part.
(all italics are my emphases; you may think i'm being very unsubtle with my emphases, and you'd be right, but i fear there are murky people who can make such elementary mistakes as conflating Paul Kagame's abuses since in power, and so on, with elements of his pre-leadership days, and then using incredibly dangerous and wrong-headed leaps of illogic, arrive at fundamentally incorrect positions that totally minimise - or even worse - the agency of the biggest criminals during that time. needless to say, the poisonous, anti-Tutsi sectarian atmosphere in Rwanda pre-spring '94, deliberately fomented by parts of the state, is well, and widely, documented.)
'Missiles that brought down the Falcon 50 aircraft carrying former Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana days before he was to implement a peace accord – thus triggering a genocide of more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus – were fired from a base operated by Mr. Habyarimana's own presidential guard, according to the most comprehensive report on the events of April 6, 1994.
The inquiry - ordered by Mr. Kagame's regime in the wake of a disputed 2006 French judicial finding that Kagame's Tutsi rebels actually fired the missiles that sparked the genocide - adds a large weight to scales of justice implicating Hutu supremacists in a conspiracy to foment genocide.
“All the evidence points to the idea that missiles were fired inside or near the Kanombe base … which effectively implicates [Hutu extremist Col. Theoneste] Bagosora,” says Andrew Wallis, British expert and author of “Silent Accomplice," a book on the genocide. “Allegedly, Habyarimana’s wife herself [a known Hutu extremist] knew the attack was coming."
The
exhaustive Mutszini report collects new Belgian military testimony, ballistics investigations by British experts, previous UN reports, Western authors and researchers, and some 557 witness testimonies in an effort to take a definitive position on the April 6 assassination that started the genocide...In France, the report is sensitive. French relations with Kagame's government are in the process of recovery after French judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere’s conflicting 2006 report took bilateral ties to an all-time low.
That report was based on the testimony of four individuals, two of whom have now recanted."
[...]
For years Habyarimana’s assassination has been the most vexing and shrouded issue in assigning responsibility and clarifying history on the onset of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide: If Hutu extremists were culpable, it suggests a coup d’état and conspiracy to commit genocide. But if, as the French have long claimed, Kagame is to blame – Judge Bruguiere’s view – then the genocide was a result of mob anger caused by Kagame.
The crux of the issue has been where the missiles were fired. The Bruguiere report, which removed the finding of Tutsi complicity, says the missiles came from a zone controlled by Kagame’s forces.
A United Nations report shortly after the crash found it was at or near Kanombe, held by Hutus.[...]
The report’s strength, according to early reads by experts, are in setting a context and motive for claims by the current Rwandan government that Hutu extremists were responsible for the downing of the plane. The Arusha peace accords Habyarimana had nearly implemented would have split the Rwandan military, and placed nearly half the Army under the control of Tutsis at a time when the Hutu extremist movements were gaining terrific strength. High-level Hutu extremists surrounding the moderate Habyarimana were loath to let that happen...Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker, author of “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda,” argues similarly of a “convincing narrative.”
In the weeks leading up to the plane crash, three key Habyarimana associates openly threatened to kill him, Hutu newspapers and radio stations hinted at removing him between April 2 and 8, Belgian military and UN forces were aware of a plot, and even the crew of the Falcon 50 aircraft were frightened, the report relates.
In one finding, Bagosora had arranged for Habyarimana's Army chief of staff, General Nsabimana, a moderate, to be on the plane. When Nsabimana discovered he would be riding with Habyarimana, he got off the plane in fear and did not reboard until Habyarimana got off and ordered him back.[...]
Analysts say
the questions it raises about French military advisers, such as the shadowy Paul Barril and commando leader Gregoire de Saint-Quentin, are largely unanswered. Most of the alleged involvement of French advisers were under the governments of former Presidents François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac and are part of a significant Franco-African axis of business and dealings in postcolonial Africa – the darker side of which Mr. Sarkozy's government is trying to eclipse.
[...]
"It's a good political move for both sides, because they are doing it on a new basis of pragmatism," says Guillaume Lacaille, an expert on the Great Lakes region for the International Crisis Group in Nairobi, Kenya, says of further Franco-Rwandan bonhomie.
