Via the tenacious Dan, we find ourselves reading a Written Ministerial Statement on Iraq: Assistance to Locally Employed Staff.
While it is obviously good that the British Government is recognising that many Iraqis have been endangered due to their work for HM Forces, it is a shame that the 12 month criteria remains. It is a symptom of a wider malaise in our political culture, whereby asylum and different forms of immigration are conflated and confused. While it is reasonable that citizenship should have some length-of-stay or length-of-service proviso attached, this should not be the case for asylum claims, which should be judged purely on the basis of need.
The statement says that the current policy “is practical, realistic and preserves the integrity of wider immigration and asylum policy.” Are other types of asylum seekers subject to the 12 month rule?
Page 249 of 328
The final credits of the Panorama programme on Alan Johnston have just rolled. At the end came the message that five British hostages are still missing in Baghdad.
I repeat: Who are they and why is there so little government and media interest in getting them back?
It makes me very uneasy to hear that the government is adapting some prisons for foreign prisoners. The worry is that these new prisons will create a two-tier system, with a harsher justice for those of different citizenship.
Beware the tabloid Right, who will surely advocate this two-tier system. They will ask: Why should foreigners have the same rights and standards as British citizens? The answer is that anything else will hinder integration. Send out the message that the law treats foreigners differently, then surely foreigners will treat the law differently, in return. If we ask foreigners to “integrate” when they come to Britain, the least we can do is ensure that they are “integrated” into our legal system too.
Alternatively, the two-tier system could work in the foreigners favour, with more services and a cushier ride provided for those who do not speak English. We can easily imagine the furore that would surround such a revelation. Either way, this is a policy promotes inequality, and therefore invites trouble.
The Met are on trial for breaching Health and Saftey legislation, when they shot the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head. The phrase “no shit, Sherlock” comes to mind, although it is surely inappropriate for a case where the detectives were, without question, shit.
Here’s Cressida Dick’s rather pathetic testimony on her role in the shooting:
“Secondly, from the behaviours that had been described to me – given that I thought they thought it was him – it could, very, very well be him.
“The behaviours that were described – the nervousness, agitation, the sending of messages, the telephone, getting on and off the bus – added to the picture of someone potentially intent on causing an explosion.”
This is shocking, not least because the actions described by DAC Dick, those that persuaded her that Mr de Menezes should be “stopped,” are precisely those actions I indulge in every day. A “nervous, agitated man sending messages” is exactly what I look like on pretty much every morning on the way to work. And who, in their lives, has not had a senile moment of indecision at a bus stop?
More seriously, the entire affair is shocking because of the low burden of proof that was required for the state to take someone’s life. The fault lies not with the officers who carried out the shooting, but with the decision to put such an ill-advised “shoot to kill” policy into the field at all. Who made that decision, how, and when? Only when this question is answered, and that person brought to account, can we begin to explain an attone for this terrible, avoidable death. And until this happens, every one of us in this democracy remains collectively responsible.
We should stop worrying about what kind of bullets were used in the incident, and focus on who was putting out misinformation in the immeidate wake of the killing, and subsequently. That line of enquiry might lead us to the person who had made a decision that they did not want to take responsibility for.
More journalese:
Not tonight Cecilia: divorce for Sarkozys
Nicolas Sarkozy becomes first French head of state since Napoleon Bonaparte to end his marriage in office
Notice the quadruple-qualification that makes Sarko’s divorce a “first”: “French”; “head of state”; “since Napoleon”; and “in office”.
The journalistic tendency to speak about everything in terms of records broken, and “firsts” achieved has been prevalent in Scotland recently too. Wendy Alexander was apparently noteworthy because she was Scottish Labour’s first woman leader (though Anabel Goldie already leads the Tories). And Jack McConnell was feted as Scotland’s “longest serving” First Minister, a contrived “record” since he had only two predecessors, both of whom left office early in exceptional circumstances.
These “firsts” and “record breakers” are irritating because they are a distraction. They are a lazy hook for journalists to begin the story, eating up word count that could be used to analyse the event itself. Of course there is no precise precedent for Sorkozy’s domestic re-alignment – But is that fact likely to have an impact on how the French will manage the situation? Indeed, does the event have any political significance at all?
Has anyone else noticed any contrived “firsts”?
Update
The Onion: Zambia Elects Black President