Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The future of Europe is multiethnic but not multicultural

December 15, 2015

I have for long held the position that a society needs a single overriding culture to be a society. All cultures are dynamic and change as times change and as new groups may be assimilated into it. The new culture inevitably contains elements of what new communities bring to the table and the original culture of that community – in some adjusted form – can continue as a sub-culture, but subordinate to the overriding culture. What is not tenable is the idea that a single society can remain a single society when it is splintered into a collection of many parallel cultures (and which are not subordinate to an overriding culture). It has been the misguided, do-gooding, politically correct approach of the “liberal left” in Europe which has actively encouraged new communities to maintain the cultures of where they came from and remain separate to the existing, prevailing culture. There has been little emphasis on getting new communities to assimilate and a far greater emphasis on separateness. This approach has also given rise to the fear of demanding assimilation from new communities. That has in turn led – and not very surprisingly – to the immigrant ghettos, the no-go areas and large parts of the new population who cannot even speak the local language (into the 3rd generation in some cases).

The downplaying of integration is what now gives the reality of 85 Sharia courts active in the UK or the no-go areas in Malmö or Preston or the separate, parallel societies in Molenbeek and La Goutte d’Or. It is the false god of multiculturalism which has allowed schools in Birmingham to be subverted or the predatory, medieval, sexual mores of the NW Frontier to be transplanted to Rotherham.

It is language which is the primary vehicle of a culture. But while every culture has a primary language, a language may be the vehicle for many cultures. Religion is probably the next most important “carrier” of a culture. The misguided and unsustainable “multicultural” approach has pervaded many European countries, such that even jobs requiring interaction with the public or even gaining citizenship have not required any language proficiency. However the importance of assimilation is finally gaining ground.

Angela Merkel has said this before but is now becoming much more explicit in her criticism of multiculturalism and much more vocal in emphasising the importance of integration.

The Guardian:

Merkel still sought to address lingering concerns over the long-term consequences of the refugee crisis.

“Those who seek refuge with us also have to respect our laws and traditions, and learn to speak German,” she said. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion.”

Her comments echoed a similar statement from 2010, when Merkel said multiculturalism had “utterly failed”.

I would have thought it obvious that learning of the local language within some reasonable time be mandatory for a residence permit for any immigrant or asylum seeker. Multiculturalism is not just a “failed concept” as David Cameron has said or a “grand delusion” as Angela Merkel now calls it, it is a false premise. A single society – fundamentally – must have an overriding culture and cannot be multicultural. The existence of multiple parallel cultures can only be accommodated by a collection of societies – or by a fractured and splintered society.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Europe, Politics | 1 Comment »

Do many Democrats secretly support Trump?

December 12, 2015

The US Presidential election is at a fascinating stage. Clarity may come in a few months, but it could still develop into something of a thriller. Talking to some of my American friends, I have been surprised to find that under the vocal indignation about Donald Trump’s clowning and his outrageous comments, there is an undercurrent of admiration for his “stating of things as they really are”. Much of the criticism of Trump, it seems, is because it is expected of them.

The US Presidential election in 2016 is clearly going to be dominated by the issue of immigration. (This holds also for every election that will be held in any country in Europe and for the regional elections in France tomorrow). Economy and taxes and health care will all, I think, trail immigration by a large margin. And that puts Trump in a rather peculiar but unique position. It may well be that Trump is a “figure of this time”; that he is in the right place at the right time. Immigration, itself, is not a single issue and consists of a number of differentiated issues, such as:

  • “illegals” and their regularisation,
  • citizenship and the commitments to acquire citizenship
  • must all (meaning Muslim) immigrants explicitly assert the supremacy of the law of the land over religious Laws (meaning Sharia),
  • prevention of future illegal entry,
  • the entry rules for the relatives of immigrants who are not citizens
  • screening of would be entrants.

It is politically incorrect for any Democrat to admit to any liking for any Republican and – at the present time – quite unthinkable to consider Donald Trump as anything but a pariah. But I sense a thread of support for Donald Trump from the more centrist Democrats and even some immigrants, which will remain hidden and may only show up next November – assuming, of course, that he gets to be a candidate, either for the Republicans or as an Independent.

