The Obscurer | Page 7

Thursday 2nd September 2004

Taking Liberty

Hot on the heels of the Tories taking a swipe at the Human Rights Act, comes the inevitable attack on Political Correctness. The reason for doing so is obvious, and absolutely in keeping with the populist bandwagon jumping of the party under Michael Howard. These are issues guaranteed to elicit the support of the Daily Mail and stereotypical Middle Englanders. But why are both these issues such obvious targets for the Tories?

The dislike of Political correctness is to an extent understandable. Even though its basic concept – that one does not use words which are likely to cause offence – seems to me to be about politeness and respect for others, there are enough stories, mainly anecdotal urban myths, which do seem ridiculous. Why these stories of “Baa-Baa Green Sheep” and the like inspire anger rather than laughter has always slightly confused me, but few people I think are likely to fight tooth and nail for the cause of political correctness itself. The very term itself means nothing; it is a useless phrase unless the individual places an objective value judgment upon it.

But Human Rights, and its sister phrase Civil Liberties. Why should these be a fruitful battleground for the Tories? What have people got against these issues?

The Tories state their only real target is the Human Rights Act itself, but well before it was incorporated into British Law (and of course it has always been accessible to British Citizens via the European Court) Conservative politicians and commentators would regularly roll their eyes metaphorically whenever the likes of Liberty commented on any issue related to civil liberties or human rights. Human Rights appeared to be the domain of lefties, wishy-washy do-gooders and, of course, the politically correct.

To an extent Liberty had themselves to blame. Even though I passionately believe in the work they do, I would often cringe when the previous director John Wadham appeared on Television. The issues he raised were correct and laudable, but there often seemed to be an absence of a wider understanding of peoples concerns. His arguments often had the feel of a lawyers argument, and I guess that is understandable as he originally joined Liberty as its Legal Officer.

What I am trying to say I suppose is that when your house has been burgled, the human rights of the burglar are pretty far from your mind. Of course our rights and civil liberties are vitally important; they are an absolute, and should apply to burglars as well as the rest of us. But while Wadham covered his brief of defending Civil Liberties well, there often appeared little concern for the issues of victims of crime. Now, I don’t for one minute believe that he is less concerned about victims than any reasonable person would be, but I feel it was an impression that was sometimes created; as such it played right into the hands of those who think that Liberty and their ilk are more concerned with the rights of criminals than the rights of victims.

When John Wadham left to head the new Independent Police Complaints Commission his place in the Media was taken by Mark Littlewood and Shami Chakrabarti. Without compromising Liberty’s firm line on Human Rights, what has been noticeable is that they both seem anxious to show their understanding of ordinary peoples real concerns and fears. In doing so they more effectively show how Civil Liberties are not an airy-fairy notion to be discussed at a swish Dinner Party, but important issues which impact directly on all our everyday lives, which defend the freedoms we so cherish and shape the sort of society we all live in.

I hope that this will continue; that Liberty are able to broaden their appeal so that the Tories tactics fall of deaf ears, and that people no longer see Human Rights and Civil Liberties as dirty words.

3 Comments

Thursday 26th August 2004

The Next War

Of course, in many ways, George Bush’s decision to withdraw American troops from around the world makes a lot of sense. With the end of the Cold War it if fairly evident that NATO is pretty much an anachronism, although it is obviously in certain peoples best interests to deny this when the mood suits. So the proposed withdrawal from Germany is just common sense. Many of the other withdrawals can be seen in the same light; changing tactics for a changed world situation.

But what about the removal of troops from South Korea? Isn’t North Korea part of the Axis of Evil? Isn’t North Korea just about the most repressive and repulsive regime in the world today? Doesn’t it claim, with good cause, to already have Nuclear weapons? Unless Bush is about to announce a remarkable piece of diplomacy between the US and North Korea, isn’t it wise to leave some American troops in South Korea, just in case?

Perhaps. But let’s go back a little, to the run up to the Iraq War. The main reason given for going to war was of course Weapons of Mass Destruction, but when this was challenged by the anti-war brigade Blair and Bush would also start talking about Baghdad’s links with terrorists, and also the barbaric nature of the Saddam dictatorship.