"The timing is important. The report was issued two days after Kouchner visited Kagame, and that is not by accident. Both have made the concrete move to put their differences aside and to move forward.”in conclusion, you
must read Oliver
hereDon't Reward Killers (Rwanda Redux)
We have been deceived. This is not what we were led to believe. We were told that Tutsis were killing Hutus. We thought the Hutus were the good guys and the victims.
Sergeant Major Thierry Prungnaud, July 19942. the
piece is by Toby Harnden, US correspondent for the Telegraph. you can get a general flavour of it in the first paragraph:
A year ago, Americans were basking in what many believed was a post-racial new dawn. The United States was just about to inaugurate its first black President. Across the world, those who had pronounced the country too mired in its past to elect an African-American were being forced to reassess.it goes without saying nobody worth taking seriously would have said Obama's coming heralded the new post-racial nirvana for the USA, just a big, very welcome, definite step forward on that road. that's a big "just", to be fair, of course, and i don't want to sound more cynical than i actually am.
of course, the third sentence in that paragraph there is damn right ("mired in its past"), and needs to be repeatedly rubbed in the faces of those (certain fairly liberal Europeans are often to be found in this constituency) who like nothing more than indulging in a spot of reflexive anti-Americanism, come what may.
most of the rest of the article is actually nothing to get you
that worked up about (though i find it a bit simplistic), but the final concluding paragraph is definitely a let-down. it reads, and i quote the penultimate paragraph too to set the scene
So what happened to treating people not "by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character"? Ironically, Martin Luther King Day will be marked across the country tomorrow but this dream of King's is not being fulfilled.
American politicians have got themselves into a real bind. They have to fret constantly about race but cannot talk honestly about it.maybe some people in the American political class are fairly cautious discussing racial issues; it certainly seems some of the wilder shores of the American political community are far from shy.
of course, as we all know, the terrible statistics about African-American disadvantage - across all sorts of indicators - are the first thing that you need to raise in order to start a riposte to Harnden. i've got no problem with a general moan about not discussing things as fully in the open as some might like, but - quite frankly - Harnden's final two sentences here sound to me like they are at the start of that sort of plane that ends in thick right wing twats going on about the black police officers' association in the UK, and so on, and moaning about where is the white police officers' association, and so on. (i am sure this observation would horrify Harnden, and i am not accusing him of anything deliberate, but his final thoughts could definitely be misused by some echo chamber pundits who already think the white man bends over too much in the US. you can't choose who repeats your message, of course, but if you make yourself clearer in the first place, you have less chance of being misused by someone whose own politics you may well abhor.)
it seems to me - though obviously the UK has a free press, and Harnden can do what he likes a day before MLK Day (to be fair to him, he presumably felt the need to blog about this issue for topical reasons, and it wouldn't be at all surprising if he was ordered by his employer to DO SOMETHING ON RACE AND THE POTUS FOR MLK) - if you're going to toss off a few lines about race in the USA, and such, then the first thing you need to start with is you need to sketch out the monstrous inequalities that plague the USA, with non-white Americans very often at the bottom of the heap. you need to look at lots of very real problems, structural problems, that fundamentally afflict and poison the well being of the American people, including a great many African-American communities, and all this, before you can start to have a few thoughts about discussing (or otherwise) race.
maybe i'm being simplistic myself here (the above rant i have not thought through, i must admit), because it might be good if Harry Reid could further his recent remarks by expanding on the subject of racism in the USA, and on the subject of horrific structural inequality in the USA, and on the subject of why so many young African-American men are incarcerated in the USA, etc.
that would be talking openly about race.
and of course the reason why he doesn't is due to political sensitivities on behalf of the status quo; it is not on behalf of the poor, the minorities, the weak in American society, that's for damn sure, it is not because of politically correct sensitivities, that much is true. it would be Harry Reid and his colleagues admitting whatever changes they might be trying to engineer in American society cannot possibly happen fast enough (and have not been happening, or certainly not fast enough anyway, even since Obama's election, since which time Obama * has undoubtedly had some magnificent achievements).