I am old enough to remember the Reagan elections and I see a parallel between Trump and Reagan. Just as the Reagan Democrats appeared suddenly in droves, I suspect there could be a significant number of secret Trump Democrats who will not (dare not) surface until the real Presidential election. It is worth remembering, that on many issues Trump is remarkably closer to Democratic dogma rather than traditional Republican positions. I remember how incredulous many commentators were at the idea of Reagan, a not very good B-movie, cinema actor, becoming President. There is a similar kind of incredulity about Trump as a serious contender at the present time.

The Atlantic: Like Reagan, Trump is a former Democrat and a one-time TV star, whom the media initially dismissed as having little chance of reaching the White House. But there is a more significant parallel that has gone unnoticed: Trump is running on essentially the same message as Reagan. Reagan insisted that America’s problems were not as complicated or intractable as everyone seemed to think. “For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension,” Reagan said at his 1967 inauguration as governor of California. “Well, the truth is, there are simple answers—there are not easy ones.”

And of course that is a very powerful message – perhaps an insight. There is always a simple answer which always provides a clear direction. Ways and means for implementing an answer may be difficult but the direction remains clear. It makes a change from politicians who feel it necessary to justify their lack of achievement by over-complicating issues.

Trump does not fit into the normal, standard shape of a conventional Democrat or a Republican. Many minority and immigrant groups also find him difficult to easily classify. Immigrants, especially newly arrived immigrants, have mixed feelings about further immigration and and how it affects their own insecurities. Latinos are incensed at Trump’s comments about immigration, but quite like his hard line about Islamic terrorists. East European immigrants are also attracted to this hard line about both Mexican illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. Asian immigrants can be split generally into two groups; Muslims mainly from Islamic countries and non-Muslims. Many of the non-Muslims feel threatened by the Islamisation of their communities and the insidious, creeping encroachment of – and perceived silent surrender to – Sharia Law. A large portion of the Asian communities are not comfortable with the influx of illegal, Latino immigrants. The black community, in my perception, detests the influx of Asians and their perceived economic successes. Asians themselves consider themselves superior, especially academically, intellectually and in business, to the black community. Even the black Muslims feel under threat from all the “new Muslims”, since they come quite low down in the hierarchy of “true Muslims”. Normally the bulk of the immigrant population in the US would be Democratic supporters, but Trump is tapping into some of their greatest fears of other immigrant groups. There is also – I think – a large section of the white, middle-class Democratic support which is inhibited from expressing its fears of immigration and Islamisation and are suddenly quite glad that these fears are being expressed by somebody – even if it is only a Trump.

Of course any support for Trump from the usually Democratic voters is a moot point unless he manages to get on the ballot next November. It occurs to me that many of them would be more likely to vote for Trump if he was labelled an Independent rather than a Republican. So one possible scenario is that Trump will be so far ahead in the Republican race that the GOP establishment decide to have a brokered convention and choose someone other than Trump. That would cause Trump to jump the Republican ship and go Independent – but as late as possible, and in as damaging a way as possible for the Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that an Independent Trump would lose too many votes to even a weak Republican, and that it would be a complete walk-over for Hillary Clinton.

Conventional wisdom, though, is not proving to be very reliable or very prophetic.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Denmark to pillage refugees’ personal belongings

December 11, 2015

Why didn’t Donald Trump think of this?

Denmark has just passed a new law to deal with refugees who seek asylum. All their personal belongings can now be legally confiscated to help defer their living costs during the asylum process. In a splurge of hospitality and generosity these refugees will be allowed to retain their cell phones, their watches, their wedding rings and currency worth about $440. Any other jewellry or valuable belongings can be legally looted and liquidated. Not unlike pillage of old. But this time by the State.

It has been a thousand years since the Vikings considered “success” at rape and pillage as a sign of status.

Swedish Radio:

A cell phone, a watch, a wedding ring and cash up to a value of 3,000 Danish crowns. That is what asylum seekers may retain with the Danish law to confiscate valuables from asylum seekers takes concrete shape. 

