Maybe there's justice sometimes?

I'm very pleased at the court judgement in favour of the Gurkhas who want a right to settle here, particularly for the robust arguments used by Mr Justice Blake in supporting them. Whether Jacqui Smith quite gets the message I'm not so sure.

It's difficult to believe that the Chagos Islanders will enjoy quite the same success when their demand for a right to return home reaches its conclusion with the Law Lords judgement due next month, but I hope they do.

Elegantly Dressed Wednesday

Classic Italian looks and style. This young lady has had one or two rather pertinent things to say about the Pope recently. Sadly it looks as though she might just be in a spot of bother.

Birmingham bash

It's hard to understand what rationale could conceivably have generated Gordon Brown's decision to hold yesterday's cabinet meeting in Birmingham.

Ed Miliband told the Today programme that it "would enable ministers to learn more about events affecting people's lives outside the capital. I do not see it as a cheap gimmick. If you are saying to me, is this going to win us any votes, I don't particularly think it will," he said. "I just think it is the right thing to do. I think it is important for government not simply to spend all its time in London."

Did I miss something? Was it a public meeting at some community centre, or a get-together in the saloon bar at the Kings Arms? Was policy made on-the-fly as they ambled round the Bullring, catching up on their shopping at the same time?

I'm afraid it says a lot for the intellectual powers of at least one cabinet minister that he can't even grasp that a cheap and utterly pointless gimmick was just that.

Charles Clarke: Labour is destined to disaster

Ever the optimist, my local MP. I'm afraid my own views on Mr Clarke are pretty similar to those of Rachel North and her father.

Charles Clarke's article in today's New Statesman isn't inhibited by the need to retain a seat in government like David Miliband's Guardian piece was, but there's scarcely any more substance.

"Everyone in Labour needs to stop obsessing about the past and to start obsessing about the future", he says at the end of the introduction, before talking at length about the past and coincidentally reminding us that he played a significant part in it. Beyond calling for a change of direction (and indirectly for a change of leader) he proposes no direction whatever. "Many of us who were proud to be members of Tony Blair's government had differing approaches even then, and certainly propose differing prescriptions now." That's as maybe, but there's none of them actually prepared to put their neck on the line (least of all Charles Clarke) and give us a prescription right now be it good bad or indifferent.

Labour doesn't need a change of direction in the slightest, it needs a direction, period. Right now it's not only directionless, it's rudderless. Charles Clarke could have taken this opportunity to tell us the direction he was advocating but he didn't, and it's easy to see why. He's as constrained as Miliband was, it's just that he's got his eye more on the future. Either he's planning to run himself, and doesn't want to give any potential rivals the edge by showing his hand too soon, or more likely he's simply hoping to be part of whichever campaign turns out to be the winning one and find himself suitably rewarded as a consequence. Proposals of his own might just queer his pitch on that one, better just to knife Gordon, then wait until the lie of the land becomes a bit clearer.

More on grave-robbing

Newman was, of course, unaware that he might one day achieve sainthood. But he was mindful that the church might, after his death, seek to intervene in determining the placement of his remains. Although a modest man, he was conscious of his international status as a cardinal and an esteemed Catholic theologian. He feared there might be attempts after he died to transfer his body to a mausoleum. That is why Newman three times added notes to his instructions to his executors which, according to the scholarship of the Christian historian Alan Bray, variously "confirm", "insist" and "command" that he be buried with St John.

Nothing could be clearer. Newman was absolutely insistent that he should be buried for ever alongside the man with whom he shared his life and home.

No Catholic tradition, dogma or ritual about cardinals and saints can justify the Vatican's heartless, self-serving decision to violate Newman's categorical, unambiguous instructions. No one gave the Pope permission to defy the cardinal's wishes. It is an act of shameless dishonesty and personal betrayal by the homophobic Catholic Church.

Peter Tatchell, writing on CIF today. I've made my own views clear already.

Anti-Semitism and the Green Party

Many people who are not members of the Green Party, and who would not at this time vote for it either, nonetheless feel sympathetic towards it and regard it as a valuable element on the political scene (I am myself such a person). They think its concerns are important ones, and they wish it well, in a general way. So it is an important matter if this Party, which aims to become part of the mainstream of political life in the UK, is unwilling to do what's needed to ensure that its commitment to anti-racism is a genuine one. If, instead, it turns into an institution that only rejects racism directed at the groups which it politically favours, and regards with complaisance discrimination and racist discourse targeting other groups, then that general well-wishing will (and should) evaporate.

I can add nothing whatever to what Eve Garrard says so eloquently over on normblog.

Down's syndrome, teenage pregnancy, Paul Flynn and the courtesies netiquette requires

Over on Read My Day, Paul Flynn offers his visitors 'solid blogging'. As MPs' blogs go it's not that bad (still quite stodgy though). Mixed in with the usual garden fêtes, community centre openings and astonishingly upbeat assessments of the Government's performance he does offer some off-message political opinions, and he's always ready to trade blows with his visitors through the comments.

