Unimagined

Dr Joel Hayward is a pain-in-the-ass

Dr Joel Hayward is a

pain-in-the-ass

I have a friend called Dr Joel Hayward. He’s a scholar, an academic lecturer, a writer, a poet and a Muslim. He’s also a pain-in-the-ass (but more on that later).

Joel holds various academic posts, including Dean of the Royal Air Force College, Co-Director of the Royal Air Force Centre for Air Power Studies, Head of King’s College London’s Air Power Studies Division and Professor of Strategy (Adjunct) at the Indonesian Defence University.

   

  

      

 

As a writer, Joel is very versatile – short stories, poems and an absolutely brilliant biography of Admiral Lord Nelson, as well as other non-fiction books about air warfare and a great many articles about Islam in its many dimensions. In recent times, he has written extensively to educate Muslim audiences that the Afghanistan and Iraq situations are not part of a deliberate ‘war on Islam’ by the West – even though that is what Al-Qaeda want people to believe. This is very important work on Joel’s part, if we are ever to end the conflicts and stabilise those countries.

 

 

 

 

 "Hayward is a prolific writer on military history, strategy, operational art and command. ... In this exceptionally well written book he answers his own question [Is there anything new and important to be said about Nelson?] with an eloquent 'yes'."

Lt Col Richard Seamon, USMCR (ret.) U.S. Naval Proceedings

 

 

"Stopped at Stalingrad is a first-class publication. It is authoritative ... and an example of how 'new military history' should be written. It should firmly cement Joel Hayward's reputation as a talented writer and a fine historian."

New Zealand Army Journal

 

 

The two things which his many former students consistently have said is that he was one of their best lecturers and that he always taught them to question and challenge everything, especially the teacher. You can find many such comments about him on the Internet.

 

  

 

His hairstyle has always been rubbish, though.

 

Joel is from New Zealand, and has Jewish ancestry. In fact, he became literate in Hebrew, and in his twenties was a member of the New Zealand Friends of Israel. At that time he made several trips to Israel and also founded an organisation called Opposition to Anti-Semitism (OAS), which he headed for its first two years.

 

In 1991, Joel received a BA from the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, specialising in History and Classics. He then went on to do a MA and then a PhD.

 

Joel’s MA thesis was on the subject of Holocaust Revisionism. He was supervised and examined by Professors of History from the universities of Canterbury and Waikato, and given an A+ for his thesis – which was judged the best history thesis of his year and won him the Sir James Hight Memorial Prize, awarded for ‘excellence’.

In his thesis, Joel (a Hebrew-literate ‘Friend of Israel’ of Jewish background) probed the extent to which the Holocaust had been planned and organised, the number of gas chambers used and the numbers of victims involved. In no way, shape or form could this be construed as ‘Holocaust Denial’.

 

Joel’s MA thesis, completed in 1993, was released to public scrutiny in 1999. Unfortunately, certain parties labeled it as ‘Holocaust Denial’ and this spurious claim has haunted him ever since. A committee was formed and the University of Canterbury conducted a lengthy investigation. They concluded that there were errors of research in the thesis, but that Joel Hayward was entirely innocent of any deliberate anti-Semitism or Holocaust Denial. Joel subsequently apologised for the research flaws and even publically apologised to the New Zealand Jewish community who were so up-in-arms about this.

He moved to the UK in 2004, and became Muslim in 2007. (The imam warned him at the time to expect vilification and ridicule, but nothing happened ... until now.)

Joel is the most humble, tolerant, peace-advocating person I know. From a scholarly perspective, he condemns all terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam – regardless of the justification. He has written extensively on this.

 

Joel’s website gives a hint of the breadth and depth of his interests and talents.

http://www.joelhayward.org/

 

 

Recently, he berated Muslims on Facebook who use foul language. I totally agree with him on this. There are many kinds of so-called ‘Muslim’, and the semi-literate ‘gangsta’ kind I find rather distasteful – these are ethnically ‘Muslim’ rather than through belief and practice.

 Joel gets criticised by some so-called ‘Muslims’, who claim that he isn’t a real Muslim because he doesn’t have a beard. Well, those cave men can go back to the desert. You only have to look at Joel’s writings to see what an outstanding Muslim he is – educated, knowledgeable, balanced, humble, modest, peaceful. If only there were more like him.

 

But Joel is also a pain-in-the ass. (Forgive me for using the American form, but it rolls off the tongue better.) You see, he is too gentle, too tolerant, too peace-loving and too humble. It’s really annoying.

 

Do you remember when Harold Camping -- the American so-called Christian so-called Preacher – predicted that 21st May 2011 would be the Day of Rapture? Well, I posted a joke on my Facebook page about it, on 21st May.

‘I saw my doctor about a pain in my appendix, and he said it could Rupture any time today.’

 

Most of my friends thought it was very funny, but Joel sent me a private message:

“…You are one of the wittiest writers I have ever read, and I thank God for your talent, but -- in private, not on your wall -- I respectfully ask you to reflect on the wisdom of mocking people of faith even for very mistaken beliefs.”

 

But I wasn’t mocking Christians in general, I was only mocking those lunatic end-timers who long for the world to end, and ignore what the Bible actually says. For it is written that no-one, not even Jesus, could know the hour … “but only the Father in Heaven.”

 

But anyway, this just goes to demonstrate that Joel Hayward is just too nice even to have a laugh at end-timers. He totally exudes tolerance, respect, peace and humility. So much so that he disapproves of mocking people of another faith – even Christian end-timers (who I think are an embarrassment even to their own brethren). Because he berates others who do this, this qualifies him as a pain-in-the ass.

 

You really need to understand this to comprehend the importance of what follows.

Joel’s very well-informed and scholarly writings debunk the current popular belief that Islam is inherently violent, and he is a living example of this. He does explain in depth Islam’s position on war – what constitutes a ‘just war’ and how it must be conducted. Obviously, the killing of non-combatants is strictly forbidden. Nonetheless, sometimes war is an unpleasant necessity – as the Second World War was against the Nazis.

 

Joel goes to great lengths to explain the early history of Islam and the conditions under which the Prophet Muhammad was operating. Just as the Romans tried to exterminate the troublesome early Christians, so did the pagan idol-worshipping Arabs try to eradicate the irritating early Muslims, with their extremely annoying ‘there is only one God and He’s not a stone idol’ concept.