In Denmark, police will confiscate valuables from asylum seekers to finance the asylum process. It is part of the migration deal between the political parties that was completed on Monday. And now comes the first information on how much a refugee may retain and what authorities get to impound.

The Danish newspaper Politiken has studied the documents showing how the Immigration and Integration Ministry will interpret the wording of the political settlement. In addition to a cell phone, watch and cash up to 3000 DKK asylum seekers may also keep valuables that are considered personal, such as a wedding ring. Any remaining valuables will be confiscated and sold and the proceeds taken as payment for the asylum seekers living costs during the asylum process.

I suppose there is some logic in getting asylum seekers who come in carrying suitcases full of diamonds to help pay their living costs. But to create a liability for asylum seekers to pay costs over some reasonable time is one thing — but State looting and pillage is something else.

What Donald Trump now needs to do is to use the Danish example. He could now suggest that all would-be Muslim immigrants be housed in special camps while they are thoroughly screened, and their belongings confiscated to pay for the security checks and their living costs while their fate is being decided.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Denmark, Politics | Comments Off on Denmark to pillage refugees’ personal belongings

Trump is changing the field of play as he prepares for an arbitration

December 9, 2015

There isn’t a single paper or TV station, or Democrat that isn’t enraged by Trump’s call to ban all Muslim entries to the US temporarily. The column miles that are being written by the pundits vie to each present a more vicious and indignant rejection of his views than the previous one. Trump is being called all kinds of things. In fact, some of the hyperbole applied and the invective is worse than anything Trump ever came up with. He is labelled a clown, a fool, a racist, an opportunist and even a fascist. Most often he is labelled a demagogue, compared to Mussolini, and even, but a little more circumspectly, to Hitler (for fear of Godwin’s Law). He has got more publicity and column-miles and TV exposure than all the other candidates, Democrat and Republican, together. The consensus wisdom is that if he wins the Republican nomination – which is said to be highly unlikely – then it will be a walk-over for Clinton.

But I wonder.

Let me use an analogy from the business world, not least because that’s where Trump comes from. Let’s suppose that the American election is an arbitration process between two parties in conflict. First, each party prepares its initial submission. This is a litany of the most extreme positions and a collection of the most outrageous claims against the other party that can possibly be imagined. Such a submission, from my experience, fails the test if our own lawyers do not themselves cringe from the extravagance of the claims. The initial submission often contains embarrassingly tenuous and far-fetched claims, ignores any semblance of rational thought and just baldly asserts the claims. In my analogy then the nomination process is this preparation of the initial submission. Trump and Clinton are the lawyers hoping to be engaged and are preparing the submissions they propose to begin with. The Presidential election itself is then the arbitration hearing with the American electorate as the arbitrator. In such hearings the arbitrators are primarily interested in seeing which claims fall away and can be put aside. That depends on how well each party presents each outrageous claim and how effective the other party is in nullifying it. Ultimately the arbitrators rule, based – not on abstract notions of natural justice – but on a practical, prevailing “centre of gravity” position, from among the surviving claims. Arbitrators are concerned with the best justifiable result rather than with justness or fairness. Invariably, an arbitration result favours that party which can protect its own outlandish claims while destroying the opponents claims.

Arbitration Result

Arbitration Result where Clinton is Party 1 and Trump is Party 2

We always used specialist lawyers, rather than our usual contract lawyers, for arbitration cases during my working career. They were the experts at stretching claims. Initially, I used to cringe at some of the shameless and barely justifiable claims that were introduced into our initial submissions. But it soon became clear to me that the critical step was in establishing the shape and the width of the field of play, by extending its area way beyond our desired final result. An arbitration was then a negotiation of claims – under special rules – on the playing field so established. A party comes closest to its desired result by expanding the area of its claims such that the desired result becomes – for the arbitrator – the centre of gravity position of the claims surviving the negotiation.

I see something similar in the way Trump is proceeding. I begin to wonder if Trump does not actually see himself as being in an arbitration in front of the US electorate as the final arbitrator. His over-the-top comments about illegal immigration and “the wall” and now his outrageous proposals about temporarily keeping all Muslims out, are actually defining the boundaries of his playing field. His outlandish claims have to be shot down but the new field of play is established. But just shooting down the claims is not enough. Unless the Democrats are equally outrageous, the field of play remains the one he has defined.

