Y Safle

Far too under-reported is the news that the Liberal Democrats have come up with a policy that would undo the creeping fascism of Labour’s assault on civil rights.

The policy in question proposes a freedom bill, with a mass repeal of legislation such as ID cards (and the hugely expensive, unsafe and improbable national database that goes with it), control orders, detention without trial, extradition to the US without presentation of any evidence by US authorities and other such terrible terrible legislation that this government has foisted upon an unwilling populace on the say of its yes men (like Rebecca Wade).

It also proposes a streamlined process for the repeal of bad legislation – and that is not before time.

Radio 4 carried a story today which is also reported in the Daily Mail, that George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, got hold of some scrawled notes from Gordon Brown and presented them to a graphologist who proceeded to “analyse” them in an unflattering manner about Brown.

At the risk of sounding like I may be saying something in support of this Labour government (we wouldn’t want that!) I have to say that I am deeply troubled by Osborne’s lack of capacity for critical thinking, and how poorly this bodes should the Conservatives get into power.

In order that he may score some cheap political points against Borwn, one of the supposedly brightest minds of the conservative party has resorted to quackery on a par with fortune telling, homeopothy and ESP.

Osborne might as well have said that he had received a message from fairies at the bottom of his garden for all the credence we should give it.

The idea that we can tell anything about someone’s character from their handwriting has time and again been demonstrated to be arrant nonsense. Empirical studies repeatedly demonstrate that there is nothing in graphology – and yet supposedly intelligent people continue to use such analysis to make important judgements about people.

Shame on them, and shame on George Osborne for doing the same. If it were not for parliamentary privelege, Brown could probably sue him for libel.

Graphology tells you nothing about the character of someone whose writing is analysed.

But it speaks volumes about the person who commissioned the analysis.

Woolly minded. Lacking in critical thinking skills. A poor judge of character. Not given to consideration of the evidence.

If the Conservatives want to be taken seriously they should sack George Osborne.

It is nearly 200 years since the evangelical revival in Britain led to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. This trade was a nasty piece of our history, and it is right that we are aware of our nation’s role in the trade and that we know deep regret that it ever happened.

But some people want to go further. Yesterday mornings 8.00 O’clock interview on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme included an interview with one Esther Stanford, co-chair of the Rendezvous of Victory campaign that seeks repartions for the descendents of those affected by the trade.

Esther Stanford is a lawyer, and it seems that lawyers are afflicted by a belief that the best way to affect reconciliation is to make someone pay. But her reasoning was astounding.

Asked by the interviewer to comment on the fact that there were African leaders involved in the trafficing of people for this trade, Stanford argued that we cannot hold such people to account in the same way that we would not hold Jewish collaborators with the Nazis to account. That the only people we hold to account are those involved in the systematic genocide of a nation.

But the slave trade was not a genocide. It was a crime against humanity in much the same way, but the only genocide caused by the slave trade was the genocide of the native Americans that originally inhabited the West Indies.

So if we are paying for a genocide, we have no decendents left to pay. Those people were wiped out.

What of the African slave trade? Who pays whom?

This is an impossible task. Does someone of mixed ancestry pay on behalf of slaver ancestors to themself on behalf of enslaved ancestors?

And where do we stop? We should ask all who profited from the trade to make reparation, shouldn’t we? So that is inidigenous Africans as well as Europeans and Americans.

On the other hand, should descendents of abolitionists be held to account in the same way?

The whole issue is a nonsense and really very unhelpful.

There are very real issues with regard to under-representation of Africa in international politics, and the plight of millions in poverty because of Western protectionist policies. It is right that western nations should invest enormously in Africa. I believe that if the UN is to persist in having permanent members on its security council, then Africa must be somehow represented in the same way on the council.

But the exploitation of Africa has not stopped. Slavery is not the issue. The issue is our inhumanity to one another, and our deliberate ignorance of the plight of those beyond our petty little borders.

But back to the issue of reparations: Should Norway and Denmark pay reparations to the UK and Ireland for Viking raiding and its slave trade? Should the French government pay reparations for the Norman invasion and enslavement of the Anglo Saxon peoples? (Or maybe that should be Norway again – the Normans being of Norse descent).

I have a simple rule of thumb for such issues: A man is responsible for his own actions and choices, but not for those of anyone else.

I have some very interesting ancestors (as do we all, no doubt).

One of my ancestors was apparently a village constable, and confessed on his death bed to committing two murders, and then failing to investigate them (as would have been his duty).

But I am not responsible for that ancestor’s actions.

