Backing Ed

Notes from a Broken Society

Like a lot of Labour Party members and activists, I’m angry and confused at the moment.  I’m angry that with the Tory Party in disarray, losing MPs to UKIP and humiliated in Europe once again as a direct result of its fear of UKIP, the media focus appears to be all about Labour’s leadership “crisis”.  And I’m confused because, with millions in poverty while working ever-longer hours, with some of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world, with hundreds of thousands of people dependent on food banks, and with our National Health Service being dismantled in front of our eyes, you might have thought that the handful of Labour MPs briefing anonymously against Ed could have found something more useful with which to fill their day.

While our anonymous comrades were busy talking to the media, I spent yesterday in an activists’ day here in Brighton Pavilion, in…

View original post 675 more words

Of Geoffrey Bawa & Being Overrated

Anoma Pieris from , is an Associate Professor in Architecture at Melbourne University, whom I have had the pleasure of acquainting over the last few years on matters to do with Architectural theory.

I have always maintained that Geoffrey Bawa is overrated, and that the propping up of Bawa as an Architect goes beyond his skill as an architect and there are other elitist socio-political reasons as to why Bawa is revered and beatified by Sri Lankan society at large, for this I have of course taken much criticism for being pompous – one shalt not criticise Bawa and live in Sri Lanka at the same time.

Anoma Pieris responds to this question and identifies why Bawa is is so overrated, and why that is so wrong, a view I am delighted to always have held.

This cultish reverence of Bawa has in many instances given Sri Lankan Architecture students very little outside Bawa to aspire to, it is important that a more diversified balance amongst Sri Lankan architectural greats is maintained.

Independence Referendum: The Morning After

First published here.

A win for independence in Scotland would have led to drastic changes to parliament in the UK including the short-to-medium term irrelevance of Labour

A little over half of those who went to bed last Thursday in Scotland, wondering what Friday will hold, woke up to the news that the United Kingdom will remain as it has been for 307 years and that Scotland will not break away to form an independent state. The campaign has been marred by allegations of scaremongering, increased verbosity of the establishment, heated debates on fiscal matters and devolution.

Irrespective of the outcome, it must be concluded that the Scottish referendum was a great celebration of democracy with extremely high turn-outs for voting. Estimates suggest that more than 80 per cent of those eligible to vote turned up for voting, compared to only more than 50 per cent who voted in the Scottish elections of 1999 when powers were first devolved.

The decision to hold a Scottish referendum was made in October 2012, by allowing the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum that was legally valid to confer independence. The terms of the referendum were a matter of great debate, but as George Eaton identifies here, contrary to most observers, it was Alex Salmond in his political astuteness who outmanoeuvred David Cameron – who, according to many, is reflective of a political class that was extremely complacent about the aspirations of the Scottish peoples. There are at least three factors Eaton identifies that helped Salmond outplay Cameron.

Westminster retains the constitutional authority to determine when a referendum can be held, and even though the initial date was September 2013, this date was moved to September 2014 in return for Salmond deciding to allow a one question vote, thereby winning another year’s worth of vital campaigning time for the Yes side of the debate. The second move Salmond made was in determining the wording of the referendum question. By managing to stave off pressure from the recommendation of the electoral commission to have the question read “Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?” having it read instead as “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, Salmond found a much easier way of channelling nationalist energy towards an eventual yes vote. The other vital concession Salmond managed to garner was the right for 16-17 year olds to vote in the referendum, even though voters in this age group do not vote in UK or Scottish parliamentary elections. Young voters are more inclined to vote for independence, as this YouGov poll reveals.

The complacency of the Better Together campaign, headed by Alistair Darling, was evident from the very beginning with Westminster taking for granted that Scotland would vote to remain in the UK. This notion was not without basis, as the opinion polls consistently showed that those in favour of voting No outflanked those in favour of voting yes by a double-digit margin. Then came the disastrous second debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond, where Salmond vociferously and passionately argued about the case for independence, managing to appeal to many of those who were dithering on which way to go. Even though the debate wasn’t the primary reason, it was probably the last straw on the camel’s back. The double-digit lead that the No campaign had held for so long eviscerated over a matter of weeks and panic hit the No camp when aYouGov poll on 6 September showed the Yes camp to be in the lead for the first time.

