"I was told to pray until the devil left" : The UK's hidden exorcisms

“I was thrown into a cupboard, and told to pray on my knees until the devil left.  I remember it was completely dark, very cold, and very cramped.  I didn’t know what was going on, but I remember that the door was locked- I kept banging on the door to be let out, but no one listened. All I could hear was mum, telling me to keep praying. ”

Aisha, was 9 when she underwent a forced exorcism.  Taken to a flat in South London by her mum and uncle,  she believed it was just another one of her community’s bible meetings.  But when she entered the flat, she was immediately being snatched away from her mother by her then pastor- a man she then called ‘Papa’.   Papa told her that she had an evil spirit inside her, and that it needed to be removed before she spread ‘evil things’ to the rest of her community.

She was told to sit as fellow members of the congregation – ‘around 20 or so people’ formed a circle around her, chanting verses of the bible while Papa threw water at her. After, Aisha was locked in the cupboard ‘for most of the night’  while Papa led the congregation’s continued chanting. Although Aisha remembers little about what happened that night, she tells me that she was the experience was ‘terrifying’ and that she ‘cried continuously’ for her mother. When she was let out of the cupboard in the morning, Papa told her the tears were a ‘sign from God’ that the spirits left her’.

Now 20, Aisha,  who is currently a student and a secret athiest, told me how these types of rituals are not uncommon in her community. She was born and raised by her single mother in the City, surrounded by her community of Nigerian Pentecostal Christians.  And because she was conceived out of wedlock, she tells me that  both her and her mother were “looked at with suspicion” by neighbours, who  “believed we were impure, and that my mum was cursed”.  As a result, Aisha’s mum found solace in their Pentecostal church, which at the time operated from a rented community hall.

“To my family, Church  is still the most important thing in their lives” she says. “Most Christians in this country only go to Church on Sundays, or during big religious festivals. But my family, like most in Nigeria, still go about 4-5 days a week. Mostly for cultural reasons and to keep ties with the community. But they also really believe everything our pastors say- every word of it.”

According to Aisha, it was the unconditional acceptance of the pastors- often boisterous and charismatic,  that led her- and ‘potentially hundreds’ of children like her, to undergo horrifying rituals in the name of exorcism, or ‘deliverance’.

“My deliverance was much more gentle than others” she says, citing cases in which other children who had undergoing exorcisms had been forced to fast, were hit by their pastors and some were even forced to sacrifice animals.   “Deliverance is more toned down in the UK- probably because of the police” she tells me.

“But the more extreme deliverance takes place back in Africa. I have heard many stories of children as young as 5 or 6 being taken to Nigeria or Ghana on ‘holiday’ and  sent to camps where they are given deliverance. Some have been cut with razors, been forced to jump over fires, and even physically beaten by fully grown men. Things you would be sent to prison for in the UK are ignored in Africa, and anyone who speaks out against it is immediately branded as a witch, or cursed by the ‘white devil’ in the West.”

While Aisha’s ‘exorcism’ may have been psychologically damaging, other British children have been subject to more brutal practices. 

In 2000,  8 year old Victoria Climbie was found dead as a result of attacks inflicted by her aunt Marie Therese Kouao and her boyfriend Carl Manning.  Dying from hypothermia and with 128 injuries found on her body, including from cigarette butts and bike chains, a  Home Office pathologist went as far as to call it  ‘the worst case of child abuse it had ever seen’.  According to her aunt, she believed Victoria was possessed- a claim that was reaffirmed by her then pastor, Pascal Orome.

                                                     

And in one of the most recent cases of violent exorcisms in 2010, 15 year old Kristy Bamu was violently beaten by his sisters’ partner, Erik Bikubi. Bamu was reportedly hit with a weightlifting bar and parts of his flesh were torn off with pliers before he was drowned in a bathtub. The torture began as a result of Bikubi’s belief that he and his siblings were possessed by demons. 

While the government introduced the ‘Every Child Matters’ (ECM) policy following Climbes’ death- a strategy that aimed to safeguard children from abuse by linking schools, social services and the police- social workers, who wished to remain anonymous, told me that government cuts, particularly in training individuals to identify victims of abuse, had ‘reduced the ECM to nothing’.

