Ban the Bum

Land of the. . . ???

Trumpeters answers questioned.

On Friday, 27 January 2017, US President (I baulk to call him that) Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel visas from seven mostly-Islamic countries, which came into effect at 4:42pm Eastern Time the same day. I am sure it was purely coincidental but in a supreme irony 27 January was also Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Executive Order indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from the USA, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks entry for 90 days to travellers from the seven named countries.

The seven affected countries are;

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The immediate effect of the ban caused chaos with flights and arrivals at airports in the USA. There were reports of hundreds of travellers arriving in the USA being detained in airports, while many about to travel to the USA from abroad were refused to fly, or even taken off planes before take-off. To add to the confusion, this included students, visitors and green-card-holding legal permanent United States residents from the seven countries. Some who had entered the USA were indeed refused entry and sent back to where they came from. Two Iraqis who had worked as interpreters for the US military were held in JFK airport, and as they were not legally on US soil, were refused access to legal representation.

On Saturday a Federal Judge in Brooklyn blocked part of the order, ruling that refugees and others being held at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. Three other Federal Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington soon followed suit, and the Massachusetts judge ruled that authorities could not detain travellers. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to comply with these rulings. On Sunday Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said that Green Card holders would not be prevented from returning to the USA “going forward”, but also added that border agents had “discretionary authority” to stop and detain any travellers – including US citizens - to additional questioning and scrutiny, should they have been to any of the seven countries mentioned in the executive order.

The ban led to huge protests in the USA and around the world. Here in the UK a petition to cancel the announced state visit of Donald Trump attracted in excess of 1 million signatures. Largely seen as an anti-Islamic move, the Trump administration has claimed it is not. It is not, but more of that later.

So, what is the rationale behind the ban, and just why has Trump implemented it?

The ban is to prevent international terrorism and keep US citizens safe.

The logic from this is that the countries affected present a terrorist threat to the USA. In fact, there has never been one terrorist attack in the USA from any citizen of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

Compare this to the nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetuated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9 September 2001, in the USA, with the immediate loss of 2996 lives, and the subsequent deaths of over 1000 due to effects from the attacks. Of the nineteen attackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt are not at all affected by the ban and anyone on passports from these countries may travel freely to – and even claim asylum in – the USA.

Likewise nobody would deny that the greatest terrorist threat today comes from the brutal Islamic State (IS) group. The current hotbed of IS recruitment is Tunisia, which likewise is excluded from the executive order. As are other countries which recruit Islamist terrorism, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Algeria.

But intelligence and experience show these countries are most likely to produce terrorists.

And where else have there been terrorist attacks in recent years? Ooh, let's try the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, and almost a daily occurrence in Israel. In the majority of cases, the terrorist attacks have come not from immigrants or asylum seekers, but rather from nationals of those countries. So based on that argument, all these countries should be included as a danger to US security – including Blighty.

Ah, but those attackers were the children of immigrants or asylum seekers.

In some cases they were, in some they were registered citizens of the countries they attacked. And indeed, with regard to the USA, there is one particular case which defeats this argument. Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, is a white, culturally Christian, English man, who converted to Islam, became radicalised, and attempted to ignite explosives packed into his shoes on a flight to Paris to Miami. Yet I still don't see either the UK – or France – on that list.

Omar Mateen was a home-grown US Islamist terrorist who shot dead 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Florida, before being shot dead. His parents emigrated from Afghanistan, which is not on the list. It is also worth pointing out that Omar Mateen was a very disturbed young man, who was a regular customer of the Pulse nightclub, and his killing of 49 mostly Latinx people had much more to do with his own deeply closeted homosexuality than any religious convictions.

Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, on 2 December 2015, killing 22 and injuring 14. They fled in an SUV and were later both shot dead in a police shootout. Farook was a Chicago-born US citizen and the son of immigrants from Pakistan. Malik was born near Islamabad, Pakistan, had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia, but was a lawful permanent resident of the USA. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are among the banned countries.

Brothers Tamer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, killing three and injuring 16 others, were naturalised US citizens, born in the Kalmyk Republic (part of the Russian Federation) and Kyrgyzstan respectively, both are half-Chechen but identify as Chechen. Kyrgyzstan is not on the list of banned countries - and neither is Russia, for reasons best known to Donald Trump.

The Executive Order was instituted on powers already there, instituted when President Obama banned Iraqis from entering the USA in 2011.

Except that President Barack Obama never instituted any such ban against entire nationalities in 2011. In fact, there never was any outright ban – merely a bureaucratic mess.

Here is exactly what happened. Two Iraqi refugees in the Bowling Green, Kentucky were arrested in May 2011 on charges of Federal Terrorism charges. Informants had told the FBI that one of the men, Waad Ramadan Alwan, had previous to fleeing to the USA, constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. Alwan was fingerprinted, and his prints matched those on part of a cellphone which had been used to detonate one such bomb in 2005. The other refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was convicted of providing material to Al Qaeda, possession and export of Stinger missiles, and making a false statement on an asylum application.

The arrests led to demands in Congress to re-examine the records of Iraqis settled in the USA, and the Obama administration pledged to do so. This entailed going through the records of some 58,000 Iraqis already settled in the USA, while more stringent background checks were imposed on new applicants. The USA was still involved in the Iraq War at the time, and with them looking to pull out at the earliest opportunity, there was a rush of such applications from a great number of Iraqis.

