JAN MOIR: THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG

Today saw the announcement that the Press Compaints Commission have ruled against the near 25,000 complaints received over Jan Moir’s infamous Daily Mail ‘Stephen Gately article’, finding nothing punishable in the piece. In it Moir had claimed, among other things, that ‘if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding (‘Gately’s) death are more than a little sleazy.’  (You can read the article here)

Now I’m not here to defend Jan Moir. Her article was ill-timed and showed a real ignorance of the case. Even so, to paraphrase Voltaire, I’d defend to the (metaphorical) death her right to write it. Gay-rights pressure group Stonewall are predictably upset with the decision. I’m sure they felt offended and slighted by the implications made in Moir’s piece. However, no-one has the right to not be offended. I’m not sure who said that, even after googling it... but the fact the search (in quote marks) returned over 5 pages of direct hits seems like some kind of validation!

Truth is there are too many sacred cows. This furore reveals two. Firstly, the gay community wants to be exempt from any disapproval or criticism. I don’t accept that, and I can’t abide the attempt to shut down debate or call disagreement ‘hatred’. It is reasonably out of bounds to contest that which someone is born with, be it the colour of skin or the tendency towards same-sex attraction. However, beyond that, to disagree with or question someone’s relationship or lifestyle choices is a given in a society marked by free speech – in doing so, one should expect a fiery response (just as if you query my choice of wife!), but let’s not automatically call it ‘hatred’ or make it illegal! It is as reasonable to tut at the promiscuity of a gay man as it is to do so at that of Katie Price or Ashley Cole. Furthermore, it’s legitimate to do as 67-year old Pauline Howe did, and write a letter to the council protesting about a loud and exhibitionist Gay Pride parade passing near her home. The council has the right to ignore her views and give them short shrift; but to have her arrested, as they did, for ‘hate crime’? It’s all a bit Orwellian. She is not any more a hate criminal than is Dawkins for loudly rubbishing Christianity; despite the fact that in doing so he’s made the life of Christians far less comfortable. Whoever’s on the receiving end, rejoice that a free country welcomes free debate...  

Secondly, there is the sanctification of dead celebrities. There is of course room for tact. We surely don’t want to badmouth the very recently dead. But, again, to illegalise the practise? The offence is one of foolishness or thoughtlessness – at journalistic and editorial level... but Stephen Gately is not legally beyond criticism because he has tragically passed on. Save us from sickening attempts to turn Jade Goody into a working class hero (her main ‘achievements’ propelling her into the public eye were, after all, feats of stupidity, stripping and racism) or Princess Diana into the world’s greatest mother (she died as she lived, indulging a jet-set lifestyle, accompanied by the latest boyfriend; her children firmly ensconced in boarding school). And let’s not become a society that goes running to the state crying foul if we feel upset by something we read. The state already feel far too justified in interfering with, well, everything! Let argument defeat argument, and let the debate be pursued through an ever-free press. I don’t want our national newspapers to mirror our national politics – a bland consensual landscape where to speak one’s mind without populist spin is to commit career suicide.

So, to conclude, well done the Press Complaints Commission and, to those who complained, cherish your offence and your right to express it!

TONY BLAIR - DISCUSS

NOTE: Comment moderation removed again as it was putting people off. But please don't drop the F-bomb... even when talking about Blair!!

There’s been a bit of argument on here lately about truth. A perfect time then to consider the case of Anthony Lyndon Blair, following his Chilcott appearances last week. For me it’s a heartfelt subject – I feel like the survivor of a love affair gone bad. I’d just turned 18 when Blair took power (having seen him speak impressively at a student conference the year before). In fact I enthusiastically took the role of Labour candidate that year in our school version of the General Election – a viciously fought affair in which over 1,000 voted (very few of them for me! I blame our location within a Tory heartland...). In doing so I enthusiastically endorsed the manifesto and the ‘third way’ that I felt represented my own outlook on political life. I was genuinely excited when the new First Family rolled into Downing Street and, as a new student, I entirely bought into the Cool Britannia phase when Noel Gallacher was hanging out at the seat of power. And then...