The panic that set in was probably good for the Yes camp and was just the bad news that was needed to galvanise the whole of Westminster together. All three leaders of the main parties went on a very strong door-to-door campaign, even to the extent of cancelling Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday. Further powers of devolution were promised to the Scottish parliament and last ditch attempts were made to make packages of political appeasement that would swing the momentum from the Yes, back to the No.

It is also worth mentioning here that there were many voters who, indeed, wanted to stay in the union and vote no to independence, but due to the deep involvement of the toxic establishment and their support for the No camp, many of these conscious No voters were deterred. Right-wing media organisations, the BBC, big corporations and banks all fought vehemently against independence and this galvanised many voters to look at this vote as a statement screaming of anti-establishmentarianism. It must be mentioned however, that Rupert Murdoch, that great icon of the establishment is an avid fan of Alex Salmond.

It is also important to note as Owen Jones does here, that the same establishment that put its weight behind the No campaign will, similarly, be taking part in the alleged scaremongering tactics against Ed Miliband and the Labour campaign come the General Election in 2015. Labour, which was complicit at worst and connived at best with these tactics, will have to know that some of their friends in the No campaign will be some of their worst enemies in a matter of a few months.

In all of this, one thing that is glaringly evident is the second coming of Gordon Brown. Brought up by a father who was a Church of Scotland pastor, Gordon Brown is also the author of Courage, a compilation of eight biographies of those who have shown resolve and courage during times of difficulty. Sadly for many on the left of the spectrum, Brown got lost in Tony Blair’s New Labour, and many wonder what would have become of Labour if Brown inherited John Smith’s leadership of the Labour party as he was touted to, instead of Tony Blair.

It is widely thought that this passionate speech by Gordon Brown, on the last day of campaigning tipped the undecideds (about 14 per cent at most times) in favour of voting no and that it was this momentum that helped carry the No camp along.

What would have happened if the Yes camp had won?

The No camp won, and all is well. But what may have happened if it went the other way? David Cameron had made it clear that he would not resign if Scotland decided to vote in favour of independence, and indeed he would not be constitutionally obliged to resign.

I am of the opinion that New Labour’s advent in 1997, which led to the negligence of the welfare of the working class and, therefore, the erosion of Scottish Labour – which gave rise to an otherwise emasculated Scottish National Party (SNP) in the Scottish parliamentary elections that followed – is more to blame. Those who wield the knife out to Cameron as the prime minister who potentially oversaw the end of a 307-year-old union should have a memory that stretches far beyond 2010 when he became prime minister.

If Scotland had voted in favour of independence, there would have been a Tory backbench revolt that may have culminated in Cameron resigning. This would mean that Theresa May or George Osborne would have most likely become Tory leader, unless William Hague would have been recalled as a caretaker leader to steady a wobbly Tory ship. What is less spoken of is that Scottish independence may have also ended Boris Johnson’s leadership ambitions, if not delay them. Of course, this uncertainty in the Tory camp would translate into voter discomfort and Labour would have solidified its current lead to land Ed Miliband in Downing Street.

However, if Scotland legislatively moved out of the United Kingdom in 2016, it would have nullified the mandate of Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies. Going by the current electoral standings, Labour would lose more than 40 MPs in Scotland, whereas the Tories would lose their one MP (as the joke goes – there are more pandas in Edinburgh than there are Tory MPs in Scotland). Thus, with such a colossal haemorrhage of MPs to independence, Ed Miliband would no longer be the leader with the largest party, and parliament would have to be dissolved, and General Elections will have to be recalled. When this happens, the Tories will romp home to what most analysts believe will be a clear majority, coupled by the fact that Labour will be electorally and arithmetically much weaker without the legal recognition of Labour in Scotland. As such, Labour will be transformed into a mere ideological sister party and the Labour coffers will be much weaker than the Tory funding to refight in a general election. It must be noted that this current electoral status quo remains only due to the currently incumbent culture of hung parliaments.

The Tories would then have proceeded to change electoral boundaries to suit them and that would cast Labour into the wilderness until it found inroads back into the mainstream.

Thus, should Scotland have become independent, we may have been looking at an increasingly right-wing England in the medium to long term.

What happens now?

Scotland has however voted against independence, and the speculations made above will not come to fruition, yet. Therefore, political life in the union will go on as it has been for the last three centuries.