The result of re-examining visa applications, some Iraqis already settled having to re-apply, some still in Iraq having to re-apply, while all the time new applications were pouring in - under new, more thorough rules - led to a logjam which the State Department's National Visa Center struggled to cope with. In September 2011, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if a hold had been placed on Iraqi visa applications. Napolitano replied;

"with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Center) databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused... ...Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So, there never was a hold on visa applications for six months, only a bureaucratic jam caused by exceptional circumstances. And it was one Republican senator who asked if there was a hold, but the reply given was ambiguous, and does not confirm a hold.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer stated in Foreign Policy;

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Eric P Scwartz, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration in 2011, told the Washington Post;

“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.”

Notice that both men, in separate journals, have stated the resettlement of Iraqis did indeed continue during the six month delay in processing visas. Now, either both of them are lying – or Trump's administration are lying. I know which I am going with.

But even had there been a ban, notice that the Obama administration targeted individual visa applicants. They never, not for one moment, ever placed entire nationalities, or all citizens of chosen countries, regardless of background, under suspicion of terrorism.

And even had there been call to do so, it would be because the USA was still involved in war in Iraq, which would indeed be grounds to trigger a suspension of travel into the USA from hostile countries. The USA is not at war with any of the countries on the list, and the Trump administration therefore has no legitimate nor justifiable trigger.

The ban is temporary – only for 90 days.

Try reading the Executive Order. Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely, that ban being lifted is cognisant on the President himself. The US refugee program in it's entirety – not just among the targeted countries but affecting anyone from all around the world – has been suspended for 120 days. The 90 days applies only to the seven named countries.

There is no guarantee however that the 90 day limit may not be extended, or the 120 day ban on all entries, or that more countries may not be included in the ban.

Trump has also reduced the number of refugees to be allowed into the USA in 2017 by more than half; down from 110,000 to 50,000.

This is not a Muslim ban.

Screenprint from Trump's campaign website

No, it's not, I agree. It does not ban all Muslim-majority countries, and there are some Islamic countries which Donald Trump actually has business dealings with. Not least of which is Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists came from, and where there are 'charities' within the Wahhabi Muslim sect, which are nothing more than fronts for funding Islamic State terrorism.

So, does this mean that The Donald is this kind wee soul, with no religious prejudices, who embraces peoples of all the world's religions? Hmm. Let's see what he actually said in his presidential campaign.

This is a statement taken from Trump's presidential campaign website, donaldjtrump.com, which is actually titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

On exactly the same page, Trump himself is quoted as saying;

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Notice he even said “Without looking at the various polling data” - so he was willing to actually ignore the facts. Well nothing new there. But there we see that Trump's own website specifically called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

That specifically targeted an entire religion. Therefore, while the ban is not a Muslim ban per se, it was and remains based upon and deeply-steeped in the populist anti-Islamic rhetoric which US citizens have been fed by right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces ever since 9/11.

So did he have a change of heart and open his arms to Muslims? Nope, Trump simply could not have issued an Executive Order to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, because to do so would have contravened the First Amendment of the US Constitution;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Had Trump instituted his Executive Order banning travel visas based solely on the Muslim religion, he would have effectively have established a law prohibiting the right of Muslim refugees to enter and to continue to follow their faith. To do so would have been unconstitutional, and he would have been out of the White House so fast that his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

So instead he went for countries with Muslim-majority populations, and this has created it's own problems. Due to the ban, Christians seeking asylum from the named countries have been refused entry to the USA, in some cases sent back to their country of origin, or stopped from getting on flights in the first place.

The persecution of Christians in Islamic countries is an all too often ignored 'hidden' shame in many Islamic countries, where they are subjected to many atrocities, including being lashed, having limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive. Among some of the worst countries guilty of carrying out atrocities against Christians include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the seven countries upon which Trump has placed a blanket ban on entry on all citizens. Oh, the irony that many 'good Christians' voted Trump in, and he has now just condemned many Middle-Eastern Christians to the tender mercies of the fundamentalist Islamist authorities in their countries of origin.

And of course, it is not just Christians this affects. Followers of other faiths are equally persecuted in these countries, as are atheists, and even those Muslims brave enough to speak out or write about the wrongs those in charge are doing in the name of Islam. By issuing a blanket ban on visas, Trump has condemned them all, and now that some may have tried to leave, the authorities in their home countries will know just who they are, and the outlook for all these 'dissenters' and 'infidels' looks very bleak indeed.

Nor will this ban stop anything to stop Islamist terrorism. We have seen in living memory just how much ill-treatment by the west has actually driven terrorism in the Middle-East, which has spread to Muslims in the west. By instituting a ban, Donald Trump, far from defeating IS, has just handed them one of the best recruiting tools they could ever have wished for. It will not be lost on those who indoctrinate young minds with fear and hatred of the west, particularly the USA – the 'Great Satan' as the Islamists call it – just how it has 'shunned' the Muslim people, and by extension, has insulted the Islamic faith and it's prophet. And once those minds are groomed and indoctrinated, there sadly can only be one inevitable outcome of that; more Islamist terrorist attacks, not less.

And as we have seen from Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino, that need not come from outwith the USA, certainly not from the banned countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, is much more likely from a country which is a close US ally, and one which Donald Trump happens to have a lot of business dealings with.

Neither does this ban do anything to stop the incidents of domestic terrorism which take place within the USA, often carried out far-right extremists who profess to be Christian. Trump's election victory saw a sudden surge in racist and religiously-bigoted hate crimes. The FBI reported that in 2015 hate crimes against Muslims surged to 67% - the highest since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jews remained the highest proportion for hate crimes at 53%, and there were 1,053 hate crimes regarding sexual orientation, 19 percent of which were committed against gay men. Where hate crime attacks result in fatalities, they are rarely reported as terrorism in the USA, but generally referred to as “lone wolf” attacks carried out by some sad loner – only when the “lone wolf” nutter happens to be Muslim does it suddenly become a 'terrorist attack'. Meanwhile, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations continue to exist, enjoying the liberty the USA affords them, as “Christian” organisations.

Whenever a move against any racial religious group occurs, it can reverberate outwith the country it comes from. The Sunday after the Executive Order was instituted, a gunman open fired during evening prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, just across the border in Quebec City, Canada. The shooting suspect, now in custody, is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian, whom it appears holds extreme-right, pro-Christian, anti-Islamic views, and who admires Donald Trump and French National Front leader, Marine LePen. Bissonnette was identified by the leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, as a far-right internet troll, known to make anti-immigrant and hostile comments on the group's online page.

Pants - on - FIRE!

With absolutely no proof, the media immediately tried to make out it was an Islamist attack, Fox News - darling press outlet of the darling American right - claimed that witnesses had heard the gunman shout "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), and without a shred of evidence, went on to claim in a Tweet that the shooter was of Moroccan origin. As I write this, that Tweet has not yet been taken down.  And of course, while it was thought the attack was of Muslim origin, it was called a terrorist attack. Now the suspect has been identified as a "Christian", anti-Islamic, white supremacist, the media are portraying him as a "lone wolf" and sad nutter. Kudos therefore to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told it like it is; "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge."

While the media was busy pouring out their anti-Islamic bile, the Trump administration was very quick to attempt to make political capital out of the atrocity. Without being cognisant of the full facts, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the Quebec attack;

"It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,"

What? Mr Spicer - and Mr Trump? Will you now impose a ban on extreme-right Christians crossing the border from Canada into the USA?

Or will you just continue to deliberately target Muslims? To abandon Muslims and others to the very regimes you claim to be against? To continue to give Islamic State a propaganda tool for further radicalisation? And to continue to stir up hatred against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom are in fact far more likely to be the victims of intolerance and violence, rather than the perpetrators of it?  

Will you in fact continue to openly flout international human rights legislation, as well as common decency?

You already have blood on your hands, Mister Trump, and your shameful actions shall cause much more to be shed.  The only person who needs to be banned is you.

Who's Gonna Build Your Wall, Donald?

But as I travel through this big ol' world,

there's one thing I really fear;

that's a white man in a golf shirt,

with a cellphone in his ear.

Who's gonna build your wall, boy?

Who's gonna mow your lawn?
Who's gonna cook your Mexican food,

when your Mexican maid has gone?

Who's gonna wax the floor tonight,

down at the local mall?

Who's gonna wash your baby's face?
Who's gonna build your wall?

(Tom Russell: “Who's Gonna Build Your Wall?”)

Throughout his campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America, Donald Trump promised that he would build a wall along the US/Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants out. It was a popular policy, despite the fact that polls show that the majority of Americans don't want it, and many people did not think he was being serious. However, on 25 January 2017, Trump signed an Executive Order calling for just such a wall to be built.

Already the sheer economics of such a massive building project are being called into question. Donald Trump envisaged a 1000 mile, 40 foot high wall, which he first estimated would cost $8 billion, for what he then saw as a wall/fence combination, then which jumped to $10 billion, then $12 billion. However, one estimate from the investment company Bernstein has put the projected cost at anything from $14 billion to $25 billion, whilst MIT have estimated it from $27 billion to a staggering $40 billion.

There are some countries with a smaller GDP than that.

When financial experts in these matters speak, Mr Trump would do very well to listen. Right here in Edinburgh, Scotland, we have the lovely (open to interpretation) Scottish Parliament Building at Holyrood, at the foot of the city's Royal Mile. When the then Secretary or State for Scotland, the late Donald Dewar ordered the building, he said it would cost £40 million (US $50.5 million) and be completed by 2000. It was finally opened in 2004, at a cost of £414 million ($523 million) – over ten times the original estimate.

Oh, but don't worry about cost, Trump says he's going to make Mexico pay for the wall. Yeah, that seems very likely, doesn't it? If you had an antisocial neighbour who built a wall along the edge of your garden, then sent you the bill for it, just how would you react? So it is no surprise that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, has clearly stated that Mexico will pay a big fat NADA for any such wall;

"It is evident that we have differences with the new United States government on some issues, such as a wall that Mexico absolutely will not pay for," Peña Nieto told The Guardian. "At no time will we accept anything that goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans."

American's, did you really expect any other reaction from President Peña Nieto?  As Americans tend to be very protective of their property, consider this; imagine you had a belligerant and anti-social neighbour moved next door to you, built a wall along the edge of your garden, and then sent you the bill for it?  Just how would you react?  Now you know how Senor Peña Nieto feels.

Just how could the USA make Mexico pay for the wall? By using their military firepower in a show of strength to threaten Mexico into paying? Because I sure as hell can't see any other way. There is a term for those who threaten or use violence against a country to achieve political ends; it is called international terrorism.

Building such a wall is only part of the story. It would also need maintaining, and of course, extra border patrol officers. Trump has already stated that he would recruit an additional 15,000 such officers to patrol the border. Perhaps supporters of the wall think that Mexico is going to pay for them too? Dream on – the salaries of each and every one of them would be going on your taxes.

Then of course there are the sheer logistics of building such a wall. First there is the physical geography in some places to consider, which may actually increase the cost even further. But there also exists a legal barrier, in the form of a 47 year old US/Mexico treaty to protect water rights, which could stop the entire project in it's tracks before it even gets started. As AP reported;

“The Trump administration also must adhere to a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built along the border. The 1970 treaty requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the U.S.-Mexico border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.”

Of course, Trump could just flaunt this law – as well as common decency, and go ahead with his wall, cutting off water. Indeed, Trump already has past form for this. When Donald Trump was building his Menie Golf Course in Scotland (because Scotland really needs another golf course, right?) in the early noughties, he tried to force local villagers out of their homes at nearby Balmedie, so he could pull their cottages down, which he considered an eyesore. Among other tactics he tried, he discovered that the water supply for the cottages crossed his land, and cut it off. This included the home of an elderly woman, whom now 92, still collects water daily from a nearby river.

So, yes, Trump could do that to an entire country. But Americans would be well-advised to ask just how that would make their entire country look on the world stage, if they cut water off to a country with a great many very poor people? And by the way, interfering with cross-border water supplies happens to be illegal under international law. Are you now going to flout the United Nations as well? Just how isolationist does the USA want to be? To the point they are treated as even more of a pariah on the world stage than they already are?

Besides which, rivers do not just flow from the USA into Mexico, but also in the other direction, and rivers coming into the US from Mexico enter into some of the most arid semi-desert regions in the American continent. So it could really be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, there is the argument that rivers could be piped under the wall. This is true, they could indeed – and that would push the price up even higher. Added to which, in the case of some rivers, where water can go, human beings could possibly fit through as well, thereby making the wall ineffective in stopping at least some illegal immigrants. In a nightmare scenario, there could be some Mexicans would try to crawl through the tunnels, get stuck and drown or suffocate. And if some heartless Trump supporters are thinking “Good job too.”, consider that may actually be water flowing into the USA for drinking or the irrigation of crops, which would then be contaminated.

Would a wall even be effective? One of the biggest problems facing the USA is drug-trafficking across the border from Mexico. A wall, no matter how high, is not going to stop that. Many years ago the paranormal magazine Fortean Times ran a story of an increasing number of UFO sightings in New Mexico, which turned out to be drug gangs in Mexico ingeniously firing home-made rockets across the border, with the nose-cones packed with drugs. Since then, the Mexican drug barons have turned to using RPGs, bazookas, high-powered rifles, air cannon, and more recently drones to deliver their shipments across the border. How does now stop that? Even more border patrol officers, at an ever-increasing hike to the US taxpayer?

Some may say that the wall will stop illegal immigrants from crossing on foot or by road vehicle. It may well do. But then, approximately 40% of undocumented immigrants into the USA arrive by air, and overstay business or tourist visas. It does not take a genius to work out that if you block one approach, then obviously the number entering by air and overstaying their welcome is going to increase dramatically. And for those who cannot afford visas, the Gulf of Mexico lies to the east of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean lies to the west, both offering the ever-tempting means of entering by water. How does one stop that? Even more border patrol officers going on the public payroll? Just where does this stop? And apart from rising costs, with some of the poorest Mexicans trying to get into the USA by water, that could lead to both an increase in people-trafficking, and people drowning as they try to cross into the USA on poorly-constructed vessels. Does the USA really want to see a humanitarian crisis in the Gulf of Mexico similar to that currently happening in the Mediterranean? I certainly know my many American friends would never want to see that happen.

So if a 1000 mile long, 40 foot high, multi-billion dollar wall is going to be impractical, in financial, legal, physical, and logistical terms, which could ultimately cost many human lives, and could see the USA ostracised by the international community, just why is Donald Trump so very intent on building it? I think you only need to look at his own words to find the answer to that, and sorry America, but you've been duped.

Donald Trump has said that “it's going to be a fantastic wall”, and also that “one day it's going to be named after me”. There's your answer. Trump does not want this wall to keep out illegal immigrants, nor to stop drug-trafficking, because it can do neither. Instead it is an expensive vanity project from his already outrageous ego; he wants to build something akin to the Great Wall of China, which will called The Trump Wall for generations to come, long after he is dead and gone (which may be a while yet – only the good die young), and US voters have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

In the UK in the 19^th century, there was a fashion for the rich to build outlandish, expensive, and often useless structures – they were known as follies. “Trump Folly” may be a much better name for his ridiculous wall.

It is far from funny however, as it may very well yet escalate beyond $100 billion, and it may still be under construction long after the end of Donald Trump's presidency, even in the extremely unlikely event of him gaining a second term.

Wherever walls have been built as boundaries – Berlin, Belfast 'Peace' Walls, Israel/Palestine – they have come in for international criticism, and quite rightly so. In building this wall Donald Trump will bring shame upon the USA, and I for one am angry about that. As I have many good American friends, I know that most Americans are good, kind, caring people, who most certainly do not deserve the condemnation which their country already sees worldwide, nor to have that exacerbated just because a narcissistic, spoiled, petulant child in the Oval Office feels he needs his ego massaged.

And no, America, Mexico will not be paying to build it, and certainly not to maintain and patrol it. Despite all of Trump's promises to cut taxes, each and every US taxpayer will be paying for the building, maintenance, and patrolling of Donald Trump's monument to his own ego for many decades to come.

Have a nice day!

Your Horoscope Says You're a Gullible Idiot

WAY too many shrooms!

“Today's Birthday: Loved ones will be grateful if you don't spit while blowing out the candles on your cake."

(Al Jaffee, MAD Guide to Horoscopes)

Sitting on a bus, somewhat bored one evening, I picked up a copy of that doyen of free right-wing gutter rags, the Metro. Having got through the shit 'reporting', the compulsory “SNP BAD!” story of what everyone else knew - “Nicola rules out indyref2 for this year” - the bad science scaremongering - “Visitor warning after virus breaks out at cancer centre” / “Asthma link to mums who took drugs for heartburn” - the gossip pages which I never read, the deeply unfunny 'comedians', and the vertigo-inducing letters of their knuckledragger readership, my eyes lighted on the horoscopes.

Now I don't normally look at these things, but decided that evening to do so, just for a larf to see what bullshit had been written for my birthsign, Leo (Jul 24 – Aug 23). This is what I found;

The cosmic backdrop suggests a number of opportunities can emerge which might all have some appeal. Therefore, if the way ahead regarding one of them appears temporarily blocked, you may have more luck with the others.

“What the F?” I thought, “That could apply to ANYBODY, at many given times in their life.” And of course, we all, frequently come up against obstacles, and go for the alternatives to them, all the time. Talk about general? What makes that so special for Leos?

So, having had a laugh at that, with their astrologer being so general, I decided to see what they had for the rest. Please note this is copied verbatim, and I take absolutely no responsibility for the bad grammar throughout.

Virgo (Aug 24 – Sep 23):

Though you might be keen to explore various opportunities, it may be better to see how things pan out. You could be drawn into a project that speaks to you on a passionate level and that can be very good for you.

“Errmmm,” thought I, “did I not just read exactly the same for Leo, only worded somewhat differently?” Oh, this was too good a laugh. I decided to go right through the Zodiac.

Libra (Sep 24 – Oct 23)

Jupiter's ties encourage you to move in different circles. You may find mingling with those from other backgrounds and ideas and opinions that differ from your own quite liberating.

Scorpio (Oct 24 – Nov 22)

If something you want to buy isn't available right now, it might not be such a bad thing. If you snap up an item on impulse, it may be just as well to keep any receipts to hand, as you could find it may not be quite what you thought.

Sagittarius (Nov 23 – Dec 21)

If you've managed to stick with your routine, you're doing well. It may be tempting to linger with friends to delay getting down to key activities. Another tie associated with a home situation suggests a discussion might be required.

Capricorn (Dec 22 – Jan 20)

It can seem that you're being encouraged to move in a certain direction. You may feel reluctant to do so, even though you think it may be good for you. Why? Well, the stars prompt you to move out of your comfort zone but you may not feel ready yet.

Aquarius (Jan 21 – Feb 19)

There may be lots of reasons why your attention is drawn in different directions, but today you might find this rewarding. Holding different tasks and liaising with various people can see you making new connections.

Pisces (Feb 20 – Mar 20)

The coming days can see you looking more closely at your goals and thinking about which of them inspires you. You might find one of them calls out to you so much you could see it as a big part of the picture in future.

Aries (Mar 21 – Apr 20)

You may feel inclined to explore exciting ideas rather than focus on tasks which can seem bland in comparison. And with the Moon in Gemini, the chance to multitask might help the hours speed by.

Taurus (Apr 21 – May 21)

The temptation to dismiss an idea that might appear too conservative may be easily done, especially if other more lively options seem to hold promise. However, the further you look into it the more it might appeal. Don't rush into it, though.

Gemini (May 22 – Jun 21)

Your instincts may play a part in a key decision and you could feel compelled to follow a path that might set you apart from friends or certain others. If you do go ahead, it may be as well to persevere, as doing so could work to your benefit.

Cancer (Jun 22 – Jul 23)

Fresh possibilities might see you keen to jump on one idea, perhaps without thinking it through and this may be something to be aware of. A chat with someone close could gift you with a deeper understanding of what really entails.

I'm pretty sure that most of you reading this have noticed exactly what I noticed about all these 'predicitions'; THEY'RE ALL THE BLOODY SAME HOROSCOPE, WORDED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY EACH TIME.

Be it in work, at home, life choices, whateva, each and every one speaks of making choices with regard to directions in life. And really, for all the 'cosmic' mumbo jumbo, in many cases the 'psychic' advises, many times, to talk over or weigh up options. What? Surely if “it's all written in the stars”, then it's already been decided and predestined, and there's not a bloody thing anyone can do to change that?

This is what I intensely dislike about horoscopes; nothing controls your life or your 'fate', if you insist on calling that. I don't believe in fate, except in certain cases...

Admiral Lord Nelson; “Kismet, Hardy, Kismet.”
Sailor No.1; “I always knew his lordship was that way inclined.”

Sailor No.2; “No. 'Kismet', it means fate.”

Sailor No.1; “Well shore, if 'is fate are botehering him, I'll take his boots off.”

From moment to moment there are an infinite number of possible futures each and every one of us can go into. For instance, you could be in bed right now instead of sitting here thinking “What the hell is Les moaning about now?” In the next few moments you could go make a cup of tea, scratch your arse (How did I know you were going to do that? Cos I'm psychic.) or be jumped by your partner for sex (you jammy bastard!), or the ceiling could cave in, or whateva. There is NO set future, NO fate, NO destiny, and NOTHING written in the stars. The Law of Causality completely rules it out.

And what's more, you – dear reader – would not want to have fate, destiny, a predestined set future. For if you did then you would not be in control of your life. You would not be able to make decisions re your future, or if you did, then that would already have been decided.

And this is where the Metro horoscopes completely fall down; for each and every one of them speaks of seeking advice, or hedging your bets (but then they would – all being the same horoscope), but of course, if the stars and planets really had an affect on your life, then it's already been predestined, and there's not a bloody thing you can do about that. And the irony of that of course is that there's absolutely no point in reading your sodding horoscope.

But of course, I am being glib. Many astrologers will point out that newspaper/magazine horoscopes are all hogwash anyway, as you can't generalise about an entire group of people and say that life is going to take them in certain directions. They would argue that everyone has to have their own personal horoscope read. But of course they do, while clearing their throat, and pointing to their advert for personal horoscope forecasts. And do you have any idea what it costs to have a personal horoscope done?

