Eldon-Online

So It's Not Just Me Then ...

An article in today's edition of The Times carries the headline "Too chummy by half? Why we don't want to be on first-name terms".

It seems that I am not alone in my dislike of being addressed by my first name by someone I don't know. A survey by Ask Jeeves, a search engine, discovered that overall 55% of responders to the survey preferred to be addressed by their title when spoken to, written to or emailed by a stranger. An even higher percentage disliked this "personalised impersonality" when it came from someone who was cold calling on the telephone.

I don't know, at the time I included my distaste for the practice in a recent Blog I thought maybe it was just me. Or perhapse it's the reserved Brits who don't go for this feeling of "We're all mates together" syndrome, or "fake friendliness" as it is referred to in the article. And as the article concludes, "There is nothing wrong with friendliness but it just doesn't wash when it comes from someone you have never met or even spoken to".

Hear Hear!

 

Media Freedom 3 ... Common Sense and Morality 0

Many people, but not all, believe in the freedom of expression and speech. Some are even allowed to practice those freedoms and to do so without fear. Personally I am all for it, but you know me ... there's often a "but" - or in the case of Prince Harry, a butt!

I feel for the distress that is being felt by the Duchess of Cambridge, after pictures of her topless - in what she clearly thought was the privacy of her surroundings - appeared first in the French and then other continental European media. As a husband, and father to an extraordinarily lovely daughter, I know how I would feel personally if "inappropriate" pictures of those closest to me appeared in a popular magazine without permission. Or is this the sort of thing Mr Zuckerberg of Facebook fame was referring to when he suggested that no one was entitled to a private life any more? If you have no problem in baring your breasts in public, there are plenty of outlets for one to do so. But to have some disgusting little photographer taking pictures of your body, uninvited, with the sole reason of selling them for a profit, how can you possibly claim that it is okay, while hiding like a coward behind the overall mantra that it is the "freedom of the press"? Is it in the public interest that we need to know what Kate Middleton looks like in the minutest detail? It suits a bunch of equally disgusting voyeurs, no doubt.

But this is the sort of world we have created for ourselves, and like it or not, there will always be the smutty opportunist who is solely in it for the money - and, sadly, there is also an audience! So, Catherine, it is something you will have to get used to, I am sorry to say. And although you may derive some pleasure from successful litigation, it is small compensation for your indignation.

And as for the earlier mentioned Prince Harry episode - over which there has been much less indignation - I think that is a case of "choose your friends more carefully - and your choice of playground".

So one up to the freedom of the press and zero to morality.

The "Kate" portfolio could not of course happen in the Moslem world - and now you get some sense of why the women are covered up; it always was an issue of "modesty", but it is to Islam that we turn next and where I think the lack of common sense has been most striking - perhaps on both sides.

No one, surely, believes that a deity - be it pagan, or religious of whatever persuasion - is a suitable subject for mockery or denigration. Oh yes they do!

The earlier Danish cartoon mocking the Prophet were an indication of the sensitivity felt by Muslims over their particular "God". Did the maker of the US video, recently released and which mocks the Prophet, think that it was going to be clever to see how many people he or she (I believe the identity of the amateur videomaker is still anonymoous) could get to riot, and kill?

I know we live in a world where "political correctness" has in some cases gone barking mad, and we know that there are fanatical islamists, just like there are fanatical christians, who seek opportunities to become disruptive - although that would be the subject of a much broader discussion. But while we should promote religious freedom, my personal opinion is that we would should not be ridiculing religions. In fact amongst my friends I think I must be one of a few who felt mildly uncomfortable at the Monty Python film "The Life of Brian", which was a religious satire and did lead at the time of its release (1979), to some condemnation - but didn't bring rioters onto the street.

Back to the recent video? Defended by many on the basis of freedom of expression, so 2 to the "media" - and still zero to the Common Sense team where it would have been less disruptive to have released such a video which does not seem to have a point - and where perhaps some members of various societies are "using" the video as an excuse to fight against the West. It's not getting better folks!

The third goal to the media comes from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that decided to get in on the act this week - and published caricatures of the Prophet in naked and pornographic poses. One has to ask - to whose benefit? Freedon of expression? Give me a break - it is purely and simply a raging lack of common sense. 

I know - this is all my opinion, and I am a total prude who cannot lighten up a little and look at the funny/clever/satirical side of life. Maybe I am - but then other people that I speak to about the subject are either agreeing with me so I shut up, or they are agreeing with me! I leave, therefore, the last words on the subject to the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who said;

"The principle of freedom of expression must not be infringed, but is it pertinent, intelligent, in this context to pour oil on the fire? The answer is no.”

My sentiments exactly. 

 

Barbarity Is Not A "Cultural Difference".

No cartoons this time around. Not in the mood for humour as I read once more about the barbarity of certain members of this world in which we are all supposed to live in harmony together. Barbarity disguised (excused even?) in the name of "cultural differences". I am sorry but there can be no place today for the actions of men principally in parts of the Islamic world - particularly in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan with regard to women.

I have been described in comments on my Blog as an apologist for China, which I do not think I am, preferring instead to try and balance anti-Chinese Western driven rhetoric. China, a country with many imperfections which, nevertheless, is trying to improve and has done pretty well from a standing start of only a little over 30 years.

I have been described, also in comments on the Blog, as being anti-American. A comment that again I would defend, supported by many of my American friends many of whom who have actually agreed with my comments.

And I have been described to my face, accusingly, of being an Arab-sympathiser; actually by someone who has never lived in that region, no less. And on the basis that much of the world sees any Arab as a potential terrorist, I would defend myself against that comment on the basis that I know many Arabs who are perfectly decent and reasonable men - and women. And yes, there are indeed some genuine cultural differences in Islam that I completely respect.

But if Islam wants to know why it has a bad name - here is one place to start which is just not defensible.

So called "honour killings", for example, where women have been killed because they have brought "shame" to their community by just talking to the wrong person. This seems to happen in Britain, but if you want to carry out an honour killing in Birmingham England, you cannot - or should not - expect to be saved because you are "culturally different". There are laws in Britain against this sort of thing, and despite attempts in some quarters to make the country religiously neutral by making even the wishing of Happy Christmas seem somehow inappropriate, Britain is still predominantly Christian. 

And  now the recent reports out of Bangladesh where a man cut off his wife's fingers because she wanted to study is not - at least to my mind - a cultural difference. It is a pure act of barbarism and has no place in our world. It follows on from an earlier report of the man who gouged out his wife's eyes, also because she wanted to study.

We are not supposed to intervene in the affairs of other countries, but how can one stand back and allow this sort of thing to happen? Okay, so human rights groups are demanding life imprisonment for this crime, but will they get it? It will be interesting to see if the media keep an eye on it and follow up. Certainly the comments from the police chief in Bangladesh would not give me comfort that this will be treated very seriously. "He was enraged", said the Chief, "He was jealous." Draw your own conclusions!

In an attempt to bring some balance to my thoughts, the west has not always behaved properly either - but it was a few centuries back with things like the Catholic led Spanish Inquisition, and the Puritans with their witch trials. We have learnt from those mistakes. And this is the 21st Century. And whatever your religious persuasion, barbarity is NOT amongst them and is not condoned in Islam either. 

While on this rather depressing subject, I just want to share with you a link sent to me the other day by an old school friend. I hope you can open it, and that you will watch it through. It's not long and will cost you nothing, but it provides a story of hope. It is organisations like the Hoshyar Foundation, and my old and continuing favourite Room to Read that are doing so much to try and change the world for the better. Particularly by educating girls and women.

 

Believe What You Want

Perhaps it's not so odd that a person who is not particularly religious should choose a day like today to think about beliefs! Here we are, a Public Holiday in the Western world and a normal weekend in the Arab world! A happy coincidence for believers in Christianity who today celebrate Christmas and who live in a Moslem country where December 25th and a Friday will only happen four more times in the next 30 years. 

