It is reported that Eli Wiesel is to receive an honorary knighthood next November in recognition of his services to Shoah education in the UK.
While it is important for us to always remember and educate about the Holocaust, we as Jews need to remember that everyday there are people suffering at the hands of tyrants around the world. If we don't speak up, if we don't pressure our governments to do everything in their power to try and stop these people, whether in Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Cosovo or wherever in the world it is happening, then we are no better than the Germans and its' allies were in the 1930's and 40's.
As Eli Wiesel said:
"How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent? As a Jew who does not compare any event to the Holocaust, I feel concerned and challenged by the Sudanese tragedy. We must be involved. How can we reproach the indifference of non-Jews to Jewish suffering if we remain indifferent to another people's plight?"
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Monday, October 09, 2006
CALM: How can anyone equate Suicide with Intent to Kill others?
People have now started calling them "Homicide Bombers" because the intent to kill others is more prevalent than the intent to commit suicide, which in the case of these men, is the consequential result. Now we have a legitimate reason to change the name... Well done CALM!
Rachel at Rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com has an excellent piece about this latest scandal in the british press!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Homicidal not suicidal
''Controversial posters featuring the aftermath of the London bombings are to appear next week as part of a charity's attempt to stop the number of men who commit suicide each year reaching four figures. The billboard-sized posters feature the image of the devastated No. 30 bus which exploded in Tavistock Square, killing 14 people including Hussain the bomber, and injuring over 110. It has the strapline ''Last year, 4 suicidal British men got our attention. Unfortunately, 973 others didn't. Help stop suicide. Text CALM to 80082''.
( Brand Republic 6/10/05)
The Evening Standard have just rung me up wanting a reaction. I explained, as usual, that I can't speak for all survivors, only for myself, and that I probably wasn't going to be able to muster the reaction of gibbering weeping outrage that they were looking for. But, okay, having seen it, I think that advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a dud.
This advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a total dud. For a charity, CALM ( Campaign Against Living Miserably) to use the 7/7 bombers' deaths in an anti-suicide billboard campaign is wholly counter-productive. As well as being in poor taste and upsetting to bereaved families and survivors of the London bombings, it is also misrepresentative, and it is likely to alienate and distress those whom the advertisements are aimed at.
It implies that the London bombers primary aim was suicide, rather than homicide. It infers that they were simply feeling suicidally depressed, like 973 other young men who committed suicide last year. It seems to be saying that the 4 bombers could have been stopped from committing suicide, perhaps if they had been made aware of the charity paying for the ads. But there is no official evidence to support the idea that the young men who killed 52 and injured almost 800 last summer were depressed. In fact, the Official Account of the July 7th bombings describes the young bombers caught on CCTV as ''hugging, seeming happy, even euphoric'' before they killed themselves.
Khan's gang of four were nothing like the target audience for this campaign - young British men who are suffering from depression, and who are thinking about killing themselves.
Okay, the bombers were technically suicidal, in that they were intending to commit suicide, but they were intending to commit suicide as a weapon, to turn themselves into human bombs in what their alleged ring-leader called a ''war''. For them, suicide seemed to be a means to an end - to a gruesome notoriety, an eternal heavenly reward, and a political act of retaliation for what they saw as the sufferings heaped upon the Ummah ( the global Muslim faithful) by the UK and US foreign policy.
What comes across from the Official Report is a picture of 4 highly radicalised young men in a small terrorist gang who were deeply immersed in extremist Islamist thinking and who saw ''martyrdom'' as ''evidence of a supreme religious commitment''. Unfortunately, their warped interpretation of their religion made their planned suicide seem heroic and praiseworthy to them - a way, Mohammed Sidique Khan said in his video statement released after his death ''to raise me amongst those I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri...''
Perhaps early therapeutic intervention could have changed their course. Perhaps texting the charity or a chat with a mental health cousellor might have stopped the death-cult gang mentality taking hold in these four British men. It's rather hard to know, as we haven't had much experience of the effect of counselling on radicalised terrorist cells plotting destruction and mixing home-made explosives in their bathtubs.
There is a world of difference between a young man contemplating ending it all, and being a suicide bomber who sees vengeful suicide-homicide as ''martyrdom''. If I was young man who was depressed and feeling suicidal, I would not like to be compared to a suicide bomber. I would be very upset at the stigmatisation. It's bad enough being depressed without people thinking you're contemplating killing innocent commuters as well. Depression is not the same as terrorism, for heaven's sake. Khan and his fellow-terrorists are not remembered as young men who tragically committed suicide. They are remembered for being mass-murderers. It is deeply offensive to make any comparison between the 973 young men who killed themselves last year, and who did not come to the charity's attention until it was too late, and the perpetrators of the worst act of terrorism on British soil.
And what's with the ''Last year, 4 suicidal British British men got our attention'' strapline? The bombings certainly got our attention. That seems to have been one of the bombers' political aims. But is suicide all about ''getting our attention''? That seems to me to demonstrate a woeful lack of comprehension as to what drives many people to commit suicide. Being unable to bear the pain of going on living is the most common reason left in suicide notes. Depression is an illness that can make life no longer bearable. I am shocked that an anti-suicide charity is running with the ''suicide = attention-seeking'' line.