I think the media and the Democrats are missing that the playing field itself is being skewed by Trump’s apparently insane assertions. Every crazy position he has taken is now on the table and part of the discourse. He has been declared dead so many times by the pundits that I no longer take any obituary at face value. And the Democrats will have to shift the playing field if Trump does win the GOP nomination. Merely attacking Trump on his own playing field could prove to be quite ineffective.

Trump is playing a different game to his Republican rivals and to the Democrats. He is not preparing for an election. He is preparing his case for arbitration next November. On his field of play. My expectation is that at some time Trump will go Independent and change the game again.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump is changing the field of play as he prepares for an arbitration

Jayalalitha and Tamil Nadu government more concerned about image than flood relief

December 8, 2015

Jayalalitha and her government in Tamil Nadu are being heavily criticised for their absence and their abdication of their responsibilities during the flood relief operations. Instead, the ruling party, the AIADMK, has spent more efforts in producing posters and billboards promoting the Chief Minister. Such as this one where Jayalalitha (Amma) rescues a drowning baby single-handed. The billboard reads “Amma single-handedly saved Chennai city and stranded people from the disaster”and is based on a poster from the movie Bahubali.

Jayalalitha saving baby photo AFP

Jayalalitha saving baby photo AFP

The local media in Tamil Nadu dare not criticise Jayalalitha or her government under the threat of facing expensive and rigged  “criminal defamation” suits. Even reporting opposition politicians who criticise the government is considered “defamation”.  To get any balanced picture of what is happening within the state it is necessary to consult the Indian media outside Tamil Nadu and even media reporting Indian news in other parts of Asia.

Hindustan Times: There are at least 200 criminal defamation cases pending against journalists and news outlets at the principal sessions court in Chennai for carrying stories deemed critical against the quality of governance in the state. All of these have been filed by the state government. ……. 

On November 30, the Supreme Court questioned the state government’s penchant for filing defamation cases. A bench of justices Dipak Mishra and Prafulla Pant advised the government to stop taking criticism of governance as personal insult.

The Hindu quoted Justice Mishra as saying: “You have to understand that these comments are criticism of a concept of governance. There is nothing against an individual … Why this criminal defamation then.”

Defamation is not the only deterrent to free and fair reportage in the state, according to the ombudsman of a local news channel which is seen as anti-establishment. “The government controls all the cable networks in the state through the TN Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd which is headed by the AIADMK’s K Udumalai Radhakrishnan. The channels critical of the government are simply taken off air.”

The TN government shambles in the flood relief has had to be made up for by volunteer and national institutions (Army, Navy). In fact the AIADMK party workers have actually hindered relief by their insistence on first putting stickers of Amma on relief packets before distribution.

To find more balanced view we have to go, for example, as far afield as to the South China Morning Post or to Arab News. But I was glad to see this cartoon in The Hindu today (and currently I consider The Hindu, published in Chennai, as the paper of record for India and far more reliable than the ToI). I expect that Jayalalitha’s fawning and apparently inept government will probably sue them for “criminal defamation” and try to harass them in other ways. (I take the liberty to reproduce the cartoon here because I would not be surprised to find that the TN government twists arms to get it taken down.)

The Hindu cartoon chennai floods 20151208

The Hindu cartoon chennai floods 20151208

SCMP: One of India’s most powerful politicians, a former movie star called “Amma” or “Mother” by her followers, is being heckled and abused for going missing in action after floods swept the capital of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which she rules.

It’s a salutary lesson for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who at first drew nods of approval when he rushed to Chennai last week, promising to stand by its people in their hour of need.

Yet, within hours, Modi became the object of mockery on social media after his press office released a doctored photo of him inspecting flood damage. For both him and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram, the image of strong leadership created by their publicity machines was undermined.

Until the floods that ravaged the city of 6 million, the lofty remoteness of Jayalalithaa added to the aura around a leader with an almost hysterical following. Devotees of the 1960s screen idol have immolated themselves in her defence in the past.

