No Minor Detail - a Tribute to Alice Abes

Last Friday, my sister-in-law, Alice Abes, pictured above, died in a hospital in Manila, capital of the Philippines.63 years of age, she succumbed to leukaemia, which seems to have gone untreated for some months or years. At a time when many thousands of Filipinos have died, been injured, gone missing or made homeless by Typhoon Haiyan, Alice's death may be regarded by some as a minor detail.
Except it is not a minor detail. No-one's passing is a minor detail. As John Donne observed, when the funeral bell tolls, it tolls for all of us. Alice lived a life no different from that of many Filipinas. Born into a large family, she married, worked hard, battled poverty and raised a family. She leaves behind four children and twelve grandchildren, besides her eight siblings, one of whom is my wife. For them, losing Alice is no minor affair, nor any trifling detail.
Unfortunately, I never really got to know Alice. We met only a couple of times, and never really had a conversation (many Filipinos think I am either German or Australian, and find that very suspicious, for some reason). Nevertheless, I salute Alice's memory, and believe that her last days are of significance to us here in Britain.
Alice's final stay in hospital was made doubly traumatic for her family by the brutally simple fact that healthcare in the Philippines is not free - you pay for it. As many Filipinos are desperately poor, they often cannot afford medical treatment, and as my wife says: "In Philippines, if you don't pay, you die". Without support from her family, Alice would have faced a grim end; without support from the wider family, her children could not have afforded to pay for her treatment.
Why should this concern us, here in Britain? Well, it does not take much research to find that there are some right-wing British politicians who would dearly love to dismember the National Health Service (in which, ironically, many Filipinos work) and privatise as much of it as possible. This is not always overtly stated, but it is not difficult to read between the lines.
Fortunately, many British people recognise the warning signs, and are campaigning (not a moment too soon!) to "Save the NHS". If you, dear reader, support this campaign, when you are signing petitions, writing to your M.P. or joining in street protests, then please - remember my sister-in-law, Alice Abes. In a way, her passing encapsulates all we fight for, and all we are campaigning against.
There could be no better tribute to her memory.

No Pasaran! - the Musical

I have never reviewed a musical before, and welcome the chance to do so now. If I leave out anything important, I hope readers will forgive my omissions. Now I've got that out of the way, I can begin.
Last weekend, my wife and I went for a short break to Bournemouth. It is our favourite resort on the south coast, and I was glad to combine our trip with a visit to the De la Salle Theatre to watch "No Pasaran! - the Musical" by Roy Gaynor (lyrics and music) and Doug Gould (musical orchestration).
Now, at this point, I must declare a personal interest. Roy and myself share an interest in the Spanish Civil War (SCW), that epic struggle which still has the ability to arouse passion and anger. I met Roy through the International Brigade Memorial Trust, of which we are both members. I write lyrics myself, and Roy had already set one of my lyrics to music. Naturally, I was interested to see what he made, musically, of the war in Spain during the 1930s.
The SCW lasted from 1936 to 1939, and presents difficulties for theatrical presentation. There are many detailed accounts of the conflict, and Roy would have been faced with the problem of depicting the passage in time of the war, while condensing the material into an acceptable time limit.
I think he solves the problem brilliantly by telling the story of a divided Irish family whose two sons set off to fight in Spain. One goes to fight for Franco and the other (hurray!) for the Republicans in the International Brigades. The experiences of these two drive the action. Wisely, Roy has not included every SCW battle, and there is a time lapse between the Battle of the Jarama (1936) and the Battle of the Ebro (1938). Without spoiling the ending, there is a love triangle story that runs through the musical that is poignantly resolved at the end of the play when one of the brothers returns to Spain. My wife, who loves musicals, was moved to tears by this charming climax.
Of course, as a music lover, and a lyricist myself, I was very interested in the songs and music that run through the production from beginning to end. I am pleased to say that Roy does a first class job here. Writing songs about a historical event calls for freshness of insight and arrangement and there is a wide variety of songs in No Pasaran! - from ballads to blues. At no point will you be bored when watching this musical. The singers are outstandingly good, singing with passion and expression of  a professional standard - no mean achievement, considering that many of the cast are amateurs. A marvellous Spanish touch is the appearance of Flamenco dancers throughout the play. They give impressive performances, and remind us of the people for whom the International Brigades fought.
I must admit to the fact that both the love triangle and the superb choral performances in "No Pasaran!" reminded me at times of "Les Miserables". If I was some sniffy national newspaper critic, I'd comment adversely about that, but I'm not, and I won't. If similarities in stories were wrong, then Orwell's "1984" would be dismissed as a copy of Zamyatin's "We", and "Pilgrims Progress" as a mere derivative of the Bible. The story of the musical is believable and moving, and the choruses are admirable of themselves.
If "No Pasaran!" does not become better known, then there ain't no justice. Whatever, congratulations to all concerned for a great performance and a great night out for the audience. I am pleased to say that it will be performed again in Bournemouth next year - and hopefully elsewhere.