 I actually only started to think about it when I got a call from Dubai today, and then thought back on some of the changes that have taken place in our world over the last few decades. How parts of a majority Christian country like Britain have decided that to celebrate Christmas is discriminatory against the minority who choose to believe in other things. How it seems no longer appropriate to wish people a Merry Christmas, in case they are not believers in Christ, and default to a tamer Happy New Year instead (even though this particular New Year is based on a calendar introduced by a Catholic Pope (actually, aren't all Popes Catholic?).

It is a sad reflection on a world where, after centuries of having been ravaged by wars that have had a basis in religious beliefs, we still don't seem to have learnt one of the basic tenets of every one of those religions - tolerance and an understanding of others. 

The most recent case in point? Perhaps the fact that the Swiss, in their open transparent and democratic way,have exercised their right to ban the building of minarets in Switzerland. A motion so clearly passed, despite opposition by the Government, the mainstream political parties, religious groups and business interests, that it highlights the increasing rise of right wing nationalism in Europe. A worrying trend.

But the move was applauded in other countries in Europe, so I wondered in this particular case whether it was actually all about nationalism, or are people just getting fed up with being asked to tolerate this and that - against their own beliefs? I know that various commentators since the referendum have called the vote an "attack on religious freedom". I would ask those same commentators to ask the Saudi Arabian authorities to let them know how many churches have been allowed in Saudi Arabia. The answer will be zero. And I recall a building in Riyadh having to be modified when I was there because part of the structure resembled a religious cross.

Ask those same people what they think of the various "laws" by which other religions abide. The death penalty by beheading, removal of limbs, stoning and, in a recent "judgement" the removal of tongues and ears. I presume that this is included and approved of in the "religious freedom" they talk about.

I am all in favour of allowing people to believe in whatever they choose to believe. And if they are a guest in someone else's country they should respect the rules and the laws of their hosts. But all too often now, people in various countries are being asked to bow to the wishes of the new minorities - without any form of reciprocation. Perhaps if Saudi Arabia allowed churches, Switzerland might be inclined to allow minarets.

When I lived in Malaysia I was struck by the fact that at Hari Raya (Eid), everyone joined in - Muslim, Hindu and Christian as well as anyone else. It was the same for Christmas and Diwali. Despite the occasional Government rhetoric, it was a pretty harmonious society.

But today we increasingly live in a world of intolerance. This is the wrong direction, surely, no matter what our beliefs. Don't we all want to live in a peaceful and harmonious world?  If we don't I would suggest there is something wrong with us.

Isn't it about time we were all allowed to believe in whatever we want to believe in?  To do so sensitively - but not to try and impose your beliefs on others.

It is just past midnight on the 25th of December. A little early for a New Year Resolution, but one that might be just worth thinking about. 

WMD; Weapons Or Words?

The term WMD, in recent history, came to be known as an abbreviation for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those things that the Americans said existed in Iraq, who dragged the British along with them into a war which rid the world of a dictator, but left a legacy of internal conflict in the country that shows no signs of abating. Oh, and just as an aside there didn't seem to be any WMDs - strange that!

On the other hand we have the North Koreans who most definitely do have WMDs, and a dictator, but nobody seems terribly interested in knocking him on the head and giving that country a chance of escaping from abject poverty and starvation. Where's the justice in that - or did everyone wake up to the idea that invading Iraq under some pretext or other was just wrong? Mind you, Iraq had oil - North Korea doesn't.

But it occurs to me that WMD could just as easily stand for Words of Mass Destruction - at least in Iran most recently where some bloodthirsty cleric is proclaiming that all rioters should be executed.

To re-cap, there can be few people in the world today, civilised or otherwise, who believe that the recent elections in Iran were fair and just. Of course, it is quite possible that both sides were trying to rig the ballot boxes, but there are just too many anomalies in the results to believe that the incumbent President won the election by anything like the claimed majority. He might have won, I cannot comment, but certainly not by the proclaimed majority.