Now, she faces a backlash from residents fed up with the sight of her image on billboards, aid packets and her own Jaya Plus TV channel. She has been since in public only twice during the crisis – once with Modi.

Arab News: But longtime Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram faced criticism for attempting to politicize the floods after a billboard appeared of her holding up a baby to save it from the floodwaters. The billboard, apparently erected by a party legislator in Chennai and depicting a scene from a local blockbuster movie, sparked a storm on social media.

Character, they say, shows up in times of stress. It cannot be claimed that the TN government has no character, only that it is fundamentally flawed and quite ugly.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, India, Politics | Comments Off on Jayalalitha and Tamil Nadu government more concerned about image than flood relief

Obama has become the best friend the gun manufacturers have

December 7, 2015

Beyond my previous post, this needs no comment.

Market Watch:

Shares of the two publicly traded gun makers rallied on Monday, a day after President Barack Obama gave a prime-time address calling for a modest reduction in the availability of firearms. Both Smith & Wesson SWHC, +7.64%  and Sturm Ruger & Co. RGR, +5.78%  rose over 7% on Monday. 

Smith & Wesson has climbed 116% this year and Sturm Ruger has jumped 69%.

Gun stocks spike after Obama’s speech (graphic – MarketWatch)

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Obama has become the best friend the gun manufacturers have

Obama’s empty speech should increase gun sales

December 7, 2015

Obama’s much heralded Oval office speech said nothing very much. He made it standing up rather than sitting down to show that he was a man of action. But then he didn’t mention any actions of any significance. Perhaps somebody should tell him that symbols of action are not the actions themselves. He was more concerned that innocent Muslims not be discriminated against, rather than that virulent, Muslim terrorists already embedded in the US be rooted out. If I lived in the US I would have to conclude that

  1. the State could not – and would not – protect me by preventing future San Bernardino events, and therefore
  2. I should acquire a weapon, some training on how to use it and take to carrying it.

I watched some extracts from his speech and have just read the transcript. What struck me was all that he didn’t say. He didn’t say

  1. that he would get Turkey to stop trading in ISIS oil,
  2. that he would get Saudi Arabia to stop sending funds to radical Sunni groups in Syria and Iraq,
  3. that he would get Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to stop exporting funds and sick ideologies to mosques and madrassas abroad,
  4. that he would, and how he would, find the ISIS sleepers and the radicalised Muslim youth already embedded within the US,
  5. that he called on the Muslim communities in the US to themselves cease protecting such people hiding within their communities,
  6. that he would get the social media giants to use their undoubtedly, sufficiently capable algorithms to apply some ethical standards to radicalisation rooms,
  7. that he would work with Russia and Iran – even if Saudi Arabia or Israel opposed it – to leave ISIS with no territory in Iraq or in Syria,
  8. that he would prevent ISIS from developing an alternative base of operations in Libya.

But I heard none of that.

Instead he presented his empty,  already bankrupt, do-nothing, four-part “strategy”

  1. “First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary”. (but not apparently in the US)
  2. “Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens”. (and we have seen how $500 million managed to train a handful of fighters and provided ISIS with the weapons of a whole brigade).
  3. “Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations”. (but not if Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Israel disapprove).
  4. “Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war”. (we are prepared to have a ceasefire with ISIS but we will not talk to Assad).

In other words, “we will continue not doing what we are already not doing and which we are so good at not doing”. And then he waffled on about gun control. Does he really think that an ISIS, terrorist kill-squad would have any difficulty in obtaining clandestine guns and explosives?

There was one paragraph he got right.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But then he even ruined that by shifting direction and emphasised the “avoiding of discrimination”

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination.

He ends with the ridiculous statement “Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear”. 

The country was I think looking for Obama to show them that they could enjoy freedom without fear. Instead, he just provided all Americans with the freedom to fear. And with a perfect reason to go out and buy a gun.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Obama’s empty speech should increase gun sales

If the threat of ISIS death-squads is real, then it is the wrong time for gun controls in the US

December 5, 2015

There is a renewed rhetoric in favour of gun controls after the California rampage, just as there is after every mass killing, but which never leads to any action. I am always amazed that Barack Obama, who is so fond of executive actions in other areas where he is opposed by Congress, has been so ineffective in implementing any actions to reduce the access to what are essentially military weapons. But this rhetoric may be misplaced if the killings were by what now looks to have been a husband-wife death squad, operating fairly autonomously(?),  but for ISIS, and possibly led by the wife, who was indoctrinated mainly in Saudi Arabia and Multan. A lot of ifs and buts in that sentence, of course.