Tommy Robinson, Islamophobia and the Problems of Heresy

Following on from Rednev's item about the growth of Islamophobia among young Britons, I think it worth turning to the recent resignation of Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) from the English Defence League (EDL). Having been categorised as anti-Muslim and a racist, Robinson has now announced his intention to work with Quilliam to break down extremism among Muslims. He expounded his opinions this morning, on the BBC TV programme, "Sunday Morning Live". Unsurprisingly, there has been a good deal of scepticism about Robinson's "conversion" to moderation, especially from anti-racist groups and some Muslim commentators. Others are prepared to give Mr Robinson the benefit of the doubt. I belong to the latter group, albeit with some caution. The EDL is in decline anyway, and Robinson might just be abandoning a sinking ship. If he is sincere, then he should watch his back - if the Neo-Nazis who have been agitating against Robinson's leadership actually take over the EDL, they will regard Robinson as a traitor (some already say he was an MI5 agent), and be out for revenge. Jihadi groups take a similar position towards people who leave their ranks.
And there lies the crux of the problem. The EDL, the far right and their Jihadi enemies need each other in order to justify their own extremist positions. As has been noted before, they resemble each other in a number of significant ways. Moving to a more moderate consensus is not acceptable to either side.

Tommy Robinson (and the rest of us) might like to start by asking why there is a growth in Muslim extremism in the first place. The argument that it is all because of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is too simplistic - although it is undeniably a factor. Al-Qaeda existed before 9/11, and most of the hijackers were Saudis, not Afghans, Iraqis or Pakistanis. It is a mistake to regard Islamist terror attacks as retaliation for attacks on countries; all the terror groups say that they see the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as attacks on Islam itself. It is that, I believe, which is alienating some Muslims from our society, and causing their rejection of liberal democratic norms in politics and societal behaviour. Fundamentalist Islam, which Robinson and others detest, is a total lifestyle choice, involving cultural issues, not just politics and violence. Besides which, we should bear in mind that not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, nor are all Muslims fundamentalists.
At this point, I must say that I have taught many Muslim children (still do teach!), worked with Muslim colleagues in my career, and never encountered the slightest hint of extremism. My experience of encountering Islam has been generally  positive. I have learned a lot from Muslim children about their faith, and been impressed at how articulate they can be when discussing their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, never having met any extremists, I have no problems with the vast majority of Muslims.
However, Islam itself, I believe, has a problem organisationally. Not only is it divided into two main camps, Sunni and Shia, but it has no central controlling body. This makes it very difficult to rid itself of extremist groups. The Church of England has the General Synod; the Roman Catholic Church had the Inquisition; the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union had an all-powerful Central Committee. This meant that all these bodies could rid themselves of heretics and ideological deviationists (the two terms are interchangeable!). Islam has no central body to do this, and the Jihadis remain Muslims, tarnishing the name of the religion they profess to follow.
Besides this, the image of Islam is not helped by the fact that, of all the countries in the world where faith minorities and unbelievers are badly treated, the majority of such countries are Islamic states. I have discussed this in previous postings, researching the treatment of Atheists, Christians and Bahais around the world, and found that Islamic countries are the worst offenders. This varies, of course, from country to country. Egypt has a large Christian minority, and Turkey has a quite lenient attitude towards unbelievers. However, the picture is very different in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. While Islamic countries practise intolerance towards minorities, groups such as the EDL, etc, will be able to portray Islam as a threat to our way of life. Nor does it help when some Muslims admit to this - see the picture above, or read some of the pronouncements of Jihadi hate preachers.
To return to Tommy Robinson, Esther Rantzen made the point this morning that, if we reject, with cynicism, extremists such as Mr Robinson who want to come in from the cold, we will only discourage others who seek to do the same. Let's hope that Tommy Robinson moderates his views and many others (EDL and Jihadis) follow him.

Islamophobia and British youth

"Borrowed" from 1st Ethical website

28% of 18-24 year olds interviewed in a survey say they do not trust Muslims: I even heard one 20-year old woman say on the radio, “They’re all the same”. I am very disturbed by such prejudice towards followers of a faith that constitutes 23% of the world’s population. As a comparison, Christianity represents 33%.

If I were an 18-24 year old living in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya and had seen my country invaded by British and American armies, or in Libya’s case heavily bombed, especially if my community had been destroyed with neighbours, friends and relatives killed or injured, I suspect I would feel hostile towards those responsible.

We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan when neither country posed a risk to our security; who can forget Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier about weapons of mass destruction? A count of civilians killed by the fighting and the breakdown of law and order after our invasion of Iraq puts the figure at 114,566 (based on data drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures), equivalent to 38 September 11 attacks - see Iraq Body Count.

The New York and London bombings and the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby are unforgiveable atrocities, but is it surprising that our actions provoked a response? Unlike the days of empire, if we throw our weight around nowadays, those we attack can retaliate. Most of course do not, but it only needs a tiny number to commit terrorist acts. Condemning one and a half billion people for the actions of the few is ignorant, unjust and inflammatory.