I opposed the war, and there were many good arguments against it; that with regard to WMD the UNMOVIC inspectors should be left to do their job, and that Iraq almost certainly had no links to al-qaeda. But there were two issues on which I differed with the many of those against the war.

Firstly, I always felt a little uneasy at the back of my mind, arguing against a war which would at least rid the world of a monster. Of course the humanitarian removal of Saddam was irrelevant to the reason for war, but it was still there, and the few pro-war commentators who I respected (David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, although the latter has lost it big-time in his bizarre criticism of Fahrenheit 911) all made this element key to their support for pre-emptive war. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they never offered up a framework where future invasions could or could not be justified; in fact as many writers have noted, the idea of pre-emptive war for humanitarian reasons had previously been used by the likes of Hitler in the Sudetenland and Mussolini in Abyssinia. If there is to be humanitarian pre-emption, surely it has to be an instrument of the UN, and not individual Nation States?

Secondly, one thing those who opposed the war often said was “after Iraq, where is next?”. I may well have said the same myself at one time, but soon I began to question this criticism of the war. I have no doubt some of the hawks in the USA would like to invade further countries, as the Project for the New American Century suggested, although mainly for the US self-interest rather than for any altruistic reason. However, the sheer cost of the invasion, with Bush having to go to Congress for a vastly increased defense budget, was something I felt even the United States could not afford to keep doing. With the current situation in Iraq still worsening, the idea of another war seems further away, and the proposed recall of troops from South Korea, surely in the front line against the Axis of Evil, seems to strengthen this theory.

Those who supported the war in the belief that a New World Order of benevolent pre-emption would rid the world of its despots are likely to be dissappointed.That was never going to happen. That wasn’t why we went to war. For them, the fact that there isn’t going to be a “next war” is another reason not to have supported the last one.

Thursday 19th August 2004

To The Max

Now that the dust has more or less settled, what was the most notable thing about the whole Sven/Faria/Palios debacle?
For one thing, there was the ridiculous amount of press coverage, across all medias, given to unremarkable consenting relations between adults, but that should no longer surprise us.

There was further confirmation of Sven’s ability to avoid being drawn into the maelstrom by just shrugging his shoulders and keeping his counsel, but again we are getting used to this. (When I think of Sven, I always imagine him being the sort of mate who would get you involved in a pub fight, but who himself would walk away unscathed and uninvolved in the ensuing fracas).

We do not need to be told that the Football Association is just about as inept and badly run an organisation as there is, but even by their standards the degree to which they shot themselves in their collective feet is staggering. And in Colin Gibson they had perhaps the only Press Secretary with a benign view of the tabloid press. Only the fact that he is not the Colin Gibson, who served Manchester United with little distinction in the 80’s prevented his intervention from being the most hilarious part of the whole affair.

But for me, it is the involvement once again of Max Clifford which really takes the biscuit. Not that he was the inevitable publicist for Faria Alam, but that the press once again ran to interview him in his position as an expert. Why is there a need for TV, Radio and Newspapers to massage this man’s ego everytime they want a commentary on how much money an aspiring Z list celebrity can make if they play their cards right. I have yet to see him being interviewed about the future for Nadia from Big Brother 5, but I dare say that is just good fortune on my part.

This has got to stop. One day, please, I would love to be listening to BBC FiveLive or something like that, discussing the latest Pop Idol hopeful or whatever, and for them to announce “and later on in the programme we will not, under any circumstances, be asking Max Clifford for his opinions.”

I fear I am wasting my time; does he, I wonder, insist on his little cameo appearances, threatening producers and journalists with his “black book of dark secrets and skeletons in the closet” unless they indulge him?

Thursday 12th August 2004

Welcome

Welcome to my Blog. Who knows where we will go from here. It may be funny, it may be serious, it may by entirely devoted to football. It may never get much further than this welcome message. Watch this space and find out.

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share: