“Til Jihad Do Us Part” – Vote now!

The Big Pitch is a new, dynamic, UK-based film competition, where amateur film-makers pitch their film ideas, and are given the unique opportunity to have their film ideas made into a feature production.

Not only is this a fantastic opportunity for film-makers everywhere, but from my perspective as an avid film buff, it also means that slightly off-beat films can get produced that normally would receive little or no attention from Hollywood.

There are some great finalists, but my personal favourite is the very originally titled comedy “Til Jihad Do Us Part.” The film idea is accompanied by a great blog by film-maker and writer, Shai Hussain. You can meet Shai here.

The romantic comedy film is inspired by “So I Married an Axe Murderer,” but puts an original and very topical spin on the theme. The movie focuses on the story of Meena, and her growing suspicions that her new fiancé may be a terrorist…

“The best thing about The Big Pitch isn’t just the opportunity to get a feature film made – it’s the chance to go through the whole process in a really hands-on way, and not linger in development hell for years. Kudos to those who let a film with the title “Jihad” get this far.”

–Shai Hussain – Writer of Til Jihad Do Us Part

Taking into account the way that Muslims are currently portrayed in the media, “Til Jihad Do Us Part” provides a refreshing injection of humour, which is always welcome. Consequently, I’d encourage you (you, blog reader…) to vote to get this film made. At the end of the day, it’s all up to you, Joe Public; you get to decide which film-maker gets this opportunity of a lifetime.

Voting officially opens at noon, on the 19th of November (i.e. right now! Go vote! Go on…!). Competition winners will be announced on the 6th of December.

Vote for “Til Jihad Do Us Part” here. Voting closes on the 6th of December 2008.

The Jewel of Medina: Nobody cares… Game. Over.

“It is absurd to have a hard and fast rule about what one should read and what one shouldn’t. More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn’t read.” — Oscar Wilde

The latest controversy in the Muslim world appears to be furore over Sherry Jones’ latest work of fiction, “The Jewel of Medina.” However, like everything else reported in the mainstream media about Islam, things are not always what they seem.

“The Jewel of Medina” is our version of that truly horrific work of fiction, “The Da Vinci Code.” I should clarify my position here, as I’m offended by both books, but not because of their religious themes, but rather they are offensive from a literary and grammatical perspective. Having had the misfortune to read the truly appalling trashy novel that was Da Vinci, I am simply staggered that the book has received the publicity, and widespread sales that it has, not to mention the kind of fame achieved by the bland and mediocre author, Dan Brown.

Both books have a number of commonalities:

1. They both take religious themes, adapt them and fabricate some pseudo-history in order to achieve some controversy and subsequently generate sales.
2. Both are extremely badly written. “The Da Vinci Code” mainly consists of chapters that are approximately five pages each, in order to retain the attention of its core audience, most of whom are probably finding reading books a new experience. Does that sound arrogant and patronising? It was supposed to. Likewise, the excerpt of “The Jewel…” speaks for itself.
3. Both claim to be “extensively researched.” However, anyone who has read an iota of Islamic history will know that “The Jewel…” contains no historical facts whatsoever. According to the BBC website (emphasis added by myself):

“Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, as well as one of the great leaders of early Islam, is portrayed as conniving, hot-tempered and lascivious. The Islamic texts document him as a consistently staunch defender of truth and justice, an upstanding character.”

Given the fact that the book contains numerous factual errors, this should help to reinforce the fact that it is merely a work of fiction, not a historical account by any means. I don’t believe that any book should be banned, as censorship merely adds to the notoriety of the novel and simply generates more sales for a mediocre author, who otherwise would have slipped by under the radar, relatively unnoticed inthe literary world .

What is particularly interesting in this case is that Random House (the publishers) “banned” the book, over “fears it could incite violence” i.e. before there were any signs onf any reaction at all. It’s clear that a “ban” adds a layer of credibility to an unknown author. Having read the first chapter of the book, it’s apparent that the book is a trashy novel, an “Islamic Mills and Boon” if you will, that will only appeal to people who don’t read books, much like Da Vinci.

So, for the record, Muslims don’t care. The Satanic Verses, this is not. It’s true that perhaps a small minority of people may be offended by this book, but the majority of Muslims don’t care about yet another bland author’s attempt to implement some savvy marketing and sell some fictional soap opera story masquerading as a historical and factual account.

Despite the claims by the media that Muslims want to ban this book, rather it’s the publishers who want people to think that Muslims want to censor it, in some desperate and rather tragic attempt by the author to achieve some credibility for what is none other than a poorly-written novel in the vein of a“Muslim Bridget Jones.”

