Eric Clapton and the Impoverished German Widow

 So, Eric Clapton - estimated worth in the hundreds of millions of pounds - has successfully persecuted (sic) a German widow so hard up she was reduced to selling her dead husband's CDs on EBay.  One of which happened to be a copy of a bootleg recording of a concert - even though the widow says it was purchased legally from a music store.

A multi-millionaire suing a widow is very unpleasant, but as the Guardian notes, it is not the only unlikeable thing Clapton has done recently:

Clapton has made headlines in the past 18 months for taking a staunch stance against Covid-19 protective measures such as lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports.

He claimed to have experienced a severe physical reaction to his first dose of the AstraZeneca jab, and referred to scientific research – which has found vaccines to be safe and life-saving – as “propaganda”. 

 In December 2020, he collaborated with another noted vaccine sceptic, Van Morrison, on the song Stand and Deliver, which likens adherence to government restrictions to slavery. 

The song prompted the Black blues musician Robert Cray, who was born in segregated Georgia, to withdraw from supporting Clapton on his US summer tour as planned, the Washington Post reported. 

On that tour, Clapton was photographed posing with Texas governor Greg Abbott, who signed into law the country’s most restrictive abortion legislation and a measure to limit who can vote in the state.

I don't have a dog in the fight - I am not a German widow and I am of the opinion most of Clapton's musical output can be described as hateful and unpleasant, but that's subjective.  So let's not worry about the eternal crappy noodlings of Layla and I Shot The Sherriff.

Let's delve deeper into Clapton's personal history here.  I've been reading London Calling by Barry Miles, a history of London's counter-cultural underground.  It isn't quite as good as it should be (tldr: Hippies were good, punks were a bit crap really, there were some painters and artists and everyone drank too much, and Alex Trocchi was perhaps one of the worst human beings to ever exist) but it does include a recommendation from one Boris Johnson on the back ("I devoured this wonderful cultural history" - no you didn't, Boris.)

And it does mention a particularly pleasant episode in the Life And Adventures Of Eric Clapton, a sort of musical Lara Croft (though less buxom and unfortunately real) shamelessly raiding the graves of the Blues legends.  On the 5th of August, 1975, Clapton exhorted a crowd at a concert in Birmingham to vote for racist provocateur Enoch Powell:

Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!

Just take a moment to read that again and consider, this man has continued to enjoy a career as a revered (by people who like endless guitar wankery) musician.  Whatever your views on 'cancel culture' or separating the artist from the work, you have to admit, Clapton probably deserved just a tad more opprobrium than he received.  This is a man howling racist hate a crowd of thousands - who had come to hear him masturbate his guitar, now expound his political beliefs - and he's never been adequately censured for it.  Nowadays, he'd be shunned by fans, dropped by his record company and find it hard to book venues - and quite right too.

(After manually typing in the quote from the Miles book I discovered I could just have copied it from Wikipedia.  The Wiki version is even longer and more disgusting, so I have done just that.)

Clapton has, as far as I am aware, not apologised for his comments, merely trying to excuse himself by saying he didn't know what came over him and that whatever came out as a "garbled thing."  Eric, it wasn't garbled.  It was pretty clear what you were saying.  You wanted people to vote for Enoch Powell because you wanted foreigners - sorry, wogs - sent 'home.'

Clapton performed at a Nelson Mandela freedom concert (again, per Barry Miles) in 1988.  Jerry Dammers, from The Specials, reminded him of his comments from 1976 and suggested he could use this as an opportunity to balance the books: "You know, this is your chance to formally apologise for what you said."

Clapton declined the chance to show he is a decent human being, telling Uncut magazine, "I thought, "You must be fucking joking."  And I wouldn't do it.  I was so insulted."

Yeah, how insulting, holding someone accountable for their words and actions.

Eric has aligned himself with almost every reactionary political position going, defending the right of the aristocracy to tear foxes to pieces for entertainment, and of people in general (a true democrat!) to spread COVID-19 (on the day I write this, Britain set a new record for cases, almost breaking the 100,000 new cases barriers.  Eric must be proud of our efforts!)

