Mr. Burrard's Blog

A real threat to Israel

2008-01-02T16:28:00.000Z

I recently returned from my first visit to Israel in about two years. I could not help but be impressed by the scale and the extent of the public and private building work that is going on. My visit was limited to the centre of the country, from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, but I am told that what I saw was typical of other areas.

In the last ten years there has been a huge expansion in the country's transport infrastructure, with new suburban railway lines around Tel-Aviv, many hundreds of kilometres of new roads, with vast highway interchanges, and a major new passenger terminal at the principal national airport. New buildings have sprung up in the industrial zones around Tel-Aviv and its dormitory towns, and many of them bear the names and logos of international corporations, including household names in computing and high-tech. In city centres, high quality housing and luxury tower blocks are also prominent, alongside modern office buildings. There can be no doubt that this country is enjoying a wave of economic prosperity, and that it is part of the 21st century's global knowledge economy. As well as a few inevitable millionaires, many ordinary families are benefitting from the generally good salaries and benefits that knowledge workers command. This prosperity fuels more widespread economic growth, as consumer spending rises across the board. It all looks and sounds pretty good.

Take a step back from this rosy picture and a slightly different situation emerges. Critics of Israel frequently highlight the fact that the Palestinian residents of the occupied territories are often badly treated by discriminatory practices. For example, this recent article in the Independent (2nd January 2008) looks at a particular road near Jerusalem which Israelis can travel on but from which Palestinians are banned.

But it is not just the Palestinians who are excluded from Israel's burgeoning prosperity. Non-Jewish Israeli citizens, who make up about 20% of the country's population, can be found working on building sites but miraculously disappear from view when the building work is finished. They do not shop in the malls, work in the offices or live in the apartments and houses they build. Arab Israelis do not enjoy the same potential for social mobility that is available to working class Jews in Israel, or to working class people in other countries.

Excluding the Arab minority from the benefits of development and prosperity means that existing social and ethnic divisions become more and more entrenched, and this is a real threat to Israel's stability, and its security. As Israel approaches the 60th anniversary of its independence, it needs to behave in a more mature way towards its minority population in order to overcome this threat. Israeli Arabs must be treated as equal citizens in all respects, and no longer excluded from the mainstream of political and economic life "for security reasons". Recognising the equality of Israeli Arabs will make it easier to recognise the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinians as well, and will make it easier to achieve a lasting and peaceful settlement.

It's still not been abolished

2007-11-27T19:39:00.000Z

Seven months later, I receive another email, this time not in English, with the same mistaken message about Holocaust education in the UK.

It's still not true. Snopes agrees with me.

PS If anyone is wondering why I haven't posted in the last few months. theres nothing to worry about. I've been a bit busy, that's all

Holocaust education has NOT been abolished in the UK

2007-04-21T13:52:00.000+01:00

An email I received earlier this week, said:

"Recently this week, all of the United Kingdom - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Moslem population which claims it never occurred."

This email was sent with the title "In Memoriam" and was sent to coincide with the annual Holocaust Memorial Day observed in Israel and in Jewish communities throughout the world. It was sent with a plea to "forward this to all your friends". Clearly someone thought that the abolition of holocaust education was a topic so important that it justified viral email propogation.

The claim that the UK has abolished holocaust education is utter rubbish. The UK has done no such thing.

This week (16/04/2007) The Historical Association published a report on the challenges and opportunities of "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History". The report acknowledged that some teachers found teaching certain topics difficult in certain situations, and that in some schools some topics were being avoided. But far from suggesting that the teaching of the Holocaust, or the history of Slavery, or the history of the Crusades, should be removed from the curriculum, the report recommended a proactive course of action to make it easier for teachers to teach these subjects: "The Government and key agencies, including QCA and Ofsted, [should] reinforce the importance of the teaching of emotive and controversial history".

Several other claims in the email are equally unjustified. To say that "the Moslem population" denies the holocaust is a gross generalisation, and it is dangerous because it reinforces anti-Islamic prejudice. People who claim to revere the memories of the victims of the Nazi atrocities of the Second World War should be the last ones to make grossly offensive and overtly racist remarks like this directed against any population group.

And of course, to say that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom is not true either, which should have given some readers a clue.

