United Kingdom

Queen Elizabeth II is currently engaging in the most low-key state visit imaginable; Her host is one George Bush in the city of Washington.

There are many ironies here. The Queen's own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is set to depart from office on May 9th; and if the American people had any say in the matter, Her host would likely leave office before that date. Unfortunately, we do not have that option; and so, there's a spectacle in our White House, wherein the arguably most admired world leader has dinner with the most despised.

Bush and his wife, Laura, were waiting on the driveway on a near-perfect spring day as the queen and her husband, Prince Philip, arrived by limousine. The two couples briefly shook hands before moving on to the formal welcome.

A brilliantly blue sky framed the colorful ceremony where red, white and blue bunting was draped over the fencelines on the South Lawn. The United States Air Force Band led a grand military procession onto the lawn.

The Queen is known for Her absolutely impeccable manners; Her Husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, less so. I find myself wondering if the old man will mention to his host that the Duke has a grandson currently on his way to George Bush's war in Iraq. That's the unspoken subtext of this visit. George and Laura Bush, of course, can make no similar claim. The Duke might also mention that he actually served in the Royal Navy, and that his sons did as well; draft-dodging is frowned upon in the House of Windsor. Keep an eye on the Duke; he's worth watching on this occasion.

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's the highlight of Madonna's recent concert tour, filmed in the Wembley Arena in London. Enjoy.

As far as I know there is no European yarmulke-specific ban. But there are numerous headscarf, burqa and veil bans in place or under consideration.

Yesterday I saw a pod on Current TV about Britain's consideration of a headscarf ban, pushed by politicians like Jack Straw. It wasn't the most detailed of their segments, but it showed some of the deep xenophobia behind this movement. As a side note, for those who haven't watched Current TV, they have some very powerful stuff. They filmed in North Korea, revealing how seriously weird and screwed up that place is and showing a wry humor in the process. Their earlier coverage of Haiti was excellent. Their coverage of the Iraq and Afghan wars from the point of view of both our soldiers and the citizens of those nations has sometimes been extraordinary. They have some crap, but some of their stuff is well worth watching.

Back to the headscarf ban.

In France a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools has been in place since 2004. I don't like their law, but it has one advantage of including all "conspicuous" religious symbols. My question is has it been equally enforced? Have Jews been prevented from wearing their Yarmulkes openly? What about crucifixes?

Some German states have headsarf-specific bans, preventing school teachers from wearing them. One wonders world reaction had they made it a yarmulke-specific ban!

Posted on Campaign to End the Death Penalty

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.

Killing an innocent bystander because he looks "muslim" is acceptable as long as it is meant to protect said by-stander from the actual terrorists.

Better err on the wrong side of right than to not err at all.

England has become the new United States, were murder is not a crime but an unsanitary nuisance.

Rage, anger, vitriol have been the words this weekend, their harsh buzz emanating from the electronic nests of wasps. Anger is the no-no, apparently. We on the left, who pride ourselves on our reasonableness, our ability to see all sides, to listen respectfully, to offer gentle critiques, we are not supposed to get angry. That is for the other side. We are to suffer their slings and arrows nobly.

I have written previously about

Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith is going to the brig for eight months. His crime? Refusing a direct order to return for a third tour of duty in Iraq.

Kendall-Smith, who has dual British and New Zealand citizenship and is based at RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, Scotland, had argued at the court that the on-going presence of US-led forces in Iraq was illegal.

He told the military hearing in Aldershot, Hants, that he refused to serve in Basra, Iraq, last July because he did not want to be complicit with an "act of aggression" contrary to international law.

"I have evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf. I have documents in my possession which support my assertions," he told the court. "This is on the basis that on-going acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."

Kendall-Smith stated that he could not obey an order he believed to violate international law.