the haters are here

After the vote this week on action in Syria, the result of which I was very pleased to see (and Jeremy Corbyn was not, it appears) Labour MPs who voted with the Government, and some others who did not, have received death threats. Oh yes, pictures of guns and such like. One at least is under police protection now.


Do they think this is new? It is not. I was sent pictures of guns and knives, and gun-related pornography, and threatened with rape and murder, a number of times when I was an MP, and not to do with my vote on action in Iraq (in favour, since you ask). On the latter I had a lot of tedious whining from people who read the Guardian and didn't give a stuff about the slaughter in Iraq, and also some pacifist representations from people who thought there should be no military action anywhere, ever, by anybody. This last laudable, but impossible. No, the death threats came - you are ahead of me - when I mentioned Israel, which I did not do very often. I am a Zionist, but did not and do not go on about it. Also, ten years ago and more Jew-hatred was not so much in evidence on the left in the UK as it is now. But it was there. The death threats also came, slightly to my surprise, after I left Parliament (in 2005), and related to my support for Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama as Democratic candidate for the US presidency in 2008. I didn't expect misogynist hatred from that quarter, but I got plenty, and it was pointed out to me that Americans have guns, and that those guns would be used on me if I didn't shut up.


Well, I didn't cry about all that. I didn't like it, but I didn't cry. I certainly didn't ask for police protection. How wimpish is that? In my time an MP was seriously injured and his staff member killed by a mentally ill constituent with a samurai sword. Anyone in public life puts themselves in that kind of danger, and of course precautions must be taken, especially to protect staff. But - if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, as someone once said. And if you don't make any enemies, it means you've never done anything. I don't know where the idea came from that we should all live and work in safe spaces. There are no safe spaces, and arguably if we try and keep ourselves safe all the time we place ourselves in more danger than if we don't - because we then think that nothing will ever happen to us. Yes, it might.


In my time communication was by email, and not everyone used even that. But I saw straight away that people were more willing to use hate speech in an email than they would have been in a letter, on the telephone or in person - though there was some of all that too. Even more so now, on Twitter. In public life you just get used to it. There's no rule that says everyone should be nice to you if you are an MP. In fact, to think that people should be nice to you borders on the narcissistic.


On Iraq (and there are similarities with the situation today as regards Syria, whatever anyone says) I voted with the Government, for military action, and never lost a moment's sleep over it, because I believed it was right, and was glad to have the opportunity to vote that way. I was very clear about that publicly. But there were still foolish letters in the local newspapers berating me for not voting with my conscience. As if voting with your conscience always means voting against the Government. I am glad I did not have to suffer the torments my neighbouring Labour MP Martin Salter had to at the time, desperately juggling two conflicting stories - in Westminster he said he was trying to persuade recalcitrant Labour MPs not to vote against the Government, because he wanted a government job to be helpful to Tony, and in Reading he said he was voting against the Government in line with his convictions and to appease the mosque show the people of Reading that he was on their side and not the Government's. In the end he was forced into the impossible position that everyone is forced into who tries to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds - he abstained on the vote, lied publicly in Reading about how he had voted, and was forced to stand down in 2010 when the issue refused to go away. I had none of that. I pretty much always tell the truth, not because I am especially virtuous but because it's so restful. You never have to keep your story straight or remember what you told the last person.


So, MPs who are worried and upset about the hate they are getting, and about possible threats to themselves and their families - relax. You probably don't need police protection. Once your home address becomes public you must either move house or put in very serious security measures, naturally. And vote with your conscience. It's the easiest way.

the wrong people were voting Labour

in 1997, apparently. Neal Lawson says so, and it's in the Guardian, so it must be true. A little light fisking to begin with.

 Oh and Nealie babes, open letters are Always Wrong.

"Dear Tony,

You seem to be suffering an unusual bout of the dithers as 2014 ends and the year of the general election begins." Really? Having a say is dithering is it? Oh unless Tony says what the Guardian wants to hear. Silly old me.

"First you argue that Labour will lose if Ed Miliband rejects the third way. You fear a situation “in which a traditional leftwing party competes with a traditional rightwing party, with the traditional result”. " Yep. Spot on Tony. As even you seem to understand, Neal...