"Megan's Law" could set a precedent

2007-04-10T14:48:00.000+01:00

The UK government has announced a trial of a version of "Megan's Law" in certain areas, and a children's charity has expressed fears that the experiment may put children at increased risk rather than protect them.

Sexual abuse of children by predatory adults is a particularly horrible crime, and "Megan's Law" is supposed to help families protect their children by letting them know if convicted sex offenders who have targeted children in the past are living in their neighbourhoods.

There's a lot wrong with this law on many levels. Someone who committed a terrible crime, was convicted, served a sentence - and hopefully received treatment and counselling for the psychological illness that caused them to offend - and has now been released. The police and probation services know who these people are and where they are living, and there are supposed to be checks in place to monitor their behaviour. And it's certainly within the realms of possibility that the offender has now recognised their own problem and doesn't want to offend again. He or she is endeavouring to rehabilitate themself. "Megan's law" doesn't allow them to do this, as it completely negates the idea of the possibility of rehabilitation. The attitude seems to be once an offender, always an offender. The next logical step would be to say that these people should never be released from jail, and I am sure some tabloid newspaper columnists would say just that.

The next problem is what the public is supposed to do with the information that a sex offender is living in their neighbourhood. Are they going to move house? Unlikely. Are they going to watch look after their children more carefully? Possibly. Are they going to start vigilante action against people they suspect? Quite probably, judging by past experience. And then everyone with "pead-" or something similar in their job title needs to be on their guard.

But the biggest problem is that "Megan's Law" sets a great precedent for future laws. There is no logical reason to apply the idea of "the public has a right to know" just to sex offenders. What about people convicted of drug peddling, or of dangerous driving? Many more children are in danger from these sorts of criminals than from sex offenders. And why stop there? The public surely wants to know if any convicted burglars live in their area, so they can protect their property with better locks and alarms. Or find someone convenient to beat up when their homes get robbed.

I hate to say I told you so

2006-07-16T16:59:00.000+01:00

When I read about the arrest of Lord Levy earlier this week, I was reminded of a blog I'd read not long ago, which said that there was no problem with a link between honours and party fund-raising, but there was a serious problem with the link between honours and an unelected seat in the national legislature.

Actually, I didn't read that blog post. I wrote it.

Honours and titles

2006-03-13T11:36:00.000Z

Last week it was announced that the head of the National Health Service, Sir Nigel Crisp, was retiring early. Some people claimed he was being made the fall guy for recent NHS failures. His reward? A seat in the House of Lords.

Today, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson commented in his blog on the evidence that shows that every donor who has given the Labour Party a million pounds has received a knighthood or a peerage.

I have got no problem with distinguished people from the public service, the arts, sport, or industry, being granted honours in recognition of their various efforts. I don't even have a problem with the ruling party doling out honours to major donors.

What does bother me however, is that the most popular honour being given out isn't just a fancy medal or a posh prefix to your name, it's a piece of unelected and unaccountable political power, in the form of a seat in the House of Lords. This government removed most hereditary peers (most of whom were there because one of their ancestors had done some service to the crown in previous generations) from the Lords but has stopped short of any real reform. They seem to regard rewards for historical favours are a bad thing but consider that rewards for contemporary favours are fine and dandy. As a result, we still have a second chamber that is appointed and not elected, and therefore unaccountable, except to the person who made the appointment.

By all means give distinguished people, or even wealthy party supporters, a gong or a title, and send them off to the Palace to shake hands with the Queen. But for goodness' sake, isn't it time we stopped giving them a seat in Parliament?

The boundaries of free speech?

2006-02-26T21:59:00.000Z

I have been pondering the question of whether there should be limits or boundaries to free speech. The thing that bothers me about an absolute right to free speech is the possibility of using free speech to abuse the rights and freedoms of a minority. Free speech can only exist in a free and open society, and I believe a free and open society has to be a society that believes in pluralism.

A pluralistic society agrees that everyone has the right to be different, and to express different opinions, and to do so without fear of reprisal against their person, their life or their liberty. Speech which tends to foment prejudice or incite violence against others is not free speech, but hate speech.