The more you look at this advert, the more of a mess it is. It's a bad ad, and it's a damn shame, because the numbers of suicides in young men is a big, terrible issue, and it needs to be talked about. The charity's aims are praiseworthy. Anything that might stop young men killing themselves in anger and despair is a good thing. But O&M, the ad agency behind the campaign, and whoever signed this off, have made a bad mistake of judgement. The suicide of nearly a thousand young men each year is shocking enough. Why court this controversy with a picture and strapline that don't even make sense in the campaign's context?
British advertising has a reputation for being some of the best in the world. What a pity that this ill-conceived, thoughtless campaign is going to grab headlines for all the wrong reasons. Attempts to save young lives should not resort to linking to mass murderers in their advertising campaigns. They shouldn't need to.
posted by Rachel at 12:14 PM 1 comments
Rachel at Rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com has an excellent piece about this latest scandal in the british press!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Homicidal not suicidal
''Controversial posters featuring the aftermath of the London bombings are to appear next week as part of a charity's attempt to stop the number of men who commit suicide each year reaching four figures. The billboard-sized posters feature the image of the devastated No. 30 bus which exploded in Tavistock Square, killing 14 people including Hussain the bomber, and injuring over 110. It has the strapline ''Last year, 4 suicidal British men got our attention. Unfortunately, 973 others didn't. Help stop suicide. Text CALM to 80082''.
( Brand Republic 6/10/05)
The Evening Standard have just rung me up wanting a reaction. I explained, as usual, that I can't speak for all survivors, only for myself, and that I probably wasn't going to be able to muster the reaction of gibbering weeping outrage that they were looking for. But, okay, having seen it, I think that advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a dud.
This advertisement, whilst achieving one of its objectives of grabbing coverage and raising awareness, is a total dud. For a charity, CALM ( Campaign Against Living Miserably) to use the 7/7 bombers' deaths in an anti-suicide billboard campaign is wholly counter-productive. As well as being in poor taste and upsetting to bereaved families and survivors of the London bombings, it is also misrepresentative, and it is likely to alienate and distress those whom the advertisements are aimed at.
It implies that the London bombers primary aim was suicide, rather than homicide. It infers that they were simply feeling suicidally depressed, like 973 other young men who committed suicide last year. It seems to be saying that the 4 bombers could have been stopped from committing suicide, perhaps if they had been made aware of the charity paying for the ads. But there is no official evidence to support the idea that the young men who killed 52 and injured almost 800 last summer were depressed. In fact, the Official Account of the July 7th bombings describes the young bombers caught on CCTV as ''hugging, seeming happy, even euphoric'' before they killed themselves.
Khan's gang of four were nothing like the target audience for this campaign - young British men who are suffering from depression, and who are thinking about killing themselves.
Okay, the bombers were technically suicidal, in that they were intending to commit suicide, but they were intending to commit suicide as a weapon, to turn themselves into human bombs in what their alleged ring-leader called a ''war''. For them, suicide seemed to be a means to an end - to a gruesome notoriety, an eternal heavenly reward, and a political act of retaliation for what they saw as the sufferings heaped upon the Ummah ( the global Muslim faithful) by the UK and US foreign policy.
What comes across from the Official Report is a picture of 4 highly radicalised young men in a small terrorist gang who were deeply immersed in extremist Islamist thinking and who saw ''martyrdom'' as ''evidence of a supreme religious commitment''. Unfortunately, their warped interpretation of their religion made their planned suicide seem heroic and praiseworthy to them - a way, Mohammed Sidique Khan said in his video statement released after his death ''to raise me amongst those I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri...''
Perhaps early therapeutic intervention could have changed their course. Perhaps texting the charity or a chat with a mental health cousellor might have stopped the death-cult gang mentality taking hold in these four British men. It's rather hard to know, as we haven't had much experience of the effect of counselling on radicalised terrorist cells plotting destruction and mixing home-made explosives in their bathtubs.
There is a world of difference between a young man contemplating ending it all, and being a suicide bomber who sees vengeful suicide-homicide as ''martyrdom''. If I was young man who was depressed and feeling suicidal, I would not like to be compared to a suicide bomber. I would be very upset at the stigmatisation. It's bad enough being depressed without people thinking you're contemplating killing innocent commuters as well. Depression is not the same as terrorism, for heaven's sake. Khan and his fellow-terrorists are not remembered as young men who tragically committed suicide. They are remembered for being mass-murderers. It is deeply offensive to make any comparison between the 973 young men who killed themselves last year, and who did not come to the charity's attention until it was too late, and the perpetrators of the worst act of terrorism on British soil.
And what's with the ''Last year, 4 suicidal British British men got our attention'' strapline? The bombings certainly got our attention. That seems to have been one of the bombers' political aims. But is suicide all about ''getting our attention''? That seems to me to demonstrate a woeful lack of comprehension as to what drives many people to commit suicide. Being unable to bear the pain of going on living is the most common reason left in suicide notes. Depression is an illness that can make life no longer bearable. I am shocked that an anti-suicide charity is running with the ''suicide = attention-seeking'' line.
