Unimagined

We are ALL responsible for the Delhi rape/murder

We are ALL responsible for the Delhi rape/murder

 

 
Jyoti Singh Pandey:  Rest in Paradise

 

The Delhi rapists are not solely responsible for what they did.  ALL of society is responsible.

• Everyone who desires to have a male baby, rather than a female, is responsible.
• Everyone who demands a big dowry from the bride's family is responsible.
• Everyone who thinks that women should not be educated is responsible.
• Everyone who thinks that it's okay for a girl child to be married with only the consent of her father is responsible.
• Everyone who looks the other way when a woman is being insulted or mistreated or harassed is responsible.
• Everyone who makes lewd jokes about women is responsible.
• Everyone who enjoys pornography in which women are degraded is responsible.
• Everyone who refers to "women drivers" in general terms is responsible.
• Everyone who thinks all women are a homogenous collective entity is responsible.

 

 

In short, everyone who contributes to the ethos that women are inferior, a burden, and are the property of men, is responsible.

And everyone who does not actively and tirelessly oppose the abominable treatment and disrespect of women the world over is responsible.  Which pretty much means all of us.

The Delhi rapists needed to have the support of society in general (in their minds) in order to do what they did.  They needed to believe that it was okay.

How did they get that idea?

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

 

 

 

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.

Madeleine McCann: How sick is our society?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6984836.stm

                  

Over the past few weeks I have looked at the newspaper headlines on my way to work, glanced at the front page ‘stories’ and shaken my head in despair. I am astonished and saddened by several newspapers’ ability (and callous desire) to take every tiny byte of ‘news’ about Madeleine – or even no news – and with the help of generous amounts of speculation, to squeeze an entire sensational front page out of it, with emotive headlines like ‘Kate: Did you sedate Maddie?’

   

The Portuguese legal process requires individuals to be given a certain status (‘arguido’) in order to have certain questions put to them.  There is no direct equivalent term in English for this word, which equates to ‘a person of interest to the enquiry’ – as parents of a missing child always are. But the lazy translation of this term to ‘suspect’ sparked a huge volume of shocked ‘news’, which had no sensible foundation whatsoever.  Did the UK newspapers not understand this, or was this ‘news’ too good to pass by? 

   

The despicable speculation reached a new low with a snippet of information about DNA leading to ‘Maddie’s blood found in parents’ rental car'.  On clarification, this blood became hair – in some accounts ‘a mass of hair’.  Does ‘mass of hair’ actually mean a strand of hair?  And from this we now have: ‘Maddie's body was in rental car’. 

   

Let’s apply our sorry collective intellects to this evidence and the resulting conclusions.

   

Let’s bear in mind that this car was rented 25 days after Madeleine’s disappearance.

    

A strand of hair is just a strand of hair, even if it was specifically Madeleine’s and not from one of her siblings (whose DNA profile would be very close, or even identical for certain types of test). A strand of Madeleine's hair could have come from a cuddly toy, an item of clothing or a picnic blanket (yes, despite everything that has happened, the McCanns are entitled to take their other two children from time to time and seek some relief from the unrelenting media glare).      

   

The Portuguese police are now playing down this 'DNA evidence', but that doesn't stop our courageous newspapers from using it to logically deduce what must have happened.    

    

This DNA ‘evidence’ has led us unthinkingly like sheep to the ‘body in car’ conclusion.  But let’s think about what this ‘body in car’ theory actually implies:

   

-         The McCanns had possession of their daughter’s body for at least 25 days, without it being found by the police, who conducted a thorough search to look for Madeleine.

-         No-one noticed the stench of a rotting corpse in sunny Portugal, in the summer, even after 25 days (or heard the buzz of flies). (Despite the fact that scores of people were actively searching for Madeleine, alive or dead.)

-         Under the noses of the police and despite the unrelenting glare of the media watching their every move, the McCanns were able to move the body into the rental car and transport it away somewhere for disposal.

-         Despite the condition of the four-week-old rotting corpse and the stench, the only forensic trace it left in the rental car was the ‘strand of hair’.

   

This is complete and utter nonsense. How idiotic and ignorant can we be, to unquestioningly entertain such a ludicrous idea? 

   

The McCanns, being doctors, must understand how implausible this is.  How frustrating it must be for them to witness the general decline in intelligence of the media, the police and the wider population.

   

“Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.”

    

But the ‘body in car’ conclusion makes a sensational news story and that is what we seem to want.   

    

What kind of society have we become, cynical, unthinking and without compassion, as the McCanns are crucified for our entertainment?      

      

What is it about them that makes them a target for such hideous vilification, no matter what they have already suffered?

      

There is a portion of our society that looks upon other people with immediate suspicion, and without giving them the benefit of the doubt - they forget the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept which we hold so dear. Some people are intent on finding flaws with anyone who has the misfortune to fall under the glare of media scrutiny.

    

             

The McCanns are unfortunate in coming under this merciless glare and so this makes them a target for the jeering and vile accusations of low-life who don't think for themselves and are incapable of distinguishing fact from pure (and often malicious) speculation.  And those newspapers exist to entertain these low-life.    

          

If we buy those newspapers, if we engage in this ignorant speculation and gossip, if we point accusing fingers without having any facts, we are these low-life.  We can redeem ourselves only by discontinuing this behaviour, leaving the McCanns alone and allowing the authorities to pursue their investigations.   

      

The greatest tragedy is that this has diverted attention away from the most urgent issue of all – finding Madeleine. 

   

I pray for her every day.

      

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

    

.