In a pluralistic society, people can insult and offend me as much as they like, and I can insult and offend them in return, or I can ignore them. But individuals and groups that tend to a non-pluralistic outlook on the world believe that they and they alone know the absolute truth, and that they and they alone have the right to speak, and to control everyone else. Wherever they come from on the political or religious spectrum, it's totalitarianism, and that is (or should be) alien to what is known as the "western democratic" model. Some of these groups claim that "free speech" gives them the right to promulgate their "hate speech". I would disagree.

Ken comes a cropper at last

2006-02-25T12:26:00.000Z

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from office for four weeks by an independent standards watchdog tribunal, following his refusal to apologise for offensive remarks to a journalist. This is widely reported with a transcript of the exchange between Livingstone and the journalist on The Independent website, and an audio clip on the Daily Mail website.

This has sparked a major debate about a range of issues: why is there a panel with the powers to suspend elected officials?; is Ken a victim of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail group of newspapers?; shouldn't journalists accept that getting insulted is part of the game?; and above all, were the remarks evidence of Ken's underlying anti-semitism, or was the Jewish community's response a case of over-sensitivity?

If you listen to the clip or read the transcript you'll note that Livingstone compares any journalist working for the Mail group to a Nazi concentration camp guard because both journalists and camp guards only do what they are paid to do. This is an incredibly weak argument based on a totally inappropriate analogy.

It would indeed be pathetic for a concentration camp guard to claim innocence because they were "only doing their job", when the content of their job was totally immoral and indefensible. For a journalist to attempt to ask a politician a few questions as he is leaving a high-profile social event is neither immoral nor indefensible. It is perfectly reasonable. It would also have been perfectly reasonable for Livingstone to reply "No comment".

Furthermore, Oliver Finegold did not make the claim that he was "only doing his job". Ken Livingstone inferred that all by himself, based on his existing opinion of the newspaper the journalist represented. Even if Ken's opinion of the newspaper was justifiable, the Nazi slurs were not. For Ken to continue with his insulting remarks after Finegold told him he was Jewish and was offended by them was an unacceptable way for the Mayor of London to behave, even when he was off-duty. (By the way, Ken has conveniently forgotten that he himself worked as the restaurant critic for the "scumbag" newspaper with a "history of supporting fascism" for several years.)

There are plenty of things that "Red Ken" has done over his long career for which I have some grudging admiration. Back in the 80's he championed gay and gender issues long before it became fashionable to do so, he consistently campaigned against apartheid in South Africa, and above all he defiantly stood up to Mrs. Thatcher.

But on this issue, he has behaved like a moron and deserves his punishment. He had no justification for insulting the reporter, and by not apologising he has behaved with unbelievable arrogance. In fact, his refusal to apologise, even more than the insenstive remarks, has definitely "brought his office into disrepute".

Is the Hamas victory actually good news?

2006-01-29T23:55:00.000Z

In his comments on the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, Gideon Levy, writing in Ha'aretz, has gone much further than me. Where I offered hope that Hamas may possibly do some good, he suggests that only Hamas can take meaningful steps towards a peace settlement.

Levy has for many years been an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation. His firmly logical and totally unorthdox positions have proved him to be one of Israel's bravest journalists, and this article may yet show him to be one of the sanest. Across a broad swathe of the Israeli political scene there continue to be calls for assassinations of Hamas leaders, even though judging by last Wednesday's election results, that policy is exactly the one that has brought Hamas increasing support.

The Taliban of Ramallah?

2006-01-29T10:38:00.000Z

In the last few days innumerable Western pundits have been trying to guess what the victory by Hamas in the Palestinian elections will mean. The answer is that no-one knows, or indeed can know, least of all the leaders of Hamas themselves.

Some people in Hamas are definitely terrorists, and some are clearly Islamic fundamentalists who were willing to go along with the "western paganism" of elections only as a route to establishing a religious Islamic state. For example, Sheikh Mohammed Abu Tir, no. 2 on the Hamas list, has been quoted as saying that Hamas will make Islamic Sharia law a source of legislation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In contrast, there are many Palestinians, including many who voted for Hamas, who understand that the word "democracy" means far more than just holding elections. It implies a pluralistic society, with a division of powers, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of all citizens, including members of minority groups. Most importantly, political parties in democratic societies agree to accept "the will of the people": when defeated they relinquish office.