On the other hand, I have Scottish highland ancestry (apparently an ancestor who fought for the Jacobites at Culloden), and the highlanders suffered under the ensuing clearances as people enriched themselves at the expense of the people they displaced and dispossessed. Should the government pay me recompence for this?

No. Because no one alive to day was responsible for this act.

Society has often been violent, immoral and unjust. We rightly seek a more just society now – and that is our right contribution and response to the lessons of history.

As for woolly headed thinkers such as Esther Stanford, that simplistically wants people of European descent only to pay people of African descent only – too many people mistake that point of view for liberalism. In fact it is historical fascism. If we cannot move beyond that debate then we have learned nothing from history.

I’m having a garage sale on ebay to reduce some of the clutter we have acquired, and make room for any new clutter we receive at Christmas!

One of the items I’m selling is our Viewsonic V1100 Tablet PC, which I bought for my daughters to use. I can thoroughly recommend tablet PCs for pre-school children, as they are far more uintuitive than a mouse, and they don’t require the manual dexterity.

Only problem is that they don’t have CD drives. I tended to copy CDs onto compact flash cards, and use the CF card slot like a CD drive. This is fast, light and portable – but limits the number of CDs you can have to the number of CF cards you can spare.

Fortunately “Bear in the big blue house” has been such a hit in our home that we haven’t needed much else.

If you are interested, click the link and view my other items (a 3COM wireless access point, a digital camera and some other stuff).

“Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.

Joel 3:9-13

When God revived Judah it became a militant force, a force to be reckoned with. Surrounding nations could no longer sit idly around, content with having desolated Judah and carried her children captive. No longer were they able to attend to the mundane matters of living, such as farming.

When God revived Judah she became a mighty nation, able to conquer her enemies and free her captives. Revived Judah was a fearsome force for she had God fighting on her side.

In the same way, the revived church is a mighty force within the nation. No longer will people be able to ignore her. No longer can they attend to their worship of their four legged square idols which glow in the corners of their living rooms. No longer will they be able to go about their daily business without a thought for the God who created them and loved them enough to send his only son to die for them.

The revived church will be a church which *matters*, a church which makes a *difference* within the life of our nation.

In the world of today, so many of us seek to bring moral change to our countries through the legal system. We campaign for stricter laws on the control of sale of alcohol, and for less advertising. We campaign to outlaw abortion, and so many other causes (which are noble in their intent).

I am not saying that such campaigning is wrong, but I can say with a certainty that the moral problems within our nations will not go away if we are successful in these campaigns. If abortion is outlawed then people will find other ways to commit murder, for the hearts of the people are still desperately evil. If we tighten up on drink even to the level of prohibition then drunkenness will still occur (look at America’s last experiment with prohibition).

Let us not hide behind our pro-life banners, thinking we are doing all we can to prevent this wholesale baby-murder, we are *NOT*.

When was the last time you wept before God because your nation had killed a million people without a passing thought? When was the last time you spent hours in an agony of prayer, wrestling with God that he might revive his church, for *then* the church militant could effect a moral change upon the people of your nation which would at last bring this travesty to an end.

Look at the life work of sir William Wilberforce. Here was a man who laboured to bring slavery to an end in all British colonies. Shortly after his death slavery was indeed abolished, but why? was it only because this man fought his battle in parliament? No. This man fought his battle in prayer, wrestling before the Lord, and many others fought it with him because at that time the church was in an awakened state.

In 1904 in Glamorgan, a county of Wales, there were 11,282 convictions for drunkenness, and similar figures for years prior to that, but then revival erupted through the ministry of Evan Roberts, and this significantly affected the moral climate, for these drunkards were turning now to Christ and not to drink. In 1905 convictions for drunkenness were down to 8,164 and by 1906, when the revival had run its course, convictions stood at 5,490.

You see, the church militant will affect the world. The revived church will lead the world where the declined church has followed. This is the way it has always been. This is the way it will always be.

Next time you hear of an abortion, or a death by drink-driving then pray with me that God will send revival.

US-based corporations are opposing legislation to
give Chinese workers new labor rights.

US-based global corporations like Wal-Mart,
Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel,
acting through US business organizations like the
American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and
the US-China Business Council, are actively
lobbying against the new legislation. They are also
threatening that foreign corporations will
withdraw from China if it is passed.

China’s Draft Labor Contract Law would provide
minimal standards that are commonplace in many
other countries, such as enforceable labor
contracts, severance pay regulations, and
negotiations over workplace policies and
procedures. The Chinese government is
supporting these reforms in part as a response to
rising labor discontent.