Sadly, Eric's forthright positions have led to people ... not wanting to know him so much.  It's a bit late, and very disappointing it wasn't his unapologetic racism that led to people shunning him, but he is finding it harder to meet up with his old mates and buddies: 

In October, Clapton told a site run by a prominent anti-vax campaigner: “Over the past year, there’s been a lot of disappearing, you know – little dust around with people moving away quite quickly. And it has, for me, refined the kind of friendships I have. And it’s dwindled down to the people that I obviously really need and love.”

Eric, if one person think's you're a dick and cuts you off, maybe it's them that has the problem.  But when lots of people are doing it, maybe its you.

Out of the past - Tories to revive racist laws from the 16th century

Did you know there once was a time when it was illegal to be a gypsy (aka Romani) in Britain?

That was between 1530, when the Egyptians Act was passed, and 1856, when it was repealed.

Amongst other things, the act forbade the entry of 'Egyptians' into England, ordered those already there to leave the country with just sixteen days grace to do it in, and gave the state the power to seize their property and dispose of it.

The act wasn't absolutely successful as a few decades later Mary I passed a follow up act that grudgingly allowed the Romani to stay, as long as they abandoned their "naughty, idle and ungodly life and company". In other words, if they settled down, assimilated and started behaving like good christian souls.

If this all sounds a bit familiar it is because it isn't just because Nazi Germany also targeted Romani as one of its gateway genocides.  It's also a new policy proposal from the Conservative Party:

Police will be able to arrest travellers and seize caravans if they set up illegal campsites on private or public land. 

Strict new laws will make it a criminal offence to occupy land with the intention of setting up home there, without getting prior permission. 

Home Secretary Priti Patel has outlined proposals to give police the power to remove unwelcome visitors. 

Currently, trespass is considered a civil matter meaning landowners face a long and expensive legal battle to remove offenders. 

'Unauthorised encampments can cause misery to those who live nearby, with reports of damage to property, noise, abuse and littering,' Ms Patel told The Sun on Sunday. 

She added: 'The public want their communities protected and for the police to crack down on trespassers. 

'Our proposals aim to ensure these encampments can be challenged and removed as quickly as possible.' 

In the Republic of Ireland, 'unauthorised encampment' is a criminal offence. However there is also a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide sites for travellers. 

Ms Patel is aiming to copy the criminal offence system and is seeking views from councils, police forces, travellers and the public on alternative measures.

There is an issue underneath this - I wouldn't like twenty caravans turning up in my garden unannounced and uninvited.  Landowners (private or public) should be able to have unwelcome campers removed without "a long and expensive legal battle".

But the proposal Patel is making is pretty obvious dog whistle politics, playing on all manner of unpleasant stereotypes and bigotries, and cynically timed for the election.  I mean, the Tories have been in power for NINE AND A HALF YEARS.  In spite of their claims to hold the concerns of the Daily Mail middle Britain close to their heart, the Tories don't seem to have been too bothered about the 'issue' (also known as people) - until it became politically expedient to pander to socially acceptable racism.

Also note that the Irish system Patel claims to be using as a model has a legal obligation for camp sites to be set up for travellers.  Patel doesn't seem to be too bothered about that, as it is "the criminal offence system" she is interested in copying, while only seeking "views" on other aspects.

Musical aside - Scotland, alas, had similar legal prohibitions against Romani.  The Scottish outlaw / folk hero James MacPherson and some of his band were sentenced to death for the crime of "being Egyptians," commemorated in the Song MacPherson's Rant, supposedly composed by MacPherson himself the night before his execution:

Anti-Semitic images considered: the 'facehugger' on the Statue of Liberty

An occasional series where I will ponder allegations of anti-Semitism directed at the British Labour Party and its members.

In this case, we are thinking about an allegedly anti-Semitic image shared by a Labour Party member. Its origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism. Rather than reproduce the image itself, I will link to it. For those not wanting to sully their browser, it shows the Statue of Liberty with one of the 'facehugger' aliens from Alien attached to it's face. The alien has a Star of David on its back.