There were times when it looked as if the early Muslims were going to be completely wiped out. The Prophet had to motivate them, to make them believe that they could not only survive, but endure – even though hopelessly outnumbered. Here Joel makes a comparison with the motivational speeches of Winston Churchill – giving the British people hope when the future looked dire.

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”

 

From a Muslim perspective, for Churchill to be compared with Muhammad is a huge compliment to Churchill.

 

In recent times, Joel has written very balanced pieces on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. On the latter, he totally supports the removal of Gaddafi, but urges caution in NATO’s conduct (and how it may be perceived) and, in particular, the avoidance of ‘mission creep’. For whilst it is obvious that we must protect civilians against attack by policing the ‘no fly’ zone, Joel warns that NATO should not become the de facto air force of the rebels (‘of whom we know very little’). All of these writings are clearly labelled as his own opinion.

 

In summary, Joel Hayward is a scholar, a respected teacher, and he displays exemplary compassion, tolerance, peace and humility.

So it came as something of a shock to see the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail both publish a prominent ‘news’ story attacking and totally demonizing Dr Joel Hayward.

  

 

  

 

The article first appeared in the Mail on Sunday on 7th August, and was repeated in the Daily Mail on 8th August.

The article bluntly portrays Joel as a Holocaust-denying, anti-West, anti-NATO-intervention, anti-British, fascist, Islamist fundamentalist bully, who has published with an institution which has extremist/terrorist links.

If it was satire, it would be hilarious -- but it's evil, vicious and cruel, with no interest in the truth.

 This is an utter abomination.

Just when we thought the News of the World had taken British journalism into the gutter, this ‘journalist’ Ian Gallagher has bubbled up from the putrid depths of the sewer with a deliberate and callous attack on a decent human being, using distortion, half-truths and lies.

 

Taking information from Joel’s own website and Wikipedia entry (and even photos from Joel’s website), Ian Gallagher has twisted and distorted and de-contextualised everything to create a shoddy piece of so-called journalism. It is nothing but an attempt to get Mail readers worked-up and angry about a perceived outrage – that a nasty, crazy, hate-filled anti-Semitic, anti-Western, fundamentalist Muslim is Dean of the Royal Air Force College. What a great story! – except that it’s an abominable lie.

 

Let’s take a look at Ian Gallagher’s article.

An Ayatollah is a very senior Shia cleric, virtually at the level of Pope. But Joel is neither Shia nor a cleric. So to refer to him as an ‘Ayatollah’ is like referring to someone as a ‘Pope’ just because he’s Christian (even if he’s Protestant), or a Jewish man as ‘Chief Rabbi’ (just because he’s Jewish).

So a deliberately provocative and spiteful headline, which sets the tone for the rest of the article.

 

Gallagher refers to Joel’s twenty-year-old thesis as if it was contemporary, and strongly portrays Joel as a Holocaust Denier – which is complete nonsense.

 

Gallagher takes isolated passages from Joel’s balanced writings and presents him as opposing NATO’s mission in Libya – when he’s only urging caution and warning against ‘mission creep’.

 

An Islamist bully?  Anyone who's met Joel knows that he is a softly spoken, cordial, gentle man. He never raises his voice in anger -- his own staff would attest to this. For him to be presented as a bully is utterly despicable.

Then there’s that great line thrown in – “In another article recently he likened Churchill to Mohammed” – without any explanation of what this means. From a Muslim, that’s a huge compliment to Churchill. But in this article, it’s just another hot button to work up the Mail reader.

 

There is a mention that Joel wrote something for the Cordoba Foundation, which can be linked to extremism apparently.  But what did he write in that article for the Cordoba Foundation? The Mail doesn't tell us, but here is an extract:

 "The Holocaust of the Jews in the Second World War, one of history’s vilest crimes, involved the organised murder of six million Jews by Germans and others who considered themselves Christians or at least members of the Christian value system."

What makes this particularly sickening is that clearly it's not even a misunderstanding -- it's deliberate, deceitful and callous to link Joel to extremism due to an article he wrote, and not reveal that the content of the article is completely the reverse of what the Mail is trying to portray.

The Mail article itself reveals what triggered this off. Someone with a grudge against Joel wrote a letter to the Mail and (on condition of anonymity, of course) made all these allegations. Gallagher then pulled some isolated facts from Joel’s website, arranged and distorted them to create the worst possible impression and the most devastating character assassination, and created the best story he could.

Joel has been writing and speaking as a Muslim for years, and even very recently told Muslim audiences – in defence of the West – that he had never been attacked for being Muslim, that the fact that he could be Muslim and Dean of the Royal Air Force college proved that there was no concerted, deliberate plan by the West to attack Islam and kill Muslims. That is just propaganda by Al-Qaeda to get Muslims worked up, instead of analysing each complex situation to truly understand what is going on.

But complex, nuanced analysis is too much for Ian Gallagher. It’s all black and white to him.

The 'information' sources for this article appear to be:

- A malicious letter from an anonymous source.

- Joel's Wikepedia entry.

- Joel's own website (very selectively quoted).

What outstanding journalism!

 

I spoke to Joel about this article. He was clearly deeply upset. He said that Gallagher phoned him and spoke to him for about five minutes, but that he had no interest in gaining any perspective. His questions were very perfunctory and accusatory, of the nature of ‘Do you deny that …?’  It was clear that Gallagher had already constructed the article and was just playing lip service to journalistic professionalism.

 

When the first article came out, Joel was stunned and in a state of shock at how he had been portrayed. His wife cried all day. His aged mother called from New Zealand, also crying – the local press had picked up the story.

I told Joel not to take this personally. In the war between truth and falsehood, the latter has only one weapon – lies. Ian Gallagher is a soldier of falsehood and constructing lies is his profession.

 

In recent times, a motley collection of media people, politicians and bloggers have been constructing and propagating a conspiracy theory that Muslims are poised to 'take over' the West and impose Islamic law on everyone. Part of this sinister masterplan is that Muslims (both overt and covert) are assuming positions of significant influence in western society.  (If you actually know any Muslims, you will be aware that they aren't unified and couldn't organise a p***-up in a brewery -- not just for religious reasons.)  