It has been the contention of the gun lobby that the citizenry having guns is a deterrent to such massacres and they have pointed to statistics showing that more of these mass killings take place in gun-free zones. The argument seems disingenuous in that not having availability to guns would probably avoid many of these incidents from taking place. There is some truth, I think, in the argument that once an incident has started, the magnitude of the incident can be limited by some of the intended victims being armed and capable of resisting.

Gun controls then ought to reduce the number of incidents but once an incident is underway, then the scope of the incident can be limited by the intended victims having the possibility to resist.

But if this incident turns out to be a terrorist action by a kill-squad, then it would not have been avoided by having gun controls in place. And if some of the victims had been armed maybe the death toll would not have been as high as it was. If this death-squad was just one of many such and the next incident could come at any time, 2 things follow:

  1. The death squads will most likely attack in gun-free zones, and
  2. An armed person is safer in the event of a random attack than an unarmed one.

I think the US now faces this dilemma. Introducing gun controls should reduce the number of the conventional, single perpetrator, mass-killing events which have become almost a “usual” and – on average – daily occurrence. However, gun controls cannot prevent terrorist squads from arming themselves and gun-free zones will be more attractive for a terrorist attack. And if an incident cannot be prevented, then it is safer for people to be armed.

Without any terrorist threat I think the value of restrictions on access to, at least, automatic weapons seems obvious and there would be no serious argument against gun controls. However, if a threat of terrorist death-squads suddenly popping up for a rampage is real, then it would be quite the wrong time to prevent potential victims from being armed.

It is a Bermuda triangle for policy; between a rock, a hard place and the devil.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

A change of ISIS tactics? Now couples as terrorist kill teams?

December 4, 2015

It is just being reported that Tashfeen Malik, the female half of the San Bernardino, death squad had sworn allegiance to ISIS (Da’esh), but that it was not clear if the couple were self-radicalised and acting by themselves or were acting on the orders of someone else.

That may be a question that will never get answered. But it raises the spectre of the pair having been “placed” there with some general instructions to raise mayhem either on being triggered or, even at their own initiative. We have become used to the use of female suicide bombers, some of them also mothers. We have seen young children being desensitised to deadly violence by playing assassin games but with real live prisoners. The use of young children as human shields or – as perhaps in California – as camouflage is not something that would cause any moral distress to Da’esh. It could even be that the pair were advised to have a young child just for that purpose.

The use of a husband-wife team, put in place as a “sleeping” killer squad, would represent a new tactic. Single, young men are too obvious and attract attention. A “family man” and a “young mother” carry a protective shroud of innocence. And if they are pushing a stroller or carrying a baby in a child-seat in a car, they would be far down the list of suspicious looking people. That the mother in this case had few qualms of abandoning her 6-month old baby may be shocking, but I am no longer surprised at any behaviour of jihadists who have worked themselves up into a religious fervour.

For the US, I think it now raises the possibility that there may be many such husband-wife kill teams in place all over the country. They may not even have travelled to Saudi Arabia (though a visit to Saudi and a return with a fiancee is likely to raise automatic red flags), as the NYT reports:

NYT: …. The F.B.I. refocused its efforts on these individuals earlier this year in response to a shift in tactics by the Islamic State, law enforcement officials said. Instead of trying to persuade Americans to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, the group began calling on its sympathizers and followers in the United States to commit acts of violence at home.

“We’ve especially focused on the portfolio of people we’re investigating for the potential of being homegrown violent extremists,” the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said last month at a news conference. “That is, people consuming the propaganda. So those investigations are designed to figure out where are they on the spectrum from consuming to acting.” …….

…… In the days leading up to the shooting, the couple in San Bernardino took several steps to delete their electronic information, in an apparent effort to cover their tracks, officials said. Those efforts have led authorities to believe that the shooting was premeditated.