So, do I think there's anything in it at all? Well, our planet is bombarded with cosmic rays all the time, and the pull of gravity from the Moon does have certain affects upon the planet. I would argue that it is perfectly possible that these things can have an affect upon living creatures, including mankind. Scientific studies have claimed that the cycles of the Moon have no affect upon human behaviour. I stick two fingers up to the scientific studies and ask them to go ask any police officer, nurses and doctors in Accident & Emergency, pub bouncers / door staff, or bar staff what happens when a full moon falls over a weekend. I have even known a serving police officer who got swap shifts wherever possible to avoid such periods.

So yes, I do believe that some minor changes to behaviour can temporarily be caused by effects upon the planet. But if anyone is going to tell me that our lives are governed by distant planets in the Solar System, and stars thousands of light years away, then I'm afraid that your head is in conjunction with Uranus.

Wad Ye Really Deny Scots Bairns a Guid Stert - as Weel as Their Birthricht?

The SNP Scottish Government's baby box scheme began yestreen, whaurby aye bairnie born in Scotland wull get a wee box o' useful items tae gie them a guid stert in life.  The baby box stertit in Finland in the 1940s, it hus been adoptit by mony ither countries and it is proven tae cut infant mortality.

Approximately ilka box contains 80 items, amang mony ither things:

a play mat
a changing mat
a digital thermometer
a fleece jacket
several babygrows
a hooded bath towel
a reusable nappy and liners
a baby book
an organic sponge
cot sheets
a mattress
a blanket

Mony agin the SNP government hae condemened the baby box, wi' maist greeting that it's a waste o' taxpayers money, wi' some complaining they ne'er got a box when their bairns were born.  Labour (North British Branch) are complaining there's naething tae support breist feeding.  In fact, the SNP hae an excellent record oan promoting breist feeding, and ane which excels onything Labour did when in power.  Some are alsae saying that the box wull indeed include breist feeding pads.

Some say they dinnae need the box.  Maybe they dinnae, but mony wull, and wi' the huge cost o' sterting a bairn oot, I'm sure maist parents appreciate withe'er help they kin get.  Ane loon snided that the SNP wull 'steal' ony idea as a "vote winner", then claim it wis their ain idea.  Neither First Minister Nicola Sturgeon nor ony SNP MSP hus tried tae claim it wis an SNP idea, but full acknowledge and applaud the Finnish model.  As for winning votes, weel, wi'oot the baby box, the SNP hae a'ready shown how mony votes they kin get in 2015, when they sent 56 oot o' 59 MPs tae Westminster, in 2016, when Scotland returnit an SNP administration tae Holyrood - wi' the highest proportion o' the vote o' a' parties, and the wee snide wull learn how mony votes the SNP kin gain in 2017, when they sweep the board in local authority elections.  Ane daft wummin claimit that the money sud instead hae been used fur gaein parents baby massage classes.

Ony yin reading this, if ye're a unionist, and ye begrude ilka bairn a wee boxfu' o' stuff tae stert them oot, then ye sud think black burnin' shame o' yerseels.

But amang a' the complaints hae been the ane that as ilka box contains a wee poem in the Scots leid, it maun be 'unionist propaganda'.

Thon tells ye a' ye need tae ken aboot maist unionists.  They may claim tae be "Proud to be Scottish, proud to be British", but the fact remains that mony dinnae and wullnae recognise their ain culture.  They dinna recognise Scots as a language.  They wullnae e'en ca' it a dialect o' Inglis, but they claim it is jist 'slang'.

Jist for the information o' the ignoramuses, Scots, like Inglis, owes it's origins tae Anglo-Saxon, and tae a great degree, tae the Norman king, William the Conqueror.

History lesson here.  When Macbeth and killed Duncan I at the Battle o' Lumphanan in 1034, Duncan's sons fled the land for their ain safety; Donald Ban tae Ireland, and Malcolm Ceann Mor ('Big Head') tae England.  In 1057-1058, Malcolm regainit the Scots throne wi' the help of the Sassenachs ('Sassain' is in fact the Gael for 'Saxon'), chief amang them being Earl Siward o' Northumbria.  Sae it wis when the Normans invadit England, and supplanted Sassenach lairds wi' their ain, and seized land, whaur cud the Sasssenachs flee tae whaur they wud be safe?  Why, richt across the border intae Alba, whaur they wad enjoy the protection o' King Malcolm.  As thae Angles spread frae Lothian tae a' corners o' Alba, thae brocht their tongue wi' them, whit assimilated wi' the Briton, Pictish, Norse, and Scots tongues a'ready in use in the land.  It wis aroond a hunnert years later that the Bishop o' Dunkeld bemoanit in a letter (noo preservit in the British Museum) "The kingdome of Alba is becoming known as Scot-lande" (it'll ne'er catch oan).

Sae we see, that Scots didnae grow oot o' the Inglis tongue, but evolvit wi' it's ain influences.  Frae the Norman invasion, Inglis wis influenced wi' Norman French.  It wisnae until the Treaty o' Paris o' 1295, that Scots began tae hae Middle French influences, as weel as the ithers mentioned abune whit hud nae influence at a' oan the Inglis leid.

The Scots leid is a language in it's ain richt.  And jist as oor flag, the Saltire, belangs tae ilka Scot, sae does oor ain tongue, be they nationalist, unionist, or indifferent tae hale matter.  If ye claim tae be a proud Scot but alsae proud tae be British, then pit yir money whaur yir mooth is, and support yir ain culture, instead o' talkin' a wheen o' blethers aboot propaganda, and Scots being "slang".