so it seems to me like Toby Harnden has wasted his keyboard on the above piece, certainly in one fell swoop undoing anything of merit he might have observed before, with that almost unbelievably complacent final paragraph.
but also i suppose, to be fair to Harnden, the guy knows all this, but he is also writing in the Telegraph, and a genuinely far-reaching structural analysis of ills in the Telegraph would probably not get past the person with the red pen intact (to say the least), so, he raises what he can and trusts that readers will run with it, inferring from his little implications and nudges a coherent view they can tease out for themselves; perhaps he's done his work, as he certainly had plenty of people commenting on the piece (albeit many of them loons, to judge from a quick skim).
* to be clear, i would label myself a firm Obama supporter. (this after at the start of the jostle for the big three candidates for the Democratic nomination, i was neutral, seeing pros and cons in both him, Edwards and Clinton all pretty much equally, and then after Edwards was eliminated, for some time, favouring Hil! ah well..)
3. number 7's a cracker! and 25 and the bonus have to be read to be believed'From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.
This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentivises religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.
We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.
Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes
In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.
Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.
Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law
We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.
We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.
If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.
List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.
2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.
3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.
4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.
5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”
6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”
7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”
10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”
11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”
14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”
15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”
16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”
17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.
18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”
19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”
20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”
21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”
22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”
24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.
25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.
Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.'
4. over at SWP man Richard 'Lenny' Seymour's LENIN'S TOMB blog (Oscar Wilde fan, top stuff) there has been some good, necessary writing in recent days wrt some silly things some people outside Haiti write about the country.
this short piece is both very much worth your time to read, and -
even more importantly - keep it at the top of your mind, naturally.
with that polite compliment out of the way, i feel i must take issue with something Seymour notes about Howard Jacobson in a recent post. the post is
here. in the context of a discussion about Rod Liddle and the man's recent appalling, overtly misogynist and racist internet commentary (Liddle has done one good thing in his entire professional life that i am aware of, which is saying something given how long he has been a journalist, and that was, to be fair, he did do a good documentary slagging off faith schools on British TV once, or if not slagging them, certainly being rather lukewarm and very critical of their entire edifice, using some Christian schools in northeast England as a frankly very disturbing set of examples: if you saw the programme you'll know why i refer to the schools as disturbing).
Lenin, then, in a witty and exaggerated experiment of some sort, riffs on some other idiotic British journalists that might want to join Liddle in discussing controversial issues as a sort of free speech jamboree. the two i certainly don't care for one bit are Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn, and everyone knows any Briton who reads the papers and has an ounce of human decency and compassion, or more than several functioning brain cells, is aware this pair are indeed, largely, not to be trusted.
of the other journalists he mentions (Roy Chubby Brown is a, to be diplomatic, lively, professional British comedian), excluding Jacobson, i can't comment on Roger Alton or Kelvin Mackenzie, but going by the example of the first three i cite up above, they're keeping fairly poor company.
however, Howard Jacobson, i do know a bit about. he is a man who is somewhat removed from the inaccurate bigotry that frequently clogs up a Phillips or Littlejohn column.
(i am not cheerleading him or anything, or saying anything as sweeping as i always think he's right. i am making these very obvious and dull caveats just to be clear.)
so why would he need to be included in this circle-jerk of shame?
my guess is because Jacobson does not have quite the correct views on Israel, the Israeli occupation, and the Palestinians.
this piece here, for example, while containing more reserves of nuance and intelligence than a book full of Phillips columns, is not quite on-message for the SWP.
the point is, the SWP are, of course, known for their, ahem, somewhat one-eyed take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so i'm presuming that this little aside is just a little joke, a sort of quip of a piece with what the SWP regards to be the correct position to take on things (hence, though this
is reaching, but have a look anyway if you want, eh, hence my little exercise once in thinking aloud on a similar topic
here).
Jacobson - on his Wikipedia page - has been labelled a "liberal Zionist" by Ben White (very much an insult coming from White), but, frankly, coming from White,
this means nothing.
so, i suppose, it's as you were.
it's just a shame Lenny couldn't have struck Jacobson's name from his list.
a far more 'deserving' journalist would be someone like Leo McKinstry at the
Express and the
Mail.
he may write biographies of past England football managers that are worth your attention but, politically speaking, he is an ignoramus, plain and simple.
