Talk:Norman Kember

Untitled

I have posted an image of Norman Kember. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitharsank (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Note that it's not correct to describe the raid that rescued Kember and the others as being by "coalition forces", as Canadian and Iraqi troops were involved. I'm not sure if the present Iraq government can be described as part of the 'coalition', but Canada certainly can't. --Saforrest 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I took 'coalition' from early reports from the BBC's website. --User:Bladeofgrass 16:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's understandable. Even the Globe and Mail is using that word, and it should really know better. Of course it's correct in some sense, since they were a "coalition" for this mission, but "coalition" in an Iraqi context has come to have a special meaning. --Saforrest 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the information come from that says he a retired medical physicist? The following notice was posted on Allstat today

I thought that statisticians would like to know that Iraq hostage Norman Kember is free and safe. Norman was, of course, one of us, having taught medical statistics for many years at St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical School, and written a text book. Martin

J. Martin Bland Prof. of Health Statistics Dept. of Health Sciences Seebohm Rowntree Building Area 2 University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD

Blaise 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference to Norman Kember's refusal to thanks soldiers involved in the rescue? If not, this statment should be deleted or amended. Jaraalbe 10:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all day the BBC ran articles to the effect he had refused to thank rescuing troops, however they've now changed track since he gave 'thanks' later in the day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4844800.stm

• I don't think the BBC, or any other agency, reported that he had refused to thank the armed forces, but that he had failed so to do. The difference is highly relevant.Kevin McE 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think Kember is an idiot and courted being kidnapped to make a political point.

" On Friday, head of the British Army, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, said he was "saddened" there did not seem to be any gratitude after the rescue of Mr Kember, James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32. "

Seems Kember only gave thanks today to save face. They should have left him to die and writte him off as collatorol damage, as hes as mad as the people that kidnapped him. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.21.53.210 (talk • contribs) .

Hagiography?

This page is poorly written and reads as hagiography with significant assumtions about Kember that are in fact contentious and disputed. Freeallangels (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree that the page is poorly written, though I disagree that it is a hagiography. If you have critical material, by all means put it in, but it needs to be cited to reliable sources, otherwise it is likely to be removed. See WP:CITE. Please also try not to reduplicate material already in the article. --NSH001 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Non neutral terminology?

The use of the term "peace activist" is very unhelpful and is not neutral. The term is very ambiguous ad has a clear implication of a morally superior view of the conflicts being debated. For example many described as "peace activists" in the "anti war" movement (eg George Galloway)actively support violent resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan; they do not in fact campaign for peace but for a particular political view and side in a conflict. As stated, Kember has posted bail for terrorists and has expressed, as discussed in the article highly ambiguous views of the terrorists who kidnapped him; this makes it far from clear if he can be described unambiguosly as a peace activist. To comment on these matters is a perfecly legitimate politial act but in an encyclopaedia "politcal activist" is a far more neutral term for this than "peace activist" which has clear implications of moral superiority. "Political activist" has no tone of judgement, positive or negative about his actions. --Freeallangels (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kember is (like me) a Christian pacifist, who is active in working for what he believes in; it is therefore entirely appropriate to describe him as a peace activist—it's an accurate, precise description of what he is and what he does. George Galloway is a politician, who also campaigns actively against war. What you have written above is a logical fallacy - that because some who are against the Iraq war are politicians, therefore the term applies to others who are against war absolutely. This article, as well as being very badly written, is effectively a smear job on Kember (e.g., the attempt to smear him as supporting terrorists, saying that he refused to testify against his captors but not stating why, and so on). Crucially, there is no mention of the statements by CPT members that they did not want violence or military force to be used to "rescue" them—indeed that's the whole point of their witness, and to ignore these wishes is indeed highly offensive (surely this is obvious?). The whole article needs to be completely rewritten and (probably) also those on the other members of the CPT team in Iraq. --NSH001 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no fallacy as i did not in any way suggest a logical conclusion, rather you set up a straw man and ignore the critical issue of neutral language. I used the example of Galloway as someone who is often referred to as a peace activist but is plainly on record supporting violence eg [1]. He is often referred to as a "peace activist" eg [2]because he takes an anti American view of a conflict but is clearly willing to support violence when it is by people he supports. I do not suggest at all that Kember has similar views or that there is any logical connection, just that the Galloway example clearly demonstrates that the term "peace activist" is contentious and not neutral whereas as stated above "political activist" implies no judgement, positive or negative about his actions. I again ascribe no judgement to Kember's posting of bail for Abu Qatada, but it raises perfectly legitimate questions about his commitment to peace, even if you disagree with those questions. The term "political activist" perfectly fairly encapsulates his activities without positive or negative judgement. Please try and keep the debate to the appropriateness of language for an encyclopaedia and not what sounds above like a partisan wish to push a particular view of Kember based on your shared beliefs.