Such dark and frightening prospects create the concept of the sinister 'other' who is a deadly threat to 'our way of life' and must be stopped before it's too late.  Paranoid individuals absorb all this, and get a sense of self-worth by having a cause to fight for and an enemy. Then they blow up buildings and kill people. 

Everyone who participates in this lunacy must bear some responsibility for what happened in Norway.  

 

A few Mail readers have responded predictably, with outraged comments questioning how someone like this could possibly hold such an important post, and berating what this implies about the state of the country (decline and fall). Well, he can hold the post because this is all lies and distortion.

 

But an interesting phenomenon has arisen. I urge you to go the New Zealand web pages and look at the comments left by Joel’s former students. What a different perspective that gives!

Also, go to Joel’s own website and see all the material there. You will find virtually everything that’s written in the Mail article, but in context.

http://www.joelhayward.org/

 

The impression you will get from the website is that Joel Hayward is a decent, scholarly, intelligent, gentle man.  And that impression will be entirely accurate.

Historically, I actually used to have a lot of empathy with the Daily Mail. They published the first newspaper review of my book, and it was absolutely stunning – they gave it a full page with a huge photograph. I was very much aligned with the DM’s views on law and order, uncontrolled immigration, runaway multiculturalism, and the threat to the general ethos of this country. I have written for the Daily Mail in the past and been paid for it.

But this vicious attack and character assassination of a decent human being is totally unacceptable. Ian Gallagher is truly a master at what he does – select some facts and then organise and present them in a way which conveys the opposite of the truth, to make a great 'story' which will outrage readers.  Mission accomplished. 

 

Because he’s a pain-in-the ass, Joel told me that he chooses to forgive those behind this smear.  He says that they are operating out of ignorance, rather than true evil.

 

That is going too far. I think we should hate them. But we don’t need to take revenge, because it will be taken care of. “For as a man soweth, so shall he reap.”  We will each enjoy the fruits of our karma. 

 

Many people who know what Joel is really like wrote to the Comments section in protest, but their comments never appeared.  And the Mail then closed the page to further comments rather abruptly. 

 

I'm not the only one who knows that something is wrong here. 

Minhaj-ul-Quran International -- a prominent, peace-advocating inter-faith organisation -- had this to say:

'We commend Dr Hayward for his extensive efforts on his own time as a volunteer worker with Muslim youth and community groups to teach them about the value of integration, multiculturalism, interfaith dialogue and especially about the evils of terrorism and extremism. Dr Hayward has supported several Minhaj-ul-Quran International de-radicalisation workshops at which he has been very effective at explaining the motives and methods of terrorism as well as developing strategies for de-radicalising youth and hopefully preventing another terrorist atrocity. This is highly valuable work and it is unbelievable that Dr Hayward’s well-known efforts were not included in the character-assassination article.'

Right now, we need to stand up for Joel Hayward ... because the next person they lie about and demonise could be you or me.  Please circulate this as widely as possible.

 

Imran Ahmad

www.unimagined.org

 

 

 

The embarrassment of being 'from Pakistan'

The embarrassment of being 'from Pakistan'

 

Oh Pakistan, land of my birth, what an embarrassment you are!  How I wish I could undo that part of my existence, ‘born in Pakistan’ and erase any connection with your obscene, self-destructive, arrogant stupidity. 

Pakistan – not a coherent country.  Everyone hates each other, based on religious sect, region of origin, language, class or gender.  Being all ‘Muslim’ was not enough to bind them (must I say ‘us’?) all together in brotherly patriotism.  The great British masterplan has failed (or has it?) – our Islam was not strong enough to make us One, to share any rational self-interest that could take us forward for the common good, like any other country.  (Dammit – why am I saying ‘us’; I mean ‘them’.)

Pakistan – a land completely without Love.   Not just the forbidden and immoral ‘romantic love’ which spellbinds all in the Indian movies, but any other kind of Love – ‘Love they neighbour’; ‘Love the socially inferior’; ‘Love thy enemy’ (LOL! Not a chance!).   There’s only family love – but it’s not unconditional; there are heavy strings attached.  Only if you surrender your happiness to self-destructive bloody-minded miserable first-cousin-marrying barbarity.  Then they’ll love you.   But not her.  She must suffer for the audacity of her existence. 

Pakistan – where everything’s a lie and everyone in ‘authority’ is a liar.  Imagine being trained to lie from birth, so that it becomes normal, natural, your first response.  Addicts of lying, even when it doesn’t make sense.  Hold back the truth, don’t give too much away, surely there’s some profit to be made in the lie.

Pakistan – land without compassion.  Someone dying in the street?  Being raped?  There’s nothing we can do.  Don’t call the authorities – they’ll arrest us, for their trouble.  Why else would they come out?  Bargain for our release – the rate keeps going up.  Justice – what’s that?  Must be something to do with white people, not us. 

ISI – Inter-services Stupidity Agency – who do you work for?  Let me guess.  The country?  The people?  The government?   Oh, it’s obvious – yourselves.  What do you fear the most?  Peace with India!  After 60 years, we still haven’t managed that.  But why?  Oh, I see, if there’s peace with India, there’s no need for an ISI – it’s simple self-preservation.  I get it.  So you lie, deceive, cheat, kill, embarrass, shame, confuse, twist and lie some more – everything you can to keep India angry, enrage the world, justify the nukes and preserve your miserable existence.   India doesn’t want to hate us, you stupid bastards.  You make it so.  You make it impossible for peace, with your constant harassment, your plotting, your murder.  You are genetically defective in-bred savages.  You wish you could live in the West, have an apartment of your own and date Jennifer Aniston, but you can’t – so you’re overcome with destructive, bloody-minded jealousy.  You think your sunglasses make you look cool, but you’re an evolutionary dead-end. 

 

Dear President Obama,

I have had some rambling but deep reflection, and I have come to the following conclusion.  

The people of Pakistan, for the most part, are not your enemy. 

The ISI – heavily developed, funded (and now deeply entrenched) as a result of the critical need to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan – is the problem. 

