For some strange reason that I cannot explain right now, I’ve just had a quick peek at Oliver Kamm’s blog. There I learn that that our favourite “left-wing” conservative will this very evening be debating with Tony Benn about the “achievements of the peace movement”.

All very predictable that, and no doubt as dull as ditchwater. But what’s really interesting is that Press TV is hosting the debate. Yes, that’s right, I refer to the Iranian employer of Sister Yvonne Ridley, and a broadcaster that once offered me a screen test (which I declined).

Kamm justifies his appearance on the Mullah-Lite programme, saying:

“So far as I’m aware [sic], nothing I say on these programmes is edited, so I’m glad to take part.”

Lovely jubbly.

Only yesterday did I read that dissident Iranian MP Noureddine Pir Mouazen has been accused of treason by the country’s Intelligence Minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie. This is for appearing on the Persian-language service of the US government-funded Voice of America, when Iranian law forbids public officials from conducting interviews with foreign radio and television.

So what comes first for Komrade Kamm – principled solidarity with pro-democracy Iranians, or yet another opportunity for him to appear as a talking head on the telly? I think we should be told.

Much as I would like to illustrate this post with side-by-side pictures of Kamm and Ridley – for rhetorical as well as comic effect – Kamm would probably sue me.

Story

Either:

1) A very big shit

2) A very difficult sodoku

3) Put third option here

Picture of a Fat Arse Toilet

Kamm on extraordinary rendition:

It means moving someone from one country to another without reference to a formal extradition treaty … the detention of a suspect in one country and their transfer to another by the CIA. There are good reasons that the first country might wish to take this course. It might not have a legal system capable of disinterestedly dispensing justice, owing to the threat of intimidation. There might be domestic political reasons for the government to be reluctant to cooperate too closely with the United States.

Amnesty International on extraordinary rendition:

… the transfer of individuals from one country to another, by means that bypass all judicial and administrative due process. … The most widely known manifestation of rendition is the secret transfer of terror suspects into the custody of other states – including Egypt, Jordan and Syria – where physical and psychological brutality feature prominently in interrogations. The rendition network’s aim is to use whatever means necessary to gather intelligence, and to keep detainees away from any judicial oversight.

A bit different aren’t they?

Want to know the reality of Jordan, Syria or Egypt? Read here, here and here.

A bunch of activists are doing the usual tricks:

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is due to discuss a motion at its Easter conference that takes a pro-Palestinian stance on the occupation. It calls on its union to buy educational material produced by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for use by students in schools.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, lest we forget, are the organisation that rejected Tony Greenstein, Sue Blackwell, and Roland Rance (hardly shrinking violets when it comes to criticising Israel), when they attempted to oppose open antisemitism within the movement.

And these people are meant to teach children to think?

The Guardian notes the top 50 power blogs. The criteria used for their ranking is opaque, but let’s celebrate the ranking of http://www.dirtydirtydancing.com/ coming in at a respectable 32nd. As The Guardian states:

If someone stole your camera, took it out for the night to parties you yourself aren’t cool enough to go to and returned it in the morning, you would probably find it loaded up with pictures like those posted on DirtyDirtyDancing. The site seems pretty lo-fi – just entries called things like ‘Cuba - not too bad’ and ‘Suharto - let’s party’ featuring pages of images of hip young relativists getting their party on. However, the site has had an undeniable effect on world politics. The original delight was in logging on to see if you’d made it on to the site – your chances increase exponentially if you repeat glib mantras.

Least likely to post ‘Let’s send some blue helmets into Darfur’

The question for the Council, however, is whether you are fully meeting the high expectations which the international community has of you. What are those expectations? Most fundamentally, and in line with the very core jurisprudence of human rights, they are that this Council will recognize and promote the universal application of human rights values — and that it will do so without favour, without selectivity, without being impacted by any political machinations around the world.

If you meet this benchmark, you can count on my fullest support and defence in the face of criticisms and attacks, wherever they may come from.
[…]
For the Human Rights Council to fulfil its true promise, you must create an environment of trust. You must foster a climate where best practices thrive. You must spur greater accountability for action on human rights. That was certainly the hope of the framers of this Council, it was the conviction of the world’s Governments when they united behind it, and it was the spirit in which our predecessors drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I trust you will live up to their expectations. It is an outcome in which all humankind has a stake.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, March 3rd 2008.

Three days later the UN passed the 16th censure of Israel (it does little else) of which the Canadians said:

It was regretted that the draft resolution did not fully take into consideration the respective role of all parties and focused on Israeli action without referring to Israel’s right to defend itself. It did not present an accurate representation of the situation. For this reason Canada would vote against the resolution.

Sudan said:

Sudan was not able to consider that the Holocaust being carried out in Gaza and other Arab occupied territories was a situation between two equal sides. Israel had the most sophisticated weaponry and military. One could not compare Israel’s daily targeting against women and children with those who were fighting with primitive weapons. These crimes were categorically prohibited by international laws. Sudan did not approve of this targeting of civilians in any place and under any pretext. There were scores of victims who had loss their right to life every day, just as they previously had lost their right to live in dignity in an independent State.

In other news:

“All the hardware that we have - where did we get it from?” said Mohammed Hamdan. “Do you think we just magicked it out of the air? It belongs to the government.”
[…]
The African Union, an alliance of all 53 countries on the continent, has sent a team of observers to Darfur. According to one of their reports, Hamdan was one of three Janjaweed commanders who led an attack on the village of Adwah on Nov 30, 2004, in which women were beaten and raped and more than 200 people killed.

Now that Hamdan has disclosed his relationship with the regime, the central question is whether Khartoum will maintain its bluster and denial.