"But then you say you have been misinterpreted. " He was. Because he didn't say he didn't support Dead Ed, but was reported as having done so. "The words, though, seem pretty clear and you were always so good with words. And, apparently, at winning elections." Not apparently. He won three consecutive ones. No other Labour leader has done so.

"But we both know it’s not quite that clear or that simple. The truth is that any Labour leader could have won in 1997 – by then the nation was heartily sick of the Tories. It was time for change. Your great fortune was that the leadership came up just when most of the Labour party was desperate enough to accept victory at any price." Clearly you spent no time in Labour circles in the 1990s Mr Lawson, or you would know different.

Advertisement

"If he had lived, John Smith would have won in 1997 – not by as much as you, granted – but then your majority was too big, wasn’t it? " Was it? How big is too big? What would have been the correct figure? One that excluded the south of England? " I well remember crunching my way up gravel drives past BMWs in Enfield the day Stephen Twigg ousted Michael Portillo – oh, how we cheered later that morning. But in hindsight the wrong people were voting Labour. The tent was too big and you spent the next 10 years trying to keep the wrong people in it: the very rich, for example. What meaningful project includes everyone? " Any meaningful project does. You govern for all the people or you do not meaningfully govern at all.

"You remark, almost with pride, that the population hasn’t shifted to the left – well, what exactly was your job as a political leader supposed to be about then?

Advertisement

Had you not been so disdainful about anything remotely old Labour there would probably be much less support for Ukip now. True, you sneaked in some transfers to the poor in the shape of tax credits, and you introduced the minimum wage. " yes, you may well sneer about the minimum wage Mr L, your Guardian-reading dinner-party companions have no need of it, hein? "But never with a political flourish, never with a sense of moral purpose. It was all stealth and no one knew why they were better off" so- with more soundbites everything would have been better would it Neal?

"British politics is now crying out for a real choice. A society that is more equal, sustainable and democratic." Maybe so Neal, though I have my doubts that those notions are what most people are crying out for. Housing need and zero-hours contracts are their concerns, more like.

Extracts from this Guardian gem inside quotes. My remarks outside them. #thewrongpeoplewerevotingLabour - tell that to the people who were, and are, proud to be wrong. Now I must go and put some coal in the bath. Because that's what Labour voters do, isn't it Neal?  Can't have nice clean Guardian readers in their leafy homes doing, can we? Because then we'd have Labour governments, and that would never do, would it?

segregation by...

much fuss and bother about meetings at universities being segregated by gender. Indeed, some of them are. I have no issues with a private, members-only or signup-only meeting being segregated in any way anyone chooses to. I reserve my right to join a women's club which excludes men. A private university too may segregate its meetings, it staff, its anything, in any way it chooses. But a public university which receives State funding is a public authority, and must therefore be constrained in a way private clubs and organisations are not, namely to conform to the prevailing values of the State which funds it. Some may have views about that. Some may question those values. That is another matter. Purportedly left-wing bloggers and writers like Laurie Penny refuse to condemn segregation by gender, so long it is promoted by Muslim organisations or individuals. They give as the reason that organisations such as the English Defence League, part of whose agenda is anti-Muslim, are often also misogynist in the statements they make -  "Women are like gongs: they should be struck regularly" - and because the EDL and similar bodies are largely composed of white working-class men they are therefore  Not Good People and are to be Looked Down Upon by posh girls like Laurie Penny and their Guardian-reading fans. Muslim misogyny is somehow better. Moral relativism. Intellectual incoherence. Segregation by gender may be OK, or it may not. I suggest that in a hospital ward it is a good thing. I suggest that in a theatre dressing-room it is a good thing. I suggest that in a public debate of any kind, organised by anyone at all, it is not a good thing. But that is just my view. If we are going to debate it, let us debate it clearly and properly. Let us not refuse to debate it, giving as the reason that organisations like the EDL are to be condemned. That is posh feminists ceding debate to the misogynists - and silencing women in the universities. OK for them. They went to school. Their daughters will go to school. No-one is going to cut their clitorises off. They can dress as they please.