The last official study of child abuse linked to beliefs in witchcraft and possession was carried out in 2006, which identified  around 74 cases since 2000 in which instances of abuse could be linked to religious belief.  The report also indicated that around ¾ of cases were recorded from within African Christian communities, with the remaining quarter dominated by those from south-asian backgrounds.  Around half of the children documented in the report were UK citizens.

 “It is commonly accepted that the prevalence of abuse linked to witchcraft and possession is difficult to measure, as many cases go unreported” says Feriha Tayfur, an independent human rights researcher. Feriha added that it was usually only the “most extreme cases” that were reported to the authorities,  meaning that vulnerable children- especially those with mental and physical disabilities, were more vulnerable to deliverance practices without the authorities knowing.

While the government insists that it has guidelines to deal with all forms of child abuse,  current legislation does not cover religious rituals following the repeal of the Witchcraft Act in 1951.  According to Feriha, while the Human Rights Act provides some protection from religious acts being imposed on an individual, often this is not enough to protect the most vulnerable.

Other experts, including Dr. Richard Hoskins, a researcher in ritual crimes, suggest that children subject to exorcisms are actually being failed by those designed to protect them, notably the police and social services.

During the course of Hoskins’ work, in which he has advised  Londons’ metropolitan police and been an expert witness in over a hundred religious abuse cases, he says that the inadequacy of existing government policy, alongside the ‘tiptoeing around racial issues’ by the police has meant that a large number of children in the UK in danger of abuse continue to be ignored.

According to Hoskins,  while exorcisms in the UK are difficult to monitor, lacking resources and training to police, security officers and social workers has meant that children known to be in danger of abuse have been ignored, citing a case in which a British child was allowed to fly to Ghana to be exorcised, despite the police informing the UK border authorities beforehand.  

Other cases I heard of, mostly from social workers who did not want to be named, included teachers who refusing to report children showing signs of being abused, as well as religious community leaders themselves, who believed they ‘should not be involved in the affairs of other families’.

The sentiment is shared by the Nigerian human rights activist Leo Igwe. Like other anti-witchcraft activists , his work in exposing the impact of witchcraft accusations has led to a number of attacks by notorious evangelical groups, including the Liberty Gospel Church, an organisation whose preaching has ‘led to a massive upsurge in children stigmatised and abandoned by their families in West Africa’ according to an investigation led by Channel 4 in 2008.

‘Women are the most at risk of accusation’ he adds, suggesting that deep rooted suspicions of seduction and temptation are exploited by religious preachers to justify their actions.

‘They give power to these Pastors’ Leo says, who tells me that preachers can make thousands of pounds by ‘mining this sense of indebtedness’ to their congregations, especially by creating a cult-like following. “Exorcism is a ritual that puts people under pressure to give money, whether they have it or not” he adds. 

Dr. Hoskins also agrees, telling me that Pastors can gain notoriety in ‘broken down diaspora communities’ where they can replace traditional tribal elders through their ‘thoroughly manipulative preaching’.

Other sources I spoke to, including Adam, a youth worker who underwent an exorcism when he was 13, told me of families who had ‘literally gone bankrupt’ paying their pastor to carry out deliverance.  “No-one used to say nothing to pastor in case they were disrespectful” he tells me. 

“They just blamed it on the families. My mum said it was punishment from God that they were poor. ‘Auntie’ had been drinking or doing drugs when she was younger and now she was getting punishment from God”.

“It’s all the suspicion in our cultures that lets the pastors do what they like. They know they are untouchable, and that they’ll always have more power over the police, or schools or whoever else tries to challenge them.”

How prevalent exorcisms are in the UK remains a mystery to most, but what was clear during my time researching this article was how well under wraps it was, to the extent where even victims of the practice were hesitant to speak out.  Those who do are often berated, if not disowned by their communities, while others face far more serious threats. What is clear, however, is that the practice shows no signs of dying out any time soon. 

‘Britain right now is the enemy’: Interview with British ISIS fighter

“I look forward to death with a smile.”

These words come from a British militant in western Iraq who is fighting for the Islamic State (ISIS) under the nom de guerre Abu A’ntaar.

But one thing separates him from the majority of his comrades; Before his life as a jihadist, A’ntaar claims to have been a business analyst working in the City of London.