Behind the Great Wall of China

US companies in China make the claim that in so doing they improve workers rights in that country. But here is the truth of the matter – the capitalist greed ethic drives these companies to export their production to the cheapest country, and to interfere in the politics of those countries to keep production cheap.

When I was a student at the end of the 1980s, our Christian Union (CU) was expelled from the Student Union’s board of clubs and societies, based on its strongly conservative stance. In particular, the constitution precluded a woman from being the CU president. It also did not allow a democratic vote on the incoming executive board. The board was chosen by the outgoing board.

Now this would be a controversial point even amongst Christians, and many would say that to be a member of a secular organisation – the board of clubs and societies, and able to benefit from room bookings and grants from the same, we might expect that compromise on an issue such as this would be necessary. There is a straight choice – become affiliated to a church (or Christian organisation), and subject only to their authority, or else become affiliated to a student body, and accept that the resulting non-church organisation will be subject to the rules of that body insofar as they do not compromise our Christian witness.

But the problem with the latter route is that compromise can come in very small steps, until you reach a point where the secular organisation asks you to do something that is just plain wrong. People who argue this way would say that Christian Unions in universities should certainly not be part of the Student Union body. That there should be no compromise, even on controversial issues such as a female president, or a democratic voting system.

And it seems that these people have been shown to be right.

Because student politics has trampled right across the mark in hob nailed boots recently.

In January this year Birmingham students union expelled the Christian Union and froze their bank accounts over an issue that is frankly ridiculous.

They argued that the Christian Union could no longer exist under their rules – not over issues of democracy or equal rights, but because they were insisting that a non Christian guild official should be a member of the executive board. Furthermore, that non Christians should be allowed to join the society as full voting members.

This is just plain old political interference of the fascist variety.

Christian Unions exist for their non members as well as their members. They have non exclusive meetings, where all are welcome. But fundamentally they are a union of Christians. A point that is tautologous, and should really be within the grasp of someone of sufficient academic ability to become a student!

So why do Birmingham students union want to effect this change? Because in so doing, it becomes possible for anyone to take over the Christian Union and subvert it. Don’t like the Christian Union policy on guitars? Then just get all your guitarist mates to join the CU and they can force a vote that changes the policy.

But when is a Christian Union not a Christian Union? When the guitarists outnumber the Christians? Or when so many special interest groups have changed its character as to make it no longer what it claims to be.

It is madness.

Would a political party be happy to accept such interference? Is it right that conservatives henceforth be given full voting rights in the liberal democratic party, and vice versa? We can see where that leads… just look at Tony Blair and his pink tories!

And it is not just Birmingham.

Exeter Christian Union has also been banned, this time over the only slightly less spurious grounds that it hould disassociate from the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF), and that it should not ask members and speakers to sign a statement of faith (much broader than it used to be, but requiring that people make a statement of their faith in Christ as Lord – i.e. that they are Christians).

So Christian Unions everywhere – it seems your choice is to take a stand now and withdraw from this interfering politicised secular body, or be thrown out when they come after you.

Tony Blair has finally (probably involuntarily) admitted that the war in Iraq has been a disaster. It has been a disaster for American and British foreign policy, and it has been a far worse disaster for the hundreds of thousands who have died at our hands.

But those who voted for this nasty war are rushing for cover, saying that they were misinformed and that they could not have predicted this outcome in Iraq.

Yet these people who claim to be competent to govern our country are apparently much less able to predict the outcome of their actions than the people they serve. Many people (including many politicians such as Douglas Hogg, Robin Cook and Menzies Campbell, knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Those who knew most about Iraq were most likely to say that there was no credible threat from the country).

Below is a message I wrote in March 2003, just after the war started. I will highlight in bold the parts where I, a mere bystander, was able to predict the disaster that we have now. If I could do it, politicians should be ashamed that they did not. They certainly have lost my vote.

The question was asked by someone:
> What and where is this beast “international law”?

Someone else had answered:
> The process by which we try to ensure that we never return to the concept of
> ‘might is right’, which caused two world wars and goodness knows how many
> smaller ones.

And the original writers reply:
>So we give up our right to use force when it is correct?

When is it correct?

> No I don’t think
>so, we fought and won two world wars against aggression started from
>outwith these borders.

Hmm… yes we got involved in the first world war, but how just was the
cause? The fight was over empire building versus nationalism, a
struggle between Russia and Austria over the Balkans, a series of
alliances that inevitably led to large scale war, distrust amongst the
colonial powers after the carving up of Africa, a struggle for naval
supremacy and a belief by many parties that they could make a war
short and swift.

