Of church bells and minarets

A bit late to the party with this one, and not that much to add except that when it comes to the Swiss passing a law to ban minarets we should remove the beam in our own eye rather than worrying about the mote in another countries.

For a bit of background as this is rather late after the immediate fuss has died down, the Swiss have decided that four minarets is quite enough and they’d not like any more. As far as I can tell they don’t care who wants to build them or why. Generally speaking I’m with Archbishop Cranmer on this one in thinking it a lot of fuss about not much. The Swiss from what I can gather are quite keen on restricting all sorts of things, but seem to be generally o.k. with this so that they choose to ban a specific architectural feature currently popular with a particular sect isn’t really a big deal. But segments of our press and commentariate seem to thing it’s a horrible beastly thing ushering in a new age of intolerance. Which just makes me wonder why these same people are quite happy that closer to home there is specific legislation preventing a specific religious group from naming their places of worship as they see fit, from it’s followers holding the same jobs as those of other religions are allowed and even from using traditional methods for summoning it’s devotees to prayer.

This disparity was raised in Parliament as recently as 2007, but at the time many people who are now upset with the Swiss were inclined to dismiss it as unimportant, due to the small scale of people it. The Swiss action which affected about 5% of the population caused Amnesty international to warn that violated freedom of religion but are oddly quiet on laws in this country which actually mention a religion explicitly rather than being confined to an architectural feature. Why are they not then up in arms about existing laws which are explicitly targeting a single relgion but are instead happy for this government to be merely ‘“ready to consider” changing the law‘?

If I were of a cynical mind I would have to wonder if the specific religions invovled in both incidents is what makes the difference? Though of course the more likely explanation is that a new law in another country is far more exciting than repealing old unjust laws close to home. that however doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Update A Guest post on More to life than shoes gives a Swiss take on thier view on the recent vote.

Carter-Fuck and Trafigura at it again

So it seems that the worlds most loved law firm, Carter-Fuck, are up to their normal tricks again on behalf of that bastion of environmental concern Trafigura.

My attention has been drawn to this post by Richard Wilson, it would seem that Carter-Fuck would really much rather we didn’t see a Panorama report on the wast they dumped on the Ivory Coast. So via yet another gagging order forcing the BBC to take down this video from their web site.

Richard Wilson has a PDF capture of the Panorama site from googles cache before it got Carter-Fucked.
(Anonymong copy)

The story is also being reported by The New Satesman

Do spread the word, to make sure that Trafigura get the sort of publicity they deserve on this issue. After all dumping large amounts of toxic chemicals on poor nations that can’t deal with it just to save money, really isn’t a terribly nice thing to do.

Welcome to Lisbon

Yesterday very late in the day I posted a link to Captain Ranty‘s summary of what we were about to lose under the Lisbon treaty. I like I suspect many other people have never read the 294 pages that make up the Lisbon treaty, and so (much to my shame) wasn’t aware of just what it meant. Now it’s in force so we’ll be fighting to regain what has been lost rather than to defend what we have, which is always a much trickier battle. Archbishop Cranmer as ever provides a nice historical perspective.

To understand just what this treaty means to us, and to the rest of Europe as it isn’t good for anyone except the unelected elite that now rule us, go and read the very succinct (just 6,000+ words) commentary on the Lisbon treaty over at Katabasis, then when you’ve done that and calmed down read it again. The implications of this “rationalising” treaty are really quite troubling (to put it mildly), but I do wonder as have many other people if the treaty is constitutional. I don’t think it makes much difference if it isn’t all the time we just choose between red or blue big statists, but as Leg Iron has often observed we do have alternatives. Perhaps the time has come to form some unholy alliances as Snowolf suggests. It would take a lot of nose holding, but short of who knows how many years of this new state followed by a more violent upheaval a single purpose alliance of many small parties may be our best hope. Elect anyone on a mandate of a chance to get out and the promise that as soon as we’re out another election would follow, it seems like a good option to me.

(I may update this further as I get my head round what’s actually just happened)