Islamic terrorists have used the oath of allegiance, called a bayat, to declare their loyalty to specific groups and leaders. To become a member of Al Qaeda, for instance, terrorists historically swore their devotion to Osama bin Laden.

Ms. Malik, 27, was born in Pakistan and traveled on a Pakistani passport, but had recently lived in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Farook, 28, was a United States citizen, born in Illinois, whose parents were from Pakistan. ….. 

Just visiting a jihadist site is now likely to raise a flag and be tagged. But a sliver lining here is that ISIS is rapidly running out of tactics to use. Fourteen innocent people were massacred here but I see little benefit actually accruing to ISIS.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion | Comments Off on A change of ISIS tactics? Now couples as terrorist kill teams?

Sweden’s welfare society is often heartless to the elderly

December 4, 2015

Sweden has a well developed welfare state and longevity is high. But, I sometimes feel, those of the elderly who do not have private means, can expect to be hidden away from the general view and encouraged to fade away.

Age discrimination is endemic. The country has a youth fixation and this leads to a deep-seated and widespread discrimination against the elderly. Generally, once a person is labelled a “pensioner” at 65, the journey to being a non-person begins. Only those with private means have some chance of escaping the solitude and invisibility forced upon them. The elderly are grossly under-represented in parliament. The population over 65 is about 26% but the number of members of parliament over 65 is just 2.6%.  Instead of utilising the wealth of experience and knowledge available, parliament has more than its fair share of incompetent youngsters. (This is in spite of the critical faculties of the brain not being fully developed till about the age of 25). It is more expensive for employers to hire seniors even under this red/green government, for who “self-employment” is a dirty word. The prejudices against the elderly show up even in the health and welfare services. The services for the elderly have become dominated by the cost to fulfil the law and are not really concerned with any other measure of quality. Elderly people are often subject to a form of unconscious triage and receive inferior health care. The laws are ostensibly very friendly to the elderly but are administered often by very indifferent (if not unfriendly) people. It is generally assumed that the law – which should be a minimum requirement- is actually a sufficient assurance of quality. The “friendliness” of the laws and the assumed quality they “assure” is used to assuage the conscience of society as the elderly are hidden away in homes and encouraged to fade away with as little fuss as possible.

Every so often a case gets attention which demonstrates the impersonal and “heartless” nature of the welfare services for the old who do not have private means.

Expressen: Siv and Nils Sundén, 72 and 86, have lived together for over 40 years. But now Stockholm City is forcing them to stay in different homes for the elderly – even though it is against the law. “We do not have many years left so it is important to be together”, says Nils Sundén. 

A couple who have long lived together have the right to continue living together, even if they have different care needs. This law, of the right to cohabitation, has been in force since November 1, 2012. However few make use of it. …..

“We’ve been married for over thirty years. When we first moved from our villa, we came to a retirement home in Blackeberg. I lived in a group home and Siv got an apartment in the same house”, says Nils Sundén.
But the nursing home had shortcomings and the married couple were forced to move to two different homes for the elderly in early 2013. In May, the couple asked about getting to stay together, but this was rejected by the Assistance Unit within the City of Stockholm, which decided  on the matter. Siv and Nils Sundén were denied the opportunity to live together and the official wrote, 
“Joint living is not deemed to be appropriate in the nursing and care homes with dementia orientation unless both spouses have need of such accommodation.” …..

Dick Lindberg is an investigator at the National Social Services Board. He has been commissioned by the government to guide municipalities on how to apply the new law on cohabitation. He has followed the work of the law and written inquiries on the issue since 2012. He was very surprised that Nils and Siv Sundén had been refused the chance to stay together. “It sounds a bit strange. The whole point (of the law) is that it applies to spouses with different care needs. Even if one of the pair is completely healthy they should be able to stay together anyway. Moreover, there is no exception for people with dementia”, said Dick Lindberg.

The couple were first denied the chance to stay together because he lived in a dementia home. Which he does not. Then they were denied on the grounds of the health needs of one of them, which is not valid as a reason for denying that the couple live together. …..

Tags:, ,
Posted in Aging, Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »