Tuesday, October 24, 2006

I'm gong to write a LETTER to the BLOODY GUARDIAN about THIS!

In today's newspaper, there is a jointly signed letter. Jointly signed by a bunch of people who could only, really charitably, be described as the jackmanape's scourings of a lock hospital pisspot, I might add.

But I won't. Anyway, it starts:
"We deplore Jack Straw's remarks concerning the veil.... blah blah blah ... bullying attacks by John Reid .... blah blah blah..."
If any of these pricks can find even one word - ONE WORD spoken by Straw, Reid or any other Minister, that doesn't fall into the category of 'fair comment' in a liberal democracy, then I will volunteer to suck John Pilger's ample manhood until it comes off. This is not a commitment that anyone should make lightly. A number of these signatories are the loudest of defenders of free speech when it suits them. But now they want everyone to tread on eggshells.

They go on to include the media in this tirade. Nothing wrong with that of course. I don't read any of the shit-sheets concerned, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the guttersnipes had taken the words of a Minister, fiddled with them, and used them to stir things up a bit. A bit of deniable encouragement for skinheads everywhere. It wouldn't be the first time.

But looking at the signatories, I think we've isolated pretty-well the only demographic that think - in the great scheme of moral cause and effect - that Government Minsters can be held responsible for the elaborations, falsifications, additions and misrepresentations on their words by a bunch of lying liars who wouldn't know how to present the facts honestly if they were asked to do so on pain of Scaphism.

But back to the whole snivelling wreck of dishonesty and pusilanimity that is The Letter To The Bloody Guardian!
"Current attacks on Muslims are rooted in the "war on terror" - a war which has made Britain more vulnerable, not less, to terrorist attack. If the Government is concerned about improving cohesion, let it first abandon its support for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan."
There you have it. Distilled into two sentences; Simplification, nihilism, appeasement, and a rush to amplify the vilest of threats. Like Lord Haw-Haw but with a copy of New Left Review on the poufee. A few of the signatories have gone on the record as supporters of 'the resistance'. But to Pilger and Benn, ... well... you can't afford to be picky at times like these, can you?

The letter concludes...
"Today, Comrades, we lie with dogs. Tomorrow, we will rise with fleas!"
OK, I admit it. I made that last bit up.


Bob Piper said...

"If any of these pricks can find even one word - ONE WORD spoken by Straw, Reid or any other Minister, that doesn't fall into the category of 'fair comment' in a liberal democracy"

That may well be true, Paulie, but in such a liberal democracy, the signatories have as much right to savage John Reid as you have to attack them, so I'm not entirely sure why you are getting so excited... unless you are hoping someone can find something to allow you to get your lips around John Pilger's pride and joy.

I'm also touched by your vision of a free and independent media that wouldn't consider for one second poking a stick at a hornet's nest in order to promote the image of those who may want to promote themselves in a leadership beauty contest.

Paulie said...

I have no plans to ban them from writing letters to the Guardian Bob. They probably made my point more eloquently than I could have done anyway.

And I doubt if The Sun or any of the other rags need the deputy leadership contest to turn the heat up under an issue like this.

Given the nature of the electorate, I doubt if racist rabble rousing will do any of the candidates much good in that contest.

Ivan said...

I know these signatories annoy the fuck out of you. And sure, all is fair comment in a liberal democracy.
But we ignore the power relationships at our peril. Straw, Reid rabble rouse in the basest of fashion. It may be akin to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
For example, on Jack Straw's calm and considered commentary we are entitled to ask, why now? Are veils really such an issue that he needed to raise them (no pun intended) at this precise moment in time? Couldn't he have waited a year or three, for calmer times? No, of course not, because that would have had no effect whatsoever.
You say that the Ministers' words are misrepresented by a lying press, but I say that Jack Straw said one thing and said it very precisely because he wanted a response. Or he's an idiot.
What's wrong with treading on eggshells sometimes? And what's wrong with speaking truth to power? I thought that was our job?