The image was shared by a Labour Party member. It's origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism.

It has been described as anti-Semitic because the Star of David identifies the alien with Jews, and thus Jews with the alien. Anti-Semitic discourse regularly describes Jews as sub-human, alien and parasitical. The idea that Jews are corrupting their 'host' culture (just as the alien implants an embryo in the host) is very common. The reading here is that Jews are the enemies of freedom (hence the host is Lady Liberty).

BUT there are two factors that have to be taken into consideration. First, the Star of David is blue, associating it with the Israeli flag rather than Jews in general. This could change the message slightly - it is probably more about free speech and the perception that Israel is trying to stop criticism of it (ironically by claiming anti-Semitism at every opportunity!).

That's a 'legitimate' message, though I find the image abhorrent for the reasons outlined above. it is to crude and easily read as applying to all Jews rather than a political criticism of Israel.  It is far worse than the mural in that regard.

I think the mural was intended as a critique of capitalism that was too easily interpreted as anti-Semitic due to the crudity of its execution; whereas this image seems too much like it is an anti-Semitic dog whistle - an image that is essentially anti-Semitic but which is trying to give itself a veneer of acceptability which fools people into thinking it is not poisonous. The woman who re-posted it probably naively saw it as a legitimate criticism of Israel, but it is far more than that.   She should have known better.

Also, it is not clear if the woman who posted it knew it was from a far right site. These images slosh around the internet, are passed on from one person to another, or show up in Google searches and the provenance may not be clear.  On this aspect, I am willing to give the woman in question the benefit of the doubt in that regard.  Of course, if it could be proven she visited the site and was aware of the sort of place it was, that would be another matter.

The woman in question was suspended and investigated.  The investigation concluded the image depicted "a monster with the Star of David printed on it on the face of the Statue of Liberty suggesting that Jewish people control America.” and that, though distasteful "these are generally distasteful cartoons about the perceived relationship [between] Israel and the US." I think they were probably a bit generous in their interpretation there.  I think she was very thoughtless and foolish.

She was given a formal warning about her posting; hoepfully, she shows better sense in the future.

Islamaphobia in the Conservative Party

And now this:

EXC: The Conservative Muslim chief has been expelled from the Tory Muslim group. Mohammed Amin tells me he has been expelled following an intervention by CCHQ because he criticised the 'moral integrity' of Boris Johnson: https://t.co/5pkY2JR1C2

— Shehab Khan (@ShehabKhan) 21 June 2019

The Tories are having a really stink couple of days. Obviously, the prospect of a conservative win must be making a lot of bigots feel legitimised and safe to express their hate.

n.b. He hasn't actually been expelled from the Conservative Party (yet) but has been forced to stand down from his role as chairman of the Conservative Muslim Group, for the sin of criticising the Dear-Leader-in-Waiting.

It seems you can't question Johnson's moral character ... even though the police have just been round to see if his girlfriend was alright.

Corbyn meets with Jewish representatives

So, the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews met with Jeremy Corbyn to discuss the issue of anti-Semitism in Labour. They say they found Labour leader's response wanting.

After a meeting with Mr Corbyn, which lasted more than two hours, the organisations said in a statement: "We are disappointed that Mr Corbyn's proposals fell short of the minimum level of action which our letter suggested. 

"Words in letters and newspaper articles will never be enough. We welcome the fact that Mr Corbyn's words have changed but it is action by which the Jewish community will judge him and the Labour Party."

The actual list of suggestions they presented to Corbyn which they feel he was unforthcoming on are as follows (my immediate thoughts in italics):

• A fixed timetable to deal with anti-Semitism cases 

Why just anti-Semitism? Why not all cases? Fixed timetables are always problematic as cases can be problematic. If the timetable is not met, what happens? Is the member automatically excluded, or are charges dropped? I don't think that either outcome is really useful.

• Expedite the long-standing cases involving Mr Livingstone and suspended party activist Jackie Walker

I agree Livingston has been allowed to fester. But this is outwith Corbyn's power. This lies with the NEC. The decision to suspend Livingston 'indefinitely' was taken by the former incarnation of the NEC under Iain McNicol.

• No MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for anti-Semitism 

Again, why the special rule for this particular offense? Why not racism or homophobia or just being scum? As it would apply to all members it could make something as simple as appearing on Question Time problematic. It would also hand power to the anti-Semites, who could effectively bar Labour MPs from appearing on any platform, just by being there. Far better to accept that there are times when MPs may have to share a platform with someone objectionable, and hold them very accountable for what they say.

• Adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism

I probably wouldn't have a issue with that. It is a straightforward definition.  Some people don't like it as they feel it conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but I don't see it.  If you can't manage to criticise Israel without coming across as a Jew hating lunatic, then you probably are a Jew-hating lunatic.

• Transparent oversight of the disciplinary process

I'm not comfortable with the idea that internal Labour Party issues are to be made 'transparent' - does that mean public? There are all manner of issues around this. Remember that disciplinary issues can result in someone being cleared - having their reputation damaged by the investigation process would be very problematic. Remember what happened to Carl Sargeant? He didn't even have any allegations publicised.

As you can see, a lot of them rely on unacceptable special pleading or violate principles of natural justice.

I am interested to know if they have issued a similar set of demands for the Conservative party?  Surely they can't be saying there is no anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party, or that its provisions for dealing with it are flawless?

A stronger message would have been one the removed some of the special pleading and focused on all forms of racism or bigotry aimed at the individual; and one that was clearly expected of all parties.  Developing a 'Code of Conduct' for for all political parties to deal with complaints like this would have been more useful than what seems to be their politically motivated campaign to target Labour and Corbyn.

More on Labour / Anti-Semitism

So, someone decided to stage a Three Billboards style protest about anti-Semitism outside Labour Party headquarters.

Clever, eh?  That'll show that nasty old anti-Semitic Labour Party the errors of its ways.

Obviously a stunt like that requires a bit off effort and money to stage.  It was carried off by something called "Community United against Labour Party Antisemitism’ aka Culpa.

Their spokesman is someone called Jonathan Hoffman who seems to be quite vociferous on twitter about anti-Semitism and how much he dislikes Jeremy Corbyn.  Beyond his high volme tweeting, Mr Hoffman has a considerable cyber-footprint.

Let's look into some of the organisations that have hosted Mr Hoffman's views, shall we?

• On visiting the United With Israel website, I was prompted to watch "A moving tribute to fallen IDF soldiers" and asked whether I thought Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel.
• Harry's Place is somewhere I haven't looked at in years. Glancing in today I see the first article, by 'Lucy Lips' describing Jewish Voice Labour ' as 'Quislings.' Quisling, you will recall, is the fellow who served as a Nazi figurehead in Norway in WW2. Yup, that's someone describing Jews as Nazi collaborators. Wonder if that will get bigged up by Jonathan Hoffman? Or is it only ant-Semitic if Corbyn does it, Jonno?

• UK Media Watch admits openly (though perhaps disingenuously) that it was established to promote "Fair and accurate coverage of Israel."
• Z-Word seems to be a defunct, indeed perhaps entirely deleted, blog, run by the American Jewish Committee which describes its mission as "Advocating for Israel and the Jewish People." Interesting they put Israel first ...

Hoffman was also, apparently, chairman of something called the Zionist Federation until 2012, at which point he seems to have been booted out of it for abusing people he did not agree with and for cosying up to the racist English Defence League. I am not making this up.

It was interesting to discover the intriguing connections between an anti-Corbyn stunt and various pro-Israel organisations. This is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it is obviously a hatchet job on Corbyn because of his pro-Palestinian views and links.

Labour and Anti-Semitism (probably the first of many)

So, you might wonder what has prompted me to stir in my Cthulhuesque slumber?

