Bombing Iraq: is it falling into 'ISIL' trap?

On Friday 26th September 2014, MPs approved UK military intervention in Iraq against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) by 524 to 43 votes.

This enables the UK government to join the USA in carrying out air strikes on Iraq and the aim is to weaken 'ISIL' forces, responsible for various atrocities. 

But the attack may strengthen them instead.

'ISIL' (a so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that misuses religion to pursue power) has sparked widespread revulsion after releasing videos of western hostages being beheaded and other abuses include persecuting religious minorities.

Unsurprisingly, many people back military action.

However it is important to question why 'ISIL' has been so keen to publicise its own atrocities, in ways that make it an obvious target for attack.

One purpose of such videos is presumably to spread terror in the areas 'ISIL' controls or is trying to seize and another is to bolster its prestige.

However it seems likely that commanders wish to encourage an attack by the USA and allies.

This may not be simply down to fanaticism or bravado but rather a considered decision that the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages.

While some people are attracted by 'ISIL’ claims, its narrowness and brutality have met local resistance and to regain popularity, Isis may be seeking to exploit the hostility triggered by a display of western military might, with resulting casualties.

The Middle East policy of the USA has largely focused on the interests of oil companies and, to some extent, the arms industry. Out of self-interest dictators have been fêted and toppled, international law upheld and defied.

'ISIL' may wish to pose as an heroic defender of Arab and Muslim honour, bombarded by the same superpower (backed by its UK sidekick) which underwrote the devastation of Gaza and this may divert attention from its misdeeds and assist it in smearing its critics as stooges of the west.

Just as images of civilians executed by 'ISIL' have sparked widespread revulsion, so may pictures of the bodies of women and children blasted by US or UK bombs and the propaganda advantages may outweigh the military drawbacks.

Western governments indeed face a difficult situation, in that their prestige may be damaged and commercial confidence affected if they are not seen to take strong measures and yet even on grounds of pragmatic self-interest, it might be wise not to dance to 'ISIL’ tune.

A drive to promote human rights on a principled basis would probably be more effective in undermining 'ISIL’ power.

In the late 1940s, Muslim and Middle Eastern statespersons, scholars and others, along with those of other faiths and nations, helped to develop a Universal Declaration of Human Rights covering economic and social as well as political rights.

Since then internationally many people, of various religions and none, have helped to develop thinking and practice that advances rights for all, including those at greatest risk of injustice and violence.

Yet many are not aware of this history or of how human rights principles overlap with what is best in their own traditions.

Even when governments give priority to corporate interests or their own prestige, citizens can choose to take a different stance.

Ultimately it should be possible to counter violent extremism and militaristic displays, whoever is responsible, and form alliances to build a better future.

‘Political correctness’ and child protection in Rotherham

There has been widespread anger since an inquiry revealed that at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham from 1997-2013.

Yet many adults in Britain are still in denial about the extent and seriousness of child sexual abuse.

Home Secretary Theresa May on Tuesday 2nd September 2014, claimed in a statement to the House of Commons that “institutionalised political correctness” was partly to blame, a widely-made claim.

This is odd, given the macho, sometimes crudely sexist, atmosphere exposed in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 report published on Thursday 21st August 2014 by Professor Alexis Jay.

However it did highlight the risks when a few, mainly male, ‘leaders’ are treated as representatives of whole communities.

The abusers in this instance were mainly of Pakistani descent and (at least nominally) Muslim though, nationally, perpetrators are found in every community.

Some of those in responsible positions who tried to cover up such activities pretended that investigating such crimes thoroughly would upset community relations and ongoing revelations raise serious concerns about their motives.

In reality, as the report points out, Asian children were also being abused.

The hard-hitting findings overlap to some extent with those of other inquiries into child abuse, especially on child sexual exploitation (CSE).

This involves under-18s (or a third party) receiving something (for example, food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, affection, gifts, money) as a result of performance of sexual activities and gangs may be involved and technology such as mobile phones, may be used.

A 2012 report by the children’s commissioner for England pointed out the extent of the problem but senior government sources described this as “hysterical and half-baked”.

The Rotherham report makes it harder to ignore and provides useful information for those who want to protect children from harm in Britain and beyond.

From a sample of case-files examined in depth, many of the children had repeatedly gone missing from home or local authority care:

“Almost 50 per cent of children who were sexually exploited or at risk had misused alcohol or other substances (this was typically part of the grooming process), a third had mental health problems (again, often as a result of abuse) and two thirds had emotional health difficulties.”

Jay stated, “There were issues of parental addiction in 20 per cent of cases and parental mental health issues in over a third... There was a history of domestic violence in 46 per cent of cases. Truancy and school refusal were recorded in 63 per cent of cases.”