Democracy usually means a secular state, one in which citizens may follow any religious belief of their own choosing while the state follows none, or follows one blandly and innocuously, without imposing it on unwilling citizens.

My hope is that the realities of office may persuade Hamas to become more democratic in the widest sense of the term. I believe that the majority of people in the West Bank and Gaza would want this to happen, as a change of attitude by Hamas is a necessary precursor to any settlement with Israel, which so may Palestinians now appear to want. My fear is that Hamas may quickly become Palestine's own Taliban, and the Palestinian people surely deserve something better than that.

I was "tagged"

2006-01-29T10:26:00.000Z

I was recently "tagged" by VoodooMike, and therefore I have to confess to five weird things about myself.

Here is my confession:
1. I hate olives
2. I am addicted to BBC Radio 4. I listen to it whenever I can even though I detest some of the presenters and frequently shout at the radio in disgust. I don't like working or studying in silence, and have radios all over the house to keep me company.)
3. I am an active member of my synagogue even though I don't believe in God.
4. If procrastination was an Olympic sport, I would be something like a five-times gold medallist.
5. I often have difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep.

When I read this list back to myself, I realised that the beloved Mrs. Burrard would hold the opposite position to me on all five points. (She loves olives, hates Radio 4, and so on.) I wonder if this is the secret to our enduring marriage, or simply the my most convenient yardstick for my weirdness, as contrasted with my wife's normality?

Now I am supposed to go and "tag" five other bloggers, but Mike has already tagged most of the bloggers I know....

Bronwyn is right

2006-01-23T16:28:00.000Z

Bronwyn is right of course, and an update to this blog is long overdue.
She is always right, is our Bronwyn!

:-)

Identity crisis?

2005-10-15T12:12:00.000+01:00

When I was a child my father's father lived in our house with us, so when the phone rang and someone asked to speak to "Mr. Burrard" I had to ask "which Mr. Burrard, please?". Today, long after both my grandfather and my father have gone to a better place, I have to stop myself from asking the same question when people phone me and ask for "Mr Burrard" - I can't imagine that it could possibly be me that they want to talk to!

I've been a bad blogger

2005-10-08T23:15:00.000+01:00

I stop posting for a couple of days, and suddenly, it's nearly a month. What a bad blogger I am. Sorry everyone. Sorry Bronwyn, and thanks for your comments.

I must be dreaming

2005-09-15T22:48:00.000+01:00

Arik Sharon has just made a speech to the UN calling for Palestinian statehood. Arik Sharon? Incredible! Arik Sharon has just called for tolerance and reconciliation in the Middle East. Arik Sharon? Astonishing! The BBC News web site has given a favourable report of Arik Sharon's speech. Now that really is unbelievable!

Yep, Arik Sharon. After years of being the darling of the Israeli Right, this macho general-turned-politician is using words and phrases that some on the Israeli left hesitate to use. For the first time in a great many years, world leaders and the world media are actually expressing their satisfaction with Israeli actions, and their expectations of decisive actions by the Palestinians to restore order within Gaza, and to respond favourably to Sharon's speech.

This state of affairs is extremely rare, and we all know it isn't going to last. Not once people realise that Sharon's ulterior motive for relinquishing Gaza is an attempt to keep much of the West Bank. So let's just enjoy it while it lasts.

How we see people - a word about the aftermath of the hurricane

2005-09-13T09:25:00.000+01:00

The disaster of Hurricane Katrina, compounded by the disastrous way in which local, state, and federal agencies failed to respond to the crisis, has devastated many lives. It has also affected those of us who are far away from the tragedy, because it has changed the way we see other people. If the first image we have of a person is seeing them shocked, injured, and bedraggled, waiting, who knows for what, in a makeshift rescue centre with thousands of others, then we are liable to completely unjustified conclusions about their lives.

This is what a friend of mine in the US whose family have been badly affected by Hurricane Katrina wrote:

It's funny, I've never thought of my family 
as anything other than good people 
who are rich in love and have huge 
giving hearts. I learned the true meaning 
of family from them. Now, the world sees
them as poor, black folks. 
That makes me so sad.