Yesterday evening a Ms Rebecca Burt left a comment on the previous days post 'Obama's Palin Bonus' which struck such a chord with Paul that he quoted it in full in his subsequent post 'Some good news' (Rather than link here, I'll do so later, for reasons that should become apparent). Here, recovered from my internet cache, is what Paul actually posted:


Madam President Palin

This comment came into my blog this evening from Rebecca Burt. It’s, perfect, I would not want to change a word.

'Let's see...an ex-beauty pageant winner...with an undergraduate degree in Journalism...who does not believe in global warming...who does believe a woman should have no control over her own body and for 9 months should be viewed as nothing more than a baby container...who's main attributes seem to be stubbornness and vicious competiveness... who has had next to no experience in government...who has a currently very messy family situation given that she had recently given birth to a downs syndrome baby, has a 17 year old daughter who is unwed and pregnant
















and is facing investigation for using her political office to smear her ex-brother-in-law and get him fired (he is in a custody battle with her sister)...who seems to be in bed with big oil...who is running for VP...whose running mate is 72 and is a cancer survivor...who has no foreign policy background and in fact has only been out of the country twice...who may become President of the country I love at a time when it faces the most complex foreign policy issues, economic issues and domestic issues it has in decades...Why does this sound like a totally unbelievably bad novel???? I for one am terrified and cannot understand what Mr. McCain was thinking!!!!'
Posted on September 01, 2008 at 08:34 PM Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1104200/32976594

Note that "It's, perfect, I would not want to change a word"; I think we can take that as a pretty ringing endorsement of everything Ms Burt's had to say for herself. I was somewhat surprised since she chucks in a lot of comments that have nothing whatever to do with Ms Palin's fitness for office; the reference to her older daughter is at best juvenile, that to her baby with Down's syndrome frankly offensive. Ms Burt clearly likes to think herself a feminist, but at the same time resents Ms Palin having a career outside the home let alone allowing a 17 year old daughter to get pregnant (you'd have thought she'd have approved of that) . It's certainly not the sort of view I'd expect to find a Labour MP agreeing with (or an MP from any party come to that). So I left the following comment:

I think that there are one or two issues Rebecca Burt raised that you should have wanted to change, Paul. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think that having a young child with Down's syndrome, or for that matter a 17 year old daughter who is 'unwed' and pregnant (shock, horror!) should in any way disqualify Ms Palin from running as the US Vice President? Why should the fact that she is an 'ex-beauty pageant winner' be of any account?

Ms Palin's political background & beliefs and her lack of experience are a different manner, but I am surprised to find you endorsing Ms Burt's astonishingly offensive critique of her 'very messy family situation'. Unless of course the two of you really think that a mother's place is in the home.

Presumably Paul agreed with me, and hopefully felt suitably ashamed, since he carefully went through and erased all references to Ms Palin's baby with Down's syndrome; from Ms Burt's original posting, from his repost, and (rather clumsily) from my own comment. However, he then posted a follow-up comment which pointedly avoided all reference to his having made these edits, instead responding to my own as if his edited version were what I had written.

Pleased as I was that Paul had taken on board my criticism, I was somewhat annoyed by his failure to acknowledge the means by which he had done so since it left my edited comment strangely blunted set against his subsequent response. "Perfect, I would not want to change a word" is still there, even though it's now patently untrue. I've left a follow up suggesting he may wish to edit that too but although he's seen it he's chosen not to so far.

I would have thought it a matter of the most basic politeness to at least acknowledge when you have chosen to alter a comment left on your blog, particularly since you may well have changed the intended meaning or emphasis. I certainly would, and I'm disappointed Paul didn't.

Here's the link to Paul's amended post. Sadly, Rebecca Burt left no link back of her own.

Update: I've now had an exchange of emails with Paul about this. He claims that he sent me an email at the time, although it certainly never arrived. However, this is what he now says:

The health of politicians' children is not a proper subject for political controversy and I have deleted all reference to it from the contributions I had. In your case the only point you made was about the disease, so it had to be deleted. All other postings had deletions.

None of this addresses why it was that Paul chose to repost Ms Burt's reference to Down's syndrome in the first place given that it was so self-evidently offensive. Nor why he presumably still regards the pregnancy of Ms Palin's daughter as a proper subject for political controversy. Or for that matter why his post is still (at this point in time) making that "perfect, I would not want to change a word" claim.

Further update: Another exchange of emails. This is what Paul now has to say:

When someone tried to make a political issue of that one factor, it was then I decided that this was not a fit subject for a political wrangle. It would have with hindsight been better to remove the reference to the original letter. The same policy apples to the families of other politicians. As ALL references had been removed, there was no point is stirring up controversy by publishing your contribution. You have mis-informed the readers of your blog. You were informed on the address you provided.

So what he seems to be saying if I read him right is that it was ok for him to mention the baby with Down's syndrome until someone called him to account over it. Which means it was all my fault. That's alright then, all as plain as day.