I would highly recommend reading a review on the BBC’s website by blogger, Shelina Zahra Janmohammed.

The bottom line is that Muslims must realise that they are being played, like puppets on a string.

The accusation that Muslims constantly want to ban “everything” is not only fallacious but also deeply divisive, creating an “Us Versus Them” mentality. However, rather than adopting a “victim” mindset, Muslims need to speak out, in order to put an end to the idea constantly perpetuated in the media, that they are in favour of censorship.

For more information, please read Shelina Zahra Janmohammed’s review of The Jewel of Medina, published by the BBC News Magazine, available here.

Are white middle-class men discriminated against? No, seriously.

Well, they are, if you believe one Mr Jeremy Paxman. It seems that race relations have progressed so far in this country, that beyond mere equality, bigotry in its latest form means that white middle-class men have no hope of making within the television industry.

At a pre-recorded interview at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, Paxman said:

“The worst thing you can be in this industry is a middle-class white male. If any middle-class white male I come across says he wants to enter television, I say ‘give up all hope’. They’ve no chance.”

Pardon me if I’m perhaps just a tad sceptical.

Don’t get me wrong; I love Paxman’s irreverent interviewing style on Newsnight (who doesn’t!?) Much to the amusement of the British public, Paxman has provided countless classic moments of TV gold, as many an arrogant, slippery politician makes yet another futile attempt to try to evade his aggressive and persistent line of questioning (“Did you threaten to over-rule him?” ).

Afterall, only Paxman alone could ask Tony Blair whether he and George Bush pray together, for example.

However, in recent months, Paxo has been prone to gaffes on more than one occasion. First, there was the rather sensitive issue of Marks & Spencer’s underwear (the less said about this, the better – I’d rather not elaborate ). This was closely followed by a rather serious “incident” where Paxman managed to offend the whole of Scotland, by lambasting the work of celebrated poet, Robert Burns as “sentimental doggerel.”

And in his most recent error of judgment, Paxman appears to think that white middle-class men are the most disadvantaged when it comes to employability, in the television industry, at least. This is a comment that could only really come from someone who’s probably hasn’t experienced much prejudice and bigotry firsthand.

Needless to say, Paxman’s comments have received much criticism and ridicule. Channel 4 news presenter, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, said:

“I feel awfully sorry for white, middle-class men who went to Oxbridge… but I’m not sure they are the ones at the greatest disadvantage.

“Obviously, the people who really are facing the biggest struggle to make it into television are those from working-class backgrounds and people from ethnic minorities. If they are both working class and from an ethnic minority, they really are up against it.”

Whilst it’s undeniable that there’s been significant progress when it comes to eradicating discrimination, nevertheless, there is still a long way to go, and to claim that white middle-class men face a greater struggle than women, ethnic minorities, or the working class, is simply absurd.

Paxman’s bold, outlandish claims that white middle-class males are society’s most neglected minority group seems to indicate that he is completely out of touch with reality.

Despite this latest faux pas, to remember Paxman at his most memorable, check out this video that features some of his best moments:

Aah, that’s better. Classic Paxman at his finest hour.

Street art at the Tate: bland, boring and no sign of Banksy anywhere

If you’ve read my About Me page, then you’ll know that I love street art. Monday is the last day of the Tate Modern’s iconic street exhibition, so last week, I decided to catch the exhibition while I still had the chance.

Whilst I acknowledge that the presence of a street art exhibition at the Tate is a milestone in allowing graffiti to be recognised as a genuinely credible art form, I can’t help but feel that the exhibition missed the point. Whilst it may have made urban art more accessible to a new audience, it failed to capture all that is fascinating and unique about street art.

Association with left-wing politics

Although urban street art has been popularised by British graffiti artist, Banksy (the Keyser Söze of the art world), it’s a global art form that’s long shared an intimate bond with socialism, radical politics, and the anti-war movement. Most recently, Orwell’s most famous works, (the visionary dystopian novel 1984 and the satirical allegory, Animal Farm) were reissued with visually stunning book covers designed by guerrilla street artist, Shepard Fairey.