The British do not come out of that period covered in glory – it was a
time of change as the colonial period began to disintegrate and the
assumptions of the colonial powers were savaged.

We are now in a new colonial period, with the U.S. acting as the
colonial power. It is interesting to see that at least some of the
same mistakes as were made leading up to the great war are being
repeated again – in particular a belief that a war will be swift and
that the colonial control thus established will lead to a more settled
region.

One can but hope it will be so, but I doubt that the fighting will be
over in the expected 30 days (although I suspect Saddam’s regime will
have fallen in that time). I also have no idea whether Iraq will be a
better place for having Saddam deposed. What will take the place of his
regime? A puppet of the U.S? An interim government that will be
replaced with an elected regime (following the imposition of a
political system upon Iraq by the west)? Another dictator? The
fragmentation of the country?

No one can be certain what will happen next, nor can we be certain
that the result will be any better than the regime the U.S. ousted
(except that the treaties with Russia and France over the oil will be
up for grabs again!)

> Swallow your appeasing pride and accept the
>fact that Britain wasn’t and isn’t wrong.

Your attitude appears to be that Britain may not always be right, but
it is never wrong! The Great War was a failure of diplomacy following
a colonial period that allowed cultural assumptions to blind European
nations to the precipice that they were approaching. Britain honoured
alliances and fought a war with a nation that was challenging its
naval supremacy, but were we right to do so? Who can say! But the
settlement following the war more or less guaranteed the coming of the
second world war, so again lack of thought led to failure and loss.

>Saddam was warned,
> he’s resorted to type and is being shown as a tyrant,

Which we knew anyway, especially those who protested against him through the
80s while certain governments regarded him as their favourite tyrant.

>Well I would say Iran was more dangerous then, so that policy worked.

Did it? The U.S. and U.K were complicit in the murder of Iraqi
civilians. Innocent people in their thousands died for our policy
which was all about preventing the spread of a form of Islam that
western business interests found distasteful – and even then Iraq was
the aggressor, not Iran!

>Does that give you an excuse to now support Saddam?

Wake up! You are not thinking man! Where does anyone say they support
Saddam?

>You want to seriously
>question why you hate your country so much.

You want to drop this fallacious line and start addressing the
comments put to you in a rational manner, with the assumption that the
people to whom you speak might be capable of joined up reasoning. Why
does a suggestion that war is illegal suggest that one hates one’s
country?

We live in a democracy – in such a system it is the duty of every
individual to make informed decisions about the issues at hand, and it
is therefore inevitable that differences of opinion will emerge. The
only people who hate their democratic countries are those who suggest
that disagreement should be villified.

I therefore put it to you that *you* hate democracy.

>The protestors [are] now in the minority

It is always the case that during the conflict dispassionate thought
gives way to baser motivations as we watch pictures of our mighty
forces killing Iraqis as they shop for food and clothing.

How many people being killed have *you* watched from the comfortable
safety of your living room since this conflict started? Those flashes
that light up the Baghdad skyline are people being killed for your
entertainment.

The question, of course, will be how many people think that the action
was justified in a year’s time? How many in ten years? How will
history judge this bloody episode?

>feel they missed out
>on the ‘Nam protests.

That would be the Vietnam war that George W carefully avoided?

> If you can’t go to war, protest against it, it will
>give you a feeling of importance. Where in actual fact they’re fools.

Why? Saying it is so does not make it so.

> remind me [who sold Scuds to Iraq], it certainly wasn’t Britain,

No, I think Nigel will find that the Russians sold the scuds, but the
British sold them plenty of armour. The U.S. sold them armour and even
*provided* them with their chemical weapons!

>but do avoid the point.
>”I don’t have Scud missiles” says Saddam. “See – he doesn’t have
>missiles” says leftie protestors.

Lefty? If Douglas Hogg can take a stand against going to war then
those who have misgivings are clearly taken from all sides of the
political divide, and include some of our most knowledgeable people
with respect to Iraq – people who would not shie away from a fight if
it were truly necessary.

>Let me quote. “Thank you, Saddam bad, Bush OK”.

You are watching too much propoganda. It is addling your mind!

Let me quote an ordinary citizen and resident of Baghdad today:

“We will turn Baghdad into a graveyard for the Americans ”

As I pointed out to you before: don’t think that *all* Iraqis are
going to be happy at the replacement of Saddam in Iraq with an
American viceroy.

>You want us to be beaten,

No, he doesn’t want our forces there at all. As they are there, it
would be much worse if they *are* beaten, so one can hope that they
get in and out as quickly as possible with as few casualties as
possible – that does not make their action right!