The ISI is actually an enemy of the country, the people and even the Government (such as it is).  The ISI’s prime objective is to preserve its own existence, by blocking peace with India and maintaining a state of maximum tension with all parties.  It achieves this through terrorism, murder, lies, deceit and betrayal.  The ISI is the single most destructive element in Pakistan today, causing incalculable misery to the country, its people and, indeed, to its neighbours and even Western countries.  The ISI is a cancer which has grown and embedded itself – unchallenged. 

I deeply believe in extending peace and love from my heart to all fellow human beings -- but in this case, we must be more pragmatic, for the greatest good.

There’s no need to contemplate a full-scale invasion of Pakistan—that would just be catastrophic.  A never-ending spiral of global misery would result.

But, like a cancer surgeon, you must take decisive and courageous action. 

Since Pakistan has no functioning Government and no effective democracy, I take it upon myself to authorise you to completely and utterly destroy the ISI, its infrastructure and its operatives. 

Order the immediate destruction of all known ISI headquarters and facilities, and the elimination of every known ISI agent, worldwide.  At the same time, neutralise all Pakistani nuclear weapons.  Act swiftly and decisively, and the entire operation can be over in a matter of hours. 

This will be of enormous benefit to the people of Pakistan, the region and the world.  Peace with India can become a real possibility – it’s a natural equilibrium state which the ISI has worked ferociously and tirelessly and savagely to prevent. 

The alternative is more of the same misery and ineffectiveness, forever. 

I realise that this probably rules out my taking a vacation in Pakistan for a very long time.

But one day I look forward to being able to travel freely between Pakistan and India, visiting my brothers and sisters on each side, as if there was no border.

Sincerely,

Imran

 

 

 

He asked the third man he met to kill his wife?

He asked the third man he met to kill his wife?

 

This is the nonsense we are being asked to believe by the South African so-called 'authorities'. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11945015

The first man (or woman) would have been the Immigration Officer.

The second man (or woman) would have been the Customs Inspector.

The third was the taxi driver. 

This is what the 'authorities' in South Africa would have us believe.  This couple came off the aircraft and, by the time they reached the hotel, the husband asked the taxi driver to arrange the killing of his wife.

That says a lot about what kind of place South Africa is. 

The South African press has been full of lies and speculation. 

-- That it was an enforced marriage.

-- That he would make money from a life insurance policy taken out on his wife.

It was all lies.

That's why the family had to hire Max Clifford to deal with this crap.

And now this ludicrous allegation made on the basis of testimony of a convicted murderer who plea bargained his sentence from 25 years to 18 years.  What kind of evidence is that?

 

 

Shrien Dewani and Anni Dewani (RIP)

 

I literally have tears in my eyes as I write this.  Look closely at his face.  Does he look like he would ask a taxi driver he'd just met to arrange the killing of his beautiful new wife?

After all he's been through, this is an abomination. 

South Africa is in denial about what kind of a place it actually is. 

What kind of country is South Africa?

-- A place where you can ask any black man you meet to arrange to kill your wife?

or

-- A place where the verbal testimony of a convicted killer in a plea bargain arrangement is enough to throw allegations against a bereaved man.

 

Either way, I'm in no hurry to vacation there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan's nukes are safe and secure -- but quite unnecessary

 

Pakistan's nukes are safe and secure -- but quite unnecessary

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are quite safe and very difficult for terrorists to get hold of. 

 

 

 You see, they are mobile nuclear missiles, kept on the backs of trucks and disguised as giant beverage bottles. 

  

  

 They are constantly kept on the move, so the terrorists have no idea where they are. 

  

 

 Each nuke can only be operated by use of the special key, which is kept on a chain around the driver’s neck. 

  

  

 

But, in addition to the key, you need the Command Codes.  These are impossible to locate, being hidden behind the sun visor.

 

 

 

 

The instruction books are in English, which most terrorists can’t read, and these are safely locked in the glove-box. 

  

  

  

  

For complete protection, each driver keeps a rifle on the passenger seat. 

  

  

  

For absolute security, the driver has STRICT instructions to LOCK the cab when going to the rest room at freeway service areas. 

  

 

   

So, Pakistan’s nukes are absolutely secure.  But, more importantly, they are completely unnecessary. 

  

 

Pakistan is in a unique position amongst the nuclear powers, in that it doesn’t really need nuclear weapons, and could be a shining example to the whole world by leading the way in unilateral nuclear disarmament. 

  

Here’s the 3-step plan.

   

1.  Pakistan needs to acknowledge that India has nukes because of China, not because of Pakistan. India does not perceive Pakistan as a strategic threat, but only as a persistent and sometimes annoying pain-in-the-butt.  India has moved into the 21^st century, whereas Pakistan is still stuck in a 1947 mentality -- defining itself only by its separateness from India.  It’s a hard pill for macho boys to swallow, that one isn’t perceived as a significant threat, but nothing to be ashamed of. 

  

2.  Pakistan needs to agree with India a no-nuclear-first-strike commitment.  This should take ten minutes; fifteen minutes if they get Obama to witness it. 

  

3.  Pakistan should swiftly dismantle its nuclear weapons, secure in the knowledge that India would never risk global condemnation by launching a nuclear attack against it. 

  

  

In the new world, global prestige comes from demonstrating integrity, trust and a commitment to peace -- not from showing off your destructive capabilities.  The latter was all done in the late nineties, when Pakistan felt it had to prove it could explode nuclear weapons after India successfully tested its own, both countries attracting global condemnation.  

  

Since nuclear weapons do not distinguish between warriors and non-combatants, as well as wreaking hideous destruction on our beloved Earth, they are completely immoral and cannot be used in warfare within Islamic parameters.  So, no genuinely Muslim country should have them in the first place, as a matter of principle.

  

Now, the race should be towards nuclear disarmament -- a race Pakistan could win if it would just grow up.  It has plenty of other priorities to focus on, such as universal education, healthcare and a decent standard of living for all of its citizens. 

  

 

 

Based on the track record of the kinds of men who attain power in Pakistan, I won’t hold my breath. 

 

 But what an opportunity. 

 

 

 

 

  

The Green School in Bali, Indonesia

The Green School in Bali, Indonesia

Whilst I was at the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival 2009, in October, I had the privilege of being invited to visit the Green School.  I had met the Director, Ron Stones OBE, the previous year at a dinner he hosted for UWRF 2008, and we stayed in touch.  Ron has a remarkable career history, with many lessons about having the courage to follow the unknown path of greatest joy.  

http://www.greenschool.org/staff/director.htm

 

Anyway, I could write a very technically correct article about the Green School in Bali but you can read all of that here:

http://www.greenschool.org

 

 

I’m going to focus on my impressions. 