Syria : Some Thoughts and Questions

Saying anything original about the Syrian crisis is difficult. So much has been said already, and the last word will not be said, unfortunately, for many years to come. The situation is developing (I wish I could say improving) even as I type, and my observations will be out of date in a very short space of time. Nevertheless, I do have some questions and thoughts on this evolving tragedy, and hope they remain relevant.
My first question relates to the recent horrific chemical attack in Damascus which, as we know, killed 1,400 people. We have witnessed a very rare rebellion on this issue in the House of Commons, which has put paid (supposedly) to any British military involvement in the promised US-led "punishment strikes" against the Assad regime. President Obama, who always said that proven use of chemical weapons would result in military action, has still not managed to put together enough international (or domestic) support to launch any punitive measures. This farcical state of affairs has given President Assad time to move his troops and weapons into civilian areas and, presumably, his chemical weapons into secret locations. Quite what any air or missile strike would hit now is anyone's guess. My question, though, is this: 100, 000 people have died in Syria so far, and no action has been taken. In which case, then, if the 1400 unfortunates slain by Sarin gas had been shot instead, would there still have been a House of Commons debate or any talk of action by the United States?
Next, I would like to know why we are not hearing more about the crimes of the supposed "good guys" - the Syrian rebels. Our media reports, accurately enough, that there is a strong Al-Qaeda presence among the rebels ("Al-Nusra"), but we hear very little about their victims. One of the main targets for this group, as has been seen in Iraq, is the Christian population, who are fleeing Syria in huge numbers. Both sides are committing war crimes, but the reporting of rebel misdeeds is somewhat subdued. I know that there is a difference between the violence of the oppressed and that of the oppressor, but that distinction becomes blurred as we look more closely at both sides in this conflict. The whole situation shows signs of becoming a Sunni versus Shia battle, with Rebels + Al-Nusra + Saudi Arabia on one side and Assad + Iran (our dear friends again, folks!) + Hezbollah on the other. In other words, this could become a religious war. Let's hope I'm wrong, as such a war would have a worldwide impact, and would not remain within Syria's borders.
Next, I'd like to make an observation on the supposed military inaction by western countries, especially the USA and Britain. This is of particular relevance in light of the recent House of Commons vote and the firm declaration of "no boots on the ground" by British and American politicians. If the USA and Britain were looking to launch air and missile strikes, they would need to have trained "spotters" on the ground in Syria itself. These spotters are necessary, in order to ensure accurate hits on chosen targets, and to avoid the disastrous mistakes made in the Balkans and Iraq by so-called "Smart" weapons. Now, these spotters could be trained rebel personnel, but are more likely to be experts from British, American and French special forces (serving or retired), who have a proven history of working covertly in the world's troublespots. In other words, there is probably a Western military presence already.
Lastly, I recently saw a photograph in "The Independent" of an elderly Syrian man, gazing on the ruins of his village after a government bombing raid. His face was a mask of utter despair, like that of so many Syrian victims in this obscene conflict. His story was typical of so many others as well; most of his family had been killed by one side or another. I wonder: would anyone like to explain to him (and all the others) why the rest of the world stood by and argued among themselves while his life was devastated?
Any volunteers?

Persecuting the Harmless - the Trials of the Bahai Faith

Speaking personally, this has been a worthwhile venture, researching into religious (and non-religious) persecution. While the details of the persecution meted out by believers to other believers and others have been horrifying at times, I have learned to respect the tenacity of the persecuted. An Anglican vicar friend of mine, for instance, told me that Pakistani Christians accept persecution as part of life. To me, NO religious persecution is acceptable, and I am glad of the means to condemn it. Besides this, I have learned more about the beliefs of persecuted groups whose tenets were previously unknown to me. One such group is that of the Bahai faith who are a harmless religious minority of only a few million worldwide, yet who still attract persecution in a small number of countries, worst of all in Iran.
So who are the Bahais? Well, this is what I have learned:
The Bahá'í faith is one of the youngest of the world's major religions. It was founded by Bahá'u'lláh in Iran in 1863. The basic Bahai beliefs, all of which are admirable (even if some are common to all religions) are as follows, and taken from the Bahai UK website:


"Bahá'u'lláh taught that there is one God whose successive revelations of His will to humanity have been the chief civilizing force in history. The agents of this process have been the Divine Messengers whom people have seen chiefly as the founders of separate religious systems but whose common purpose has been to bring the human race to spiritual and moral maturity.
Humanity is now coming of age. It is this that makes possible the unification of the human family and the building of a peaceful, global society. Among the principles which the Bahá'í Faith promotes as vital to the achievement of this goal are

• the abandonment of all forms of prejudice
• assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men
• recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth
• the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth
• the realization of universal education
• the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth
• the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations
• recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge". " 