[ad hominem argument directed at Nigel deleted]

>Yes they are. The UK/US would have been in, fought and won the bloody
>war by now

What *utter* twaddle! How would they have done that without their
armour and equipment pray tell? This action began precisely when
George W had always planned for it to begin. There was no delay
(beyond perhaps a few days – but even then I am not convinced).

>if you appeasing [vulgarity deleted]

What a vulgar ad hominem that is. Especially as it has already been
demonstrated to you that it is fallacious.

> hadn’t dragged it all out, dotted the
>i’s and crossed the t’s.

Um… what i’s are dotted? What t’s are crossed? It was failure to
achieve a majority view in the U.N. that makes this war illegal.

[more silly ad hominems against Nigel deleted]

[Nigel wrote:]
>> Ah, so to fight for freedom, democracy, and all that stuff, you want to
>> label all those who disagree with your opinion “appeasers” and “traitors”.

>In this instance they are traitors.

You do not know the meaning of the word. There is no treason on the
part of the protestors. They object but they do not aid the enemy or
betray the sovereign or her people.

You would already know this if you had bothered read my last message
to you.

> When I know my fellow countrymen are
>fighting Iraqi forces and some appeasing traitors wave Iraqi flags in
>George Square, Glasgow, what am I supposed to make of it.

Make of it what you will – protest is not treachery. Denial and
suppression of protest is.

>> Don’t be such a hypocrite.

>No hypocrite,

All evidence to the contrary.

> I know what’s what.

All evidence to the contrary.

> You can’t find it in yourself to admit
>you’re a traitor.

More such evidence.

Regards,
Stephen

“The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head: And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Joel 3:5-8

Joel speaks now of how the Lord will recompense those people who have opposed his people. Tyre and Sidon had taken Israelites into captivity and annexed their lands.

I spoke in my previous article of how the world has attacked the church, infiltrating it from within and blasting it from without. The church has been weakened by this steady program of decline and destruction which we have allowed to take place. Members of the church of the Living God have fallen prey to doctrines of demons and have thus been taken into captivity.

But the Lord *will* recompense those who have caused this destruction. Those people that have set themselves up as critics of the living God will be brought low. Those who have worshiped wisdom and philosophy will be left bereft. Those who have actively campaigned against the church will know the vengeance of God.

This is simple fact. I do not mean to gloat in this, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. I would not trade places with anyone who has prefered to glorify man over God.

But let us seriously consider our own part in this captivity within the church? What part have we played in allowing Tyre and Sidon to take our people captive?

We read in Luke 9:62:

“No-one, who puts his hand to the plough and looks back, is fit for service in the kingdom of God”

We are *all* called to service within the kingdom of God, but how many of us are *fit* for service? How many of us can say with all honesty that we put our hands to the plough and never looked back?

How many of us who hold any position of leadership, be it in Bible study, preaching, youth work or family, can say with sincerity that they truly are leaders.

Most leaders today are not leaders at all, they are followers. They determine which way the wind is blowing, and which way the Christian “pack” is running and then they dash out ahead and shout out “I’m leading”.

It is a pity that they will be the first over the precipice.

What we need is leaders who will stand against the flow. Leaders who are not looking back to see who is following them, and who is supporting them. We need leaders who will stand firm on principle and belief. We need leaders who are not afraid to challenge prevailing “wisdom” where they see error.

And if you are reading this and thinking “That’s okay, because I’m not called to lead”, then I would say “yes you are.”

We are all called to lead in one very important area. We are all called to lead people to Christ. Fallen people; lost people; hopeless people.

What sort of a leader are you?

Let us have the mind of Christ in all our dealings. Let us throw off the sin which so easily entangles. Let us die to self, and give our egos a burial. A leader who leads with his head turned back to see who follows him is a leader who is not dead to self. We do not need egotistical leaders for these are the very people that have allowed the captivity by Tyre. These are the people of Sidon who have themselves taken people captive.

Let us no longer be in bondage to pride. Let us throw of this snare and escape this captivity. Ego has *no* place within the Church of Christ, for what exalts man does not exalt God. It is only what exalts God that exalts man also.

I don’t want to wait for the last day for God to pay me my just recompense for my evil and selfish nature. I pray that God will help me die to self *now*, before the time of his justice, for it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. “Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

“Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.”

I have just noticed that since I wrote my XML code samples, with some rather long lines, Internet Explorer has started floating the right hand sidebar of this site down to the foot of the page.

Not strictly a bug. It must be a font size thing. But for best results, use any browser except Internet Explorer