Today in parliament a debate was held on the issue of anti-Semitism.  Its a rather important issue and one which - you'd hope - would transcend party politics.  Sajid Javid, opening the debate for the Conservatives:

"While I would much rather that this issue transcended party politics [It does, there are plenty of anti-Semites in your own party.  The problem is that you are incapable of transcending party politics.] as other forms of racism have done for a long time, we cannot and we must not ignore the particular concern with elements within the Labour party [but we'll pretend there isn't anything to worry about in the Tory party]. Nor can we ignore the fact that this increasing concern has correlated with the current leader of the opposition, and the waves of activists that have come with him [Even though research has indicated anti-Semitic attitudes have waned since Corbyn became leader and the are less common in Labour now than in the Conservatives. Those activists - also known as young people - are far more likely to reject anti-Semitism than older people, who disproportionately support the Conservatives].”

 Javid uses a debate on a serious issue to attack Labour and Corbyn, and accuses young people of being swivel-eyed anti-Semites. You wonder why young people scorn the Tories?

 He also says, "I thank the leader of the opposition for attending this debate. It won’t perhaps be the most comfortable three hours of debate that he has sat in on, but he makes the most of it and his effort is appreciated for attending. There has, frankly, been a deeply worrying lack of leadership and moral clarity on this issue from him."

Clearly indicating that this is simply going to be a party political attack on Labour, and particualrly on Corbyn; and repeating the false claim that Corbyn is somehow vacillating because he isn't doing things he is not actually able to do.

There are words to describe him, but they can not be used here.

Obviously, there have been constant allegations, insinuations and unfortunate interventions from George Galloway:

Make no mistake. This is a #Coup against Corbyn #ProudOfCorbyn

— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) 17 April 2018

(Can anyone recall a post-2004 intervention by George Galloway that was not unfortunate?  why is he even a thing anymore?)

I'll try to post some of my branes on this issue ... and other stuff as well.

I'm sure my thoughts will have as decisive an impact in the matter of anti-Semitism as they have on every other matter.

Labour and anti-Semitism

It's been a bit interesting watching the current shit storm in Britain.

It reeks of right-wing desperation.  Are they really reduced to trawling through the pre-parliamentary twitter feeds and online wibblings of Labour MPs to find anything that can be spun as dicreditable.

I refer, of course, to the fuss about Naz Shah's comments - made two years ago, before she became an MP - about relocating Israel to the USA as a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem.

In subsequent events, Labour veteran loudmouth Ken Livingstone may finally have gone too far and be forced to retire in disgrace, a sad end to a career in politics that has been amusing, infuriating and only sometimes offensive.

First, Ms Shah.  Yeah, she made some thoughtless comments on Twitter.  Were they anti-Semitic?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Just a bit crass, and only anti-Semitic if you are one of these people who conflate Israel with all Jews.

It was interesting watching how this story was reported.

The Mail's first few paragraphs is a masterclass in disingenuous reporting, making it sound like she did it recently, while in her role as an MP:

A Labour MP today has resigned as an aide to John McDonnell after sharing a graphic on social media that appeared to say Israel should be 'relocated' to America.

Bradford West MP Naz Shah shared an image that showed an outline of Israel superimposed on to a map of the USA.

The headline on the image said: 'Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict - Relocate Israel into United States.'

Note 'A Labour MP today has resigned as an aide to John McDonnell after sharing a graphic' - yeah, almost 2 years afterwards she shared it, and a year after becoming an MP. And 'Bradford West MP Naz Shah shared an image' - the Bradford MP Naz Shah did nothing of the kind, Naz Shah, did, before she became the MP for Bradford West.

Clever, though disheartening stuff.

Whereas Shah's action was not clever, and also disheartening.

Ken Livingstone's intervention is more problematic.  In fact, he should be banished from the party and should be sacked and thrown in the Thames. Not because of what he said, as much as the stupidity of opening his mouth and turning an annoyance into a crisis. Government looking useless and divided, the first polls showing Labour in the lead, a bit of a hint of Corbyn starting to impinge on the public consciousness as something more than a bizarre situationist prank, and then Livingstone goes and shoots his mouth off.