Whatever our beliefs, there is not, I believe, anything there for other religious believers to find objectionable. There is a worldwide Bahai presence (6000 in the UK; 140 000 in the USA) of about six million adherents. The Bahais, then, are a peaceful and inoffensive religious minority. No-one, I thought in my ignorance, should feel the need to persecute them.
Alas, I was wrong. The Bahai faith, founded in 1863, had the great misfortune to start out in Iran, where its followers were immediately regarded as heretics and apostates to Islam. This is because Islam teaches that Muhammad was "the seal of the prophets", and no further prophets (such as Baha'u'llah) are needed. It has been the unhappy fate of the Iranian Bahais to be persecuted under every political ruler in Iran, be it the Shah, or the Ayatollahs. Since 1979, over 200 Bahais have been executed, thousands have been imprisoned or driven into exile, and their community leaders arrested. They are also barred from higher education and employment opportunities. This disgraceful situation has been the subject of numerous reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
To be "fair" to the Iranian regime, Bahais face discrimination in other countries: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia and Morocco. All these countries are Islamic; the only Muslim country to grant legal recognition to the Bahais is Egypt. The recent rise of the Muslim Brotherhood has caused anxiety to Bahais, Christians and other religious minorities in Egypt - the world's media never mentions that. One wonders why...perhaps the safest comment to make is that religious persecution is worse in some countries rather than others? Which leads to an obvious conclusion...

"If..." - You Can Remember the Sixties?

A couple of months back, I bought the DVD of the acclaimed Lindsay Anderson film from 1968, "If", starring Malcolm McDowell.( If I'd known that I could watch it in full on YouTube, I wouldn't have bothered). It caused a sensation on its release, winning the Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1969. It was given an "X" certificate, and has been rated since as the 16th greatest British film of all time by the magazine "Total Film" in 2004.
The film's reception was heightened by the 1968 riots in Paris, the Grosvenor Square riots in London, the Prague Spring and a number of revolutionary conflicts around the world, most notably the Viet-Nam War. For those who have not seen the film, it concerns the alienation of, and revolution (more accurately, armed uprising) by three rebellious public schoolboys. There is the lover of violent revolution, Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell), the eco-warrior, Johnny (although he says very little about green issues), played by David Wood, and the gay activist Wallace (played by the gay actor, Richard Warwick). These three nonconformists clash with authority on a number of occasions throughout the film, suffering degrading and painful corporal punishment, until they find a cache of automatic weapons and, in the famous closing sequence, open fire on a Founder's Day ceremony from the school roof, accompanied by two of the boys' lovers (one male, one female). As the school cadet force return fire, we are left with the unfinished question "If...", which in full is meant to be:
"If this were really to happen, whose side would YOU be on?"
It is easy to see why this film created such a sensation when released, which points to a misapprehension about the 60s. Real sexual and social revolution did not come about in Britain until the 1970s- the 60s was a time when the changes had only just begun. Instead of the "Swinging 60s", the period has been better described as "the 50s with mini-skirts" - which brings me back to the film and its political message. It could only shock because of the relatively conservative nature of UK society at the time. To me , it looked dated in 1978 - even more so now.
I do not wish to discuss the filmic and artistic merits of the film, as they are better discussed elsewhere. I do, however, believe that it has political and historic merits that have been overlooked. It depicts, symbolically, I believe, the "high-water mark" of the revolutionary Left in western society in general and Britain in particular (the "high noon" came at the end of the 70s). The key to the film's action is the "hero", Mick Travis, who covers the wall of his room with pictures of violent revolutionary struggle from around the world - and he loves it. As he says:
"Violence and revolution are the only pure acts".
This questionable utterance is a distinct echo of the thoughts on revolution of Mao Zedong, whose picture is on Mick's study wall. It is a romantic (in the widest sense) statement, worthy of Blanqui, Bakunin, or Mao himself. Mick expresses no sympathy or solidarity with the revolutionaries or concern for innocent civilians; he is in love with revolution itself. Do he and his fellow dissidents engage in struggle against the iniquities they see happening in their public school? Do they seek to organise the pupils of the school to improve conditions? Do they lead strikes, walkouts, sit-ins or protests? Alas, no, they resort to a gesture of futile violence.
 In this, they represent some on the far Left at that time who embraced the revolutionary ideal without wanting to join in more traditional workers' struggles over pay and working conditions. According to this view, drawing upon the theories of Herbert Marcuse, the working class in the west had become pacified by welfare reforms and brainwashed into docility by the mass media, especially television.
In order to jolt the masses out of their torpor, these "romantic revolutionaries" of the 1960s split in two ways. Most became Anarchists or Maoists, interested only in violent demonstrations and melodramatic stunts. Well, John Lennon never said truer words than when he wrote in the song "Revolution":
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow".
The Maoists had vanished by the 1970s - I only ever saw one on all the demos I attended at the time. Only the anarchists remain, as an isolated, if annoying, minority. But then, there were anarchists before the 1960s.
The second, very small, group of "romantics" followed the example of Mick and his comrades in the film, by taking up arms to create revolutionary conditions and awaken the sleeping masses. This led to the emergence of urban guerrilla groups like the Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army (USA), the Red Army Faction (West Germany), the Red Brigades (Italy) and the Angry Brigade (Britain). All these groups collapsed over time, never achieving a mass following.
All this, of course, happened after the film's release, and the film makers could not have been expected to foresee the future of such thinking. My judgement, I admit, is based on hindsight, but then, that is key to the writing of history. And "If", in more ways than one, occupies an important place in the history of the 1960s. If nothing else, it dispels the myth that the 60s were a time of "love and peace". To revise the old saying: If (that word again!) you can remember the sixties, you were there, but count yourself lucky that you survived intact - many others did not.