I went to university in 1972, and attended a Women's College. Only a few years before this male guests were only permitted between certain daylight hours. In my time they were only permitted before ten in the evening. This rule was widely ignored. However, rules like this (and the existence of creatures called "moral tutors") were designed to control women. They were designed to reassure the parents of the young women who attended those colleges that those young women would not be permitted to have sex. That was all it was about. And the segregation by gender and covering and seclusion of women practised in many societies where Islam is the dominant religion (and not only there) is about precisely that. Control of women's bodies and their sexuality. As are the crude misogynist statements made by some working-class white men.

If you agree with the silencing, covering and mutilation of women, say so. Don't say that you refuse to disagree with it because some non-Muslim men behave in misogynist ways. That is stinking relativism.

keep sport out of politics

Paulo di Canio (pic: BBC)

not much posting lately, as cry-baby bully-boy behaviour (TM Julie Burchill) locally does tend to have a chilling effect, despite best efforts. Be strong, girl. Anyway, this is the new Sunderland manager (Sunderland is a team I have a weakness for) Paulo di Canio, an Italian man who has made no secret of his support for fascist parties. Various Israel and other lobbyists have kicked off, yelling that he should be sacked, should never have been appointed in the first place, blah blah blah, polenta where's my Guardian? Oh hang on, the Guardianistas want the state of Israel destroyed and all Jews killed, so the coherence of that position is what exactly? Ah yes, this is not cosy Guardian land, but the world of football, where men are men and political sophistication is not required when managers' jobs are applied for. Anyway, di Canio's political views are what they are. There is no evidence that he has ever engaged in any illegal activity. It is also the case that there are political parties in almost all European countries which could be described as fascist. These are legally constituted parties. Supporting them is not illegal. Nor is it, nor should it ever be, a bar to employment in any field at all. I am not in fact sure that the British National Party in the UK, or the Front National in France, should really be described as fascist parties. They are both parties of the political left which hold racist views. I don't think that's quite the same thing. Whatever. Those of you who have kicked off on "my father fought the fascists in Italy", well, good for him. I'm glad he did. He fought them so that people could be employed when their political views are not those of the mainstream. Di Canio's political views, as reported, are not mine. They are probably not yours. But he is entitled to hold them, and to express them. He does not help his work as a football manager if he sounds off about them at the expense of the team, but that is another matter. Oh and Guardian readers, remember "We Are All Hezbollah Now"?

Hezbollah

grossly offensive

Steve Bell, Guardian today

this cartoon, because of the references it makes, is grossly offensive to me.  But I publish it anyway.  Those who complain to the management when I publish something on my blog that they don't like may complain about this Jew-hating shite and have me hauled in.  Anyone?  Anyone? *sound of tumbleweed*

the Filth gets it wrong on Israel - again

what follows has been published in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, dated 7th August:

A correction to a picture caption said we should not have described Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. It went on to relay the advice in our style guide that the capital was Tel Aviv. In 1980 the Israeli Knesset enacted a law designating the city of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, as the country's capital. In response, the UN security council issued resolution 478, censuring the "change in character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem" and calling on all member states with diplomatic missions in the city to withdraw. The UN has reaffirmed this position on several occasions, and almost every country now has its embassy in Tel Aviv. While it was therefore right to issue a correction to make clear Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital is not recognised by the international community, we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country's financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital. The style guide has been amended accordingly

Well, quite. But look here - the UN certainly did issue that resolution, but the UN is not "the international community", which is a nebulous and ill-defined concept.  The UN is the UN.  And - sigh, again - any sovereign nation, and Israel is that, damn it to hell for its pesky equal rights for men and women, gay pride, and, er, democracy - decides for itself what its capital city is.  No other nation has the right to "recognise" that decision, or not.  I could decide that I don't recognise Paris as the capital of France, but that decision is not mine to make.  Paris is the capital as long as the government of France says it is.