However, the three party leaders have to make sure they do not renege upon the promises made to give increased powers to the Scottish parliament. Tory MPs are already preparing to revolt if greater devolution packages are showered upon Scotland. In his speech on Friday, Alex Salmond referred to the fact that Scotland isn’t independent “yet”, leaving room to speculate that if Westminster breaks its promise for greater devolution in Scotland, the SNP may perhaps take the route Quebec took when there were successive referenda that plagued Canadian politics in the mid-to-late 1990s.

As a friend of mine specialising in constitutional law noted, “This may have been a defeat for secession but it was definitely a victory for self-determination,” and the Scots as a people should be proud of this.

Image from here.

Ridiculous Study of the Day Says Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer

Of Boring Men And Women Who Love Them

This probably is the first time I am posting something like this, not really my area and this is hardly about Ed Miliband and how he will be the next Prime Minister.

But in an increasingly pernicious pornified public culture, where the cosmetics of a relationship supersede true responsibility when in private and where the ephemeral glamour of a wedding day is given more importance than the substance of a marriage that makes it durable, it is truly remarkable and refreshing that thoughts like those in this link still find their way to the public sphere.

Of course I post this not because I am going soft, but I have long argued that short lived relationships have everything to do with rampant consumerism that individualises people into one’s and feeds to them the perception of absolute independence.

Image from here.

No Woman, No Drive – Marley

Why Saudi women must not be allowed to drive.

On Being a Conspiracy Theorist

More often than not, when one has a view point that is diametrically opposed to what is considered the norm, one is quite easily referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and this is quite sincerely a case of playing the man instead of the ball, to throw a football metaphor. Facts are hardly refuted but the purveyor of the facts is attacked.

Egypt is descending from frying pan to the fire, and the role of the US in the military coup is increasingly evident, as shown by these New York Times op-ed’s here and here and a piece on Al Jazeera here.

Of course many are just terming these theories to be conspiracy theories in the hope that such a blanket term would absolve them of the responsibility or the bother of having to refute them. Indeed, the term is a very convenient way of shutting one down. Much to my displeasure many people close to me, and those close to them quite generously dish out the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ when they hear a viewpoint that is rather different to theirs.

So called ‘conspiracy theorists’ usually are vindicated much later when facts come to the surface. There were many who cried foul in 2006/7 when Gmail was gaining popularity, and many wondered how much of a threat Gmail and Google can be to one’s personal security, they were shunned as conspiracy theorists then, only to be later vindicated that the NSA was monitoring social media sites, Google included. There were many who opined that Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the PLO was actually killed in hospital, and that he didn’t die a natural death, this theory is now held in high esteem and investigations are currently ongoing.

Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford academic and grandson of Hasan AlBanna, the founder of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says the following on what entails being called a conspiracy theorist –

In our day, it is not unusual for writer who does not accept the official consensus to be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist,” for his analysis to be rejected before studying the facts upon which it is based. Are we to conclude that in our globalizing age, with its networks of national security policies and structures and its new means of communication, political scheming, malicious stratagems, manipulation of information and of peoples are a thing of the past? “Conspiracy theorist” is a new insult devised for those who think the wrong thoughts, who don’t fit in; paranoids, people who ascribe occult powers to certain states (the United States, the European countries, Israel, the Arab and African dictatorships, etc.) that they really do not possess. We must forget what we learned about the conspiracies that have left their mark on the history of Latin America and Africa (from the assassination of Salvador Allende to the elimination of Thomas Sankara); we must overlook the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq and to the massacres in Gaza (both presented as legitimate defense); we must say nothing about the West’s alliance with and support for the literalist salafis of the Gulf sheikhdoms; close our eyes to the benefit for Israel of regional instability and of the most recent coup d’État in Egypt. We must remain naïve and credulous if we are not to notice that the United States and Europe on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, have agreed to disagree on Syria, and that the 170 Syrians who die each day count for nothing against the strategic and economic interests of the Great Powers.

Our obligation is to stick to the facts, to avoid oversimplification. The polar opposite of an over-simplified reading of events is not “conspiracy theorizing” but that of intelligence informed by history, by hard facts and by a detailed analysis of conflicting interests. The interpretation presented here may well be wrong or inexact, but substantial and verifiable evidence has repeatedly confirmed it. From those who have criticized or challenged our analysis, we look forward to a fact-based counter-analysis far from denigrations and facile slogans. When people refuse to call a military coup d’État by its real name, and when most media avert their eyes, the hour for critical conscience has struck.