Not quite sure what Paul understands 'misinformed' to mean. I certainly didn't leave him the wrong email; here it is from a screenshot taken just after I left my last comment on Paul's blog (it enters automatically since I ticked the 'remember personal info' box on an earlier occasion).

Looks like the same email address that you'll find if you use the 'Email me' link in the sidebar to me.

Shameless. That's the word I'd use.


[this issue is also being discussed over on Fora; if the comment posted there has indeed been left by Paul Flynn, then shameless is a considerable unerstatement.

I'll summarise what I've said there. This is not a political row. It is a row over whether Paul Flynn displayed poor judgement in endorsing wholesale as he did the views of a very immature young girl, and whether he then attempted to conceal that poor judgement by editing not only his post but several comments. He is not even well informed about Down's syndrome, it is not a disease. Such, I fear, is ignorance.]

It might as well rain until September (or maybe November).

I'm not sure quite how many last chances a Prime Minister can hope to enjoy. There's always the old adage about a cat having nine lives I suppose.

If there's a problem for Labour, it's that they've come to realise that settling for a 'coronation' doesn't guarantee a halfway decent leader let alone a great one, and it certainly doesn't guarantee any sort of subsequent loyalty from disaffected MPs, particularly those fearful of imminent unemployment. Brown may be long since dead and buried, but it means that at some point soon Labour will have to turn up not one but two credible candidates if the competition to find a successor is to have any meaning whatever. David Milliband has pretty much ruled himself out already - a Guardian article so short of substance as to be laughable, and then events in Georgia very publicly highlighting his continuing ineffectual performance as Foreign Secretary. There have been many who've been advising Brown to sack him for disloyalty but a canny PM would leave him be. He's in his own hole and he just keeps digging.

Since Jack Straw is a no-hoper of the first order it looks like Alan Johnson is the only realistic opponent for the lady. Bring it on.

There's no such thing as bad publicity

Another day, another blogger being threatened (or on this occasion taken down entirely). All pretty much a mirror of the problems faced by Dave Walker at the Cartoon Church blog I covered in an earlier post (and which I intend to return to at some point). This time a complainant appears to have threatened proceedings against the blog hosting DNS and gained the dubious benefit to be had from our absurd libel laws. I picked up on this through normblog, where Norman Geras has been highlighting the offensive and depressingly active antisemitism within the UCU over a considerable period.

So once again some blogging solidarity. This is the post that is believed to lie behind the dispute, which comes from 'Harry's Place' (sorry, no link as Harry's completely down as of now). You can find more elsewhere by now of course.

UCU and the David Duke Fan
Posted by David T August 22nd 2008 5:58 pm

The University and College Union maintains an email list for its activists, which is administered and monitored by the union. As Harry's Place readers know, the email list traffic is dominated by political extremists and almost entirely given over to their obsessive and nasty campaign to boycott Israeli academics.

The extremists are countered by a small number of Jews and anti-racists, many of them supporters of Engage. They are routinely defamed as racists, imperialists, Apartheid supporters, liars and conspirators. Quite a few of the Jews and anti-racists have been chucked off the list by the UCU administrators, arbitrarily, and usually for making public their complaints about the racism on the list.

There have been complaints to UCU about racism on its activist list. UCU has dismissed them all as baseless.

One of the formal complaints was made in relation to a series of particularly poisonous and nasty emails written by a Sheffield-based UCU activist called Jenna Delich. That complaint was also dismissed.

Yesterday Jenna Delich wrote the following message on the activist list in order to support a boycott of Israeli academics:

John,

In support to your link this may be a long but also an interesting reading:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/humanitarian-disaster_595.html

No comment necessary. The facts are speaking for themselves.

Jenna

JENNA DELICH

The website which she links to is the website of David Duke, who is the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and perhaps the most notorious racist and anti-semite in the world. The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke's website. It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.


So, in a nutshell, the position is this. The UCU refuses to take action against viciousness against Jews and anti-racists on its own activist list, and endorses their exclusion from that email list when they defend themselves. Meanwhile, the UCU is circulating links to David Duke's website on behalf of Delich.

What a wonderful institution UCU is.

For reasons of strict accuracy I have amended the caption for the photo - it originally said 'Sheffield-based academic, Jenna Delich - links to far right websites associated with the Ku Klux Klan'.

Jenna Delich and her supporters do not dispute that she sent the email in question. They say however that it was private (despite being circulated to around 700 UCU members and associates) and that Ms Delich did not appreciate the significance of the site she linked to. My own view? It's politics, if you give it out you've got to be prepared to take it.

By way of update: Harry's Place has returned with a somewhat braver hosting company I'm pleased to say. So you can see all the posts relating to this discussion (and the comments they have drawn). In republishing, the post above has been retitled 'UCU and the David Duke Link', the photo and caption have been removed. At this moment in time there are 352 comments on the post and they certainly make for lively reading.