  

The Green School is founded on the principle of giving its students a holistic education which equips them to promote a sustainable future for human life on Earth.  It is built on the very principle which it teaches – the primary building material is renewable bamboo.

  

The location and architecture of the school are absolutely stunning.

  

Car park -- SUV's do make sense here in Bali, but not in Chelsea, London. 

Approach to school

  Covered bridge

 

Inside the bridge

Nearly there

 

  

The Director extends a warm welcome.

 

 A typical school corridor

Stunning buildings

Report to the Principal's office!

'Nice office, mate.'

The Principal is Andrew Dalton.  He used to be a teacher somewhere in the Liverpool area of England.  Obviously, he can’t go back there now that I’ve published this photograph.

Andrew Dalton -- Principal of The Green School

    

The children seemed really happy, engaged, and upbeat.  There is no hint of gang culture, bullying or shallow materialist/fashion competition.  The older children play with the younger children, without this being considered ‘un-cool’.  Very importantly, the staff also seemed very content, committed, and not in the least disillusioned or tired. 

 

Heart of School' -- stunning!   

  A classroom

 

Schoolbags

A typical schooldesk

 

Staffroom

  
 

 

Such an air of utter calm. 

 

Reminds me of the check-in area at the Four Seasons.

 

Ron Stone's OBE -- one of Britain's most valuable exports.  Come back to Britain, Ron, and fix the education system. 

'Did someone mention lunch?'

 

The atmosphere in the dining hall was very relaxed and the food was absolutely excellent: healthy, appetizing and visually attractive.  This was a far cry from my days of ‘school dinners’ and competition to get the fish and chips before they ran out.   

 

'What, no Spam?'

 

 

No washing up.

 

 

Ron told me something really exciting. Whilst the school currently draws on electricity from the local grid, it is planning – through a combination of hydro-electric, solar and wind power generators – to become self-sufficient in electricity, and even to become a net contributor to the grid. 

 

IT department

'Stunning!' -- I keep using that word

Sponsors

Whilst it’s true that the Green School is a private fee-paying school, with a large number of relatively prosperous foreign families, 20% of the places are given to local children on full scholarships. 

 

 

Umbrella stand

 

More sponsors

Workshop in progress.  Uniformed kids are visiting from a local school.

When the children were being taught, ‘Where does chocolate come from?’, they personally performed the entire process themselves: growing the beans, harvesting, crushing, extraction, fermentation, drying, milling,  pressing etc, to produce their own chocolate bars.  And all without any machines.

The students even built their own common room, getting deeply involved in the design and build process. 

 

Despite this ‘hands on’ approach to learning about things you and I might take for granted (I thought chocolate came from supermarkets), there is no less emphasis on academic subjects: English, maths, science and so on, and the curriculum meets the standards required to achieve rigorous and internationally recognised qualifications.

Why can’t every school be like this?

 

I’m not suggesting that every school in the world can be built of bamboo, but I do believe that every school could adhere to Green School principles – a holistic environment where the children feel safe and nurtured, the staff are happy and feel appreciated (and safe!), there are no gangs, tribalism or bullying, and the rounded education includes development of the capacity to think, to have compassion, and to actively work to protect and sustain our fragile planet.  From some quarters, such views would get me called a naive dreamer, an irresponsible hippy, or a socialist or communist. 

 

But looking at the children and staff of the school, gazing at the environment, and breathing in the magical atmosphere, I say, ‘Why not?’ 

 

www.unimagined.org

A wild(er) day!

A wild(er) day!

I was called by the BBC on my mobile phone at 2:30 pm and agreed to come immediately to Television Centre to do a pre-recorded spot for 6 pm.  (I was so glad I shaved this morning.)  I thought this was for the main news at 6 pm and would be in the studio.  I was happy it was going to be pre-recorded – live television scares me.

 

I sat in the lobby and watched Dev Patel (star of Slumdog Millionaire) walk in with his family.  They have to keep an eye him, I suppose – keep the girls away.  

 

The producer came down and took me, not to the studio as I expected, but to the Blue Peter garden, and a cameraman came out and set-up quickly.  The background was a bush and it started to snow.  The producer stayed off camera, holding the mic, and asked me a few questions, to which my answers had to be self-explanatory (ie the viewer would not hear the questions).  I wondered if this was not for the main News, but for some local thing that no-one watches – hence the use of a bush in the Blue Peter garden as background.  I was disappointed.

 

However, the producer liked my answers and, as the snow fell, he called someone on his mobile phone.  There was talk of Newsnight, but apparently they already had some regular players lined up for that.  However, he took me back inside, asked me to wait in the lobby again, and went away for a while.  Eventually, he came back with another producer and they said they couldn’t promise anything, but would I mind waiting in the Green Room, and they would see what they could do.

 

In the Green Room I met a man from Lloyds who insures satellites and a woman who works as a dating consultant.  Then the host of the Green Room – a delightful young lady determined to make her career in media and cheerfully working her way up with dignity – looked at her screen and said to me: ‘Looks like they’ve got you down for the News at 7:04’. 

 

Live, it was going to be live in the studio!  I watched the News start from the Green Room at 7:00 and they came to get me at 7:01. 

  

It was Tim Wilcox and Sophie Long, sitting in a large room with screens and automated cameras, but no people except myself and the gentleman who brought me in, standing to one side.

   

He sat me down next to beautiful Sophie at the appropriate moment. 

  

They allowed me to speak at length and I was able to make the following points.  This is more or less what I said, in response to Sophie’s questions. 

  

‘Mr Wilders is an EU citizen and he has the right of freedom of movement around the European Union, as well as the right of freedom of speech, which we all have.

  

The Government’s move to ban his entry into this country has reinforced the perception that Muslims use bullying tactics and threats of violence to suppress free speech.  This is completely the wrong message to send. 

 

Muslims already have a terrible PR problem, and this has just made things worse.  

 

The correct Muslim reaction should have been no reaction.  Let him come, show his film and go about this business, without Muslims making a fuss.  This response of banning him has merely reinforced all the negative stereotypes about Muslims being violent and unreasonable.