Oh, and while we're in the region, you did know that the blockade of Gaza (remember, "giant prison camp", all that), in connection with which some soldiers have just been killed, is carried out by, er, Egypt?  You did know that, didn't you?  Anyone? *sound of tumbleweed*

Erwin James at Greenbelt

Greenbelt is a UK arts festival of long standing, with I understand a broadly Christian focus, and faith as one of its elements.  I have never been to it.  I might go to an arts festival, I might even go to a Christian festival, but it seems to me that any festival which tries to combine the two is unlikely to succeed.  However.  It has been going for 40 years. Someone called Erwin James is going to appear there this year, and I was struck by this piece on Harry's Place, "the murderer at Greenbelt".  Erwin James is the nom de plume of James Monahan, who is indeed a convicted murderer and who is thus given a platform by the Guardian.  I wouldn't know, as I do not read that filth.  But he is.  He has been writing for it since 2000, we are told.  The murders Monahan committed, in the early 1980s, appear to have been of the homophobic persuasion.  So naturally just right for the Guardian.  Their favourite Islamist hate preachers must just love him.

Now if someone has committed a crime and served their time, they should return to society and have the opportunity to make a contribution in whatever way they can, right?  Right.  But the piece raises issues which are kind of interesting.  Monahan appears to have made up some of his history.  He won't be the first or last ex-con to do that.  But there appear to be those, at the Guardian and at Greenbelt, who know this and are conniving at it.  Why?  Monahan appears, from the quotes attributed to him, not only to have no remorse  (I do not think remorse is always compulsory) but not to believe that he has committed a crime at all.  Here we are getting into a whole other scenario.  That of the psychopath.  That of the abuser who genuinely believes the victim wanted the abuse.

Welll, it made me think, anyway.

what the Guardian doesn't want you to read

they've refused to publish this statement, so I will.  I got it from ITV, so who is the Filth hiding it from?

the Gaza you won't see in the Guardian

inside the prison camp

thanks to CiFWatch for this and other pictures taken inside Gaza.  Which the Guardian will never show because they persist in the lie that Gaza is a "concentration camp".  Here are some families doing their shopping, in a supermarket, with, you know, stuff on the shelves.  Oh and Gaza is ruled by Hamas, who are a bunch of Jew-hating terrorists.  Just saying.

this is not a war

says the Filth, kindly exposed to the world by Norm.  Yes I know this is a couple of days old, but hey, I have just been celebrating my birthday and thinking about other things.  Anyway, this is what the Filth had to say about the start of the trial of Anders Breivik in Norway.

To its credit, Norway has refused to rise to Breivik's provocation. There is nothing that fanatics who see themselves as warriors want more than to provoke an over-reaction. That was the mistake that the United States made after 9/11. Even though Breivik's acts are abnormal and abhorrent, Norway has rightly put him on trial in the normal way, has emphasised that he has rights, and has allowed him to have his say in court, however painful that may be. This is absolutely the correct way to assert the strength of democracy and the rule of law in the face of acts of terror of all kinds. This is not a war. It is a challenge to the rule of law, and it must be met with an assertion of the rule of law, not by its abrogation.

How odd to raise a comparison with 9/11 and (presumably) Guantanamo Bay.  Of course "this" is not a war, whatever organisations Breivik might have consulted or had links with.  What did the Filth think Norway might have done?  Started putting people in orange jumpsuits because they had blond hair or right-wing views?  It's too bizarre.  Breivik murdered a lot of people.  He was seen doing it and arrested.  He didn't try to kill himself, as some do who do these things.  If (here comes the counterfactual) he had managed to escape the police, he might have been killed while being captured, as would eventually have happened.  Would that have been an "abrogation of the rule of law"?  I only ask.

ten years since something that never happened

namely the Jenin "massacre" as it was called at the time, on the West Bank.  Which, as anyone who follows events in that region knows, did not happen.  But which would be thought to have happened by anyone who gets their information about the world from the Guardian.  Which said it happened.  A guest post on Harry's Place makes a timely reminder that that organ is not the best place through which to understand the world.  It is worth a read.  Oh and when I mention something like this I don't usually tweet the post.  You've only got to look at the comments on the Guardian's Comment is Free to understand why.