So, now Norway, one of the most peaceful and stable countries in the world -seemingly, at least - is afflicted by mass terrorist slaughter. Understandably enough, we all thought it was the work of Al-Qaeda or even agents of The Mad Colonel (Gaddafi) at first. Commentators (on the BBC at least) seemed shocked to learn that intead of the perpetrator being an Arabic Muslim fanatic, he is a Norwegian Christian fanatic -or more accurately, a local extreme right wing terrorist.
I won't go into details of the event, which are appearing in every media outlet today and can be read HERE.
What I'd like point out is the fact that European neo-Nazis are not so different from Islamic Jihadi terrorists as might be believed. There are, of course, obvious differences: Islamic terrorists, unlike fascist terrorists, are not racist. Anyone can be a Jihadi, whatever their racial origin. Also, there is the faith aspect - Jihadis kill in the name of their faith in Allah, while neo-Nazis usually, but not always, kill in the name of racial supremacy, and have no religious motivation.
Nevertheless, there ARE similarities:
1. They both hate liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
2. They both want to establish totalitarian states (Jihadis call it a "caliphate")
3. They both want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
4. They both persecute homosexuals (despite many of their number being gay)
5. They are both rabidly anti-semitic (although Jihadis try to disguise it by saying they are "anti-zionist")
6. They both are willing to employ terrorist tactics and kill indiscriminately.
We must not make the mistake of thinking that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian arrested for yeterday's massacre, is an isolated case. Let's not forget David John Copeland, who carried out several bombing attacks in London in 1999. Copeland was no Jihadi, either, but, like Breivik, a right-wing extremist.
In short, when it comes to opposing terrorism, we must not be blind in the right eye.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Saturday, 9 July 2011
"It's No Sacrifice" at the News of the World
I know there are some people who welcome the demise of the News of the World (NoW) for the right reasons: ie, it is a scandal sheet that has indulged in illegal phone hacking, crude sexual sensationalism and various types of privacy invasion. Again, there are those who welcome its passing for the wrong reasons - these are the wrongdoers and criminals who have been exposed by its investigations. I don't want to get into that debate, but there is another issue here which I find disturbing and downright sinister. The fact is that a very rich man has the power to kill a newspaper at will - and has done so. If any more reason were needed to prevent Rupert Murdoch from getting control of BSkyB, this exercise in megalomania is another one.
For, let's not be naive - "The Dirty Digger", as "Private Eye" calls Murdoch, is not axing the NoW because he is embarrassed by the antics of some of its former journalists. If he felt any shame in that regard, he would have closed the paper down years ago. No, he has only leapt into action after large firms have announced their withdrawal of advertising from the NoW, making it unprofitable. Money, not morals, move Rupert Murdoch. If he cared for people's feelings at all, he'd think of the journalists about to lose their jobs at the NoW. They face what is euphemistically called "an uncertain future", while the Dirty Digger remains a rich and powerful media mogul. Terminating a long-established newspaper is no sacrifice for him; he's got so many more, in many countries.
I hope that I speak for all trade unionists in what I say now. If I could address the assembled staff at the NoW (which, of course, I can't), I'd say: "As one trade unionist to others, I extend my sympathy at the loss of your employment. I do hope you soon find work elsewhere, and that you will not forget your treatment at the hands of News International. If any of you ever write about industrial matters, such as the cuts in public expenditure, I hope you will write with more sympathy for ordinary workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, and understand that they, like you, are subject to the same callous treatment that you have received from the barbarians who run News International".
I wonder what reception I'd get?
For, let's not be naive - "The Dirty Digger", as "Private Eye" calls Murdoch, is not axing the NoW because he is embarrassed by the antics of some of its former journalists. If he felt any shame in that regard, he would have closed the paper down years ago. No, he has only leapt into action after large firms have announced their withdrawal of advertising from the NoW, making it unprofitable. Money, not morals, move Rupert Murdoch. If he cared for people's feelings at all, he'd think of the journalists about to lose their jobs at the NoW. They face what is euphemistically called "an uncertain future", while the Dirty Digger remains a rich and powerful media mogul. Terminating a long-established newspaper is no sacrifice for him; he's got so many more, in many countries.
I hope that I speak for all trade unionists in what I say now. If I could address the assembled staff at the NoW (which, of course, I can't), I'd say: "As one trade unionist to others, I extend my sympathy at the loss of your employment. I do hope you soon find work elsewhere, and that you will not forget your treatment at the hands of News International. If any of you ever write about industrial matters, such as the cuts in public expenditure, I hope you will write with more sympathy for ordinary workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, and understand that they, like you, are subject to the same callous treatment that you have received from the barbarians who run News International".
I wonder what reception I'd get?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