He's actually managed to make things much worse for Shah. Her silliness - two years ago, before parliament - would have been forgotten and after an 'investigation' and a stern talking to she could have been re-admitted. But Livingstone - who should know better, given he's been around for a colossally long time and presumably knows a few things about the right wing media works - should have anticipated what would happen if he started shooting his mouth off.

Now there will be far more swivel eyed attention paid to Shah's case, and it is possible she won't be back in at.

It's monumentally depressing.

Almost as depressing as this extremely depressing article by George Eaton in New Statesman, puffing up a bunch of rumours and snipes from the Labour right.  Not exactly fair, balanced coverage there, George.

The central contention is that Jermey Corbyn is not up to tackling anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

Only, he has been.

Post Options Post by lala on 26 minutes ago People are screaming and running around like idiots as if this is a new thing, and Corbyn et al are fumbling to make a response to the scorching searchlight now being shone on them ... When Labour has actually been addressing the issue of anti-Semites and racists in the party before it became a Meja sensayshun:

A Labour councillor has been suspended from the party over anti-Semitic comments on her Twitter account. 

A message on Luton councillor Aysegul Gurbuz's Twitter feed claimed Hitler was the "greatest man in history". 

Another tweet on Ms Gurbaz's account suggested Iran could develop a nuclear weapon to "wipe Israel off the map". 

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said anyone who makes anti-Semitic remarks is "auto-excluded from the party" pending an inquiry.

Note that this story is dated the 10th of April, well before the Mail et al became hypocritically excited about anti-Semitism.  But Corbyn's position is quite clear.  Anti-Semitism is not tolerated.  Suspension pending investigation.

Yet still the right wing of his party - more interested in destablizing him, still afflicted by the deranged idea that he can be overthrown, are trying to stir up trouble and make out that he is dithering and is not trying to address the problem.

The Sun is ordered not to be so bigoted, hate-filled and rong (sic)

Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper has been ordered to retract a story that claimed 1 in 5 British Muslims supported people moving to Syria to fight for 'jihadi' groups such as ISIS.

The Sun has been ordered to print a statement acknowledging that its claims that one in five British Muslims supported people who have gone to Syria to fight for jihadi groups such as Islamic State were significantly misleading.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) said a front page article from 23 November last year – as well as more coverage inside the paper – misrepresented the results of the poll on which they were based because the relevant question in its poll did not support the claim.

Respondents were asked to what extent they had sympathy with “young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”, rather than with those who went to fight with Isis or any other Islamist group.

But, while Ipso upheld the complaint it investigated, the paper was spared having to print notice of the adjudication on its front page. The watchdog said the newspaper had agreed to publish the notice on page two of Saturday’s edition, having been ordered to place it no further back than page five.

“While the newspaper was entitled to interpret the poll’s findings, taken in its entirety, the coverage presented as a fact that the poll showed that one in five British Muslims had sympathy for those who left to join Isis and for Isis itself,” Ipso said.

“In fact, neither the question, nor the answers which referred to ‘sympathy’, made reference to [Isis]. The newspaper had failed to take appropriate care in its presentation of the poll results and, as a result, the coverage was significantly misleading.”

Might take more than a mealy-mouthed correction on page two to stop the Sun being bigoted, hate-filled and rong (sic) but it is a start.

Sweet Baby Jesus Wept: The Mail

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has been having a fine old time with the horrible accounts emerging from Cologne.

What better way of stirring up bigotry and hysteria (the Mail's stock in trade when Kim K is not showing us her arse) than running dozens of stories about Muslims molesting European women?

Even better when it is being claimed that the perpetrators are asylum seekers, ungrateful refugees repaying German generosity by sexually assaulting and robbing vulnerable women?

Today the Mail reached a pinnacle of irresponsibility, running a story headlined, "18 Cologne sex attackers were asylum seekers". The implication is pretty clear - 18 people charged with sexual assaults were refugees.

The juxtaposition is pretty clear, leading the reader to think, reasonably, that 18 people who committed sex attacks at Cologne have been revealed to be asylum seekers.

Only, no-one has actually been charged with a sexual assault in relation to the events on New Year's Eve.