While some police were conscientious, a disturbing feature was their frequent indifference or contempt towards victims, whose distress sometimes resulted in ‘difficult’ behaviour, and unwillingness to crack down on perpetrators.

This is all the more surprising given the links with drugs, guns and general criminality.

Disturbingly, “In a small number of cases... the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.”

At a case conference for a 12-year-old abused by five adults, a CID representative argued that this was not abuse because he thought the child had been ‘100 per cent consensual in every incident’”.

A council-supported outreach project did valuable work with survivors, but mainstream children’s services were under-resourced and burdened with box-ticking and reorganisation.

Social workers tended to focus their limited resources on small children rather than those slightly older who were sexually exploited and mental health care for survivors who needed it was often not readily available.

While there was some positive change following earlier critical reports, senior managers still largely failed to address the severity of the problem and professional rivalry also played a part.

Far from providing leadership, council members were largely unhelpful or obstructive and some showed worrying attitudes.

Senior officers described how, regarding “Pakistani-heritage women fleeing domestic violence... a small number of councillors had demanded that social workers reveal the whereabouts of these women or effect reconciliation rather than supporting the women to make up their own minds.”

According to the report, “The prevailing culture at the most senior level of the Council, until 2009, as described by several people, was bullying and 'macho', and not an appropriate climate in which to discuss the rape and sexual exploitation of young people.” Improvements have since been made.

But the report warns that progress may be halted as massive cuts hit council services.

Though “across the UK the greatest numbers of perpetrators of CSE are white men”, most known perpetrators in Rotherham were of Pakistani descent and most identified victims were white but Asian children were also targeted.

“One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates,”

Jay states:

“With hindsight, it is clear that women and girls in the Pakistani community in Rotherham should have been encouraged and empowered by the authorities to speak out about perpetrators and their own experiences as victims”.

According to Nazir Afzal, national Crown Prosecution Service lead on violence against women, quoted in the Guardian on Wednesday 3rd September 2014:

“It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women”.

He suggested that Asian men’s role in the night-time economy, for instance as minicab drivers or in takeaways, gave a small minority of sexual predators access to vulnerable youngsters.

Many people, white and minority ethnic, are reluctant to acknowledge the extent and seriousness of child abuse, including CSE, especially if perpetrators or their protectors are ‘respectable’ members of their own communities.

Child protection remains a Cinderella service, heavily overstretched.

Without proper resources and attitude change among the public and decision-makers in Rotherham and nationally, vulnerable children will continue to be repeatedly victimised

The Conservative-led UK government defeated over the bedroom tax

The Conservative-led UK government was defeated in the House of Commons on Friday 5th September after their Coalition partners broke ranks over the controversial bedroom tax. 

Several Liberal Democrats joined forces with Labour MPs on an Affordable Homes Bill 2014-15.

This private member’s bill, brought by Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George, was passed at second reading by 306 votes to 231 and the debate can be watched by following the links below:

·         Affordable Homes Bill 2014-15: Second Reading

It will now be considered in detail at committee stage.

The so-called ‘spare-room subsidy’, widely known as the bedroom tax, was introduced in April 2013.

It slashes housing benefit for social housing tenants of working age by 14 per cent if they are deemed to have one extra room and by 25 per cent for two or more surplus rooms.

But, with narrow exceptions, this takes no account of the particular needs of disabled people and their families or the importance of support networks.

It is estimated that two-thirds of households affected by the bedroom tax have disabled members.

If Parliament passes the new bill, people unable to find a smaller home would be exempt, as well as disabled people needing an extra room (for instance for equipment) or with an adapted home.

Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith claimed it would cost the Treasury £1 billion to reverse the changes.

Yet evidence suggests that the bedroom tax overall probably costs more than it saves financially in the short to medium term, in addition to the human cost.

Longer-term financial costs may push the price up higher still, since the bedroom tax targets people when they are at their most vulnerable.

For instance, if a single parent loses her job and cannot get another instantly, so that she is reliant on housing benefit, she may be expected to move to another area, so that nearby relatives can no longer offer free childcare.

If a bereaved child struggling to cope with the death of a sibling is then relocated many miles away, far from friends and teachers who would have provided emotional support and companionship, the resulting psychological damage may be serious.

Many people on middle incomes have backed harsh measures against their poorer neighbours because they have believed the government’s claims that such people are ‘scroungers’ living well at their expense.

Yet these ‘strivers’ have seen the super-rich enjoy huge gains while their own standard of living has fallen.

The programme of cuts in social security and public services has been presented as a prudent response to an economic crisis.

Yet money has been found for tax cuts for millionaires, keeping tax loopholes open, and for vast expenditure on weaponry.

Austerity is mainly about ideology, including breaking bonds of mutuality and undermining human rights for all.

While the willingness of some Coalition members to support a softening of the bedroom tax may seem a small move, it may turn out to be part of a wider shift.