5. disclaimer - i have never read any of Henning Mankell's Kurt Wallander novels. i have seen one of the Swedish-language television films they've made about Wallander (which was very, very good, and on BBC channel BBC4, to the Beeb's immense credit). i mean the English-language television episodes with Kenneth Branagh as the titular detective in a small coastal town, the six they've broadcast thus far.
i've seen episodes one through three, most of episode five just missing the opening few minutes or so, and episode six. there is an important event affecting most of the cast in the third episode that is just devastating.
i want to state this could've easily made my noughties faves list of the other month, honest truth; and i am bearing in mind only three episodes were broadcast last decade, the three comprising the first series that were originally broadcast in late 2008.
the more recent three episodes were broadcast earlier this month, the three comprising the second season.
(wrt a lot of short form British telly, a couple of Poliakoff dramas and 'State of Play' could have easily made that list too.)
firstly, i must say their usage of the Red One digital camera is some next level shit, each episode
looks amazing.
sensitively shooting in southern Swedish locations too, their backdrops and sets are very intelligently used and realised, and this also contributes greatly.
sometimes the dialogue can sound a little stilted, but then i remember people are often terse, or nervy, or uncommunicative, or 'odd', in real life. especially because Branagh has such a reputation as a thespian, when i watch it, it is very easy to close the eyes and imagine this either in a theatre, or as a radio play: the scripts are strong.
of course, i could make criticisms of it (well, TBH, i wouldn't be bothered to, but i am aware of some, for sure, but they're only fairly minor quibbles), i'm sure, but i'm going to focus on some of the things i like, such as the fact that although Branagh is clearly out in front, the rest of the cast, able supporters all (other detectives, some of Wallander's family, a dry forensics guy) are good.
they don't do much
acting.
i like the British actress Sarah Smart, and i've seen her in shows both comedic and serious, but i've never seen her so convincing (and spare) as Anne-Britt Hoglund.
outside of our anguished inspector, David Warner is the biggest regular name, as Wallander's ailing, crabby, painter father.
notable guests have included Nicholas Hoult, Orla Brady, and Vincent Regan (who gives a very affecting turn as an old mate of Wallander fallen on fairly frugal times).
the short title sequence beautifully weaves the colours of the Swedish national flag over some gentle guitar and Branagh foregrounded.
6. clearly, the Michelin guide privileges a kind of posh French cooking, or that sort of approach, generally a bit of a spruced-up take on certain cuisines, to get in, a bit fussy or refined (though, for example, the hefty, unpretentious fare on offer at
St John in London, say, indicates this is very much a straw man, but it's a straw man i'll broadly work with, for the sake of convenience), and very often (though far from always, as you can get some relatively
bargain pricing deals at Michelin establishments) at absurd prices, even when correctly taken in context of the world of fine dining in wealthy countries (and, natch,
always absurd prices when viewed in absolute terms for a meal out).
not that i've ever ate at a starred establishment, or a bib gourmand establishment ("good food at moderate prices", the more practical section of the guide) for that matter.
but hey.
it's all about business to get in, really, and you can say it's a load of bollocks, but food journalists
do use up a lot of column inches on the subject, and people enjoy arguing about it, and one also knows for a certain breed of chef it's a great honour, and it's good to be chuffed for them when they get an accolade (it's fair to say in the posh restaurant world of the UK Michelin, i think, carries more clout than AA or Hardens, or the Good Food Guide, although with that note there is a caveat that the GFG or AA are surely far more trusted by more people, the kind of people who enjoy eating out well, but not necessarily at Michelin prices; needless to say, the posh restaurant world of the USA has i think had a robust debate about the relatively recent entry of a French guide into their market, with the likes of Zagat's slightly earthier, chattier guides perhaps preferred by more Americans who do care about such things), a bit like being pleased for a sports club when they win a trophy or important game.
anyway, despite the fact that Dublin is a national capital, internationally famous (with all the global interconnectedness that goes with that, especially when the country's culture is so internationally popular in many other, large countries, and especially when it gets so many wealthy tourists, and especially when the now defanged Celtic Tiger brought in a lot of wealth and financial trade which continues to run through it, and especially when it is an important world city, granted, certainly the
second most notable world city in Britain and Ireland
by a country mile), it is not a very big city. the population of the metro area is about 1.6 million.