So far, 31 people have been arrested.  As the Mail admits, far down the article, "None of the 31 has been accused of specifically committing sexual assaults, the aspect of Cologne's disturbances that attracted most public outrage at home and abroad."

So the 18 "sex attackers" were - based on what they have been charged with so far - likely thieves and brawlers.

But let's not miss a chance to smear refugees and drum up a bit of hate, eh?

This whole story has been horribly exploited by the neo-fascist right.  Social media has been brilliantly manipulated.  Rumours and unsubstantiated claims have been spread, supposed conspiracies exposed and continual conflation of any Arab or North African involved in criminality with 'refugees' .

It is depressing - though not entirely surprising - to see the Mail following this lead with such gleeful insouciance.

Power without responsibility, and all that.

Now, will someone put the NZ Labour Party out of our misery?

Watching the instant-and-completely-avoidable implosion of the Labour Party over the racial profiling of Auckland home buyers is ... bloody awful, actually.

Who could have ever thought this was a good idea?

Let me be clear - I agree that there is a problem.  I support legislation/regulations that limit overseas investment in NZ property/land.  Leaving the door open for foreign property investors is lunacy.  It is impossible to even pretend you want to rectify the housing market when there is a route for off shore, non-resident speculators to pile money into the market.

There are 4 million New Zealanders.  There are tens of millions of potential investors looking for laxly regulated markets to put money into.

But that's bye-the-bye, because any rational debate on the issue has been torpedoed by Phil Twyford's dismal ploy.

Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt for the moment.  Don't worry, I'll take that benefit back in a moment.

The best gloss you can put on this is that Phil Twyford is monumentally stupid.  That it was a hopelessly useless miscalculation of how this would be received by the media, the Asian population of New Zealand, and sane people all around the country of any ethnicity.

So, if we assume the best possible intentions on Twyford's part, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's utterly, abominably useless, dimwitted to the point that he's probably only capble of earning a living opening doors for people, like one of the deliberately cultivated Epsilion minus semi-morons in Brave New World.

He shouldn't be allowed on facebook, be given a mobile phone, cups of hot liquid or anything sharp.  He certainly shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, though thankfully he may just have ensured that will never happen.

Now, I don't think Twyford is that much of an idiot.  I do think he has shown himself to be deeply ammoral and unscrupulous.

I think this list was appalling and racist. I further also think it was deliberate.  Stupid dog whistling and pandering to the dim witted idea of what a New Zealander is, a miserable attempt to appeal tot h same democraphic [sic] of knuckle-dragging apemen that Don Brash appealed to with his brown-bashing, beni-bashing, racist sexist trolling of the 2005 election.

But that doesn't get around the fundamental massive stupidity of all this.  Twford and the Labour leadership did not see how this would play out.  They did not see the wave of revulsion - both genuine and affected - that broke upon them.

Did they learn nothing from Dirty Politics and the 2015 election? The media would never give this a fair hearing (not that it deserved one). Never mid that it faux outrage voiced by smug biased hypocrites. If Labouy didn't realise how this would play out, they are fools.

Obviously, they didn't realise how it would play out, as they wouldn't invite this sort of opprobrium on themselves.

So they are fools.

Oh well, there is always 2021.

Worth reading

I won't try to put into my own (white, privileged, middle-class) words what Gary Yonge manages to express so eloquently in his own.

It's long, but worth reading.

Nasty Tory SHOCKAH!!

A Conservative local election candidate who said she could never support "the Jew" Ed Miliband has been suspended. 

Gulzabeen Afsar, a council candidate in Derby, made the comment on Facebook. In a post, she said: "Just can't take Mr Ed Miliband seriously!" and later said: "Never ever will I drop that low and support the Al Yahud!". 

Al Yahud is Arabic for "the Jew". 

The Conservative party said her comment was "offensive and wrong" and a full disciplinary hearing would follow. 

In a statement, Philip Hickson, chairman of the local Conservative association, said: "There is no place in the Conservative Party for these comments or attitudes either in Derby or anywhere else.

 BBC

The barrel full of Stupid Tories is a very big barrel.  I doubt, even now, that we are anywhere near scraping the bottom of it.

