Egypt's coup needs to be condemned by Obama and others

The Arab Spring has led to many interesting experiments, none of them (arguably) more important than the introduction of democracy to Egypt.

However the recent detention of Mohammed Mursi, the country's democratically elected president, casts doubt on its future.

Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt from 1981 until his overthrow in 2011, gained power without a mandate after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

He brought in changes that fought Islamic fundamentalism, increased medical care for his citizens and raised the quality of housing.

However he also oversaw a regime rife with corruption and encouraged the imprisonment of individuals without trial under an emergency law that had been in force almost constantly since 1967.

Secret detention centres were set up, mosques and universities were spied on and thousands disappeared.

The Arab Spring put an end to this and Mubarak was eventually overthrown after trying to cling to power despite immense opposition.

The army took power but parliamentary and then presidential elections were held that led to the selection of Mohammed Mursi, head of the Freedom and Justice party and a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Once in power, much of Mursi's time was wasted.

Under him, unemployment rose to 13% and the country became increasingly dependent on foreign aid, with the International Monetary Fund loaning the country almost $5bn to save its economy.

Meanwhile he also botched the appointment of a deputy (having promised to appoint a Christian and a woman, he chose a Muslim man) and the affairs of the army, removing Field Marshal Tantawi, who helped him to power, and replacing him with General Sisi, the man who would eventually remove him.

Mursi's biggest mistake was though to oversee the work of the Constituent Assembly, the organisation trying to write a constitution for post-Mubarak Egypt.

His maneouvering led to claims that he was wanting absolute power and stirred protests against him that eventually led to his overthrow in popular protests with the main moves made by the army, whose interests had been under threat from the Mursi government.

Since then the army has raided with official sanction the protest camps that Mursi supporters set up, resulting in the deaths of at least 638 people (some of them police and army but the majority unarmed protesters wanting their president back in power).

Other actions involve the capture of the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and the death of 36 Brotherhood members in a prison van on Sunday.

In all this it is important to note that Mursi's supporters have not been docile, with Muslim extremists being held responsible for the ambush and killing of 25 policeman near the Gaza border on Monday.

Mursi himself remains under armed guard at an undisclosed location with his future unclear, with frequent references being made by the army to 'new allegations' that are under investigation.

As if to go full-circle, there are stories today that Mubarak could be released if a final corruption charge is thrown out, leading many to believe that the army may have betrayed the 'revolution' and simply brought Egypt back to the days of Mubarak, albeit with him almost certainly retired and a new man (Sisi?) put in his place.

That this state of affairs is unacceptable is almost something that doesn't need to be said, but that is exactly what several world powers have refused to do, with Obama only finally speaking out and cancelling a joint army training exercise last week.

His hands partly tied by the military necessity of access to the Suez Canal, Obama has still failed to give what one commentator called 'tough love' to Egypt, denying aid or trying to impose sanctions to support democracy.

Clearly the situation in Egypt is untenable and spirally out of control. 

As much as I do not admire his policies or his movement, Mursi is the democratically elected president and as such should be allowed to carry on his term in power.

If this is opposed by the people then the moves towards a written constitution should be encouraged with the power to recall or impeach a president enshrined through the clear implementation of a separation of powers.

Either way, Mursi should not have been removed in what amounts to a military coup and his supporters should not have been massacred in the name of security.

Crucially, democracy needs to be encouraged across the Arab world. 

Clearly a significant group of people want changes to the authority structures in the Middle East (the Arab Spring being only one of several signs of that) and the West increasingly needs a poster child for democracy that isn't Israel (as Arabs won't care).

Egypt could easily be that.

A diverse country with a great history which is held with a natural respect within the Arab League could be be used to show democracy works to the wider Arab world.

Instead, the West refused to condemn massacres and a coup that could undo the rhetoric of democracy that they have worked so long and hard to foster.

By doing so they threaten to unravel a lot of hard work and lose the support of many who (currently) want to move their country away from its past and into the modern world by embracing liberal democracy.

Debate warmly encouraged.

Cameron's stupid porn filter

At the beginning of August David Cameron unveiled a terrible plan to implement a filter on the UK's internet.

He proposed an opt-in service, with 90% of internet service providers agreeing to support a system where adults would have to ask to access pornography rather than have it available and then adding a filter (an 'opt-out' system, which is what we currently have).

The idea is that it would protect children from access to pornography as well as prevent paedophiles from viewing horrific images.

It is August, so you can understand some politicians are grasping at straws, especially as ministers have been directed to get stories into the news throughout the summer recess.