For the past month, we have been speaking exclusively to A’ntaar via an encrypted instant messenger popular amongst the social media savvy Western fighters in the region. A’ntaar’s penchant for propaganda made him no different than most western fighters ostentatiously trumpeting their messages via social media. But behind the standard ISIS rhetoric, he does provide glimpses into his daily life, what was expected of him as a fighter, and whether he would consider returning home in the future.

We did request a video or audio interview with A’ntaar. He refused after the ISIS media department and his higher ranking Emirs (regional leaders) nixed the idea outright.


A’ntaar is among approximately 500-1000 other Britons currently fighting in the region, according to the British governments’ official estimates. Most Britons enter through the Turkish border into Syria and Iraq, where border guards are willing to ‘turn a blind eye’ for a small fee. In June this year, British intelligence service MI5 said that tracking British jihadis waging war in Syria was now its ‘top priority’ following a recruitment video released by ISIS in which British fighters urged Muslims to come join the fight.

More recently, British foreign fighters made headlines after slickly produced videos were published online, showing the beheading of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. In both videos, a man dubbed ‘Jihadi John’ by the British media threatens Britain and the United States in what analysts believe is a distinctive London accent. The idea of relatively privileged American and European Muslims leaving home to fight and die under the ISIS flag in a foreign land has captivated the media and public alike. The question is always the same: what makes them do it?

Democracy, Palestine & tyranny

A’ntaar does not reveal too much about his personal life, cagily avoiding any revelatory comments which could have pointed towards his true identity. Answering to why he chose to join the Islamic State, he says he hated “being ruled by laws other than Allah’s” and that the territories currently controlled by ISIS are “the only place where the shari’a of Allah is applied fully.”

“I hate democracy and the self- indulgence of the rich….I hate inequality…I hate the corporations who are trying to destroy this world because of tyranny,” he tells us.

A'ntaar is derisive towards the notion of using the British democratic process to protest against injustices in the Muslim world. For him, peaceful protest is not an option. “I hate that Palestine was never freed for 70+ years whilst we ‘peacefully’ held placards on the street”. But now, according to A'ntaar's sacred belief, “IS are leading the way as how we should have acted from the beginning.”



“I am a walking device,” he told us.

As far as his experiences with combat, few details were forthcoming, apart from the fact that he was constantly armed, "even when in sleep.”

‘They’re not disposable’

Earlier this year, British born Abdul Waheed Majeed made headlines for apparently blowing himself up in an Aleppo Prison, allowing hundreds of detainees- many of whom were high ranking Al-Qaeda operatives, to flee. And while no Britons have been linked to further suicide bombings as of yet, the social media accounts of other suspected Britons such as ‘Usama-al-Britani’ indicate that more are willing to sacrifice their lives if ordered to do so.

The designation "suicide bomber," however, could in fact be a means of establishing the pecking order of fighters.

“Britons don’t tend to be used on frontlines as suicide bombers” Mark Stephens, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Qatar told us.

“They’re not disposable. They are mainly being used to do menial tasks [as] most of them don’t speak Arabic,” he said.

Stephens adds that foreign fighters may also be used to provide intelligence and infrastructure to ISIS, which has been as adamant about logistical structures and providing public services as it has been about conducting military operations.

“If one is educated for example and has an engineering degree, then he is not being used as a suicide bomber. You need educated people to run your organization. ISIS isn’t just a terrorist group, it runs cities in the area it controls.”

As more Brits heading to Syria, politicians are currently discussing how to deal with the fighters and the risks they pose to their home countries. In June, Prime Minister David Cameron said that foreign fighters posed ‘the biggest threat’ to Britain’s’ national security, warning that ISIS militants could conduct terror operations on home soil.


abc.net

Other politicians are calling for jihadis to be offered amnesty like that offered in Denmark, or be subject to ‘deradicalization programs’. The British Home Office, however, has opted instead to take the most hard line approaches in all of Europe. It includes stripping suspected ISIS recruits of their passports, an all out travel ban, and freezing their assets and bank accounts if necessary.

“People seeking to travel to engage in terrorist activity in Syria or Iraq should be in no doubt we will take the strongest possible action to protect our national security, including prosecuting those who break the law,” a Home Office spokesperson told us.

