...is David Cameron, according to the apparently partially-sighted readers of New Woman magazine.

Blair is probably a bit miffed, but if I was numbers 93-99 I would be really pissed off to be beaten by the podgy-faced leader of the Tories.

Even if I do find his policies worryingly sane-sounding, for a Tory.

So by now you will probably have heard about an enormous row going on over some political cartoons published in a danish newspaper. These cartoons were deeply offensive to some muslims, primarily but not exclusively because they depict the prophet Mohammed, something many muslims consider sacreligious (although there is apparently nothing specific in the Koran which says so).

The argument is raging back and forth: is this free speech, or is this religious persecution? Do Danish newspapers have a right to say what they like, or is this "hate speech" that should be illegal, in the same way that Nazis are banned from advocating the killing of Jews? A number of newspapers around Europe have decided the former is correct, and republished the cartoons.

I must say that something has been bugging me about these cartoons, and specifically their republication "in solidarity" (aka to boost readership). But I need to draw a clear distinction between the very first one and all the subsequent ones.

The subsequent ones, while certainly blasphemous under the rule that there can be no depictions of Mohammed in art, are not, in my customarily oh-so-humble opinion, hate speech. They are commentary, on Islamic customs, on violence in the name of Islam, or meta-commentary on the publication of the previous cartoons. Some are just pictures.

The first one, however, is a nasty little bit of what could easily be termed hate speech. I defend equally vociferously its right to be published of course, but I disagree with its sentiment and shocked that respectable publications would pick it up and republish it. It’s as if a protest by some Jews at a Nazi cartoon led to a lot of newspapers reprinting an anti-semitic cartoon: totally within their rights, but in very poor taste.

The reason the debate is getting confused is because both interpretations apply: European newspapers are spreading hate speech, but simultaneously spreading fair commentary. Middle-eastern countries are reacting to the publication of the first, but we are looking at the subsequent ones instead and terming it an over-reaction.

But aren't they overreacting?

When we do something that they consider blasphemous -- like this -- they react with outrage and calls for our government to be overthrown. We think they're crazy and have no right to tell us how to run our lives. It's freedom of speech.

But when they do something we consider evil, like execute gay teenagers, we react with outrage and call for regime change. They think we're crazy, and have no right to tell them how to run their lives. It's freedom of religion. But we somehow think it's different.

Now obviously I think that executing kids is worse than drawing a picture, no matter how offensive that picture may be. But we have to understand that they really, genuinely and sincerely believe exactly the opposite. And our belief that we are in the right is just as arbitrary as theirs. We tend to forget that.

The power of belief

Of course, some will respond that you cannot compare the persecution of homosexuals by Iran with blasphemy and islamophobia perpetrated by the free but irresponsible press of Europe. People are born gay, but you can choose to believe anything you like, right? So it's unfair to persecute people for being gay, or black, or asian, but totally okay to pick on them if we disapprove of their religious beliefs.

I wish that were true. But is it really?

I read an interesting article the other day about the mental processes of political believers. Some scientists were studying the brains of people with strong political beliefs, and they found something quite worrying:

[When presented with information that their chosen political candidate contradicted themselves,] "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. ... What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted ... Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

Some beliefs are held so deeply that they are unchangeable without significant mental trauma. There is mounting evidence that certain thought patterns are strongly self-perpetuating: information that reinforces the existing belief produces strong reward feelings, while information that contradicts the belief produces disgust, often leading to anger, which, faced with no other outlet, translates easily into physical retaliation for mental anguish -- because even if you can't make the fact that hurts you go away, you can certainly make the person who's telling you the facts shut up.

The example relates to political beliefs, but the same I’m sure is even more true of religious beliefs, which are frequently much stronger than political ones. You may not be born muslim (although some muslims certainly believe you are), but it's possible that after a certain amount of time, you can't be anything but muslim: any ideas which suggested that Islam was not 100% correct would cause you serious mental distress. At which point attacks on your beliefs are going to be greeted, at a very deep and basic physiological level, with violence. (The Washington Post has a longer article about these mental effects.)

Secular western culture's entire existence is a challenge to the tenets of radical islam. Is there any wonder there's conflict?

Update: Please understand, I am not trying to excuse or explain away the persecution of homosexuals or terrorism in the name of religion. The point I'm trying to make is that a campaign of persuasion, however reasoned, is going to be totally ineffective, as scientific theory predicts and historical records clearly demonstrate, and one of propaganda and diplomatic pressure even less so. Presenting conflicting evidence to someone whose brain is fundamentally wired to reject is only going to provoke them, not placate them. So we need to fundamentally re-think our strategy for dealing with the world of Islamic extremism, and possibly with the religious world in general.

Good to see the BBC maintains high standards of impartiality in reporting while its photo editors continue to have a huge laugh in their coverage of Abu Hamza's trial:

Honestly. Given the man has one eye and hooks for hands, do you really have to go out of your way to make him look even more evil?

I hated them the moment I saw them.

