More examples of the innate stupidity of economic sanctions

So Japan and EU are going to launch further sanctions on Burma. The idea being that it will hurt the regime. You already know my opinion about sanctions. Let's see

1. Cancel a Y552m ($4.7m) grant for a business education centre

2. EU will cease to import Burmese wood products, high-value metals and minerals and precious stones. It will also impose export and investment bans on these sectors.

Also quoting from the FT report, EU sanctions affect only a small part of Burmese trade, amounting to just 1.5 per cent of Burmese exports

So they will impose sanctions on a business education centre and stuff that will amount to 1.5% of Burmese exports. And this is supposed to make the Burmese Generals shiver? Why?

There is also another question. If the United Nations is allowing a debate on Burma for internal disturbances and riots, will the United Nations also allow a debate next time there is a riot in the suburbs of Paris in France, or in Oldham in the UK or in Los Angeles in the USA?

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Islam and European Secularism go head to head in a courtroom

The news was buried in a corner of the Financial Times of yesterday, a tiny news story from Strasbourg in France where the European Court of Human Rights is based. I did not recognise the significance at first of the headline, “Ruling against Islamic lessons” and went on. And then came back to read about the fact that the court ruled on October 9, 2007 that compulsory religion classes for Muslim pupils in Turkey violate individual freedoms because they present only Sunni Islam views.

Then my poxy laptop died and was taken away for open heart surgery. Hence I was reduced to staring at the wall and ruminating. Its then that I realised that this could be far more important and sensitive than anybody has realised for many reasons.

For those who are legal minded, can refer to the judgement here. I am going to quote heavily from the judgment so bear with me.

The background to Alevism:

7. Hasan Zengin stated that his family
were adherents of Alevism.

8. Alevism originated in central Asia but
developed largely in Turkey. Two important Sufis had a considerable impact on
the emergence of this religious movement: Hoca Ahmet Yesevi (12th century) and
Haci Bektaşi Veli (14th century). This belief system, which has deep roots in
Turkish society and history, is generally considered as one of the branches of
Islam, influenced in particular by Sufism and by certain pre-Islamic beliefs.
Its religious practices differ from those of the Sunni1 schools of law in
certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage.

9. According to
the applicant, Alevism is a belief or philosophy influenced by other cultures,
religions and philosophies. It represents one of the most widespread faiths in
Turkey after the Hanafite2 branch of Islam. It advocates close contact with
nature, tolerance, modesty and love for one's neighbour, within the Islamic
faith. Alevis reject the sharia (code of laws in orthodox Islam) and the sunna
(forms of behaviour and formal rules of orthodox Islam) and defend freedom of
religion, human rights, women's rights, humanism, democracy, rationalism,
modernism, universalism, tolerance and secularism. Alevis do not pray by the
Sunni rite (in particular, they do not comply with the obligation to pray five
times daily) but express their devotion through religious songs and dances
(semah); they do not attend mosques, but meet regularly in cemevi (meeting and
worship rooms) for ritual ceremonies. Equally, Alevis do not consider the
pilgrimage to Mecca as a religious obligation. They believe that Allah is
present in each person. According to Alevism, Allah created Adam in his image
and all his manifestations in this world are in human form. Allah is neither in
the sky nor in paradise, but in the centre of the human heart.

Now as you read this, you will immediately know that this is as far away from traditional Islam as possible. So this sect is definitely Haram, forbidden and it is not surprising that this sect’s religious learning is not passed on in schools. The Sunni Ulema (the mullahs, priests and theologians) will spontaneously combust if this happens!

But you see, universal principles of human rights, secularism and liberal traditions of democracy, humanism and universalism demand that the state does not take sides, each religion is equal, and as long as they do not commit any crimes against anybody else, you can worship who you please. But that’s the theory, and the practise is something else. Unfortunately for the Turkish State and Sunni Islam, the European Court of Human Rights is forced to look at theory to judge this case. Read on!

10. On 23 February 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Provincial
Directorate of National Education (“the Directorate”) at the Istanbul Governor's
Office, seeking to have his daughter exempted from religious culture and ethics
classes. Pointing out that his family were followers of Alevism, he stressed
that, under international treaties such as, for example, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, parents had the right to choose the type of
education their children were to receive. In addition, he alleged that the
compulsory course in religious culture and ethics was incompatible with the
principle of secularism.

11. On 2 April 2001 the Directorate replied
that it was impossible to grant the exemption request. In particular, it stated:

“... Article 24 of the Constitution states that 'Education and
instruction in religion and ethics shall be conducted under State supervision
and control. Instruction in religious culture and moral education shall be
compulsory in the curricula of primary and secondary schools. Other religious
education and instruction shall be subject to the individual's own desire, and
in the case of minors, to the request of their legal representatives.'

Article 12 of the State Education Act (Law no. 1739) ... provides that
'secularism shall be the basis of Turkish national education. Religious culture
and ethics shall be among the compulsory subjects taught in primary and upper
secondary schools, and in schools of these levels.'”