This however is a particularly badly thought through idea.

It is late so I'm going to be lazy and list my points, sorry:

1. Kids know more about technology than their parents - they will find ways round this (see below) and exploit them.

2. It is very hard to block content sharing sites and social media from sharing pornography - see, there's a way round already, but social media use only accounts for just over 50% of all internet activity so I doubt people will use it......

3. Filtering is hard to do and doesn't get that some sites might not be dangerous - for example you can block all porn sites, but they will just get a new domain name OR you could block all sites that use words like 'porn', but that would prevent access to news sites reporting on the porn filter!

4. The government would be restricting access to content that is legal - lots of illegal stuff yes, but lots of stuff that involves consenting adults. Cut out the porn element of the story and this is a pretty scary precedent

5. The filter would make parents lazy - trust the filter, don't teach or care for the kids.

This fifth point for me is a crucial one.

If all parents do is place their trust in the government, which has implemented something that they don't understand, then that is a recipe for disaster.

Instead parents should be talking to kids and guiding them through what is a very difficult topic, helping them to understand this important issue and not leaving it to the government to sort out.

Pornography is certainly something to be opposed. To mention just a few reasons:

- Women and men are exploited

- Men (in particular) are given illusions of what women and sex should be like that do not reflect reality

- Women (in particular) are then persuaded to take part in acts that would have been far less common 25 years ago

- Companies and individuals exploit people who are addicted to their product because they want to make money (in a recent BBC article a webcam performer said, speaking of those viewers who are clearly addicted to her content, “Do I think it's damaging? Yes, but I don't think it's my place to tell them to stop.")

However, a blanket filter is not the way to sort out what is clearly a problem. 

Instead, as already mentioned, firstly parents should step up and discuss the issue with their children.

Secondly the government needs to invest in internet policing, in particular catching those who exploit children for their sexual thrill, but also pursuing all those who take part in non-consenting adult (i.e. grown up) pornographic content, a market that is reported to be growing. 

Moves towards catching credit card fraudsters etc etc are also clearly needed as well, so any move such as this filter which takes money away from supporting these important police operations is a waste.

Finally, and moving to a more personal matter, it would be wrong of me to miss out saying that as a Christian I think the answer to this problem is the gospel.

The Bible says that sex is a good thing that should be encouraged, but also teaches the correct way to view people, as made in the image of God and worthy of love and respect, not exploitation.

I will not claim to have never looked at porn as such a claim would be foolish, unbelievable and misleading.

However I remain convinced that porn will be best dealt with by having a biblical perspective, caring for both those involved in porn and those who find comfort in it.

Debate warmly encouraged

Empty 'peace talks' in the Middle East

Issues surrounding Israel-Palestine are never far from the news due to their history, vehemence and complication.

The most recent moves towards 'peace talks' seem to ensure that this pattern will continue as US Sec. of State John Kerry tries to get the opposing sides round a table.

These peace efforts are to be applauded, but they, even more so than previous efforts, would appear to be dead in the water.

Starting with the Palestinians, their power base is fractured, with nationalist Fatah controlling the West Bank and Islamic fundamentalist Hamas having Gaza. 

However, despite these differences, the groups appear to be uniting around certain aims.

Hamas has in the past few years moved away from the both condemnatory language in its charter and military action in both Israel and the disputed territories, whilst Fatah now tries to emphasise Islamic ideals.

Both groups appear happier to talk to Israel but also remain determined to establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

These are momentous changes for groups that until recently were hell-bent on Israel's destruction and whose members still don't see that Israel's survival is a necessity for peace talks to create any solutions.

Secondly, Israel, which has continued to build settlements that are recognised as illegal under international law as they are beyond the famous 'green line', the borders decided on in 1948.

These sites, which extend to within a few miles of the border with Jordan, are built upon land that was occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Many Orthodox Jews claim the land is theirs due to biblical mandate, but despite this the settlements remain incredibly unpopular amongst most Israelis.

However, under current Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who has only been in power since 2009, settlement growth has increased by 300%, with over 6,000 new houses approved for construction in 2012 alone.

The reason for this continued growth has a lot to do with the third nation who hovers over every Middle East peace attempt.

The US is of course the premier force and only superpower in the world today. 

Obama's attempts at foreign policy appear increasingly frantic and misguided, partly due to his lame duck status and partly due to the loss of Hillary Clinton, who did an excellent job steering the State Department until earlier this year.

However Obama has a precedent to follow as any attempt to create peace in the Promised Land over the last few decades has been spearheaded by a US administration, be it Carter in 1978, Clinton in 1994 or Bush in 2007-8.