The more you look at this advert, the more of a mess it is. It's a bad ad, and it's a damn shame, because the numbers of suicides in young men is a big, terrible issue, and it needs to be talked about. The charity's aims are praiseworthy. Anything that might stop young men killing themselves in anger and despair is a good thing. But O&M, the ad agency behind the campaign, and whoever signed this off, have made a bad mistake of judgement. The suicide of nearly a thousand young men each year is shocking enough. Why court this controversy with a picture and strapline that don't even make sense in the campaign's context?
British advertising has a reputation for being some of the best in the world. What a pity that this ill-conceived, thoughtless campaign is going to grab headlines for all the wrong reasons. Attempts to save young lives should not resort to linking to mass murderers in their advertising campaigns. They shouldn't need to.
posted by Rachel at 12:14 PM 1 comments
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Open letter to Jerusalem Post
(Background information. JP distributed a booklet that covers such subjects as Common-law Relationships and all the legal ramifications, the children of these "relationships", including artificial means needed if for some reason "natural" doesn't seem to be working -{ wonder why?}, Same-sex relationships beautifully illustrated with a picture of a Catholic actress, and such other happy Jewish subjects)
It is a sad day when your newspaper can see it as proper to distribute a booklet such as the New Family "guide book for cohabitation" that came with the paper last week, especially in the days immediately preceding Yom Kippur. Maybe your reasoning is that it's an advert and covered by your usual disclaimer that content of paid material is not your responsibility, but that's a weak excuse in this case.
It's especially sad that a publication that could have made such a strong case to right a specific wrong in Israeli society - the domination in marriage law of the Orthodox courts - has allowed itself to be hijacked into a polemic justifying, indeed, praising, the destruction of the family as a basic fundamental component of society.
A clue to where this travesty get's its morals from comes in columnist Irit Rosenblum's opening statement. "The definition of 'family' underwent a global earthquake some 200 years ago when the Western world began to worship the individual and individual rights on the altar of social progress". Her word-picture is exactly right - worship at an altar, which calls to mind sacrifice, blood-letting and pain. "Individual rights" has turned into an iconic catch-phrase which seems to trump all other moral and social concerns. And what has been sacrificed at her altar is the idea of a target, a "golden fleece", to which people should aspire. She tells us that rights to marriage in Israel are improperly restricted. She's absolutely correct, but the solution is not to do away with marriage, as she is advocating, but to correct the law to remove the restrictions.
To extend her argument. Anyone should be able to "cohabit" with whomever they want. It's purely a matter of "individual choice". If that's OK, then anyone should be able to imbibe whatever chemical substances they want - dope, smack, coke - it's their choice. Next, anyone should be able to have sex with whomever (or whatever) they want - it's their right. The slippery slope leads to the total breakdown of society, till we end up with a collection of individuals who have no absolute standards by which they can interact, other than "it's right for me!".
Marriage between consenting men and women must remain the target to which we want people to aspire. It carries within it the future of an ordered, functional society. The law should allow for other choices, but they are not the norm and there should be a clear, positive message coming out of our publications, courts and schools that point to the desired outcome instead of elevating the alternatives.
It is a sad day when your newspaper can see it as proper to distribute a booklet such as the New Family "guide book for cohabitation" that came with the paper last week, especially in the days immediately preceding Yom Kippur. Maybe your reasoning is that it's an advert and covered by your usual disclaimer that content of paid material is not your responsibility, but that's a weak excuse in this case.
It's especially sad that a publication that could have made such a strong case to right a specific wrong in Israeli society - the domination in marriage law of the Orthodox courts - has allowed itself to be hijacked into a polemic justifying, indeed, praising, the destruction of the family as a basic fundamental component of society.
A clue to where this travesty get's its morals from comes in columnist Irit Rosenblum's opening statement. "The definition of 'family' underwent a global earthquake some 200 years ago when the Western world began to worship the individual and individual rights on the altar of social progress". Her word-picture is exactly right - worship at an altar, which calls to mind sacrifice, blood-letting and pain. "Individual rights" has turned into an iconic catch-phrase which seems to trump all other moral and social concerns. And what has been sacrificed at her altar is the idea of a target, a "golden fleece", to which people should aspire. She tells us that rights to marriage in Israel are improperly restricted. She's absolutely correct, but the solution is not to do away with marriage, as she is advocating, but to correct the law to remove the restrictions.
To extend her argument. Anyone should be able to "cohabit" with whomever they want. It's purely a matter of "individual choice". If that's OK, then anyone should be able to imbibe whatever chemical substances they want - dope, smack, coke - it's their choice. Next, anyone should be able to have sex with whomever (or whatever) they want - it's their right. The slippery slope leads to the total breakdown of society, till we end up with a collection of individuals who have no absolute standards by which they can interact, other than "it's right for me!".
Marriage between consenting men and women must remain the target to which we want people to aspire. It carries within it the future of an ordered, functional society. The law should allow for other choices, but they are not the norm and there should be a clear, positive message coming out of our publications, courts and schools that point to the desired outcome instead of elevating the alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)