To A’ntaar, however, the warnings are meaningless. “I do not care for a passport of citizenship or living in the UK. I do not want it at all and the only way I’ll return to the UK is when they get into fight with us, and my leader sends me on a mission to cause destruction from within the enemy,” he says, adding that he would attack Britain only if commanded to do so.

“I want to fight for the khilafah (caliphate) and want to die protecting it so long as it is ruling by Allahs laws. Britain right now is the enemy but its not up to me when to strike them.
“It is up to our leaders how to decide when and how. But we are ready,” he warned.

A’ntaars' attitude is similar to that of other ISIS fighters, who, despite pleas from their parents and relatives, express no desire to return home.

“Most fighters don’t want to go back,” Stephens says.

“Family pressure doesn’t do anything to change that. Foreign fighters will never be sent back. The moment he comes back into the country, he [A’ntaar] will be spotted in a second.”

Stephens also tells us that even if there are fighters who want to return home, they would find problems in doing so; “It is difficult to get out of Syria, to get across the border, so it’s unlikely that foreign fighters would go back,” he says.


‘More ruthless than Al-Qaeda’

ISIS is so hardline that it was expelled by al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in February this year. Led by an Iraqi called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS was originally an al-Qaeda group in Iraq. Within just a few months, ISIS launched an aggressive expansion campaign, seized key territory, gained thousands of followers and spread fear and terror across Iraq and Syria, so that now experts argue that ISIS eclipsed al Qaeda and made it seem virtually irrelevant.

A’ntaar for his part believes that ISIS is now the global leader in Jihad and that “nothing, absolutely nothing can get rid of it.” He argues that ISIS is stronger than Al Qaeda, because it managed to achieve something the latter never could – establishing a 'caliphate'.

“The Islamic State is more advanced, more sufficient in self-finance and more ruthless on enemies than AQ,” he says. While praising the group formerly led by Osama bin Laden, he argues that the group have ‘run out of ideas’ without their leader.

While the skill in which ISIS disseminate their propaganda through videos and social networks is well documented, foreign fighters also assist in spreading it, especially to potential new recruits. Most of the English speaking fighters tend to be active on social media sites including Twitter and ask.fm, where they praise the ‘just actions’ taken by militants, whom they refer to as ‘mujahideen’.

Fighters, both men and women, praise ISIS, citing examples in which it has allegedly rebuilt bridges and schools, and stopped activities including drinking and gambling, that they see as ‘Haraam’ or impermissible.

A’ntaar assures us that he has support from local Iraqis and Syrians, saying that “They hate the Americans, and have long been afraid of the Shi’a government” under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He also rejects reports of forced conversions of Yazidis and other minorities, dismissing them as ‘lies’. According to A’ntaar, Yazidis converted out of “their own will," despite claims made by the United Nations and a number of human rights NGOs.

“It is unquestionably the case that English speakers have a great amount of propaganda potential,” says Tom Keatinge, an associate fellow at RUSI.

Keatinge emphasises how effective English speaking is to Islamist ideology, citing the example of radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by US drone strikes in 2011. By using familiar terminology and phrases, the English language "can be manipulated to make Jihad appear more appealing than it in reality is," Keatinge suggests.

This tendency was clear throughout our interview with A’ntaar.

In our attempts to garner insight into his actual life as an ISIS fighter, much of what he imparted concealed in the all too familiar veil of propaganda.

Indeed, the extent to which ISIS is obsessively on point regarding its media message may also be evident in the videos depicting the murder of western hostages, such as James Foley and most recently, David Haines, by suspected British ISIS militant ‘Jihadi John’.

al-arabiya.net

Stephens told us that despite claims that the individual killed the hostages, “Jihadi John was just put out for propaganda purposes, as a direct message to Obama”

“Islam breeds lions.....the West breeds rabbits”

As President Obama announces a new bombing campaign against ISIS fighters in Syria, A’ntaar seemed unfazed when asked whether it such action could eliminate the organization. “No problem,” he said. “They can kill 95 percent of us if they are capable but this movement will breed new leaders every time and our enemy will never be [as] relentless as us in pursuing our goals.”