The strength of negative feeling from the opposition within Iran, and from Iranians outside the country, is massive and powerful. They have been giving vent to their feelings, and show little appetite for remaining silent - almost at any cost. Which leads me to ponder on the words of the Islamic Cleric Ahmad Khatami, a known hardliner, who said "I want the judiciary to... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God. "They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran’s Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.

One must assume that Khatami is equating rioting against a corrupt President Ahmadinejad as waging war against God; surely a dangerous and heretical supposition, but then perhaps he is becoming fearful of his own position and, like a cornered snake, is prepared to come out fighting.

The fact that inflammatory words can be as destructive as weapons is not in doubt. Comments such as these will lead Iran into a bloody domestic conflict that will end in tears. The fact that these words can can come from a man of religion is even more worrying. If religious leaders promote violence, from a religious base that is supposed to preach tolerance - and by religious base I mean all religions - what hope will there ever be for the people of this world to live a life where differences are respected, where freedoms become the right of everybody, and where the ambitions of dictators are not allowed to flourish. I hope that Iran does not descend into more bloodshed on account of the words of mass destruction uttered by its supposed men of peace. 

A Piece for Peace

With our daily diet of negative media I am not sure whether any of you have noticed that outside the global financial meltdown, (with associated recessions/depressions and unemployment), the distressing tales of infant deaths in the United Kingdom due it seems to appalling negligence by the Social Services and the continuing loss of life in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, there is actually some potentially positive news out there.

The New York Times, for example, has been running a series of full page advertisements in the last week during the occasion of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's visit to the United Nations General Assembly. The one I noticed was inserted by a group promoting an event known as a "Weekend of Twinning". Twinning by 50 Mosques and 50 Synagogues across the USA and Canada to be held later this month. The message being jointly presented by the "Weekend" is one of an effort to confront Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. 

It's a start but it needs to go much further, and I hope it will. The signs, at least to me, look positive.

It is a truism that both of the "conditions" or phobias, that is Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, exist in large measure in our world, the latter for many more years than the former. Thus a greater degree of understanding through education can surely only be good. But dealing with the phobias alone does not deal with the broader issues - and the next steps, which would lead to co-existence. A co-existence by mankind in general - where a Muslim arriving in any country is not immediately branded a potential terrorist, where a Jew is not seen as a member of a tightly knit almost secret society with excessive influence in the corridors of power, and an historical financier of wars for financial gain. 

That said let me be the first to acknowledge that I am venturing on to shaky ground here. I am an amateur observer of what are some deeply rooted issues. But I suspect even so, having lived a good number of years in the Middle East, and continuing as a regular visitor I have a better understanding of those issues than many who present their opinions as "experts". Nevertheless, I am receiving some clear pictures in my mind, and verbal messages in my ears that the senior leaders in the Middle East are beginning to stick their necks out and send ever clearer signals that the world must have peace in the region. Peace that must start first with an acknowledgement that terrorism, threats from nearby countries, and the general state of "alert" that prevents human beings from going about their daily lives without the threat of being blown up, is unacceptable. 

I am not so naive as to believe that this is easily achievable, although I do think that former President Clinton came close to reaching an agreement just before he stepped down from the Presidency. But any agreement is only possible if Middle Eastern leaders, from both sides, genuinely want there to be peace. Will an agreement stop the hostilities immediately? It is unlikely, but those same leaders can put pressure on the perpetrators if they have a will to do. And they are showing signs of doing so.

It may be somewhat ironic, but what sort of a positive message would it send around the world if we really achieve something positive around the same time as the Christian faith celebrates its religious holiday? And before the end of the Chinese New Year of the Rat - a year that the soothsayers predicted would be every bit as appalling as it has turned out to be - a peace that would have a very significant impact upon a world that is fearful, beaten and miserable.

It doesn't really matter what you believe in, does it? It would be seriously good news whenever it happens - and if the event in North America is a start, there could be a boost very soon. 

However we choose to place our wishes and thoughts, this the time we should all put our minds to doing our piece for peace.