Oddly, however, I confess to not liking Tangiers very much personally, but leaving that aside, The Sunday Times: French fast set sparks rift on African Riviera arty has some interesting comment (as well as some oddly stupid comment) that can be read in a number of contexts - issues in wealth differences in MENA with a little foreign outsiders sauce thrown in, problems of reconciling the hedonistic urges of the tourist with the conservative sensibilities of the host, lack of proper city planning and zoning (or its enforcement) in MENA, or simply wealthy magnate versus historic cafe. Oh yes, colonial power versus locals... almost forgot the Frog-Himar whanker philosopher neo-colonial git angle.

All the same one can reflect via this on challenges in resolving tensions in Morocco between a desire to play to the international jet set for their money, and the inability of the same jet set to quite adapt to the tensions generated by immense differences in wealth between them and 90 percent of the population.

Normally speaking, I am in favour of wealthy spoiled gits and morons wasting their money in emerging markets on various what-not, but rather less fond of the sheer hypocrisy of French quasi-Left whankers pretending they're somewhat in solidarity with the impoverished scum....

The essence of the Tangiers issue is Bernard-Henri Lévy, chef whanker of France -so dearly attached to its intellectual whanking, "and Arielle Dombasle, his actress wife, have erected around their sumptuous clifftop villa in Tangiers. It partially blocks the view of the bay from the terrace of a famous cafe next door, the Hafa cafe. To which I may add I am utterly indifferent.

Hardly a crime, per se (and the quote that Lévy’s wall of of breeze blocks as an example of the “ransacking of the countryside” really is silly in the usual Franco-Moroccan intellectuals' habit of ridiculous overstatement)

The explanation strikes me as a bit precious, however:

Sensitive to local concerns, Lévy is said to have put up his wall to shelter the shapely Dombasle from public gaze as she suns herself by the swimming pool of the villa. The spectacle of women sunbathing topless plays into the hands of a growing Islamist movement striving to turn Morocco, one of the more liberal countries in the Muslim world, into a strict theocracy.

I'm sure that came from the ever precious hypocritical whanker himself.

Well, the Islamist movement might in some ways be trying to impose more conservative habits, but I hardly think this sort of hysteric overstatement even borders on accurate.

Sun-bathing topless, first of all, isn't tolerated in lots of places rather far from being "theocracies" [sic: of course the term here is one of exagerated sky-is-falling whinging on], as in the United States, for example.

In short, one need not pointless shriek on about "Islamists" and it would seem rather basic to realise that sun-bathing topless in full view of the public in the middle of a bloody city is generally, except among the most unaware of hedonists (I do add that I have nothing per se against hedonism nor sun-bathing topless personally, but I am a partisan of rationality, moderation, pragmatism and "when in Rome...."), not a done thing. Even if you are a spoiled "star."

Now, one must confess that the article itself is clueless, containing such phrases as Morocco has also been attracting more ordinary tourists, becoming a haven for westerners in search of exotic thrills just a few hours by air from London or Paris.

Ahem, it's hardly recent, that. Nor would tourism figures suggest any particularly stunning change, up or down, to merit the implication of some great change.

Furhter to that:

The bombings in Casablanca in 2003, in which 45 people were killed, do not appear to have harmed that traffic. Yet the rise of the Party for Justice and Development [PJD], as the Islamist organisation is known, could cast a shadow on the horizon if, as some predict, it becomes the dominant force in parliament after elections next May.

Translated, the opposition is fear-mongering, as of course, PJD already is the dominant political force outside the Palace, but it's the palace that counts. Elections may, should be they reasonably fair and free, illustrate what is already clear and well-known.

And of course given simple-minded fools of journos, whankers and the like a reason to whinge on and lap up spin from the various domestic parties that for their own reasons, largely tied to their inherent weakness and incompetence, requires PJD to be squished.

After it first gained seats in parliament, the party was associated with a campaign against the Miss Morocco contest, which it regarded as “pornographic”. All of those involved were denounced as “un-Islamic” and the competition had to be held in secret.

As I recall it was the first time - and frankly not a terribly brilliant idea.

Moving along:

The group favours sharia, which would enforce a widely ignored prohibition on the sale of alcohol and oblige all women to wear the veil. It has won a big following among a Muslim population depressed by the spectacle of young men and women — and sometimes even children — prostituting themselves to foreign “sex tourists”.

Oh.... painfully simple-minded whanking as reporting.

Well, there is no small core of truth in the impact of the major sex-scandal/prostitution scandal involving a Belgian journo and of course the rather well-known if covered-up phenomena of sex-tourism (more attributed to Khalijis, but no matter).

The rather poorly phrased first sentance is either fairly inaccurate as to PJD's immediate goals, or simply a rather idiotic formulation re Sharia.

Either way, there's no danger of the hidjab being imposed, and certainly none in seeing alcohol banned. Of course, theoretically its the tourists drinking it.

The arty has a grand time going on in this vein - vice crackdowns being of course sign of Islamism (bloody well unheard of in the West... wait.....):

An Islamist newspaper warned recently that the tsunami that devastated parts of Thailand and Indonesia was God’s punishment for immoral behaviour and that Morocco risked a similar disaster unless it mended its ways. Partly in response to such pressure the government of Mohamed VI, the modernising monarch, recently launched a crackdown on vice.

Dozens of women have been rounded up in raids on bars in Marrakesh and other Moroccan cities this month on suspicion of prostitution. Several bar owners have been thrown into jail.

I suppose there is a crackdown between modernising and cracking down on prostitution (again, personally I am indifferent), but again it strikes me that the journo has his head full of false comparisions and rather unexamined idees recues.

Re a case against a certain infamous French citizen, the arty bizarelly quotes "Aniko Boehler, the co-ordinator of Hands Off My Child, the organisation that brought the case against him" without noting she is French and the org is an anti-pedophilia one. It's, well, a bit deceptive.

Finally, this political commentary is nothing short of utterly daft:

Mohamed’s efforts at modernisation, including attempts to put more women into the workplace, have further alienated Islamist backers who believe a woman’s place is in the home. Some opinion polls have put the Islamic party ahead in next year’s election.

This in turn has prompted speculation about how the king would react: could there be a repeat of what happened in Algeria in 1992, when the Islamic Salvation Front’s victory in an election prompted the military to step in, driving the Islamists underground? Traditional rivals of Algeria, Moroccans argue they are too sensible to let things unravel. “Vote-rigging is the most likely route,” said Xavier Monnier, a French journalist who closely follows Moroccan affairs.

Whatever position the King is in, it bloody well is not comparable to FIS and Algeria c. 89-92.

Even if PJD won, there is nothing that forces the government to be formed from Parliament (indeed the present one is not), nor anything that gives PJD enough leverage to force a coup d'etat; nor is the social situation anything like Algeria's crisis at that time.

In short, it's daft scare-mongering.

Political problem, surely.

Crisis, not unless one wants one manufactured.

Well, that was not so much about the supposed main subject, but perhaps does serve to illustrate just how poorly understood.