Not that New Labour has been a total failure. Schools and hospitals are better than they used to be. Driving around our neck of the woods it’s possible to lose count of the new-built glass-fronted schools we pass. Most of our local comprehensives seem to be attaining Excellent Ofsted reports and I know they’re not given out lightly! Those that are failing (my wife’s old school has sadly entered this bracket) are dealt with swiftly, effectively and, yes, brutally. I know, as a teacher, that the tactics of league tables, shotgun inspections and golden handshakes have alienated many (and SEN provision or playing fields would be whole different articles) – but most today leave today with a better all round education than they used to – and I will argue with anyone who disagrees.

But in the end Blair blew it. Even on foreign policy he was good for a while – he showed balls in Kosovo and played it right in Northern Ireland. Afghanistan may seem a mistake in hindsight, but few argued with the taking down of Bin Laden’s unashamed sponsors and apologists. However, in all this, it seemed he was becoming increasingly presidential – loving himself as the world statesman, contemptuous of Cabinet and in thrall to his perception across the Atlantic. And as for Iraq; I remember the sense of inevitability. The news reports may have been saying Hans Blix had found nothing, that war could be evaded, that we were waiting for a UN resolution. But we all knew the decision had been made and that redneck Bush was running the show – it was just a matter of when. Likewise we knew that, WMD or not, Saddam posed no more threat to us in the UK than does Mugabe or any other distant dictator.

And now, as we hear of Attorney General Goldsmith being bullied to change his mind on legality, of ‘evidence’ that few saw and even fewer felt compelled by... well what do we take from it all? First, I would again return to electoral reform. Blair felt untouchable, indeed was untouchable, due to his massive majority. Again, this was particularly dangerous when combined with the power of the party whips, to whom disobedience would have meant career suicide for any Labour MP. It laid bare our claims to democracy, as a war which featured nowhere in any manifesto put before the electorate was rushed through, desired by few in the country, the parliamentary party, the Civil Service or even the Cabinet. Blair told us to trust him and many did – largely because there was no real choice in the matter. And perhaps because we couldn’t quite believe things were as they seemed – that we really were ploughing in cack-handed on a personal grudge, with no idea of what would happen next (other than big oil contracts for lobbying US corporations). Secondly, we have to let the UN do its job. I know there’s danger in that – I will never forget reading Fergal Keane’s account of the Rwandan genocide and the moral failure of that body in letting it happen. But whilst, for all sorts of reasons, we can’t be the world’s policeman, we are part of a body equipped for that job. Our efforts should surely be spent on helping steer that ship when it comes to Iran or whoever’s next.

Part of me still wants to believe in Blair. I’m well aware I’m still not slating him to the extent he deserves. I want him to do well in the Middle East and to use the fact he’s highly regarded by many abroad. But, in the end, I and history will judge him responsible for those 100,000 Iraqi corpses; for cluster bombs, civil war and for misery that manages to at least match anything wrought by Saddam. And that I fear outweighs, well, anything else really…

BRITISHNESS PART 2

A follow-up to my earlier post on Britishness



Part One: You don’t know you’re born mate...


For what it's worth, I reckon Sebastian Shakespeare made a fool of himself in the Evening Standard last week. He had just returned from a two-week holiday in the Tamil Nadu region of India and had a very lovely time. All very well. However, upon his return, having suffered in Britain the horrors of a surly air hostess and a queue in Lloyd’s Bank, he states that ‘In my next life I would like to be born an Indian’. Well, fine for him. I'm sure millions are glad they were. But in doing so I imagine he’d like the continuing benefit of the money and privilege that one presumes have rather cushioned his own upbringing and indeed his recent travels. After all, up-an-coming as that country is, I suspect many lucky enough to be born Indian rather than accursed with Britishness may have to face subsequent difficulties even worse (gasp) than a slight delay on the High Street. But am I right? Or am I just another institutionally racist Brit taking Slumdog Millionaire a little too literally?


Well, the very same edition of the Evening Standard was on hand to help me out a few pages later. It told the story of the recently murdered Sukhwinder Singh, about whom the paper is somewhat conflicted – he was after all an illegal immigrant (very bad) but a martyred have-a-go hero (very good). Anyway, the piece features quotes such as the following: “Every year, 800 to 1,000 farmers in the Punjab commit suicide because they are unable to meet their debt repayments. For young men, the unemployment rate is well over 50% and even if they get a factory job (it) still leaves them on the poverty line. In London they know they can earn 20 times that’. Now I don’t write that to sound smug or glib. It just confirms to me the obscenity of a public schooled professional, living well in one of the world’s richest cities, claiming to envy the developing world. It brings to mind Helena Bonham-Carter’s famous claim that Kathy Burke had it easy being working-class. We really don’t have it that bad… don’t curse the hand that feeds you!