38 wasted years

2005-09-13T09:03:00.000+01:00

Israel's military occupation of the Gaza strip has finally ended. For 38 years, Israel devoted valuable resources to administering a territory for whose residents it failed to take responsibility. All of its efforts were a total waste of time, money, and lives. Now even Shimon Peres admits that that occupying Gaza was a historic error. How tragic it is for both Palestinians and Israelis that it has taken 38 years to reach this conclusion.
People who have the best interests of Israel at heart, as well as those who want to see progress and prosperity for the Palestinians, should now breathe a sigh of relief.

Homeopathy is Bunk -official

2005-08-26T12:08:00.000+01:00

I am sure this is going to upset a lot of people, but a study published in The Lancet today claims that there are no benefits from homeopathic medicines other than placebo effects.

I have always been a bit sceptical. On the one hand, a complementary practitioner provided very valuable dietary and other advice which helped alleviate my son's repeated bronchial problems when he was small, after conventional treatments had failed. But he described himself as a "naturopath" rather than a "homeopath". On the other hand, the idea of homeopathy that a substance could diluted thousands of times, and then thousands of times again, and that the molecules of water used for dilution would still "remember" the essence of the substance, has always seemed to me to be a bit fanciful.

There is a detailed report on the BBC news website.

Whose victory?

2005-08-24T10:25:00.000+01:00

Someone asked me why I was so pleased about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, since Hamas were claiming it as a victory for their tactics, and as a defeat for Israel. Surely, they asked, since you are a supporter of Israel, you should be upset by this defeat? Surely, they asked, allowing Hamas to taste victory means that there will be more terrorist attacks against Israel, and that means that peace in the Middle East is even further away.

I disagree. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is not about victory or defeat. It's about doing the right thing. It is so clearly the right thing for 6,000 Jewish civilians to move out of a territory inhabited by 1.5 million Palestinians. It is the right thing to do, ethically, morally and politically. By being an occupying power for 35 years Israel has not only caused great hardship and suffering to the Palestinians, it has also corrupted itself. Leaving Gaza proves that Israel can survive without huge chunks of the territories occupied since 1967, and I hope that eventually it will show the people of Israel that their state can survive without most of the West Bank as well.

The settler rump forcibly removed by the Israeli Army this week represented a messianic fundamentalist Judaism which has a small but vociferous following. It is very significant that their view of the future of the Middle East has been dealt such a serious blow. Most Israelis. like most Palestinians, just want to get on with their lives in peace. The disengagement has very wide support across all sectors of the community in Israel, except of course, amongst the settlers themselves. They had dictated the agenda for far too long. Now it is time to move forward without the messianic baggage.

I am not a romantc who believes that the end to the occupation will bring an end to terrorism against Israel. But it should make it much easier for the moderate, pragmatic Palestinians (who I believe constitutue the vast majority) to reach an accord with Israel that brings hope for the future. I am more hopeful this week than I have been for a long time. If the withdrawal from Gaza is a victory for anyone or anything, it is a victory for optimism.

Low tech gizmo

2005-08-23T15:29:00.000+01:00

I've just got a Cool Laptop Stand - not only does it raise the screen to a more ergonomically-correct height, but it frees up some of my desktop space as well. As I am currently using a very small desk, this is a big bonus.
I am amazed at what a simple low-tech idea this laptop stand is - when I phoned the company to check shipping details they told me they had shipped 4,000 units since January of this year. Now, when am I going to have an equally simple-but-brilliant idea, I wonder?

JB challenges BBC on M&S

2005-05-28T08:21:00.000+01:00

I have had a small taste of publicity this week. I submitted some comments on the BBC's extensive coverage of the fortunes of Marks and Spencers which were used in their NewsWatch programme (on BBC News 24 and BBC 2) and reported on the NewsWatch web site.
My voice was heard on international television!

Blair knows best

2005-02-26T10:57:00.000Z

Blair's "we know best" style of government had two more outings this week. First, Ruth Kelly ignores an education reform report that her own department commissioned, and then the man himself gets all in a tizzy because some senior MPs and Lords dare to criticise Charles Clarke's new anti-terror proposals.