With regard to your posting on my profile, It is interesting that because i have a different view to you about the neutrality of language that you describe me as "edit warring" (presumaby you're own re edits are not?) and try to threaten me with blocking if you do not get your way. I have indeed argued my case on the talk page as you well know. You're assertion that calling Kember a "political activist" is "patently false" is absurd as is the idea that it is not supported by the article, you may disagree with it but that is another matter. The article states that "He described his reasons for going to Iraq to demonstrate his opposition to the invasion of the country by the United States-led coalition and to show solidarity with the Iraqi people." Whether you like it or not, that is a political statement and position and agitating for one particular view in a war is political activism. Likewise, chosing to post bail for Abu Qatada is inherently taking sides in political matters, it is political activism. I have explained clearly why i believe the phrase "peace activist" is unhelpful and lacking in neutrality. There is a perfectly legitimate debate here about keeping language neutral, please do not threaten me with blocking just because you disagree with that.

--Freeallangels (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed argued my case on the talk page as you well know.

After several hours away from my computer, I came back to find that you had reverted me yet again, with no edit summary, and with no response here on the talk page. Accordingly my (mild) warning to you on your talk page was entirely in order. It now appears that while I was drafting my note to you, you did indeed respond here. To avoid these problems in future, I strongly suggest that, if you intend to reply on the talk page, you include a note in your edit summary "see talk shortly", or words to that effect.

I still don't understand what on earth is "contentious" about the term "peace activist". That is exactly what he is as the article makes clear. He is a former conscientious objector, a long-standing member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Baptist Peace Fellowship, active at the annual Greenbelt Festival and in the CPT. He has promoted Fair Trade, Make Poverty History, given talks and presentations on peace issues, and attended numerous peace demonstartions. He's a thorough-going peace activist, through and through, over sixty years of peace witness. You may think that posting bail for Abu Q is "political activism", while it was simply a way of expressing Kember's gratitude for AQ's help in obtaining his release. Incidentally, I notice the bit about his stated reasons for going to Iraq is not cited, so it should probably come out unless it can be cited to a reliable source. His family state: "He has gone to Iraq to listen, not convert; to learn from the Iraqi people, not to impose values; to promote peace and understanding" [3]. And yes, indeed, peace activism may indeed piss off some people, who might, I suppose, regard it as "political". But, first and foremost, he is a Christian peace activist. The fact that some people might regard him as "political" follows from the first, not the other way round. If the term "peace activist" offends you, it would be OK to substitute "Christian pacifist", since that is also an accurate description (but not quite as good, since not all pacifists are activists). What you can't do is use a false and misleading term "political activist". In my view it is the latter term that is non-neutral, firstly because it is a falsehood, but secondly - even if we assume that "political" has some validity - it is a very small part of what Kember is about.

Take a look at any of Kember's videos. Are you seriously suggesting he is a political activist?

Suppose that we let your "political activist" stand in the lead - the first sentence no less. This would be like saying we should write in the lead of George Galloway, that GG is "a British peace activist who is a Member of Parliament ..." Can't you see the point here? If we follow your suggestion, we're getting the lead description arse-over-tit, nonsensical, misleading and dishonest. We don't describe GG as a peace activist in the lead simply because some people describe him so, neither should we describe Kember as a "political activist" just because some people might regard him as one.

Meanwhile, may I thank you for drawing my attention to what a bad state this article is in? It is now down on my "to-do" list for some major work, once I've got hold of Kember's book, and had a chance to read through other relevant sources.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we are moving towards consensus. I have no problem with the term "Christian Pacifist" as this is a clear, specific statement of belief and practice. I also don't see why it couldn't be "Christian Pacifist activist" though i acknowledge this is a bit of an unwieldly phrase. "Peace" in itself is a wooly concept, it is an end, which is why people as diverse as Kember, George Galloway and Winston Churchill, and probably even GW Bush can all argue that they are/were working towards peace by their own methods. The reality is that there are of course many critics of pacifism who would argue that pacifism ultimately allows greater evil by not resisting violence (the classic example of course being the fight against Nazism). This is why i argue that "peace" and "peace activist" are ambiguous, contentious language. They have an inference that only "peace activists" are genuinely seeking peace and are morally superior to other beleifs about how to achieve just, peaceful ends. This is a legitimate perspective, but it is disputed and not neutral and that is not clear from that phrase. I would respectfully suggest that it reads as if coming from an explicitly pacifist view yourself, you appear to have a paradigm that sees the pacifist view of peace as common sense and beyond dispute when in reality it is much disputed. The term pacifist however, identifies a particular, specific belief and practice about how to achieve peace, and has the benefit of being able to be linked to the article on pacifism where these issues are explored.