The optimist says they do it for peace, the pessimist says they do it for a better legacy, the realist says they do it because only they can.

Whatever their motivation, their objectivity has always been in doubt.

With powerful groups in the US (AIPAC and evangelical Christians being the most obvious) holding campaign dollars for Democrats and Republicans who want to run for everything from small-town Mayor to President, the influence of these groups is immense.

Obama, Kerry and others will of course want peace in the Middle East, but to say that they have no thought to their party's appeal to the pro-Israel lobby in America is sheer ignorance.

Any move that shows overt support for Palestine or that threatens the existence of settlements or (and this is truly ridiculous) the possibility of the loss of Jerusalem will be met with a clear cold shoulder and a distinct lack of cash come 2016 (though campaigning for the Presidency has already started!).

With all this already clear, the results of the talks can already sadly be predicted.

They will fail, and potentially both sides will be to blame.

Israeli and Palestinian delegates have already started to meet, but the talks will falter with the Palestinians wanting Israeli settlements to go and the Israeli's claiming the Palestinians aren't open to dialogue. 

Alternatively the Palestinians will demand the 'right of return' (a term from international law) for those who were displaced in both 1948 and 1967, something the Israelis will not be able to accept due to threats to its sovereignty. 

Indeed it was this factor that led to the failure of the 2008 discussions which so nearly achieved a form of peace agreement.

Finally, it is important to say that the results of the failure will be much worse for Israel than for Palestine.

Netanyahu will continue to argue against international law for the right for the settlements to exist whilst the Israeli Defense Forces will continue to demolish homes and arrest people for throwing stones at them. 

And all that against a people group who have the overwhelming support of the region and who can draw on support from them and the wider members of the Arab League.

This is not to suggest that another Intifada is on the horizon but it does raise the issue of what will happen in the next few years.

Hopefully this is all wrong and peace will soon come with a two-state solution.

However if this doesn't happen then it could well be that Israel's policies will have to change in the face of growing international opposition in the years to come, whatever American fundraisers may think.

Debate warmly encouraged.

Will we get bored of Bolt?

First off, I fully recognise Usain Bolt is an incredible athlete. 

His records alone show that to be true - he is the double Olympic Champion in both 100 and 200m and was part of the gold winning relay team, plus those statements are true in the World Athletics Championships as well (the first ever 'triple-double'), where Bolt recently stormed to victory (geddit?....click the link).

He now holds incredible amounts of prestige and is worth millions through advertising links alone - Samsung, Visa and, erm, Virgin Media etc etc. 

He is officially the fastest man on the planet with the world record time of 9.58 secs over 100m (at the Berlin World Championships in 2009) and, separate from all that, seems to be a really nice guy (though a terrible photographer).

This all appears to be the product of sheer hard work. 

There have of course been the recent drug cases that condemn the legends Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell, but Bolt has remained free from any allegations (long may that be the case). 

His early interests were cricket and football but his school coaches urged him to focus on track and field and from their he progressed and went professional in 2004. 

The rest is too well known to bother repeating it.

He is an absolute legend and deserves every plaudit he gets.

But, I'm struck that Bolt is now almost always in a race without opposition. 

His compatriot Blake is injured and Gay and Powell are out and could easily receive two-year bans for their behaviour. 

Basically, if Bolt is in a race people knowing the result. 

In the 200m final in Moscow the 5Live pundits simply accepted Bolt would win and instead focused on the potential third place for the promising Brit Adam Gemili, who sadly finished in 5th.

The question is therefore simply how long can this last? 

Bolt clearly draws crowds and loves to entertain, I just wonder if those crowds will keep coming if Bolt always wins and faces no challengers. 

I fear as well for Bolt that races could almost become routine for him. 

Every race is different, every part of it requires full concentration, but Bolt will go in knowing that, barring a dropped baton, a false start or an injury, he will win/qualify/get a gold medal. 

That could become tedious for both the athlete and viewer, and it could lead to issues for world athletics, which needs its superstar to draw in the crowds and therefore the money.

But the fear remains that there may come a time where Bolt appears on the track and the viewer slumps rather than leans forward. 

People will still watch races, as the 100m final in particular is completely thrilling.

However they may not enjoy the build up as much when the result appears clear before the gun is fired.

Ultimately I hope in all this I am wrong.

My hope remains that athletics will continue to be compelling viewing, that others will rise and challenge Bolt and that he will continue to draw in the crowds with his amazing talent and charisma.

Debate warmly encouraged.