And maist o' a', the Scots leid belangs tae ilka bairn, and the generations o' them yet tae come.  Sae unionists, if ye claim tae be Scots as weel as British, wad ye really want tae see oor ain tongue eventually die oot, through bairns being denied their birthricht, as weel as a wee box o' things tae halp?  And a' because YE dinnae agree wi' Scots independence and wull resort tae ONY tactic tae attack Scots Nats?

If sae, daur ye still hae the affront tae ca' yerseel a proud Scot?

Western Women Turning to Hijab Chic

The stunning Mariah Idrissi

Muslim model proves it's not what you wear, it's how you wear it.

Mariah Idrissi is a British Asian woman and a fashion model. Shorter than the usual model, but she is of course strikingly beautiful, with flawless skin, large brown eyes framed by perfectly shaped eyebrows, and large, pouting lips. But no-one has ever seen her cleavage, or just how shapely her body is, and they probably never will, for Mariah is a devout Muslim, and the face – and voice - behind the fashion phenomenon of “Hijab Chic”.

Mariah was working in a London shopping centre when she was spotted by a scout for fashion giant H&M, and featured in the store's 'Close the Loop' campaign for recycled clothing, wearing sunglasses and traditional 'hijab' headscarves – the first western fashion model to do so. She has since gained 40,000 followers on Instagram, where she posts daily pictures of her modest costume for that day, has just signed up to the Select modelling agency and is launching her own 'Hijab Chic' fashion brand. Her ideas certainly seem to be catching on with many women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who apparently like her fashions, and her reasons for them.

Listening to Mariah Idrissi is intriguing. Rather than trying to make a statement for her Islamic faith, which nonetheless remains important to her, she claims that women are sick of being expected to show off their bodies, being sexualised and are now seeking to cover themselves up in clothes which are not revealing, but nonetheless stylish. “It’s not just for Muslim women. I think we’re all so fed up with nudity and the sexualisation of women that we now welcome an alternative,” Mariah told LBC Radio, “I think modest fashion can relieve some of the pressure on young girls as they are growing up, showing them that it's okay to be yourself and wear what you're comfortable in - however you want to dress. That you shouldn't feel pressured to flash your boobs and that you can still be attractive while covered up.”

Being the auld bugger that I am, I allow myself a smile at Mariah Idrissi's views, because they are actually nothing new. I am old enough to recall the late 1970s / early 1980s, and the feminist backlash of that time to men who thought that they had the right to wolf-whistle and make obscene and suggestive comments to every woman who passed them. Women took to wearing body-covering clothes which some at the time called unsightly. Chief among these were denim industrial overalls. The intention was to cover their bodies as much as possible, but once the idea caught on, it didn't take long for the fashion houses to sit up and take notice, and soon there were figure-hugging denim 'overalls' for women on sale across the UK. Overalls became the fashion of the day, they were a 'must have', and in some cases were even considered sexy.

So Mariah Idrissi may very well have a point. Perhaps women, including western – culturally 'Christian' – women are becoming so sick of the behaviour of men who cannot or will not behave themselves, that they are embracing stylish clothing usually associated with Islamic culture, including the 'hijab' headscarf. What is truly sad is that women feel they have to dress thus to detract unwarranted male attention. But then, that of course is only part of the story. Unlike the dungaree overalls of yesteryear, women can wear her fashions, covering themselves up, in something they feel comfortable in, and feel feminine at the same time.

The entire issue throws into sharp relief the fact that everyone should be allowed to wear whatever they wish, so long as that is of their own free choice. As a very forthright atheist, I may very well dislike Islamic women covering themselves up for religious reason, but that's their choice. I am not the one wearing those garments, so I have no right to complain. Sadly, I have seen some other atheists taking a strong line against Islamic women covering up, including some who claim that Muslim women cover up because their menfolk force them to do so, atheists who claim that because Islam is a faith which is oppressive to women they merely seek to help them throw off that oppression, and even one atheist who commented on a story about a possible burqa ban in the UK with one word; “GOOD!”

To begin with, those who claim that Muslim women only cover themselves because men force them to do so are making a generalisation for which they have absolutely no proof, and which I can assure them is most certainly not the case. I once worked beside two Muslim women who were very forthright in their views, and in their faith, and chose to cover their heads with headscarves completely of their own volition. They would even speak often about latest fashions in headscarves, which they became somewhat excited about. Those who claim that Islam is oppressive to women tend to forget that so is Christianity – probably more so in fact, as the Qur'an teaches that men and women are equal (it is the Hadith, the writings of Mohammed, which is more oppressive), whereas the Bible most certainly does not. Instead the Bible teaches that because of Eve tempting Adam, women are meant to be subservient to men, who are supposed to have dominion over women. And as to those seeking a ban on 'Islamic' clothing, I do not see them and those who claim to be 'helping' Muslim women complaining about the dress and head coverings of Christian nuns.

And of course, women do not need the help of these men – and it largely is men – seeking to get rid of Islamic dress. Indeed, for anyone to even attempt to do so is actually somewhat condescending to women, and downright misogynistic, if not outright sexist. By attempting to oppress 'Islamic' dress, those doing so are effectively saying to those women wearing it “There, there, dear. Obviously you are a fragile pretty girlie who cannot think for herself, so I'll do your thinking for you and I'll decide what you can and cannot wear.” In doing so, they make themselves absolutely no better than those Islamic men who do force women to cover up; they are giving an alternative, they are not allowing women to think or choose for themselves, they are but the mirror of the male Islamist fundamentalist.