A’ntaar provided no answer when asked how ISIS would go about fighting American-led forces in the event of a strike.

Although few details were forthcoming regarding the groups ability to counter aerial assaults, he implied the militants were undergoing training to manage air strikes.

Our conversation with A’antaar ended soon thereafter, following “orders” that he was no longer not allowed to talk to journalists. Whether he was taking orders from the IS media department or in fact an integral part of it is a matter of pure speculation.

One thing, however, remains certain. Authorized to speak to us or not, he did not miss a beat in communicating a well formulated message- a message, incidentally, which foreign fighters like him have proved indispensable in providing.

In one of the last messages A’antaar sent to us, he says: “Islam breeds lions who can never be defeated in the fields, while the West breeds rabbits.”

“We want American and west to come to Syria and fight us. We want to strike the jugular vein of the kuffar (infidel) and the jugular vien [sic] of the kuffar is America.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was originally published at http://rt.com and has been modified.

Co Author Steffi Ott. You can follow her on Twitter @steffiott

Some Thoughts on Ukraine/Russia

A friend asked me recently to explain the situation happening in Russia/Ukraine. Having tried to write a 'summary' several times- struggling to do so in each instance, it's clear that the current situation is too complicated to neatly box up.

Moreover, as someone who doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian (relying on translations, edits and other reporters to summarise information) there's always the danger of inaccuracies, cultural biases and unreliable sources.

So I'm going to try my best to summarise what's going on in Ukraine from a journalist's perspective, and hopefully link out some pieces with far more insight.

As a primer, I'd highly recommend Buzzfeed's 35-step guide to understanding the current crisis. It starts from the fall of the USSR- where Ukraine became an independent state. There's an interesting part in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in which he predicts conflict between Russia and the Ukraine to be low, because they were part of the same 'civilization' block. Huntington's thesis held a lot of clout in the 90's. So much so, that Ukraine's first president Leonid Kravchuk actually got rid of his nuclear weapons via Russia, and was considered Boris Yeltsin's most powerful ally in the Balkans. There's a second, important component to this too.

The Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, was an agreement that guaranteed the independence of Ukraine in exchange for the destruction of the nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest stockpile at the time). With the invasion of Crimea, the US and possibly EU member states are using the document as the foundation of any economic or military action in the future.

The first question is really a legal one; Was Putin right to send forces to Crimea?

Pro-Russian reports conversely argue that such reports are proof of American power games. In a press conference held last week, Putin told journalists that he did not want a war with Ukraine, and that any action in Crimea were designed to protect ethnic Russians (more than 80% ) from radicals in the rebel forces. He acknowledged that Yanukovych had lost his legitimacy- but he refused to recognise the interim government that's taken its place.

As Cambridge University professor Marc Weller acknowledges, Russia is allowed to have a limited military presence in Crimea under the friendship agreement, but any action- whether in development or escalation, has to be done in consultation with Ukraine (as referred to in the 1997 agreement).

 But as stated before, Putin doesn't recognise the interim government as legitimate. In his mind, radical minority groups ousted a democratically elected president and filled powerful posts with "crooks", who pose a threat to Ukranian Russians. Additionally under UN rules (Article 2(4)), until active military action takes place, the occupation doesn't constitute an armed attack (one which might necessitate the need for a military response). Chatham House's Ruma Mundal similarly lays out a grey area of international law- notably relating to authority. While acts of aggression certainly violate Article 2(4) and there isn't enough evidence to constitute a self-defence counterargument, from Putin's perspective he doesn't need to seek authority from Ukraine's interim parliament. Yanukovch might not have a future in Ukraine (Putin's words) but that doesn't remove his 'democratic legitimacy' when he writes a letter calling for Putin's help.

Final piece worth reading is Ashley Deeks' in The New Republic, which goes through the legal remits of self-defense and counter attacks in the event that Russia does declare war. 



Should Britain Intervene? And why won't it?

One word: Money.

One of the most remarkable things that's happened over the past few weeks in the silence of Foreign Secretary William Hague. Speaking in the Commons last week, he said that there were no plans to impose economic sanctions, and that attending the G8 summit in Sochi was still on the cards. Other cabinet ministers have kept quiet on the Russia/Crimea front too, stating only that 'it was a very complex situation with many factors' (though I suppose with Libya it was just a cakewalk, right?)

