Comment
October 10 2005
Page 9
geordie@gairrhydd.com
The chewing gum on the shoe of opinion
Wolfgang: Am I dangerous?
I
t was two burly security guardtypes that bustled Walter Wolfgang out of the Labour Party Conference, but it might as well have been the Nazi Eagle come to life, clutching the pensioner in its talons. That’s where such shamefully authoritarian stifling of dissent belongs. The Terrorism Act was used to prevent Walter’s re-entry into the conference, and recently, a young woman was arrested under the same law for wearing a T-shirt bearing the legend ‘Bollocks to Blair’. Last time I checked, ‘nonsense’ – the one-word heckle of Mr Wolfgang during Jack Straw’s speech that earned his ejection – wasn’t synonymous with ‘Death to the Infidel’, and if ‘Bollocks to Blair’ is tantamount to terrorism then my satirical, though admittedly tasteless, ‘I✈NY’ shirt must make me the Devil Osama himself come to kill you all. Rhetorical overreach? Probably. But a justifiable one, I think.
It’s hardly surprising, though. It’s the inherent tendency of a great deal of people to do whatever they can get away with – or think they can get away with (“it’s not illegal if you don’t get caught”) – particularly when it comes to holding on to power. That should have been clear to everyone after countless scandals, politicians’ affairs (and if their wives can’t trust them, there’s no way I will) and particularly Watergate in the US. The prime minister (and examine that title: ‘first minister’, which should
mean the first among equals, not the object of worship he believes himself to be) has rescinded countless election promises – among them the introduction of a system of proportional representation for elections, which might mean losing – because he can. He has failed to hand over the leadership to Brown as he has promised, because he can. He has criminalised peaceful protest within earshot of Parliament, and now twisted a law intended to protect the public for his own ends, because he can. Who knows, if Blair
Who knows, Walter could have had an ice pick buried in his head
Last time I checked, ‘nonsense’ isn’t synonymous with ‘Death to the Infidel’ Is there anyone left who still believes that granting the authorities more powers will not result in more abuse of those powers? Because that’s exactly what both of these examples are: it’s obvious that neither of these people are terrorists, therefore the Terrorism Act should not be employed. Certainly in the case of Walter Wolfgang it was misused to prevent criticism of the government’s foreign policy.
thought he could get away with it, Walter Wolfgang might have wound up with an ice pick buried in his head. During Blair’s own speech at the conference, part of his rampant demagogy attempted to justify the extension of police powers by suggesting that “our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety”. Well, maybe. But… that ‘safety’ also ought to mean safety from what the government or its employees might do in the name of ‘protecting us’ all. That means protecting the innocent from unfair prosecution (i.e. not holding them without charge for three months), not carting a pensioner out of a conference (more like a rally, really – totally one-sided) because he dares to have a different opinion to the party leadership.
TIANANMEN SQUARE: Closer than you think...
The PM has also set an agenda for restoring ‘respect’ in society, even recently appointing a ‘Minister for Respect’. (I thought it was a joke when I first discovered this. It sounds like something from Ali G Indahouse.) Perhaps, in that case, he should lead by example. If he wants respect back in society he should start showing some to the electorate, rather than treating them like idiots and cretins, second class proles or children that need telling what to do (Hell, Mummy and Daddy Blair’ll be regulating the requisite temperature of our porridge next… ). Though after re-electing Mr Blair and New Labour, perhaps we haven’t earned that respect.
The Cabinet: Episode 4 - Conference Time
L
ast week saw the annual Labour Party Conference. The party gets together every year to meet with the grass-roots of their membership, to discuss issues, confer on policy and the like. This is what happened this year. The party rank and file is immaculately pressed, standing to attention and waiting to hear their masters speak. After a brief inspection from the party leader, his deputy takes the podium. His initial words are in praise of the military, and banging on about some triumph over adversity. ‘Patient courage of the change-maker’, I think it was, though I really wasn’t listening by then. PRESCOTT: “I greet the eminent representatives of foreign countries who
WebQuote:
are honouring the party by taking part in the congress. “In true comradeship the movement, particularly welcomes the army, which is now under the Führer’s orders. My Führer, you are surrounded by the flags and standards of National Socialism. If their cloth ever rots only then will people understand the greatness of our time. “And they will understand what you, my Führer, mean to Germany. You are Germany. When you act, the nation acts. When you judge, the people judge. Our gratitude is the promise to stand by you through thick and thin, whatever comes our way. Thanks to your leadership, Germany will reach its goal of being home to all Germans throughout the world.
“You were our guarantor of victory. You are our guarantor of peace. Adolf Hitler. Sieg Hiel, Sieg Heil.” No, hang on, that was Rudolf Hess at the 1934 Nuremburg Rally. Pretty close though. Only a lot of the Labour Party think Blair’s a bit of a tosser. This is what actually actually happened: BLAIR: (Stamps feet like petulant toddler in Tesco) “I want three more years!” STRAW: “Iraq, yeah, really good like.” CROWD MEMBER 1: “Nonsense” SECURITY: “You, out!” CROWD MEMBER 2: “Leave him alone.”
SECURITY: “And you, come on.” Security drag out frail and elderly heckler for refusing to follow the party line, closely followed by his younger defender. Re-entry is denied to both of these. After all, they’re clearly subversives out to undermine the elected Government of the country. BLAIR: “Ein Völk, ein Reich, ein Führer.” No, that was the Nazis again. I keep confusing the two. Well, if the cap fits, I suppose... NEXT WEEK: The Cabinet is being sent on tour to the regions. (Yeah, I’m doing something else, I can’t be bothered any more.) THE END
“The church is so far out of touch with reality even Stevie Wonder can see it” - twentymajor.blogspot.com
40 Years?
Q
uestion: when is a military occupation not, in fact, a military occupation? I expect there are several possible answers. The one I happen to be thinking of is: when it’s followed by another military occupation that the occupied consider to be in some way ‘worse’ than the original. For example, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel being considered a greater injury to the Palestinan people than their invasion by Jordan and Egypt. After the recent Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, almost every Palestinian interviewed by the media made reference to an “end to 40 years of occupation”, meaning the time since the Israeli Defence Force captured the area, along with the West Bank, following the SixDay War in 1967. They seem to have conveniently forgotten that Israel took the occupied territories from Egypt and Jordan, who themselves illegally occupied the land allocated to the Palestinian people in the land-grab that ensued after the War of Independence in 1948, so the references should have been to nearly 60 years of occupation. It’s a lot more, if you take into account the successive rulerships of Britain (under the League of Nations’ mandate) the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluks, Ayyubids, Crusaders, Seljuks, Fatamids, Abbasids, Umayadds, and the Sassanian, Byzantine, Roman, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Macedonian, Persian and Babylonian Empires, the last of which conquered the Kingdom of Judah around 590BC. So that’s over 2500 years since the Gaza and West Bank areas of ‘Palestine’ area were last free and independent. But, apparently only the last forty count. Even if we take only recent history, then apart from one abortive coup attempt, there was almost no real resistane to the 20-year Jordanian occupation of the West Bank (despite the Palestinian national majority) and even less in Gaza. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, with their goal of establishing an independent Palestinian State, wasn’t founded until two years after the Six-Day War, in 1969. For a time they were also committed to the destruction of Israel. Whilst I’m not in any way condoning any of those occupations, does the increased level of dissent under Israeli rule not smack of racism? Does not the relative quiet during prior oppression and the disproportionate armed action (so often directed at civilians) suggest that they’ll put up with being occupied by others, but never by Jews. I would say it does.