  

I have seen the film and it is truly awful.  It’s completely unbalanced and it serves no positive purpose.  Its intention is to provoke anger and hatred. 

  

Let me explain to you with a simple analogy what Mr Wilders has done.  I know that Judaism is a religion of peace and spirituality.  That’s a fact.  I know many Jewish people who are peaceful and spiritual.  But if someone made a film showing what the Israeli army just did in Gaza, and played against it a soundtrack of some of the difficult verses from the Old Testament … instructing to ‘enter this township and slay every man, woman and child’ … that would be a hideous distortion of what Judaism is, it would be grossly unfair and utterly immoral, there would be an outcry … no-one would be stupid enough to do this … but that is exactly what Mr Wilders has done … but because it’s about Islam, he knows he can get away with it. 

  

The correct response should be calm communication … respectful dialogue.  I would like to sit down with Mr Wilders and have a respectful conversation with him. 

  

I sent him a Dutch copy of my book a year ago, but he never replied.’

 

Apparently it was repeated at 10 pm

.   My title on screen was ‘Imran Ahmed (sic) – British Muslims for Secular Democracy’.

   

UK: www.unimagined.co.uk

US: www.unimagined.org

Public Speaking: www.unimagined.biz

    

Prince Harry and the 'P' Word

Prince Harry and the 'P' Word

  

  

What’s in a name?

 

I groan at the ‘outrage’ caused by the revelation that Prince Harry referred to a fellow soldier as a ‘Paki’.  It’s the outrage I’m groaning at – not the event itself.

 

When I was growing up, ‘Paki’  was always a term of abuse.  It was always prefixed with

 ‘F---ing’ and often accompanied by an imperative to ‘go home!’  It’s true that it hurt and I didn’t like it.  It made me angry. 

   

But things have moved on. 

 

Once I started work, I occasionally heard colleagues – who were definitely not racist – casually mention ‘Paki shops’ or ‘Paki food’.  I was absolutely sure there was no malicious intent. 

  

Even President Bush mentioned something about the ‘Indians and the Pakis’  getting along, and he is definitely not a racist.  I have a Pakistani-born relative who worked for him, in the White House.  (Of course, we’re all related.)

    

I think it’s just an abbreviation for ‘Pakistani’.  Duh ...

    

So, with this word, it’s all about the intent of the user (as well as the conditioning of the hearer). 

 

I’m sure that in the army they refer to each other by various terms which might, in a corporate boardroom or school classroom, be construed as offensive.  But there is no intention to offend. 

 

Clearly, in this private video and context, Prince Harry had no intention to offend.  That is absolutely obvious.    (Although he shouldn't have called him 'little').

 

I’ve never heard an Australian complain about being called an ‘Aussie’.

    

Would all so-called Asian, Pakistani and Islamic groups just find something else to get worked up about.  Prince Harry risked his life in Afghanistan to free that country from medieval oppression.  He is not a racist and certainly not a ‘thug’. 

     

Enough said. 

 

The only people who should be offended at being called ‘Paki’ are Indians.

   

www.unimagined.co.uk

www.unimagined.org

Don't demonise members of the BNP

Don’t demonise members of the BNP

    

   

Let me make one thing clear upfront.  I believe that the BNP is a vile and despicable entity.  It certainly has some members who are nasty, vicious racists.  However, I do not believe that every person who is drawn to the BNP, because it strikes a chord in them, is necessarily vile and despicable.  I believe that many of them are probably quite nice people, who want to feel proud of this country, its values, heritage and culture.  But for various reasons, they feel that these are under threat. 

      

The BNP is a legal political party, and as such people have the right to join it without harassment or fear of intimidation and violence.  People also have the right to confidentiality in their political affiliation – unless they choose to disclose it willingly.  Without such rights, a healthy democracy cannot function.

  

The disclosure of the membership list of the BNP was morally wrong, and those who have been 'outed' in this way have every right to be angry. 

  

So, are we expected to be surprised that the BNP has so many 'ordinary' and respectable people as members?  This is certainly the focus of the media outrage: vicar on the outside, racist within!

  

But the real issue here is much more fundamental. Instead of demonising the members of the BNP, we should be asking: what it is that causes so many ordinary, polite and respectable people to be drawn to such an unpleasant entity?  Could it be that they have some perfectly reasonable concerns, which they feel aren’t being addressed by the main political parties? 

  

And could it be that the fault lies in more than one place? 

 

I’m proposing a combination of at least four broad root causes:

-          Unreasonable demands and primitive attitudes by certain members of certain groups (for example, some individuals identified as ‘Muslims’).

-          Runaway multiculturalism, crushing all concern and dissent with the label of ‘racism’.

-          Irresponsible media reporting, creating the maximum sensation out of distortion, exaggeration and downright misrepresentation. 

-     Some people actually are inherently racist, of course.

  

Looking at the ‘Muslim issue’ specifically – which currently gives the BNP such huge mileage – it’s some Muslims themselves who are responsible for the problems, as well as our embedded social policy of allowing runaway multiculturalism to entertain some ridiculous demands, and the media for giving these matters disproportionate significance.

  

As a civilised society, it is perfectly reasonable that we treat all people with respect, and give safe refuge to those in danger in their countries of origin.  But we don’t have to assume that all cultural and apparently religious beliefs and practices are equal – because they aren’t.  And we don’t have to accommodate them all, full stop.  Anything which seems primitive, repressive or just plain bizarre by objective standards of modern civilisation does not need to be tolerated, just because of multiculturalism and equal rights. 

     

For example, it isn’t okay for some so-called Muslims to demand that their female children be allowed to wear tents in school, or for classroom assistants and NHS workers to insist that they can veil their faces.  It isn’t necessary for councils to be obliged to print signs, instructions and leaflets in a multiplicity of foreign languages – otherwise where is the motivation for learning English?  The vast majority of ‘ordinary’ Muslims cringe at such issues, and wonder why these individuals are so intent on rocking the boat in a society which is far more just and tolerant than in any so-called Islamic country.  There are dark, sinister forces at work behind some of these people, and the trouble is that they get all of the attention.

  

We are dealing with hill-billies and (in some cases) savages who don't share our common values of tolerance and equal rights, but have no compunction in exploiting this commitment for their own miserable, mediaeval ends. 