For these reasons,
your request cannot be granted.”

So the plaintiff took his complaint to the ECHR. Now the Government lawyer said that Jewish and Christian pupils were exempted from this compulsory teaching. Both sides submitted school textbooks on Islam to bolster their respective cases.

The learned judges then referred to the Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Recommendations 1396 (1999) and 1720 (2005) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) General policy recommendation no. 5.

As an aside, the court did a fascinating review of what’s happening in other countries and again it is worthwhile to quote it in full.

30. In Europe, religious education is closely tied in with secular
education. Of the 46 Council of Europe member States which were examined, 43
provide religious education classes in state schools. Only Albania, France (with
the exception of the Alsace and Moselle regions) and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia are the exceptions to this rule. In Slovenia,
non-confessional teaching is offered in the last years of state education.

31. In 25 of the 46 member States (including Turkey), religious
education is a compulsory subject. However, the scope of this obligation varies
depending on the State. In five countries, namely Finland, Greece, Norway,
Sweden and Turkey, the obligation to attend classes in religious education is
absolute. All pupils who belong to the religious faith taught in the classes are
obliged to follow them, partially or fully. However, ten States allow for
exemptions under certain conditions. This is the case in Austria, Cyprus,
Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino and the
United Kingdom. In the majority of these countries, religious education is
denominational.

32. Ten other countries give pupils the opportunity to
choose a substitute lesson in place of compulsory religious education. This is
the case in Germany, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Serbia, Slovakia and Switzerland. In those countries,
denominational education is included in the curriculum drawn up by the relevant
ministries and pupils are obliged to attend unless they have opted for the
substitute lesson proposed.

33. In contrast, 21 member States do not
oblige pupils to follow classes in religious education. Religious education is
generally authorised in the school system but pupils only attend if they have
made a request to that effect. This is what happens in the largest group of
States: Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Spain, Estonia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, the Czech Republic,
Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Finally, in a third group of States, pupils are
obliged to attend a religious education or substitute class, but always have the
option of attending a secular lesson.

34. This general overview of
religious education in Europe shows that, in spite of the variety of teaching
methods, almost all of the member States offer at least one route by which
pupils can opt out of religious education classes (by providing an exemption
mechanism or the option of attending a lesson in a substitute subject, or by
giving pupils the choice of whether or not to sign up to a religious studies
class).

To cut a long story short, the court found that the Government of Turkey had violated Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Too bad the court did not rule on the Article 9 but still.

So here we go, we have a situation that will force Sunni Majority Turkey, bastion of Militant Secularism, ruled by a mildly Islamist party to decide what to do. It is now forced into an unpalatable decision. You see, it is impossible for a theological position to emerge where different interpretations of Islam can co-exist. The continuing debates, protests, riots and demonstrations (both state and religiously sponsored) over apostasy and blasphemy show that tolerance at worst and theological supports at best are simply not there.

If the Turkish government decide to follow the court’s judgement and actually allow heretical sects such as Shia, Alevism, etc. to propagate their own theology in schools that will mean that the majority Sunni ulema and faithful will go up in flames. They cannot allow people to call themselves as Muslims and still exclude themselves from Sunni teaching as that gives a governmental recognition to these sects. The government cannot remove the compulsory teaching either as that will also make the majority Sunni ulema and faithful will go up in flames. It cannot remove secularism and say Sunni Islam is majority religion and you have to learn it or lump it because it has signed up to the European treaties (such as Council of Europe and the European Human Rights Convention). This is assuming the Turkish Military, the militant protector of Ataturk’s secularism, would be silent. Very interesting days ahead, folks.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

EU project builds European infrastructure for testing biometrics technologies

I spotted something buried deep in one of the thick (electronically speaking that is) EU developments and notifications emails that somehow seem to land in my in-box. I am very impressed by one thing, how the European bureaucrats are always on the lookout for things that the national authorities might be doing which might not be "European". This is one example. Every country has its own way of having biometric identification frameworks and usage. And in almost all cases, even inside a country, you will find different standards and usage.

For example, the United Kingdom has started off on inviting contractors to start work for the National ID project. Now are these guys going to work with the benefits agency? or the NHS card system? or the passport agency? don't think so, haven't seen it anyway. It is early days yet, but one would have thought that some standards work would have pushed through. Remember how EU got a leg up on 2G mobile networks by pushing for the GSM standard? and USA then ended up on the back foot because of no standards. Mind you, then EU tried to do the same for 3G and 2.5G and ended up in the most unholy mess imaginable. But aiming for standards of interoperability is good. So it seems for this story as well. The EU is launching a project to get standards for biometric identification interoperability.

But what I am finding very curious that there is no mention of any financial institution cooperation / collaboration. Money is what makes the world go around and if there is one thing which should be interoperable is the financial transaction framework. Its not like that the EU is not already working on this. For example, the EU is working on the SEPA, the Single European Payments Area, working on TARGET II, on having a common depository, imposing standards and and and (and, yes, up to and including specs on credit cards and and and). So when we are talking about two such huge operations going on, has anybody ever thought of linking these two up? or at least talking to each other? Havent heard of anything and my admittedly limited googling and emailing didnt produce any responses.