Part Two: Life without a Chance


Far more briefly... I know I may have sounded dismissive in my previous article when claiming that equal opportunities do exist in this country for those on council estates, as they’re sent to generally decent schools. I did so knowing there are a great number of other factors begging consideration. However, it was still an appropriate time to watch Fish Tank, the latest powerful and gritty Brit flick about a fifteen-year old anti-hero battling to get out of her brutal environment. Whilst watching, one phrase echoed through my head – ‘she never had a chance’. The tower block is bleak and vicious, the mother is a bitter, emotionally abusive tramp who views her as a threat, the latest father-figure views her only with lust. It’s a must-see for any who would unthinkingly demonise the ‘hoody’ hordes.


Yet, numerous as the issues are, I still don’t see the issue as primarily economic. Those Indian poor mentioned above could surely only marvel at a country which would hand them free housing, health care, education and enough money to ensure a big TV and fridge full of food. Yes, in the long term, more money would help – it gets you out of the tower block for a start… but in the short term? Money isn’t going to stop the substance abuse, put an end to the poor parenting, provide new role models or reverse the uninterested attitude to school. The Communist experiments in East Europe, China or anywhere else showed that economic equalisation does nothing to address the corruption inherent within humanity. So what’s the answer? Well there’s the tough bit…


NOTE: The ‘Warmth v Wealth’ debate regarding the development of children is very topical at present following a Cameron speech last month. See an overview here:

http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/against-parenting  

THIS IS MY TRUTH, TELL ME YOURS

The above was the name of a Manic Street Preachers album. It came to mind when JDS posted on the Comments Board (for the Lynch/Murakami post) the following statement:


‘And there is no truth. No right answer. No absolute understanding (at least in this world)’


I’ll accept the latter – there’s plenty we’ll never understand in this world (by way of example, why the continuing success of Vernon Kay?). But the rest of the quote? Well that I utterly refute. It calls to mind Nietzche’s quote: ‘there are no facts, only interpretations’. All very interesting and post-modern, but clearly nonsense, given that in saying it he presumably believes he’s stating a fact. Just as JDS is presumably stating a perceived truth when saying there is none.


The fact is, 1+1=2. The reality is; the apple is on the table. Applied to a faith position, the reality is; either the world has come into being of its own accord from a starting point of nothing, or it has been created by a being infinitely greater than ourselves. One or the other is true. One or the other is a fact. Either Mohammad was God’s prophet (NOTE: Have altered a mistake here - wanted to acknowledge the fact or else yunshui's comment below looks delusional...) or he wasn’t. More pressingly for a society that has often relegated him to the position of ‘a good teacher’, Jesus Christ, in identifying himself as God’s promised son, was either telling the truth, lying or a madman. Ambivalence is an illegitimate response.


In reality, stating all worldviews to be equally valid is to state them all equally false. After all, they sure as heck can’t all be equally true! Not when they are often making statements in direct opposition to one another. Upon death, we are not going to be herded into separate queues, to be greeted by Mohammad, Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Elvis... each according to our preference. Those who place them neatly side by side are, I suspect, those who in reality expect nothing but ‘The End’ upon expiration. If they’re right, that’ll be the truth. But an absence of truth? That’s surely just a fancy way of saying ‘I don’t know’!


JDS’s view is very much the cultural trend at present. An all-encompassing straddling of the fence chimes neatly with the new, oh-so sensitive societal gospel of tolerance and equality. It doesn’t like exclusive truth statements, equating them increasingly with intolerance or hatred. But have we really given up on finding any kind of firm resolution? Do we really think there’s nothing worth investing our hopes in? I want to look for truth and celebrate when I reckon I’ve found it. I then want to talk about it with openly others. And if they disagree with me? Well I’ll happily tolerate the fact. I most certainly won’t hate them. I’ll just continue to state my case, they’ll state theirs and we’ll call it debate. And, ultimately, someone will be right and someone wrong. That there’s the truth…