Atheists and Agnostics - the Trials of Unbelief

I'd like to begin this post with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
That is an admirable statement, and is meant to be implemented by all the UN member states. If strictly applied, it guarantees all of humanity the right to worship, or not worship, as they choose. Living in Britain, we take this right for granted, and admit to having been somewhat complacent about it myself. Only when I was researching my last but one blog item did I realise, with a massive jolt, that Article 18 is more honoured in the breach than the observance worldwide. I found that Christians face persecution today that, in some places, rivals that which they suffered under the Roman Empire. My research begged a question - if believers persecute other sets of believers, how do they treat UNbelievers?
I expected to find the answer - "not too bad, really". After all, atheists and agnostics do not proselytyse, observe unique festivals, dress in distinctive clothing or engage in rituals that others could find offensive. But I was wrong.
Firstly, it needs to be said that atheism, as a coherent world-view, is a comparatively new phenomenon. It also needs to be said that the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic in Britain is even newer. The poet, Shelley, wrote a pamphlet called "The Necessity of Atheism", for which he was expelled from Oxford University and denied the custody of his two children. Then there was the case of Charles Bradlaugh, Britain's first atheist member of parliament, who was elected to Parliament in 1880, but not allowed to take his seat until 1886, because he refused to swear the Oath of Office until finally being allowed to affirm the oath. As Christopher Hitchens (in "God is Not Great") observed:
"As late as the 18th and 19th centuries, in relatively free societies such as Britain and the United States, unbelievers as secure and prosperous as James Mill and Benjamin Franklin felt it advisable to keep their opinions private".
It hardly needs to said, that if it was difficult for Mill and Franklin, it was far tougher for ordinary people who held atheist or agnostic views. They remained silent - as do many today in many countries. In the UK, happily, things have changed. Britain's most prominent atheist is the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and atheists have full rights and protection under the law. Some estimates put the percentage of unbelievers in the UK to be as high as 44% - although not all of these people declare themselves to be atheists. Celebrity British atheists include Richard Dawkins, Richard Branson, Daniel Radcliffe and Ricky Gervais.
To my surprise, I found that the only Western country where unbelievers face discrimination is the USA. Seven US states - Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - have constitutions which forbid unbelievers from holding public office. Atheists even complain of persecution by Christians in some states. This is a shock, because, as the atheist writer, Gore Vidal, used to love pointing out, the Founding Fathers of the USA were men of the Enlightenment, not religious believers. To be fair, this discrimination only occurs in a minority of states, and unbelievers have their rights protected by the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the highest figure for the percentage of atheists and agnostics in the USA is only 9%, as opposed to 54% in France and (according to some estimates) 85% in Sweden. This gives US believers (mostly Christians) something of a numerical advantage over their unbelieving fellow citizens. Some academic research appears to show that atheists are among the most distrusted people in North America.
Unsurprisingly, the harshest treatment of atheists happens in Islamic countries. For example,there are no figures for atheists and/or agnostics in Iran. Doubtless, the Iranian regime would say that they have none. The real reason is that unbelievers have no legal standing in Iran (and many other Islamic countries) - you are either Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian - or you have no rights at all.
The other factor making it awkward for atheists to declare their lack of religious faith in Muslim states is the fact that to do so is to make oneself an apostate to Islam, for which the penalty is death. In practice, though, it has to be said that the treatment of atheists in Muslim states varies from country to country.
I think that the United Nations should reopen the discussion on human rights - especially the right to freedom of worship. It would then be incumbent on some member states to explain why they show such contempt for Article 18.