Much of this decision has to do with the way the country's been structured since the 1980's- a time when former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sang the banker's praises, revelled in the fruits of deregulation and unfettered foreign investment. It was a mentality that continued throughout the New Labour years- where London's luxury markets became similar to offshore tax havens. And throughout this period, London became more filled with management consultants, hedge fund managers and corporate lawyers, working in sectors linked to powerful oligarchs.

Which is why everyone knows Russian black money circulates the economy through London, but nothing is done about it. So despite the fact that targeted economic sanctions would be the best way to tame Putin, government mandarins have gone as far as to write up documents urging MPs not to close off the City.

Generally, the legal arguments are contentious- it's all about perspective: recognition of legitimate governance and what would constitute a breach of the Ukrainian constitution. It's worth noting too that Putin invoked the Right to Protect (R2P) principle too, drawing parallels with the US intervention in Kosovo to oust Milosoviec. In the game of diplomatic rhetoric, Putin's trying (and in my view, succeeding) at removing the West of any moral authority needed to stage a credible form of intervention.




Media Wars

As things change hour-to-hour, we've relied on the media to try make sense of what's going on.

The original media narrative in the West went a little something like this: Peaceful protests against Yanukoych's rejection of EU integration, led to physical, and now armed conflict. There are two sides; the 'Pro-EU' good guys, and the 'Pro-government (and therefore Putin)' bad guys. The latter have the evil Russia behind them, controlling the oil and natural gas supplies, while the good guys just have hope. It's tragic there's no US military presence, says ultimate good guy John Mccain.

So when Abby Martin and Liz Wahl, two Russia Today journalists, publicly resigned over Putin's actions in Ukraine, many took it as a sign of Putin's nearing defeat. Anchors from the UK and the US took the public resignations as a sign that Putin was losing his power- so much so that even the Kremlin-funded RT were turning against him.

But there is an over-arching theme to this; that the conflict in Ukraine is not just a revolt, or a military battle- but one fought over the internet and on television. 

The media war is summed up quite nicely by Salon , though particularly in its charity to the accuracy of Russian reportage. Indeed, it's noted that while Putin certainly doesn't see the interim government as a legitimate or recognisable body on the diplomatic stage, he does publicly propose fresh elections in Ukraine, and sets out the precondition that Washington doesn't align itself with Ukraine's interim. There's a really interesting narrative taking place too; Considering the Nuland tapes (in which the assistant US secretary of state says "F the EU") set out a desired roadmap  for Ukraine,  it seems as if the US are trying to use the Ukraine crisis- and a stand off with Russia, to assert a strong foreign policy at a time when there isn't much faith in the Obama administration.

Of course, the media significance didn't really come about until anchor rebellion.  RT wrote an interesting op-ed on these incidents, claiming that (1) perception of the conflict is culturally dependent and (2) that RT journalists have editorial independence and the right to their own opinions.

Whether that's true or not is up for debate (RT won't entertain the discussion, however) but it does show that news coverage is also verging into old cold-war style paradigms. Which is great for proprietors, though not necessarily the public.



Concluding Points

Which brings me back to where I started- noone really knows what's happening in Ukraine, which is probably why there's a lot less coverage now than a few weeks ago.

The Guardian's Simon Jenkins best sums up the current dilemma: The Western world has pronounced its moral indignation, but it's rife with double standards. Last years' Syria vote (remember, it was a vote on the principle of R2P) wasn't just about the Middle East, but the wider sea change of public attitudes to military action overseas. 

So with the military option no longer valid, diplomats are taking over the debate with empty slogans along the lines of "Obama must show he's strong, Putin cannot be allowed to continue and NATO must act". All of these terms are contradictory, and don't fit into any coherent foreign policy response.

In the meantime, Obama is hosting Ukrainian PM Arseniy Yatsenyu in Washington (a move that is pretty much unprecedented), continued to threaten Russia with sanctions and slowdowns of natural gas production. Meanwhile, Russia continues to stock troops and artillery on the Crimean border, as the protectorate prepares for a referendum on joining Russia (something the US will refuse to acknowledge).