Shepard Fairey, most famous for the iconic Obey campaign, recently created this limited edition print to show his support for Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Not only did the print sell out in minutes, but also support from such a popular cultural figure did wonders for Obama’s campaign. As Fairey explained on his website:

”I believe with great conviction that Barack Obama should be the next President. I have been paying close attention to him since the Democratic convention in 2004. I feel that he is more a statesman than a politician. He was against the war when it was an unpopular position (and Hillary was for the war at that time), Obama is for energy and environmental conservation. He is for healthcare reform…”

Whilst the exhibition at the Tate (which also included an urban walking tour) mostly focused on Madrid street art, the lack of political messages meant that the exhibition failed to capture the revolutionary spirit at the heart of the guerrilla street art movement.

In addition, given that Banksy has popularised the art form and brought it to the mainstream, an exhibition where his work isn’t mentioned (at all) seems somewhat incomplete. Whilst the exhibition’s curators argue that they wanted to bring a more international flavour to the Tate, I suspect that the noticeable absence of arguably the world’s most famous anonymous artist may have been more to do with the anti-establishment nature of street art.

Anti-establishment art doesn’t have corporate sponsors

A particularly salient point to note about the Tate street art exhibition is that it’s sponsored by Nissan, ironic given the anti-capitalist nature of the movement.

The work of James Cauty, for example, is unlikely to ever receive a sponsorship from Disney, despite featuring its most iconic star in a variety of different guises. And, this piece from Banksy probably won’t do any favours for the marketing department of a certain American fast food chain. 

The epitome of freedom of expression

In 2005, Banksy sneaked into four New York museums to hang his own work. That’s the point about street art.  It doesn’t need permission. It exemplifies all that is beautiful about freedom of expression. And, it democratises art, rather than limiting it to a small, privileged elite, who may or may not get the chance within their lifetime to display their work to the general public.

In some ways, Web 2.0 shares many of the characteristics of street art, which rather aptly explains my fascination with both. Like street art, the social web has democratised information, through bloggery, and other forms of user-generated content.

Moving on from this, the internet has been instrumental in popularising street art and bringing it into the spotlight. Sites such as Wooster Collective, Art of the State, and Streetsy, as well as blogs dedicated to individual art projects (such as the Little People blog) have propelled the movement to spectacular new heights.

An exhibition that doesn’t capture the evocative soul of street art is short-sighted, bland and ultimately, “not so street.” Street art has long been dismissed as “graffiti” and criticised for its lack of credibility as an art form. Whilst displaying this art at the Tate is an important step in helping to give street art the respect it deserves, as this blog post points out:

“What does it mean to just choose a few street artists and paste work onto the side of an art institution? If it already exists outside on sides of buildings what makes this so special?”

…Although (it) gives street art the respect it deserves, it also tells us that it still isn’t as valued as other modern and contemporary art practices, by denying it the space inside the museum.

It is only as valid as its increase of visitors and sponsorship money. A friend answered my questions by saying, “They’ve had to bring the street art to the middle classes, so they can feel cool. Or they can feel cool by slating it.”

I conclude that this was a wasted opportunity by the Tate.”

In summary, urban art is about radical freedom of expression: anywhere, any place, any time. The essence of street art lies in the fact that it’s subversive, it’s controversial and most importantly, it’s not pretentious.

Displaying street art in a museum perhaps defeats its core purpose and message. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether such art forms belong in the Tate at all. Even if it’s possible to institutionalise street art, perhaps this exhibition could have been better executed.

Could it be that the Tate missed a genuinely exciting opportunity to bring underground art to an increasingly enthusiastic public?

Positive discrimination is still discrimination

It’s a tragedy that the ugly disease of racial and gender discrimination still plagues our society. Fifty years after the civil rights movement, one can’t but help feel that not much has changed, or at the very least, not enough. Rather than defeating the very core of racism, British politicians seem content to replace true notions of equality with the hard, shiny, plastic exterior of mere political correctness.

This is demonstrated no more clearly than by Harriet Harman’s plans to allow employers to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minorities over white males. Whilst it’s true that on-white unemployment is overall higher than for white ethnic groups (as the following statistics from the 2004 National Census show), favouring women and ethnic minorities for the sake of a quota and for mere political correctness is not only highly patronising but also deeply divisive.

Stats and chart from the UK Office for National Statistics (2004)

Harriet Harman’s recent speech in the House of Commons is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. For example, she talks about addressing inequalities through creating a “fair and equal society”, and that “no-one should have to put up with discrimination.” That’s all very well, but it seems our politicians have misunderstood the very definition of discrimination itself:

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:

Simply put, discrimination, whether in favour or against a particular group, is still discrimination. Putting “positive” in front of the word doesn’t make it a good thing! To quote Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,

“It’s not just that our color difference doesn’t matter to her. It’s that she doesn’t seem to think there is any difference.”