If Europe can come up with say a credit card or financial instrument biometric identification which is in synch with or interoperable with the national security identifier project, then it will single-handedly give a leg up to the next but one generation of technology, manufacturing and service firms. It can be done, but I wonder if anybody is listening?

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

EU project builds European infrastructure for testing biometrics technologies

[Date: 2007-08-13]

An EU-funded project has begun work on setting up a European infrastructure for the testing and certification of biometrics components and systems.

Biometric recognition systems measure the behavioural or physical traits of people. These can be as varied as iris images, fingerprints, the structure of veins in the hand, or even an individual's typing rhythm.

The systems are currently used by national governments for border controls, and the EU is looking to develop a coherent approach for Europe. The technology is used to detect illegal immigration, and to identity theft and security threats.

The BioTesting Europe project is seeking to establish European interoperability for large-scale cross-national identity management systems, such as passports, visas and ID cards.

The project will also help to establish European centres for the testing and certification of these biometric components and systems.

'In order to establish European interoperability within large identity management systems, more specific requirements for designing testing and evaluation schemes are needed,' explains Max Snijder, the project coordinator from the European Biometrics Forum. 'An integrated and European approach is the absolute success factor in achieving these goals. That means simultaneous actions are needed that facilitate alignment between all levels of stakeholders that are involved: end users, testing laboratories, accreditation organisations and industry.'

The project has begun outlining the need for testing and certification schemes, and will then make an inventory of existing capabilities, mapping user requirements and defining the business case.

Ultimately, the project will establish a European Biometric Testing and Certification Roadmap for further research and development.

BioTesting Europe is funded under the EU's Sixth Framework Programme under its 'preparatory action for security research' theme. It is being coordinated by the European Biometric Forum, and involves the UK's National Physical Laboratory, Germany's Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Verarberaitung (IGD), and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC).

For more information, please visit:
http://www.biotestingeurope.eu/

Category: Projects
Data Source Provider: National Physics Laboratory (NPL) Document Reference: Based on a press release from the National Physics Laboratory (NPL) Programme or Service Acronym: SECURITY, FP7, FP7-COOPERATION, FP7-SECURITY, FUTURE RESEARCH Subject Index: Coordination, Cooperation; Scientific Research

RCN: 28202

Britain might seek to try IDF officer

Now this is an interesting conundrum. Here we are, a British citizen, shot in disputed territory, under occupation forces of another state. No legal connection whatsoever other than a nebulous connection within the UN auspices. Israel has not signed the ICC treaty (nor will it). Its not within the Council of Europe. One can quibble over the evidence, but as can be seen, both UK and Israel agree that there is a case, the debate is over whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Capt Hib? Now I am wondering if this situation was reversed, what would the UK do? for example, in the case of Ian Henderson? The Bahraini government is its usual other worldly self and would never do anything as crazy like actually asking Henderson to be tried!. This is an interesting situation indeed.

Hmmm, just had another thought. I wonder if Israel can sue the UK for not being careful with its citizens? Or sue the British citizens who were the suppliers or ideologues who got these buggers to go do suicide bombing in Israel? Ironical, eh?
==================





Britain might seek to try IDF officer
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar


Talkbacks for this article: 8

Britain has reiterated its demand that Israel try an IDF captain accused of shooting British filmmaker James Miller to death in the Gaza Strip four years ago.

In light of new evidence resulting from a Scotland Yard inquiry into Miller's death, which indicates that the bullet that killed Miller was shot from an IDF armed personnel carrier, officials in the UK have given the state until Tuesday to respond to their demand that Capt. Hib al-Heib stand trial for murder, the Times reported Sunday.

The new evidence is based on an analysis of video and audio recordings of the shooting, which occurred in May 2003 while Miller was making a documentary about children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His colleague, Saira Shah, incorporated the story of his demise into the film Death in Gaza, garnering a host of awards.

Should Israel not agree to try Heib, the Times said, the UK would consider prosecuting Heib there. The article did not state whether British officials would attempt to have Heib extradited or try him in absentia.

Israel has maintained that while there was ground to suspect that Heib was responsible for Miller's death, the evidence at hand was insufficient to prove the allegation.

The Times quoted Miller's brother John saying he believed that a trial in Britain would more likely lead to a conviction than one in Israel. John Miller denigrated what he called "years of indifference from [the British] government and rebuff, lies, and cheating from the Israeli government."

Miller's widow, Sophy, however, said she expected the new evidence to lead to Heib's conviction in an Israeli court.

Israel's Foreign Ministry said that it was the purview of the Justice Ministry and the IDF Spokesman's Office to respond to the British demand. The IDF has not yet issued a statement.

============

Update: The Israeli's have been in touch with the British Government asking for more information.