Of course some theories are absolutely hard to fathom, and may well be conspiracy theories, but when facts substantiate a theory, they most certainly should be given a hearing.

Image from here.

Bodu Bala Sena and Their Muslim Funding

Evangelicism is quite a common phenomenon in many parts of the world. Evangelicals take many forms and hues, from the hysteric evangelic Christians with their TV shows in the US or Muslim televangelists in many parts of the Muslim world, mostly in South Asia than in the Middle East, like this Muslim loon here who likes to put on a show.

What is also known is that these evangelical types operate in most covert and clandestine ways, often conspiring between power factions to create turmoil to facilitate the requirement of a peace keeping force in whose guise these evangelical types can creep in furtively through INGO’s and clubs & societies, smaller tentacles of the evangelical types have even percolated as clubs & societies in Sri Lankan schools. Co-Education not being the norm in Sri Lankan schools, these clubs and societies thrive on the notion that boys or girls get the chance to interact with the opposite gender, not something readily available if you schooled in Sri Lanka.

The crux of my ranting above is to drive the fact that evangelicals work in the most ingenious means by penetrating into our collective psyche so much that they become part of the default setup, so much so that you welcome them in, not knowing that they are luring you out.

The Bodu Bala Sena have been on the rampage in Sri Lanka these past few months, you may think they are a Buddhist organisation trying to promote the values of true Buddhism, like Metta, Karuna, Muditha and Upekka, but you, like most of the others around you are far from the truth.

It has been revealed that the Bodu Bala Sena is funded by a Muslim evangelical organisation based in the Middle East. Having successfully taught Sri lankans about Halal and Haram, they are now hell bent on teaching Sri Lankans about the attire of Muslim women in Sri Lanka, before long the vast majority of Sri Lankans will know about the hijab and abhaya, terms otherwise confined mostly to cities with mixed ethnic populations.

The concept of Halal and Haram are ancient Islamic concepts, but they were confined to the inner walls of the Sri Lankan Muslim community because non Muslims do not have to live according to what is stipulated by Halal and Haram. Halal being anything that are permissible and Haram being what are impermissible. The Bodu Bala Sena has gone about vociferously advocating the abstention from Halal foods. They put out posters, large rallies were held and many TV slots were allocated for the BBS to teach the Sinhalese Majority of the Islamic concepts that are halal and haram.

Many monks belonging to the BBS have been seen researching the Qur’an very studiously to understand what it means and what it seeks to espouse. Ven. Galaboda Aththe Gnansara Thera has been seen holding the Qur’an and explaining to the Sinhalese masses what it truly means.  Sinhalese Buddhists who probably never held a Qur’an in their life, having seen a revered monk propagate from it are now driven to study the Qur’an to see what the fuss is all about, thereby getting attracted to the Islamic faith, reliable BBS sources who cannot be revealed have stated.

Of course the reverend monk who appears on TV and BBS platforms seemingly espousing true Buddhist teachings in the pristine Sinhalese that he speaks with calming rhetoric that can proselytise to Buddhism even members from the Taleban was once seen to have behaved like this video shows – ranting in colourful language, except the colour here was in reference to anatomical sections in the human body, both Muslim and Buddhist.

It has been revealed that the paymasters of the Bodu Bala Sena now want the Sinhalese masses to be educated on the Abhaya and Hijab. The rapid westernisation of Sri Lankan society means that the Muslims are getting de-islamicised and the Buddhist majority are getting secular, thereby deviating from Buddhist ethical codes of morality and charity. If the secularisation of the majority Sinhalese were to go unchecked it would be onerous for the Muslims to proselytise the Sri Lankan Sinhalese. The role of the BBS therefore is constantly keep the Buddhist majority in check by infusing Islamic principles into their daily routine, what better way than doing so by scapegoat-ing the existing Muslim population.

Indeed the Muslim evangelical intelligentsia have been so powerful and devious that the Bodu Bala Sena have got wide recognition in Sri Lanka, and the BBS are promoting Islam in Sri Lanka in ways the Sri Lankan Muslim community would have known to be possible.

Further cementing the devious nature of the Muslim Jamiyathul Ulema can be seen in the kind and calm manner in which they have been dealing with the situation compared to the hate filled hysteric rhetoric employed by BBS. This is a carefully orchestrated move of trying to portray goons as Buddhist monks and thereby smear the nobility of a revered philosophy such as Buddhism. It seems this is now bearing fruit, as Gamini Kotakadenia from Theldeniya  mentions here.