How can we expect to move forward and eliminate discrimination once and for all, if even our politicans have got it so wrong?

Addressing inequality in the workplace is imperative now, more than ever, in a period of economic instability, where employers need to have access to the best skills, to sustain competitive advantage.

Positive discrimination is highly patronising. The fact is, statistics report that girls consistently outperform boys at all levels of education. And yet despite this, National Statistics Online still report a gender pay gap of approximately 12.6%. Clearly, when it comes to salary, it pays to be a man. But, the point is that forcing employers to hire women just because they happen to be women undermines the fact that women are skilled and qualified and able to perform the job just as well as men.

It’s important to note, however, that Harman said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability. In reality, however, I think one candidate always outperforms another, even if by only a slight margin, so firms should choose the candidate with the best ability, rather than using gender as a basis for a decision.

Despite all the doom and gloom, however, I firmly believe that change is inevitable, given that the gender pay gap is closing, though we still have a long way to go to achieving equality. And, more ethnic minorities are entering university and achieving the right skills that employers are looking for.

Looking at education levels, in terms of GCSE exam results, Chinese and Indian pupils are the most successful, whilst white males trail behind in last place. Even the focus on  the underachievement of Afro-Carribeans has been called “statistical racism”, as statistically, Afro-Carribean pupils do no worse than white British from similar economic backgrounds.

We need to get to a place not where we prefer to employ women or ethnic minorities over white males, but where we are blind to differences in gender and race and reward people on the basis of their ability alone. It’s obvious that deep racial discrimination still exists in our society; it’s just that positive discrimination is not the answer.

See the video of Harriet Harman’s speech in the House of Commons here.

Cool advertising: Trublood – the synthetic blood soft drink

So I’ve just come back to the UK after a two week holiday (“vacation”) in the States, where I visited New York and other parts of the East coast. As it was my first trip, it was pretty interesting to see the cultural differences between the UK and US, the most obvious one being that the Americans are a lot more friendly than the Brits. It’s a shame to perpetuate the myth of British people being more reserved and maintaining their “stiff upper lip,” but unfortunately, the traditional cultural stereotype is truthful to some extent.

Whilst in New York, I was intrigued by an advert, apparently for a bottled synthetic blood-flavoured soft drink called Trublood. Having a rather sick sense of humour, as well as a (perfect healthy?!) interest in human physiology, I was hoping to sample some of this interesting beverage during my stay in the US. Admittedly, I did find the concept of a drink disguised as human bodily fluids rather strange, but given that this was my first trip to the US, I guess I just dismissed it offhand, and thought “Only in America…”

It was only when I got home, that I got the chance to do some much needed Googling to find the drink online, only to find that rather than encouraging members of the public to drink your own blood, the ad was actually a rather innovative campaign for HBO’s new television show, “True Blood.”

As well as having to admit that I was gullible enough to get sucked in by American  advertising, I also have to take into account that I would have been willing to sample synthetic blood, if it had been readily available.

I’m not quite sure what this says about me, but this gets to the heart of why this marketing campaign is so clever.

• The campaign understands its audience: people macabre enough to consider the possibility of drinking synthetic blood for fun are probably also the ideal audience that HBO is looking for.
• Good understanding of the relationship between online and offline marketing: with little additional purchase info provided on the billboard itself, the ad acts as an effective driver of traffic to the website.
• This also encourages users to visit trubeverage.com, a dedicated microsite for the drink, that “reminds vampires to drink responsibly.”

The microsite extends advertising for the drink in an inventive, innovative and realistic way.

I especially love that the Tru Blood apparently comes in four distinct flavours: Type O, (“Hearty and Satisfying”), Type A (“Light and Delicate”), Type B (“Aggressive and Energizing”), Type AB (“Smooth and Refined”).

I’m not quite sure what type would suit me best, but the Type Finder rather helped in that respect. After answering a series of questions, I found that I was “The Cultivated Aesthete – Type A” and apparently share similar taste in blood with Oscar Wilde.

And, apparently I wasn’t the only one taken in by the campaign: bloodthirsty consumers have apparently made efforts to purchase the product or locate a dealer.

To some extent, the tactics employed are similar to a campaign last year for Showtime’s Dexter, which fooled some viewers into thinking that they were the next victims of a gruesome series of murders by a notorious serial killer. Both campaigns use shock tactics to resonate with consumers and viewers, as they play on the sense of the macabre and sheer morbid curiousity.