(given the many similarities in popular culture - and attitudes to alcohol, eating out, and socialising - between Ireland and Britain, it makes sense to compare Dublin with British cities, as opposed to, say, cities on the European mainland, for what i am about to say: hence what follows.)
compare that figure with the stated figure for the Greater Manchester Urban Area of about 2.2 million people, the West Midlands conurbation - whose capital is Birmingham- which also has a population of about 2.2 million, or Greater Glasgow's population, which is about 1.1 million, or the 2.1 million people in West Yorkshire, whose real (though informal) capital is Leeds, or about the 1.5 million people in Greater Merseyside, whose head city is Liverpool.
(note if you added up all the people that live in the Tyneside conurbation, and the Wearside urban area, and the Teesside urban area, ie the inhabitants of the three largest cities in northeast England and their suburbs, you would get a figure approaching 1.7 million. but i am not sure that i want to put Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough together, if only for my own health! granted, Leeds and Bradford going together in West Yorkshire, or Birmingham and Wolverhampton going together in the West Midlands conurbation may not be the cup of tea of all the locals in those places, but, they are defined as such by the UK's own statistical body, so fair play. the three northeast towns are not considered together in such a way by this body, and beside which, there is considerable countryside between Middlesbrough and those other two cities.)
below is a list
[source] of Michelin starred establishments (current for 2010) by number in each of these six conurbations, respectively the second to seventh largest single metropolises in Britain and Ireland (i am listing top-down in population size terms)
West Midlands conurbation - three one starred establishments (all in Birmingham proper, i might add, including one downtown run by the fine Glynn Purnell, a star of BBC TV's
Great British Menu, who hails from south Birmingham's well-known Chelmsley Wood neighbourhood, one in an inner suburb about a mile south of downtown, and one in a suburb three miles south of downtown)
Greater Manchester Urban Area - precisely none
the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire - a single one star gaff in a satellite town of the city of Bradford, about 12 miles north of downtown Bradford, and between about 17 to 20 miles from Leeds, or so
Greater Dublin - four one starred establishments (three in Dublin proper, and one in a suburban town ten miles north of the city centre), and one two starred establishment in the city centre, the legendary Restaurant Patrick Guilbaud
Greater Merseyside - a single one star, in Liverpool proper's neighbouring conurbation of Birkenhead: "do not be mistaken, do not be misled/you can keep your cathedrals and your pier head/for we are not scousers, we're from Birkenhead", as Tranmere Rovers fans sing (or words to that effect)
Greater Glasgow - exactly zilch
(incidentally, for a somewhat unfair comparison, it is nonetheless interesting to consider that, say, Brugge - whose metropolitan area is about 255,000, it's hardly the biggest city - currently
boasts one three star establishment, two two star establishments, and six one star establishments. unfair because Belgian cooking is very good, if probably globally under-rated and because the town is a massive tourist trap, but still.)
there are obviously more important things for a city tourism press officer to publicise than Michelin stars (even within the world of eating out, a good spread of diverse, decent mid-range eateries is more important, certainly you need that base in any town of size and pretensions, before you reach for the stars), but they are worth publicising when a place gets them.
incidentally, in contrast to that figure for Greater Glasgow, there are five one starred Michelin establishments within the boundaries of the city authority of Edinburgh (that area has a population of about 470,000), though admittedly Edinburgh is a wealthy capital, internationally renowned, another tourist trap, and surely the most culturally rich city in Britain outside London.
(though that is a statement Glasgow, Cardiff and some English cities might want to argue about, natch.)
so, basically, big up Dublin!
among other attractions, your city centre has small, fun, vital pockets of east Asian cuisine, you have some incredibly good, inexpensive food markets, and a very worthwhile, perfectly formed, Italian quarter, where the high quality coffee flows easily.