   

When government departments, councils, schools and other bodies are seen to be acceding to such demands, it’s no wonder that some indigenous, white British people feel that they are losing their country.  I feel that way too, sometimes.  If I wanted to live under the Taliban, I wouldn’t be living in Britain. 

   

I have every sympathy for an indigenous person whose child is in a classroom where a significant proportion of the children don’t speak English.  Naturally, I would be concerned about the impact this would have on my own child’s progress.  I would certainly be upset if the council employed a classroom assistant who veiled her face (and demanded this as a right) and whose job was to translate for the non-English speaking children.  I would wonder why these children aren’t being compelled to learn English as a matter of priority, by immersing them in an English-only environment.  I would be angry to see a convicted drug dealer, out on parole, wearing an apparent suicide bomb belt to participate in a furious demonstration – showing complete disrespect for this country and the victims of 7/7 – protesting threateningly about cartoons which private individuals drew in another country altogether, completely independent of mine.  I would wonder how those protestors came to be in this country – which they apparently hate so much – and why they think my country, my people, my government are to blame for those cartoons.  I would wonder how entire areas have become segregated by ethnicity, effectively becoming ‘no-go’ areas for people from other groups.  I would be outraged at stories I hear about Muslims forcing councils to ‘ban Christmas’.  I would be angered by all these ridiculous demands and statements apparently made by newcomers, as conveyed by the media. 

      

I would wonder how this strange state of affairs came about, and why it seems to be getting worse.  I might be afraid to speak out, because of the social stigma of being labeled racist.  I would look for like-minded people I could relate to – who shared my concerns, fears and values.  I might find them in the BNP. 

   

Looking at other causes: it is completely unacceptable for any individual living in this country to make provocative statements which jeopardise the safety of British forces serving overseas, to insult service personnel, or to provide any kind of support for those fighting against British forces.  Speaking out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a democratic right; undermining our service personnel is not.  Those Muslims who do this are a threat to national security, but so is anyone in the media who exaggerates and amplifies the extent of this.  When indigenous people perceive this kind of outrage taking place, no wonder they get angry.  No wonder they might be drawn to the BNP. 

   

Acts of murderous terrorism in this country – both successful and thwarted – apparently perpetrated by people of a certain ethnicity or apparent religious persuasion, place an unbearable strain on anyone’s ability to be tolerant or keep a sense of perspective.  It takes an incredibly spiritually advanced soul (of the standard of the Dalai Lama) not to feel tribal anger in such circumstances.  We all do it.

    

  

The media does have considerable responsibility for this state of affairs, particularly with respect to the ‘Muslim issue’.  Some newspapers have been incredibly reckless in creating a hysteria which makes me think of 1930s Germany.  The stereotypes are reinforced – there is no concept of Muslims being ordinary and human. 

 

Why is it that when that vile, raving lunatic Omar Bakri (who should never have been tolerated in this country) has something outrageous and provocative to say, he gets front page coverage, but an ‘ordinary’ Muslim like me, saying ‘ordinary’, possibly quite reasonable things, struggles to get any media outlet whatsoever?  I’ve been trying to get a newspaper column, but no-one is interested.

  

It’s not just the newspapers.  My narrative non-fiction book, Unimagined, about an ordinary Muslim boy growing up in London – who doesn’t become an Islamist or a terrorist – was rejected by all the major UK publishers for just that reason – my life wasn’t miserable enough, apparently.  They didn’t think there was any profit to be made from it. 

  

If you didn’t know any Muslims personally, and all that you heard about them came from the media, then it would hardly be surprising if you were a bit Islamophobic.  Or, if you only knew one Muslim, and that particular one was a complete idiot – that would only confirm your negative perception.

   

And all that fuss in some newspapers about Muslims wanting to ‘ban Christmas’ can be found, by any serious objective examination, to have no foundation in reality whatsoever – but didn’t it make a great story?   (I love Christmas, by the way.) 

  

In these circumstances, who can blame some people, attracted to the BNP, for their negative perception of Muslims and their fear of the apparent Islamic conquest of Britain?  As I said at the start: the real issue is why are so many ‘ordinary’ people being drawn to the BNP?

  

Dialogue, truth and understanding, not demonization, are the way forward.  Leave the BNP members alone – they are just human, like the rest of us.  We all have a lot of work to do to make this right.

  

  

  

www.unimagined.co.uk

  

www.unimagined.org

 

An open letter to Sir Ian Blair

         

Dear Sir Ian,

               

I've always believed that yours is the most difficult job and this has never been more true. 

            

I am not much of a politician, but I do recognise that people have ulterior motives when they demand your resignation, or they simply don't understand the pressures under which you must work. Some have no concept of how difficult your job is and that we don't live in a perfect world in which everyone is 100% safe and no-one is inconvenienced in any way at any time.

                  

This much I know for sure.  Whatever mistakes were made on the day that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed, none of your officers set out with the intention of killing an innocent man.  Their overriding intention was to prevent another terrorist atrocity and, in that context, any other outcome was preferable.  They showed enormous courage in the face of grave potential danger, when self-preservation would dictate running in the opposite direction.

   

Had they indeed prevented a suicide bombing that day, no-one would be complaining about how they dealt with it.

                

In the UK we do not have significant experience of dealing with suicide bombers, and therefore this is a learning process for everyone. We are in a strange, treacherous new world, with limited resources and no margin for error.

                   

If anyone is to be blamed for the death of Jean Charles, it is the July 7 bombers, who have made all of us in our relatively easy-going society afraid, tense and suspicious. 

      

Whether this was deliberate on their part, I do not know (I hesitate to attribute this success to them, because they were not very bright), but it is a consequence which we must all come to terms with. 

               

Therefore, I urge you to not even contemplate resigning, but to push on with the most difficult (and sadly, thankless) job of keeping us all safe. 

               

Best regards,

                  

Imran Ahmad

      

   

The VERY BEST Possible Outcome (from some perspectives)

The penthouse office of The Daily Stunpress, high in the clouds, is full of cigarette smoke, because the Editor considers that he is far above the laws which govern ordinary people.  Up here, no-one can touch him.  From up here, he looks upon the world of ordinary folk with an arrogant disdain.