Overall, the ad does a great job of standing out amid the wealth of advertising messages – whilst I might not ever get to find out what synthetic blood tastes likes, I’m sure I’ll be one of many bloodthirsty viewers checking out True Blood, the TV show when it’s broadcast later this September.

“TrueBlood,” the new series from the creators of Six Feet Under starts on HBO on the 7th of September.

Photo credit: “Comic-Con: Trueblood billboard,” Mitch Wagner on Flickr.

Blogging Without Obligation

Hello!

I’m back after a long gap in blogging, and so this post is rather long overdue. Lukily for me, however, I firmly believe in the concept of B.W.O, or “Blogging Without Obligation.”

This mantra, a movement amongst bloggers, liberates me and other like-minded individuals from the shackles of guilt, and relieves the sense of impending doom that accompanies a long gap in bloggery.

Only fellow bloggers will know the incessant counting that comes with a month or so of *NOT* writing on your blog: “23 days since I haven’t blogged… 34 days since I haven’t blogged!” The anguish, the anxiety, the guilt!

But thanks to B.W.O, no longer do bloggers have to feel the unrelenting shame of having not updated their blog in a while.

Afterall, since I blog about issues I’m passionate about and given that I don’t make a penny from this blog, I think it’s only fair that I write for me, when I feel the need to.

However, rather than continuing with this desperate and apology-filled attempt at justifiying the overly long gap away from my online “home from home,” I’m going to sign the “Blogging Without Obligation” pledge, and I urge all my fellow bloggers to do the same.

Afterall, compulsion takes the fun out of everything. Not to mention the fact that blogging is fulfilling when you enjoy it, and you use it as a means to express yourself when you’re feeling inspired or impassioned.

So, if you agree, grab a logo, and sign the pledge. The sense of liberation alone make it worthwhile.

• Because you shouldn’t have to look at your blog like it is a treadmill.

• Because its okay to just say what you have to say. If that makes for a long post, fine. Short post, fine. Frequent post, fine. Infrequent post, fine.

• Because its okay to not always be enthralled with the sound of your own typing.

• Because sometimes less is more.

• Because only blogging when you feel truly inspired keeps up the integrity of your blog.

• Because they are probably not going to inscribe your stat, link and comment numbers on your tombstone.

• Because for most of us blogging is just a hobby. A way to express yourself and connect with others. You should not have to apologize for lapses in posts. Just take a step back and enjoy life, not everything you do has to be “bloggable”.

• Because if you blog without obligation you will naturally keep your blog around longer, because it won’t be a chore. Plus, just think you will be doing your part to eradicate post pollution. One post at a time.

Quoted from: http://www.tartx.com/blog/?page_id=233

Why I love the Internet

This video is an oldie but worth checking out again from time to time. It totally encapsulates why the internet is so fascinating.

Man, I am such a geek. Oh well.

The Apprentice: Poor Grammar Meets Cultural Ignorance

I don’t know about you, but I find cultural ignorance very funny. That’s because I think the best way to stamp out racism is to laugh at it, in order to make ignorant people feel highly embarrassed about their total stupidity. Ok, so it’s doubtful that in most places in England, you’ll find the KKK overt brand of racism, (unless it’s in the local BNP clubhouse, not that I’ve ever been of course), but the foul stench of accidental racism still lingers in various corners of the UK.

True, everyone can always serve to learn a little more about other cultures, but amongst certain groups of people, you’ll still occasionally find a rather lazy attitude towards people of other backgrounds; that it’s not worth finding out about other cultures because “they’re just not like us.”

On a slightly less serious note then, The Apprentice this week was definitely one of the best episodes of the season.

I’m starting to think that the show is specifically tailored to my own viewing pleasure as two of my favourite issues (grammar and racism) have now been covered in the past few episodes.

After an argument over the correct placement of an apostrophe last week, I was equally thrilled when this week, when the pathetic cultural ignorance of the candidates was revealed:

Brushing aside the fact that in a multicultural society, really, everyone should at least know what kosher is, (let alone halal), pretending to belong to a particular religious group to curry favour with your potential employer is probably not the best idea. At least, it’s not one of the techniques they taught us at careers advice at uni.

Whilst I was pleased with the result, I really felt that Michael should have been fired; first of all for being confused over grammar rules, secondly for pretending to be “half Jewish” (whatever that means) and finally, for thinking it might be acceptable to sabotage the other team’s efforts.

Incidentally, there’s no such thing as “half-Jewish.” You either are or you aren’t:

According to the Halacha as interpreted by traditional Jews over many centuries, the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is recognized as a Jew, while the offspring of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is considered a non-Jew. To become a Jew, the child of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father must undergo conversion.