The Great Gatsby - Nostalgia and Innovation

As this is supposed to be partially an arts blog, I thought it time to try writing my first film review (I must remember to give a star rating). I have no idea how to proceed, so I'll just have to do my best. The film I wish to review is none other than the latest production of "The Great Gatsby"(TGG), starring Leonardo DiCaprio. There have, of course, been previous films based upon this enduring novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald - this film makes a total of five. The one most valued by film buffs is the 1974 film which starred Robert Redford as Gatsby, and, for some purists, is the definitive edition.
I disagree with that, of course, and will make my case later. Before this, though, I think it worth examining the historical context of the book. It is set in New York State in 1922. For those unfamiliar with the story, the action revolves around the romantic yearning for a past lover by a rich man who conceals the source of his wealth (he's a bootlegger). There are spectacular party scenes which typify most people's view of the period - the so-called "Jazz Age", of which Fitzgerald was a key figure, along with his disturbed wife, Zelda. Lest we disapprove of, or ridicule this, we should remember (and most reviewers don't) that the early 20's were lived in the shadow of World War One, which had a devastating effect on so many young lives. Gatsby himself has returned from Western Front service as an impoverished officer. Scott Fitzgerald also served with the US forces at this time. Understandably, those who could afford it, the famous "bright young things" of the period, wanted, to paraphrase Prince, to forget the war and party like it was 1929. Well, as we know, the party ended in 1929 with the Great Depression. Fitzgerald's career and marriage went into a decline, and some commentators see TGG as reflecting Fitzgerald's longing to return to the happy times of the early 1920s. Gatsby insists, in the book and the film, that it is possible to recreate the past. His attempts to bring this about lead to his downfall, which proves, perhaps, that Fitzgerald was not as naïve as might be believed.
But I digress. Di Caprio's portrayal of Gatsby is a harder and edgier portrayal than Robert Redford's urbane Gatsby. This, I think, makes the character more believable. I could never see Redford's polite bon viveur making a fortune as a bootlegger. Readers of the book will know that, in TGG, there is no physical description of Gatsby, but Di Caprio is highly convincing and, for me, is THE Gatsby.
Purists (I hate that word - it makes me think of odourless soap) have raised loud objections to the musical score, which has numerous contemporary sounds by modern artists, such as Jay Z, Fergie, Beyoncé, Will.I.Am and the Bryan Ferry Orchestra. I personally see nothing wrong in this. The early 1920s and our present times have much in common. Both periods see masses of people having a good time without being happy, and both periods have a soundtrack of meaningless popular songs which, as Billy Bragg has said (of today) are about nothing more than getting drunk. The gangsters of the 1920s (like Gatsby) ran speakeasies and made a fortune. Al Capone and other US mobsters became media stars. Today, gangsters (aka "gangstas") have a whole genre of music dedicated to them - a celebrity presence common to both eras.
As for performances, the two best, in my opinion, are of the Buchanans, who are the prime movers of the action. Daisy Buchanan is played very well by Carey Mulligan, and the obnoxious Tom Buchanan is shown in his full odiousness by the distinguished actor, Joel Edgerton. Daisy, the object of Gatsby's yearning, is seen as a frivolous spoilt brat. It is a common theory that the basis for Daisy was Zelda Fitzgerald - if then, we see Gatsby as an avatar for Fitzgerald, Carey Mulligan leaves you wondering what he saw in Daisy or Zelda. Tom Buchanan, who contrives Gatsby's death, is seen as the malevolent creep that Fitzgerald intended him to be - well done, Mr Edgerton.
For those who plan to see the film, I make one suggestion - read the book. It is not very long and somehow (at least for me) has the power to be unforgettable. I first read it back in the 1960s (another Jazz Age?) and have never forgotten it. The book, and THIS film version, admirably complement each other.
For me, this film merits four stars out of five, but I can imagine that it will not be to everyone's taste.

Islamophobia, Islam and Religious Minorities

After my last posting, in which I tried to argue against the Islamophobic backlash that appeared to be starting in Britain after the horrific Woolwich murder, I received a reply from an old friend of mine, the Rev. John Faraday. John is an Anglican vicar in Manchester, but, to my surprise, he was writing from Pakistan, where he was a guest of the Pakistani Church. He agreed with my point about the need to resist Islamophobia, but raised a subject that the Western media never talks about - the treatment of Christians in Pakistan. I promised John that when he was safely back in the UK, I would write on this subject, however unpopular it might be in some quarters. Now that he is home with his family and congregation, I am able to write.
In a short email, John painted a sad picture of life for Pakistani Christians who, he said: "...face low level persecution all the time. (Difficulty getting jobs because of their faith, etc) and occasional violent opposition. (Hundreds of Christian homes burnt down in Lahore in the last few months)"
Despite this, he spoke with admiration of the "tremendous Christian people" that he had met who: "... accept discrimination as a part of life and do not give violence in return."
This last comment angered me - the idea that, in the 21st century, discrimination can be accepted as part of life, and I decided to look into this matter further.
After some research, I can confirm that there is widely documented persecution of Christians in Pakistan. If anything, John Faraday understated just how violent the persecution can be. These are just several of a number of examples given by Wikipedia:

"In August 2002, grenades were thrown at a church in the grounds of a Christian hospital in north-west Pakistan, near Islamabad, killing three nurses.^[175]
On 25 September 2002, two terrorists entered the "Peace and Justice Institute", Karachi, where they separated Muslims from the Christians, and then murdered seven Christians by shooting them in the head.^[176][177] All of the victims were Pakistani Christians. Karachi police chief Tariq Jamil said the victims had their hands tied and their mouths had been covered with tape.
In December 2002, three young girls were killed when a hand grenade was thrown into a church near Lahore on Christmas Day.^[178]
In November 2005, 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army and United Presbyterian churches. The attack was over allegations of violation of blasphemy laws by a Pakistani Christian named Yousaf Masih. The attacks were widely condemned by some political parties in Pakistan". (Only some!?)
This is not to say the Pakistani Government approves of these actions, nor does it mean that all Muslims in Pakistan support such crimes. The fact remains that there are militant Sunni Islamic groups in Pakistan who hate their non-Sunni fellow citizens enough to kill them. Even leading Christian politicians in Pakistan are not safe. Shahbaz Bhatti, minister for minorities, and a Christian, was murdered by Islamists in 2011.
This is bad enough, but Pakistan is not the only country where Christians face violence and discrimination, even though we hear very little about it in our media. The charity, Open Doors, does not even place Pakistan in the top ten of countries where Christians face persecution (North Korea takes first place). While I totally condemn the post-Woolwich antics of the English Defence League and the arson attacks on Muslim buildings since the Woolwich Murder, they pale into anaemic insignificance when compared to the 1.5 million Christians murdered by the Janjaweed in Sudan since 1984, or the beheading of prisoners carried out by Muslim insurgents in the Philippines.
Now, it needs to be said that Christians are not the only minority being hounded in Pakistan (and elsewhere). The Sunni fanatics who killed Shahbaz Bhatti would almost certainly have murdered him had he been an Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Shia Muslim or Jedi Knight. (This opens up another area of investigation for me.) Islamism is a totalitarian movement that hates all minorities and dissenters.
There is also the painful historical fact that Christians have been guilty of persecution many times. It is a fact that Christians have persecuted other Christians. It is also true that Christians have persecuted Muslims horrifically at times - the Crusades being an early example. For me, this is irrelevant; medieval massacres by an invading Christian army do not justify throwing grenades into Pakistani churches in the 21st century - or any of the appalling crimes listed here.
There is an argument which says that attacks on Christians in Muslim countries come as a result of the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This does not hold water - these incursions might have made it worse, but persecution of Christians was going on well before 9/11.
In no way do I support the Islamophobic attacks that have happened in the UK since the Woolwich Murder. I am also well aware that the majority of Muslim people in the UK deplore acts of terrorism and religious extremism and support our democratic institutions. However, I must say that while persecution of Christians (and others) exists in Muslim countries, Islamophobes in this country will have a treasure trove of anti-Muslim propaganda.

The Woolwich Murder - Atrocity and Reprisal

On the 21st of November, 1974, the Provisional IRA exploded two bombs in Birmingham. 21 people were killed, and 182 injured - the worst terrorist atrocity in the UK before the 7/7 bombings. There was massive public and media outrage, politicians of all parties on either side of the Irish Sea condemned the bombing and there were calls for action to be taken. It's not remembered now, but at the time, the IRA leadership denied responsibility for the bombings. Understandably, no-one believed them, as the IRA had already carried out other lethal attacks on the mainland. It's now thought that an IRA cell carried out the attack without orders from above, but that unconfirmed belief is not relevant here. The main result of the attacks was a seemingly massive "own goal" for the IRA, as the atrocity led to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and an end to the growth of the long-forgotten "Troops Out" movement in Britain. Only the great Irish journalist, Mary Holland, recognised the bombings as a Provisional IRA success.
Holland said this because of the huge (and also long-forgotten) wave of anti-Irish backlash that swept Britain. This led to many acts of violence against Irish people, especially in Birmingham, where Irish workers in factories were attacked, and even Irish nurses caring for the injured in hospitals faced abuse. Leading politicians, such as Brian Walden and Roy Jenkins, were forced to call for calm. Fortunately, public anger subsided and common sense prevailed, but the IRA, I believe, came to see the benefits of provoking reprisal action from the host population in the UK. Had long-term violence and harassment of innocent Irish people continued, some, at least, would have become more sympathetic towards the IRA. This is why Mary Holland, on the now defunct TV programme "Weekend World", spoke of IRA success.
Well, the IRA failed to re-create the same wave of anger, although they came close to it at the time of the Warrington Bombings. They could not afford to be seen as mass murderers, and, in subsequent attacks, usually gave telephone warnings carefully timed to give insufficient time to evacuate a locality, but long enough to appear anxious to avoid civilian casualties.
I have gone to this length to describe a terror campaign of the past because I believe we are faced with a similar situation today. The murder in Woolwich of the young soldier, Lee Rigby, I believe, was carried out by individuals with a similar strategy to the IRA.( Lee Rigby's attackers declared to onlookers that they" wanted to start a war" in London). The Woolwich attack was every bit as hideous in its way as the Birmingham Bombings, and carried out with a similar end in view - to provoke reprisals, either by the state, or by the non-Muslim public, against the Muslim community. Again, this could well lead to more Muslims becoming involved in the Jihadi struggle, one way or another. The major difference between the Jihadis and the IRA, of course, is that the Jihadis will be bound by none of the restraints that affected IRA strategy. The Provos had to make some concessions to public opinion; Jihadis despise it - as we have seen many times in many countries.
It needs to be said here that this strategy is nothing new. It has been employed by guerrilla movements for centuries. In the last century, it was used by the now venerated (in Ireland) rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin, by Soviet partisans in "quiet" sectors behind the German lines in Russia, by Tito's partisans in Yugoslavia and, to a lesser extent, by the French Resistance against the German occupiers. The Nazis, as we know, needed little encouragement to take reprisals. No-one will ever know how many innocent people were massacred by the Nazis in retaliation for acts of resistance in Europe - but their reprisals created many new enemies. Likewise, the execution of the leaders of the Easter Rising by the British authorities caused moderate Irish people to sympathise with the rebels, leading to the war for Irish Independence in the 1920s.
Since the end of World War Two, there have been guerrilla movements in many countries, usually as part of anti-colonial struggles. Nearly all have sought to sting their opponents into precipitate actions: the Haganah in Palestine hanged British soldiers; Mau Mau fighters in Kenya murdered civilians; the Viet Cong killed American wounded in Viet-Nam - the list of atrocities is tragically long, as is the list of reprisals by the occupiers.
Nowhere was this process more bitter than during the Algerian War of Liberation, 1954-1962. During this conflict, both the French forces and their FLN enemies engaged in torture and, all too frequently, indiscriminate massacre and counter massacre. One early example of this happened in 1955 at the Algerian town of Philippeville (now Skikda), where FLN zealots butchered 123 civilians, mainly French, including old women and babies. This outrage, ordered by the regional FLN commander, provoked massive French retaliation. According to some reports, French forces massacred 12 000 Algerian civilians. The FLN, presumably, thought this a price well worth the paying.
We will not (hopefully!) reach to anything like this level of violence, but, disturbingly, there have been signs of public anger towards Islam. By this, I do NOT mean the antics of the English Defence League in Woolwich on Wednesday evening, but the statements of ordinary, normally rational people on TV, radio and in social media. After 9/11 and 7/7, people I thought of as models of common sense and rationality were telling me how they were regarding people of Middle Eastern appearance with suspicion. We can only hope it gets no worse. In war, you should never do what your enemy wants you to do. Harassment of innocent Muslims, or worse, to echo what Roy Jenkins said of blameless Irish people after the Birmingham bombing atrocity in 1974, can only play into the hands of the terrorists.
As for the Jihadis themselves, they seem to be going down a road that I predicted back in 2010. As their central command has suffered some serious blows, they appear to be turning towards small scale attacks which are every bit as headline grabbing as 9/11 or 7/7, if numerically less lethal. The Woolwich murder illustrates this point perfectly. The Jihadis will probably see the attack as a success from the publicity angle and be encouraged to try something similar again. Unlike the 7/7 bombers, who spent several thousand pounds preparing their explosives, future Jihadi killers will only have to spend a few quid buying knives in B&Q. This story still has a long way to run.