It's now expected that a mix of sanctions and over-reaching Russian ambition will make sure Putin kicks himself in the face, but while the move is certainly a gamble on the Kremlin's part, I wonder whether this prediction is more of a hope, than something that's necessarily calculated. 

My prediction is that the West will reluctantly let Putin take Crimea, while they build relationships with a post- revolution Ukraine. Europe's dependence on Russian money, oil and gas are too great for any significant sanctions to effectively work, which of course will also direct US foreign policy objectives too.  Meanwhile. unless the US starts exporting natural gas leverage will still be awarded to Russia- it's something that policy makers are urging, but considering the fastest that they can start distributing energy is in 2015, it might not be quick enough to stop Putin.

Nigel's refugee clawback shows he's just another politician

As the year ends, spare a thought for a group of Britons whose hopes and dreams have been crushed. A group who will continue to be ridiculed, ignored and oppressed, even by those who once promised them Jerusalem itself.

Of course, I'm talking about the poor members of UKIP, who upon hearing of their leader Nigel Farage claim that the UK should 'welcome Syrian refugees', came up in arms (at least on their Keyboards) to denounce the act of treachery.

“You're a shill, just like the rest of 'em” said one man on the party's official Facebook account. “Charity begins at home, let's start here first!” said another. In fact, since Farage made the statement last Sunday, the party's page has been filled with reactions similar to another rattled up member, who eloquently put it: “They can sort out their own shite”.

Admittedly, I was quite impressed by Farage's statement. Perhaps because I'm a liberal Britain hater by UKIP's standards, but the fact that he was able to justify the proposition under the United Nations 1951 declaration on Refugee status illustrated a certain maturity of the party- one that's hard time shaking off negative images of racism and under-informed policy.  

It also said something about Farage's character. Arguably the most charismatic man in modern British politics (with London mayor Boris Johnson a close second), Farage has always been known for his defiant speeches at the European parliament, an unrelenting stance to the European union, and generally achieving what most politicians can't- being rather good on TV. I half expected that the man likely to lead the 2014 elections would have the resilience to do what was morally right, even if a section of his party weren't too chipper about it.

But yesterday, Farage retracted his initial statement, stating that he actually meant Syrian Christians (otherwise known as 'the good ones'). Beyond the sheer offensiveness of the comment- and the inherent implication that religion is an accurate determinant of one's life, it's worth thinking about what this actually says about Farage himself.

Bear in mind that a significant part of the Farage 'brand' lies in marketing himself as an outsider- the 'honest broker' in a land of crooks- something that his supporters often lament in when they talk about 'spineless' politicians. Indeed, just type his name into Youtube, and you'll find plenty of videos attacking the 'LibLabCon' establishment, claiming that the party 'best represents the working class' through addressing its concerns around immigration. Essentially, the Farage brand has been constructed as the antithesis of mainstream politics, accommodating viewpoints that Liberals, Conservatives or Labour could never acceptably get away with.

Farage has been able to get away with this 'free pass' for a while, and it's allowed a great deal of inconsistency in the process. Prior to his statement to help Syrian refugees, he referred to the UK as a 'soft touch' for trickster asylum seekers, while the party's flagship policy, the 5 year immigration freeze, has generally gone unchallenged by the mainstream press.

Meanwhile, its campaigners and supporters seem to pay little attention to its policies outside of immigration and the EU; Indeed, it still confuses me that a party that calls for corporation tax cuts, meanwhile statements made by the party's former economics spokesman, a certain Godfrey Bloom, has been on the record claiming that the unemployed and public sector workers should be 'stripped of their voting rights'.

Perhaps the issue is that we don't really know what Farage stands for. Once a strength, his dream of UKIP becoming a formidable force in British politics is coming with consequences- notably, a greater demand for accountability. That might mean Farage will have to stop playing the political maverick, and act more like a politician.

Whether Farage believes his revised statement, is of course questionable. But what this obvious scaling back does show is that even without a Westminster seat, he knows that he requires a core foundation of votes to even stand a chance in the next election. And being a self-cultivated brand, he might find that defying the congregation is much more difficult.

*An interesting comment piece : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10542611/Does-Nigel-Farage-want-to-join-the-Conservatives.html