Sitting together on an early morning tube, her hand enveloped in his as she lay her head on his shoulder. They were pretty in the way that plain people who've had a lifetime of excellent food, little stress and expensive dentistry can be pretty: not naturally striking, but looking as good as someone with their features could possibly look: healthy, well-scrubbed, full of youth. She was thin and dirty blonde, with heavy eye makeup that was carelessly applied. He had mousy brown hair in a carefully-cultivated shaggy mop reaching to his chin.

Without seeing more than their faces, I already knew who I was looking at, but a more careful examination revealed more details. His crumpled suit was very expensive, and peeking out from one of his unbuttoned cuffs was a beautiful and clearly expensive watch of sleek, modern design. Then another member of the same species boarded the train: this one tall, with more faux-shaggy black hair and designer stubble. He knew the pair, greeted them, and they had a brief conversation: "where are you working these days?" "Kensington," said one, "Bank," the other. Where they worked merely added further weight, but their voices confirmed it. The children of privilege, living a selectively bohemian existence in north London, waiting for their careers to take off.

These are not "spoiled rich kids." I dislike that kind too, but this kind are more subtle. They don't live off daddy's money: they just know that it's there, in case they get into real trouble. When they need some medical treatment it'll be on daddy's insurance, and the best quality money can buy. They may be taking the tube to work, but they're wearing expensive cologne they got for christmas and wearing the expensive suit that mother bought for them as well. They don't need daddy's money; they have all the trappings of wealth.

I didn't hate them personally. I'm sure if we met we'd probably get on quite well. I hate what they stand for, the culture they represent. The fact that we'd get along just makes it worse. I hate their understated self-confidence, the rock solid underpinnings of their self-assurance that come from living amongst a whole culture of people who are In Charge. It gives them an attitude, a posture and a tone of voice that will propel them effortlessly through their careers, putting them in charge of people who are smarter and better-qualified than they are who will nevertheless be grateful to have them. Because they have soft skills. People who are promoting them won't have consciously noticed the nice suit, the expensive watch, the cared-for skin, but the way these things combine into an almost visible glow of success is what guarantees them a successful career.

I hate the way the culture you grow up in is one of the best predictors of your future success, over and above your intelligence, education or will to succeed. I hate the way knowing the right person will get you further than being the right person ever could. I loathe the way that they will probably never consciously realise that this is why their life sails along so easily. But above all, I hate the possibility that I may be one of them.

I hate the whole concept of soft skills. I hate even more the way physical possessions subtly affect our interactions with each other. The ability to speak eloquently, to override disagreements with whithering sarcasm or well-timed wit, the cheerful self-confidence of the born manager all irritate me enormously. Because you can't be taught these skills, you can't even really hope to acquire them. You either grew up in an environment where you developed them naturally, or the chances are low that they will ever come to you.

It makes a mockery of all the time and effort I have invested in acquiring my hard, technical skills to know that someone lacking them but better able to communicate their success could overtake me. But even worse is the sneaking suspicion that I may have let myself use these black gifts of persuasion and influence. The nagging doubt at the back of my mind that maybe I'm not as good as I believe I am, maybe I'm just good at telling people how good I am. That doubt poisons my satisfaction whenever somebody thanks me for a job well done or mentions my hard work.

The very existence of these people devalues my own hard-won skills and makes me doubt their authenticity. I hate them of because of the parts of myself I see in them. I hate them because they make me feel like a fake.

"I'm so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis"

[Spoiler content warning: low. The historical events that are the basis of the movie are mentioned, without any specifics.]

After a frantic day of house cleaning and packing (no actual moving yet... that all happens in two weeks) I caught up with O and went to see Munich. It's excellently acted, very well directed, and has a lot to say. Unfortunately, I fundamentally disagree not with what it says, but the way it says it.

It starts off weakly, with some heavy-handed historical lecturing and clunky plot exposition. It then takes off, covering the endless sequence of assassinations in a gripping and suspenseful manner.

And that is the problem. This is not just some thriller, where you know the excitement is illusory and the dead are just actors. Notwithstanding the large amount of creative licence that has been taken, this a record of real deaths, murders and bombings that actually happened. It doesn't matter whether you agree that those who died deserved it or not; dramatizing the murders in this way is just dancing on graves, and it is both arrogant and distasteful.

In a situation as complicated and emotionally charged as Israel versus Palestine, impartially cannot be expected. But even so, this movie is disgracefully one-sided. The deaths of the eleven Israeli hostages are covered in minute and gory detail, but Israel's immediate retaliatory strikes that killed upwards of 60 Palestinians merit no more than a single line of dialogue, mentioned in passing. To claim impartiality on the basis that both facts are revealed without taking into account the amount of emotional weight given to one and not the other is intellectually dishonest.

What is the message of this film? Is it a cry of anguish at the futile and self-perpetuating nature of the cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence? Is it a deeper message, that whatever gains one side may make over the other in the struggle are not worth the tremendous emotional costs paid on both sides? Both those messages are there, to be sure. But the overriding, primary message, the one that is genuinely controversial, is actually spoken by one of the main characters early on in the film, and that message is don't fuck with the Jews.