Michael Gove, Ofsted and Angry Sheep

With a certain amount of gleeful satisfaction, I watched the heckling of Michael Gove at the recent NAHT conference. This is because the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) is usually about as militant as a flock of neutered sheep. Other welcome news was that the NAHT has voted to affiliate to the TUC. If they were listening, the government would see that this is a sign that the natives are getting restless. Other teaching unions have been warning of teacher discontent for years. If the NAHT have decided to join the fight, it is a welcome addition, if overdue.
Gove looked somewhat discomfited by his frosty reception, but, as expected, declared his intent to continue with the government's drive to raise standards. As everyone knows, this is a familiar refrain from Education Secretaries, Tory or Labour. It is an old chestnut that never seems to leave the fire. When it was pointed out to Gove that OFSTED created a climate of fear, he said that there was a need to part company, but he didn't leave, much less resign, unfortunately.
Although I welcome the NAHT's criticism of Gove, it is highly unlikely to change anything. Schools will continue to become academies, initiative after initiative will be piled upon school staff and the carping against teachers from senior politicians and the right-wing media will continue. This is basically for two reasons.
The first reason lies in the underlying ideology that powers much of Tory thinking. This is the drive to reduce the role of the state in social provision (AKA "saving public money"), hence the drive towards educational academies. This is mainly to be found in the secondary school sector, but will doubtless be focussed upon the primary sector in time.
There is, I would contend, a secondary reason. This government, as some commentators have noted, appears to devise its policies down the pub. Nowhere is this apparent tendency more clearly to be seen at work than in education policy. Every pub loudmouth (usually male, usually Tory) will tell you that teachers aren't doing their jobs properly and need sorting out. I have no doubt that Gove and his friends and colleagues express the same views when they chat over drinks at their clubs in Mayfair.
I have pointed out, in previous posts, that OFSTED pressure and government "initiatives" (Tory AND Labour) are causing demoralisation among teachers and leading to an increasing number of teachers leaving the profession. About half of new teachers leave in the first five years, according to the Guardian. Incredibly, Gove himself commented on this issue back in 2010, describing it as a "tragic waste of talent". At the time, Gove blamed this exodus on the problems that teachers face when keeping order in the classroom. He is oddly silent on the continuing exodus nowadays. I wonder how Gove and his ilk will explain one day why we have a teacher shortage?
Still, I take heart from Gove's treatment by the NAHT conference delegates. If sheep get angry, the shepherds should beware.