Mariah Idrissi actually makes a very good point concerning freedom of choice and freedom of expression. She states that she can buy many things in UK high street stores, with which she can dress modestly yet attractively, but which at the same time do not in any way infringe upon the dress code of her Islamic faith. Among these she included trousers. Interesting to note that Islam has never had a problem with women wearing trousers, yet even today on the first day of 2017, there are men of western Christian culture who still absolutely forbid their wives and daughters to wear trousers, and there are Christian churches who frown upon women worshippers wearing trousers, and some which will even refuse entry to the church to women in trousers. The latter actually happened to a woman friend of mine in the USA. She had been in an extremely bad car accident, in which she was almost killed, and was cut free from a burning car. It left her with horrendous scarring on her legs, which she sought to cover up. After several weeks in hospital, she went in trousers to her Baptist church, which she had been a member of for many years – and her pastor turned her away from the door.

Speaking of Christianity, interesting to note that it is also still very much a rule that women must cover their heads in Christian churches, be it with a hat, or guess what? A headscarf. But then, my mum wore a headscarf, as did my granny – and so did yours.

Makes you wonder if western Christian culture is so very different from that of fundamentalist Islam, doesn't it? But it need not be overt Christianity behind it. Okay, it wasn't yesterday I was at high school, but I do recall a protest by girls at my school demanding the right to wear trousers. It failed, and their reward was for all the protesting girls to be given detention. I am given to understand there are still UK schools, particularly private schools, who insist that girls wear skirts. And if you think that's bad, consider France, where girls cannot wear ankle-length skirts, because they are considered “Islamic”. But then, that is the same France where male police officers patrolled the beaches in the summer of 2016, and rounded on Muslim women wearing Islamic dress, and forced them to remove them in public. Just how different is that to the Iranian dress police who force women to cover up? It's a rhetorical question; the answer is not one jot. France pretends to be merely enforcing their secular constitution. Strangely enough, I do not see male police officers harassing the huge number of Roman Catholic nuns in the 'secular' France and forcing them to disrobe in public.

Mariah Idrissi claims her clothing is a meeting of cultures, and inevitably that is never going to please everyone. She often faces backlashes from knuckle-draggers on both sides of the debate; the anti-Islamic bigots, and the fundamentalist Islamists. During her interview on LBC, one Tweet read out (from a man) stated “I don't see her wearing a Union Jack headscarf.” Leaving aside the fact that the Union Flag is only a “Jack” when flown at sea, strangely enough I don't see many non-Islamic women in the UK wearing Union Flag headscarves, up to and including Queen Elizabeth II. I have however seen Betty wearing a bright green hat, to match her bright green coat. According to the logic of the Tweeter, does that make Her Maj a supporter of Irish Roman Catholicism? Besides, I recall seeing an Islamic woman wearing an all-over costume with the Union Flag, which looked bloody awful in my view, but the reaction from the bigots was “That is OUR flag”, “This is a Christian country”, “She has no right to wear that”, etc, etc.

On the other side, researching this article I came across comments from Muslims saying that she is wearing too much make-up, she is “flaunting” herself, and that her face should be covered completely. Take a guess at which gender these comments came from, and I'll give you a clue - it's not female. Seems the poor woman just can't win, but thankfully it is water off a duck's back to her. She commented on her detractors that she just laughs at them. While I strongly disagree with her faith, I nonetheless admire this lady; she is strong and intelligent, as well as beautiful. If there are any men trying to tell Mariah Idrissi how to dress, I'm seeing no evidence of it – or for that matter over her choice of career as a fashion model. She is obviously a very headstrong and independent young woman, and I get the impression that any man would cross her only at his own risk.

It seems to me that the whole agenda on what girls and women can and cannot wear is and always has been decided by men. Certainly behind it all has always been the attitudes of boys and men. There was a story in the press in 2016 that girls in one school in England were being told to lengthen their skirts, so as not to distract the male pupils. And how often have you heard men say of girls and women that dressing a certain way is “asking for it”?

I've got news for all of you, chaps, girls and women are sexually assaulted and raped from tiny babies to the extremely elderly. Provocative pampers? Erotic surgical stockings? They should dress more conservatively? What could be more conservative than the traditional nurse's uniform, or more disturbingly, girls schools uniforms? Yet these are very popular items for sexual cosplay, and let's not forget that Britney Spears sold an entire No.1 song on the back of a video of girls in school uniforms. So, are nurses and schoolgirls “asking for it”? Indeed, what of Muslim women, in hijab and sometimes even in full burqa, who raped? Were they “asking for it”? Same thing for Christian nuns who are raped – and don't forget some sex shops also sell nuns habits? And for women wearing dungaree overalls? And really, if women become the victims of sexual attacks due to dressing “provocatively”, do tell me, are men who are raped doing exactly the same thing?

No-one has the right to tell another how to dress, and neither should they. That is not what Mariah Idrissi is attempting to do, and neither is she trying to foist Islam upon western culture. All she is doing is giving women an alternative which is comfortable, which covers them – should they wish to be covered, yet which is at the same time feminine. If women choose to adopt that dress, then that is their choice, which no-one – particularly not men – has any right to criticise, or indeed attempt to prevent them doing so. Some women will, some women will not, some women will continue to flash their cleavage. Their choice, not yours. And men, if you have a problem with any of that, you are the problem.

And know something else? It is indeed a fashion, and like all fashions before it – the mini dress, the maxi dress, the kaftan, the dungaree overalls – it will pass, and make way for the next fashion to come in. The one thing it is not is an Islamist takeover of the west, no matter what the anti-Islamic haters and panic merchants would have you believe.