It is a message that is inflammatory and self-defeating. This movie glorifies and idolizes the Israeli struggle at the expense of the equally valid struggle of the Palestinians while masquerading as something more, clinging to the trappings of impartiality and deeper introspection while sacrificing both to a visceral, violent urge for on-screen revenge.

This is a horrible movie, brilliantly executed.

Actually shot someone, and then just hoped nobody would find out.

Apparently, this was only 2nd-page news in the US today. Hello! Your second-in-command seriously injured someone with a rifle? Is this the kind of wacko you want running your country? Can you imagine if a UK politician did this, how quickly he would be gone? But in the US it's barely even a scandal that he tried to cover it up, far less that he shot someone in the first place.

The United States is fucking crazy.

Update: And if ignoring it doesn't work, why not joke about it? Because it's not like the guy may die from his wounds right? Oh? Oh. [via Ed]

I am going smoke-free clubbing this Friday. HURRAH for the nanny-state! Fuck you all, nicotine-fiends!

This is selfish and illiberal and a bad general trend, but whatever, I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.

Update: *cough* And by "this Friday," I of course mean "this Friday in summer of 2007," which is of course when the ban comes into effect. I knew that. Of course I did. I don't post links without reading past the first paragraph, that would be irresponsible.

I'm a little bit too busy with work and moving house to blog about anything or, indeed, think about anything. Friday is the big day, folks.

British "holocaust denier" David Irving has been given a 3-year jail sentence for denying, in 1989, that the gas chambers existed at Auschwitz.

This is important, for a lot of reasons.

Firstly, it's important to note that he's being punished for something he said 17 years ago, and which he retracted 15 years ago. In 1991, he read the Eichmann papers, he stopped saying that the Nazis had not killed millions of Jews, and instead admitted -- and continues to admit -- that they did. So, is it still "holocaust denial" if you retract your statements? Exactly are we punishing here?

And what is the crime of Holocaust denial? Because it seems like you're punishing speech, and a strangely particular piece of speech. Eleven countries in Europe have laws specifically against denying the existence of the Holocaust. That's a very, very specific piece of anti-semitism. Why is it that this piece of speech is so abhorrent as to require specific legislation, while other sorts of speech -- even hate speech -- are okay?

Which is of course where this ties into recent events, specifically the row over anti-Islamic cartoons. I have to tread carefully to avoid upsetting anyone here, and may fail to do so, but one has to ask: what exactly is the difference between these two bits of speech? Why is one so offensive that eleven separate countries passed a law against it, but protests against the other were considered such an attack on free speech that other papers published these extremely offensive cartoons "in solidarity"? Is it simply a matter of degree? How evil does the speech have to be, exactly, before you can write a law against it? Can you give me a number? Because if you can't then it's subjective, and that opens a huge can of worms.

I don't like the concept of the crime of "holocaust denial". It seems like a stupid thing to legislate against, legislating against a symbol instead of the problem itself, akin to banning hoodies in an attempt to bar criminal youths. What you'd really like to punish is racism, but that's a thought, and you can't ban them, and you've already banned racist violence, so instead you find this populist sop of banning one particular piece of speech. You're left with this bizarre situation where it's illegal to say the Nazis never killed 6 million Jews, but totally legal to say "yes they did, and it's great!" -- but only as long as you don't add "And now let's kill some more!" I don't like it that racists say evil things, but I don't think we should be allowed to legally bar them from doing so.

And the reason it's a bad idea to ban one piece of speech is precisely the one we've run into in the last few weeks. If you ban only one bit of hate speech, the people against whom hate speech is not banned will feel justly discriminated against. And if you go the other way, and attempt to ban all hate speech, you will be soundly defeated, because it's a broad enough attack on free speech to piss off everyone. So you cannot ban just one piece of speech, and you cannot ban one type of speech.

So as offensive as it is, you must allow people to deny the truth about the horrors inflicted upon the Jews, and these holocaust denial laws must be struck down. And honestly, is this such a bad thing? What are these laws achieving? Do we think that anti-semites, deprived of the ability to say one particular offensive thing, suddenly stop being anti-semites, or even stop believing that thing? If anything, dignifying these ridiculous denials of reality with specific legislation merely adds credence to those who claim there is some sort of conspiracy -- if it's the truth, then the truth stands for itself, so why do we need a law to back it up?

David Irving does not strike me as a nice man. His speech and his words smack of racism and hypocrisy of the worst kind, and his snivelling words of retraction on television seemed insincere. But being a racist is not a crime, and nor is stating your racist, erroneous opinions, as we widely and correctly decided during the cartoons controversy. You cannot legislate against thought, and all these holocaust denial laws do not end racist thought anyway. All they do is make us look like hypocrites in the eyes of the islamic world.

And until these laws are struck down, the reason we will look like hypocrites is because we are.

As usual, when I write about work, I am expressing my own opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.

So my week from hell became my ten days from hell, as my house moving overlapped with a huge deadline at work. But it's all over now: I've moved into the Ultimate 80s Flat (pictures to follow) and tonight, we finally launched the new Yahoo! UK mobile site as well as the German version. It's nothing ground-breaking, but it was a hell of a lot of work. So go! Buy ringtones without a pesky subscription!