True Sinhalese and Buddhists who value their cultural identity must be careful of this rapid Islamisation being spread by the Bodu Bala Sena, their intention is to make this beautifully diverse island nation rid of the majority Sinhalese who if this Bodu Bala Sena scourge were to go on a rampage would soon be much less in proportions.

Image from here.

Ed Miliband the Zionist?

Much speculation has been made of Ed Miliband, the man who many (myself included) feel will be the first Jewish Prime Minister of Britain.  Guido Falks tweeted an article from The Jewish Chronicle which says that Ed Miliband claims to be a Zionist. Let’s go through the exact words –

“I take anti-semitism very seriously. Any kind of de-legitimisation of Israel is something we should call out for what it is and not tolerate it. “I think the boycotts of Israel are totally wrong. We should have no tolerance for boycotts. I would say that to any trade union leaders.”

The Haaretz in it’s reports quite explicitly points out that when someone asked him if he was a Zionist, Ed replied – “Yes, I consider myself a supporter of Israel.” , however Ed was very careful not to say “Yes, I am a Zionist”.

Let’s be honest here, there is absolutely no way that Ed Miliband can become the next British Prime Minister if he antagonises the right wing pro-Israeli British media, let’s be honest about it, no if’s and but’s. If he takes an openly anti Israeli line the media is going to make sure that he will not be the next British PM and they will not rest until they do. If the British media was to somehow (as if by divine intervention) change their tune and become tacitly pro-Palestinian, then the Zionist lobby in the US will strain every sinew of its special relationship with London to ensure that Miliband does not become PM.

It was quite sad that the Stop The War Coalition with whom I side most of the time tweeted saying ‘Labour leader Ed Miliband establishes his pro-Israel credentials like never before & declares he’s a Zionist’. This I think is rather misleading, and at least the STWC should have been more considerate of whom they want to be friendly with.

About Ed Miliband, let’s establish a few home truths.

• Ed Miliband was raised an atheist by his parents, his father was the radical Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband and his mother Marion Kozac is a signatory for the founding statements of ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’.
• Ed Miliband was elected leader largely due to the trade unions. Britains largest trade unions, UNITE and UNISON have both passed a motion to boycott goods from Israeli settlements.
• In his very first speech as Labour leader, Miliband said this.
• When Mossad used forged British Passports to carry out a failed assassination bid against a Hamas official in Dubai when his brother David Miliband was the foreign Secretary, there was very significant diplomatic friction between Israel and the UK.
• Ed Miliband has been very openly attending events and supporting Labour Friends of Palestine, something neither of his New Labour predecessors did.

Compare and contrast Ed Miliband with Tony Blair and to a lesser extent Gordon Brown vis a vis the Israeli question and you’ll see that Miliband actually comes out uncontaminated by any Israeli links. Also, let’s not forget, contrary to what anyone might say, it was Miliband who took on the highly influential Israeli poodle that is Rupert Murdoch.

I don’t see how anything Miliband said yesterday can be spelled out as doom saying for the pro Palestinian activists. I think it is wise and indeed incumbent upon him to woo the Israeli lobby if there is any chance of him becoming PM.

It is only fair to him that he is judged on his record as PM, until then he deserves the respite.

Image from here.

Parliament Jokes

Don’t be fooled to think from the title that this post is about the cinematic rubbish that Ranjan Ramanayake stars in.

I wrote a post for The Platform titled ‘Parliamentary Debates: The Politics of Comedy’, this was a ranking of ten instances when humour has been utilised expertly to convey a point in the British Parliament. Sadly, such banter does not manifest itself that much in the Sri Lankan Parliament.

As Cerno outlines –

@aufidius 😀 it would b interesting 2 c a #srilankan version of that post

— cerno (@cernoblog) January 25, 2013

Sri Lankan Parliamentary rhetoric is far too contaminated with hate, absence of intellect, selfish hunger for power and most of all disrespect for another, to facilitate the smooth humorous intercourse of banter. The closest one of our parliamentarians would come would be from this gem by Mervyn Silva.

This is a post to shamelessly promote what I wrote for The Platform. Either way, I am sure readers will find the videos entertaining. I cannot speak for my writing.

Image from here.