   

“Ok Bob, what have you got for me.”

   

“Sir, you asked me to project the best possible outcome of the Madeleine McCann case.”

   

“ Ah yes, Maddy, bless her.  She’s been so good to us.  Aren’t we about done now?”

   

“Actually, no sir.  According to our projections, we have only just started.  If the best possible scenario plays out, this would be bigger than Diana.”

   

“Really? … Okay, what is the best possible scenario?”

   

“It goes like this, sir.  ‘THEY DUNNIT!  McCanns convicted in Portuguese court, sent to prison for life, callous murder of Maddy, experts say body was almost certainly dumped at sea, weighed down with heavy stones, or incinerated in that pet crematorium … etc etc  All that stuff we made up before, we can keep repeating it indefinitely.”

   

“That’s right Bob, it’s our sacred mantra: ‘Speculation, repeated enough times, becomes the truth.’”

   

“Yes, sir.  ‘Speculation, repeated enough times, becomes the truth.’  This would run for a while, of course. We would have the sentencing … ‘ICE QUEEN KATE SHEDS NO TEAR … Kate McCann showed no emotion as she was sentenced … ' and so on.

   

Then we would get the readers involved again…

   

‘STUNPRESS READERS SAVE TWINS … Thousands of readers backed a  campaign led by the Daily Stunpress to have the McCann twins formally taken away from relatives by Social Services and placed in permanent care, to protect them from the ordeal of prison visits to see their evil parents …’ ”

   

“I like that.  It demonstrates our concern for the twins.”

   

“Then we would run for a while with the usual prison stuff … ‘KATE ATTACKED IN PRISON’ … that would almost certainly happen, especially if they read our paper … ‘GERRY PUT IN ISOLATION FOR OWN PROTECTION’ … we should be able to squeeze that for a while. During this time there would also be a spin-off story… ‘MADDY HOUSE REPOSSESSED’ … well, that’s bound to happen if no-one is paying the mortgage.”

    

“Good, honest stuff … our bread and butter.”

   

“Yes sir.  But we calculate that we could run with the speculation indefinitely, on what they did with the body.  Anytime we haven’t got a decent story, we could always wheel out a source to say something like, ‘MADDY: BODY WILL NEVER BE FOUND’.  We have demonstrated already that this has almost unlimited potential. Each time we can remind readers of the hideous nature of the crime.”

    

“I like this.  So that’ll be the end of it? We’ll run it down eventually?”

   

“Actually, no sir!  We project the best possible scenario would continue as follows … After ten years … ‘MADDY FOUND ALIVE!’ “

    

“Oh my God!  That is brilliant.  That would be the best possible scenario.  But why not five years?”

    

“Sir, we calculate that the maximum Net News Profit Value from this story would come if she is found after about ten years.  The experiences she could talk about would be much more graphic and horrific.”

    

“You have a good point.”

   

“Then we would run with, ‘RELEASE McCANNS NOW!  The Daily Stunpress is leading demands that the Portuguese government immediately releases the McCanns, who obviously are innocent ...’

   

After that happened, we would have, ‘McCANNS GRATEFUL TO STUNPRESS’ and that story would run along the lines of  ‘Kate and Gerry McCann expressed their deep gratitude for the massive campaign, spearheaded by The Daily Stunpress, to secure their immediate release …’”

   

“So we would be responsible for getting them released as soon as possible.  Excellent, Bob, this is excellent.”

   

“Thank you, sir.  Then we would have ‘TEARS OF JOY’ as Kate and Gerry are reunited with Maddy.  That would run for days, if not weeks.  After that, we would get onto the really good stuff.  ‘MADDY: MY HELL IN SAUDI HAREM’.”

    

“Oh my God, Bob, that would be fantastic!  We’ve got the Muslim angle there too – they’re always up to no good.  But I hope it’s not Saudi – our government wouldn’t let us say anything.  Sudan would be good, because of that Darfur business, the bastards.”

    

‘You are right, sir.  ‘MADDY: MY HELL IN SUDAN HAREM.’  That would be the best outcome.  And if it was MI6 and the SAS who rescued Maddy … we haven’t even begun to work on those projections … Then we would run for weeks on child trafficking, white slavery and so on … undercover reporters going in there … it would be fantastic… At the same time, we would have Kate and Gerry’s story, for example, ‘KATE: MY PRISON HELL’ and ‘GERRY: I  NEVER GAVE UP HOPE’.”

      

“Bob, I nearly have a tear in my eye, to think what a great story this could be.  So, then we would finally wind it down.”

            

“No, sir.  Don’t forget the twins, happily brought up by adoptive parents.  Just imagine, ‘McCANNS: WE DEMAND OUR TWINS’. That would drag on for months, probably years.”

      

“Oh, God, this would be too good to be true …”

          

“And they lost the house, too, remember.  So it would be, ‘McCANNS: OUR LONG FIGHT FOR JUSTICE’ and it would go on forever’.”

          

“Bob, this is all just amazing.  So, to summarise, the VERY BEST thing that could happen is that the McCanns are found guilty, sent to prison, and then, ten years later, Maddy is found alive, which proves they were innocent after all.”

         

“Yes sir, that is our evaluation of the VERY BEST thing that could happen.”

          

“Well, let’s just hope it happens that way.  Please God, let it be so.  We’ve always been good to you....

   

Now what about the effect on house prices, Bob?  How can we demonstrate this points to a massive house price crash?”

     

            

Author's Note:

      

Just to be perfectly clear, for any of you who don't get the irony ... this is not a criticism of the McCanns, but of some of the awful press coverage of this case.  I have the greatest sympathy for the McCanns, and do not want them to be subjected to any further vilification.  There is not one shred of meaningful evidence that they had any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, and yet the way they have been treated by certain newspapers is outrageous and utterly despicable.  This vile treatment is on top of their unbearable pain at the loss of their child.  How can we – a civilised, educated, compassionate, advanced society – treat anyone this way?  Those who have been involved in this should be ashamed.

         

One example: some newspapers made a big commotion about apparent DNA in the car being an 81% match to Madeleine.  This number is meaningless. Percentage of what?  How uneducated and arrogant some people are!  Any chimpanzee would have at least a 95% DNA match to Madeleine or to any human being.  81% means nothing.