Council tax must go

2005-02-21T20:37:00.000Z

Michael Howard announced today that if elected, the Conservatives would introduce discounts on Council Tax for pensioners.
Talk about second-hand and second-rate initiatives.
The Lib-Dems have been advocating the aboliton of Council Tax for ages (pdf file - see page 5). The Lib-Dems would replace the Council tax with a local income tax, so pensioners would automatically pay much less. So would the low-paid. Middle income earners would pay more, but it would be a far more equitable system than one based on arbitrary, and out of date property valuations. I would pay a bit more, now when I am working, but I would pay a lot less when I retire (or if I became unemployed).
A local income tax would also force central government to allocate resources more fairly to the councils that needed them most- the councils where low-income families live. Part of New Labour's spin has been to allocate local government support with more reference to politics than to need. While they have introduced legislation forcing councils to provide new services, they have not provided funding. (An example was the increase in teacher's pensions that local councils had to pay, but for which no increased grant was allocated.) This has allowed Blair and Co. to criticise Conservative and Lib-Dem local councils that have been forced to raise council tax, when in fact the tax was being raised to fund a central government - that is, a New Labour - policy.

The devil in the details

2005-02-17T20:20:00.000Z

There's a new university course at a Vatican-linked university in Rome, according to an AP report in the Washington Times. It's a course on Satanism, black magic, and exorcism.
Now I wonder if Education Secretary Ruth Kelly would be keen on seeing that sort of course in a British University?

Some sense at last

2005-02-17T19:53:00.000Z

I have long believed that the expression "military intelligence" was a contradiction in terms, especially when applied to the senior echelons of the Israeli Army. Imagine my surprise when I read in today's Ha'aretz newspaper that an Israeli military committee have concluded that demolishing the family homes of terrorist suspects causes Israel more harm than good.
According to the report, the committee has found that

the damage to Israel caused by the demolitions was greater than the benefits because the deterrence, limited if at all, paled in comparison to the hatred and hostility toward Israel that the demolitions provoked among the Palestinians

I am astounded. What will they think of next?

Told you so

2005-02-17T19:48:00.000Z

The other day I commented that Ken Livingstone's refusal to apologise over his tasteles remarks to a Jewish journalist might gain him plaudits from quarters whose support he doesn't usually enjoy.
And today, my prediction has come true: Boris Johnson thinks he shouldn't apologise!

"I'm not a racist"

2005-02-16T18:34:00.000Z

Ken Livingstone refuses to apologise for comparing a newspaper reporter to a concentration camp guard (see The Guardian, 16th February 2005)

The comparison would be odious in any circumstances - clearly not everyone who defends themselves by saying they are only doing their job is totally devoid of all morals, as Mr. Livingstone would have us believe. It is particularly odious as the journalist in question happens to be Jewish, and when he pointed this out, Mr Livingstone persisted in his analogy. The fact that the journalist works for a newspaper that Mr. Livingstone detests is also no excuse.

The most serious aspect of Mr. Livingstone's refusal to withdraw his remark is that he is giving succour to the real racists and anti-semitic bigots. Comparing Jews to Nazis is part of the standard repertoire of extreme right-wing propganda. It is racial stereotyping of the worst kind. The exact nature of the stereotype is unimportant (Jews may equally identified as Nazis, Commies, or Capitalists), but the message is clear. The Jews are villainous outsiders, and not to be trusted or even tolerated.

By refusing to recognise the implications of his remarks, Mr Livingstone risks alienating liberal-minded voters and attracting the support of those very racists whose thoughts and actions he claimns to abhor.

"Tories are terrorists"

2005-02-14T10:30:00.000Z

I've just read the article "Tories are terrorists" on the anti-Blair website BackingBlair. I certainly agree with the analysis in this article. It is clearly true that Blair's favourite rhetorical device is the "false dichotomy". This is the idea that there can only ever be two sides to any argument. If you disagree with me, you are obviously wrong and obviously support my enemies. If you disagree with the war in Iraq, you clearly want Saddam back in power. If you don't support Blair, you are a Tory. If you don't support Blair's reforms of public services, you are part of "the forces of conservatism" and so on. So, the article goes on, if the terrorists are against Blair, and the Tories are against Blair, the Tories are terrorists.
Of course, the Tories and terrorists are alike in one respect - I can't stand either of them!