Returning to the beautiful subject of grammar, Grammarblog has very helpfully cleared up the issue of whether it was Single’s, Singles, or Singles’:

My view is that National Singles Day is a day to celebrate singles, such as Pancake Day is a day to celebrate the pancake. So no apostrophe is required.

Damn it. I have to admit at this point that I was under the impression that it was both plural and possessive, hence “Singles’ Day.” Let’s swiftly move on…

Here’s one extra rather brilliant Apprentice clip, where the entrepreneurial candidates attempt to find a “Holy Man” (where’s Eddie Murphy when you need him?) to “bless” the chicken:

As a final thought, for the remaining few people who might still be confused about the distinction between kosher and halal, I thought I would be very helpful and provide some definitions, should they still be in demand. A brief run through the rules of kashrut:

Although the details of kashrut are extensive, the laws all derive from a few fairly simple, straightforward rules:

• Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals.
• Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law.
• All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is eaten.
• Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten.
• Fruits and vegetables are permitted, but must be inspected for bugs
• Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. (According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat).
• Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot.
• Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten.
• There are a few other rules that are not universal.

And for halal:

Now to make meat halal or permissible, an animal or poultry has to be slaughtered in a ritual way known as Zibah. To make it readily comprehended halal is somewhat like Jewish kosher and, Zibah is with some exception similar to Shechita. The Qur`an gives following underlined injunctions in chapter al-Maida 5:3 that:

• Zibah require animals to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter, since carrion is forbidden and, jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe have to be severed by a razor sharp knife by a single swipe, to incur as less a pain as possible. Here the only difference is that a rabbi will read what is required by his faith and, a Muslim will recite tasmiya or shahada, which fulfils the requirement of dedication. The question of how to overcome the issue of recitation of shahada on individual bird whence we now have poultry being slaughtered at a rate of six to nine thousand per hour, has already been addressed. A Muslim is commanded to commence all his deeds in the name of Allah.
• All the flowing blood (al- An`am 6:145) must be drained out of the carcass, as blood is forbidden
• Swine flesh is also forbidden, and it is repeated in few other places in the Qur`an
• Forbidden is an animal that has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall

So there you have it. Kosher and halal are indeed similar but different. So now hopefully there’s no more excuses.

Oh dear. Boris? Seriously!?

Ok, so when I heard that Boris Johnson (“Bojo” as he’s fondly known by his Tory chums) was elected London mayor, let’s just say I was less than pleased. Of course, not officially being a London resident, it’s not like I had a vote anyway, so there really wasn’t much I could do about it.

What this local election does succinctly demonstrate, however, is what can happen when voters are faced with a lack of choice. Frustrated with Brown’s lack of leadership and the abolition of the 10p tax rate, traditional Labourites revolted en masse, leading to the worst council election results that Labour have had for 40 years.

The other deeply worrying consequence of lack of choice was that the (overtly racist) British National Party (BNP) won its first seat in the London assembly. Richard Barnbrook’s views on multiculturalism are less than encouraging:

“You may have your religion behind your closed doors, but you don’t bring it onto the streets,” he said

Back to Boris. I just couldn’t mention Boris, without mentioning that Arnie doesn’t think too highly of him. And as wacky as he is, just as this rather apt Facebook group reminds us, he’s STILL a Tory! No matter how many times he appears on Have I Got News for You, he’ll still be one of David Cameron’s old school chums.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that he’s made some dreadful slip ups in the past (far too many to mention here), could this be a chance at redemption? Afterall, you never really know what kind of a leader someone’s going to be until they’re in the hot seat (Brown, for example). With that in mind, only time will tell what kind of mayor Boris will make. In any case, with voters anxious for change, a few more years with Ken were pretty unfeasible.

So, this is Boris’ chance to prove himself; we’ll have to wait and see just how effective he is. London mayor? I guess I can learn to live with that. However, I was disturbed to learn that Boris Johnson’s ultimate ambition is to one day make his mark in No. 10, Downing Street.

Can you imagine? Boris Johnson as PM?? I mean, I know that stranger things have happened (George Bush as the most powerful man in the free world, the Terminator ruling over California, for example), but still. From the results of this election, there seems to be a good chance that it could be Cameron who takes the seat of power next. But wouldn’t it be interesting if it was Obama in the States and Boris in the UK?

Now there’s a double-act who could definitely out-strange Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in the The Odd Couple…