While I appreciate this is not the place to debate the substance of the article and Kember's views, I think your view of why Kember paid Abu Qatada's bail does not reconcile with his statements at the time eg "“If you want to keep him in jail you have to have good reasons for doing it otherwise al Qaeda have you — if you don't follow your process of justice,” and He said that he hoped Qatada's release “would encourage a conversation with Muslims” and greater understanding of the religion and urged more people to try to speak to the cleric to “understand what his position is and why he takes it”. [4]. I don't particularly have any issue with that personally, especially the first statement, but to me they are clearly, explicitly political statements and actions and i find myself equally as bemused by your strong resisitance to the term "political activist" as you are to my resistance to "peace activist". "Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions" [5] and political activism is simply the involvement of people to try and create influence of their views on those decisions. I really am bemused how it can be disputed that any involvement in advocating for ways of approaching violence and war, (from whatever perspective), could ever be anything but a political act. --Freeallangels (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I will give some thought to how best to word the lead in the light of your comments, probably something along the lines of "a Christian pacifist who has been active in ...". I still have some misgivings on this, since on Wikipedia we normally respect how people self-identify, and will have to think how to take that into account.

I won't respond to all your points, but will just query whether you really think that pacifists are unaware of how fiercely their views are disputed? Especially here in the UK, one of the most highly militarised states on the planet? With decades of putting up with public abuse on peace demonstrations? Should I mention that my (late) father joined the RAF at the earliest opportunity following the declaration of war in 1939, served in North Africa and Burma, and spent three years as a Japanese POW? His view is one I can respect, especially as he was well aware that what he was doing was evil, far from the propagandistic glory of war, but saw it as a necessity to avoid a greater evil. He survived the war and the Burma Railway with remarkably little long-term effect on his physical condition, but was severely damaged psychologically by the experience, and as a result was not as good a husband and father as he would otherwise have been. So yes, I am still suffering from that war to some extent, more than sixty years later. Who knows whether non-violent resistance would have achieved a better result? The war resulted in over 60 million dead, the devastation of most of Europe and large chunks of Asia, and the ongoing adverse effects on those who fought and survived it, and succeeding generations of their families.

I won't comment on Abu Q before reading all the sources, but do note that the headline on the Standard piece you linked to is a clear lie.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The language you suggest sounds sensible and accurate to me and i welcome it. I still find it in honesty puzzling that you appear to confuse either your own or my own personal histories and views with the issue of whether the language is neutral and appropriate to an encyclopaedia. I of course realise that pacifists recognise that there are many who disagree with them, the issue here is whether the article give a clear representation and my belief that the phrase "peace activist" implies a moral superiority that many would dispute and thus leaves a reader potentialy open to a misrepresented view. I think you are possibly misperceiving my own agenda here which is purely about a fair and accurate picture. I am familiar with many of these issues and personalities here from my own involvement in many of these issues, i have myself attended many Greenbelt festivals over the years and have been challenged, moved and inspired by many of the thinkers i have come across there, most prominently the incredible John Smith. I would disagree with your view of the possibility of pacfifist action in WW2 leading to better outcomes and am sorry to hear of your fathers suffering, but again both my view and your own are not relevant to a wikipedia article.

I would fully acceppt that the headline of the article about Abu Qatada is blatantly a lie, the question though is whether the quotes attributed to Norman Kember are accurate and the relevance they have to portraying an accurate, balanced picture of the genuine controversy over his decision over Abu Qatada. Many critics found this approach disconcerting and a misjudgement and it is not a smear campaign to accurately highlight the balance of views in this controversy which is a very important part of Kember's public profile.

Finally i wish to apologise and recognise that some of my tone has become intemperate at times, i genuinely intended no offence and have let some frustration spill on to the keyboard, and for that i do apologise. --Freeallangels (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, i have slightly rewritten the section on Abu Qatada as i would agree that the tone here was very non neutral, the use eg of "convicted Terrorist" in the headline rather than AQ's name and the language of Qatada's court procedures had a strong implication of unreasonableness on Kember's part. This section clearly still needs work (especially sources) and further balanced account of the controversy but i would agree that this section in particular was heavily implying criticism of Kember's position. --Freeallangels (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Kember. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031007105525/http://www.cpt.org/ to http://www.cpt.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)