Target Obama! Any Obama!

Does the American right have a problem with women?  That's sort of a rhetorical question, of course.  It is pretty obvious that they do.

Not all parts of the right, perhaps, and not all women.  But enough of them to make the question valid.

Some parts of the right.  Real conservatives, who may be slightly fuddyduddy and myopic (they may need a new prescription for their rose-tinted glasses) but are blessed with a certain chivalrous attitude, which may be rather old fashioned (positively ante-bellum) but which at least embodies a basic courtesy and decency.  They know what is on, and what is not on.  And while they may think hemlines exposing ankles, non-gingham dresses and VOTING are terrible, their sense of decorum prevents them from doing more than looking slightly pained.

A large swathe of what might be loosely called the right, however, knows no such restraint.  Here I am thinking primarily about the more modern, economically right wing section.  Which is strange, because you would have thought that modern market liberals would be inclined towards social liberalism as well - at least, you'd have thought they don't hate women who dare to do things like be successful at things other than cake baking and child making.  But there is plenty of evidence that they do.

Oddly, it seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon.  Ronald Reagan managed to be both ferociously right wing economically while still embodying some sort of olde-world courtesy.  As long as you weren't an air traffic controller, he would treat you with respect and decency.  If you were unlucky enough to come from a socially disadvantaged minority, he might cut funding for programmes designed to help you - but at least he wouldn't be rude about it.  And he was always polite to Margaret Thatcher, which must have strained even his reserves of charm.  But the adherents of Reaganism only seemed to have inherited the slash-and-burn free market mentality, and ditched the chivalry.

Since the 90s at least, this section of the right has been vitriolic in its attacks on women.  In his book, Blinded By The Right, David Brock recounts being commissioned to do hatchet jobs first on Anita Hill and then on Hilary Rodham Clinton when he was the "rightwing Bob Woodward" (only without Woodward's ethical sense or commitment to fact checking).  In his memoir about his disillusionment with the right, he notes that Clinton was "easily the most reviled figure on the national scene, even more so than her husband ... Critics [sic] compared Hilary to Leona Helmsley, Ma Barker, Eva Braun, and minister Louis Farrakhan."  He also quotes speculation about her sexuality, and Anne Coulter referring to Hilary Clinton as a "Prostitute."

Bear in mind, this is the mid 90s, when Hilary was not manifesting presidential ambitions of her own.  Since when did political wives become fair game in this way? I don't recall Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Laura Bush being subjected to this hatred.  Hell, the only reason I could recall Barbara Bush's name was because the Beach Boys sang Barbara-Anne at her husband's inauguration.

Of course, these ladies kept very much in the background, doing little more as First Lady than providing a wholesome backdrop for their husbands.  Hilary was unashamedly ambitious and - to be fair - the rank Clinton marital situation warranted some investigation.  But to argue Bill's endless skirt-chasing justified attacks on Hillary is tenuous, to put it mildly.  There is something deeper here, some sort of issue with successful, public, confident women who don't conform to idealised images of feminine behaviour and - horror of horrors - are left wing (by American standards).  And it is down right creepy.  Think of the seedy fantasies peddled around the right about just what went on in the Clinton bedroom (can anyone recall similar speculation about the marital relations between George W and Laura Bush?  I can't.)

It isn't just Hilary Clinton, of course, though her case stands as a grim illustration of just how far the right will go.  Brock also infamously savaged Anita Hill and cites plenty of other examples of ramapnt misogyny, often tinged with a bit of racial hate as well - Clint Bolick's campaign against Clinton's nominee, Lani Guiner, featured the racially tinged epithet "quota queen".  You can't help wondering if the continual stream of misogynistic ranting helped frame Jared Lee Loughner's madness, and focused his wrath on Gabrielle Giffords.  He expressed the 'opinion' that women shouldn't be in positions of power, and referred to her as a bitch.  Which is bad enough.  And then he shot her.

Which brings me to the Obamas.  It's hard to imagine a nicer couple in the white house, regardless of your opinion of their politics.  He's handsome and clean living, she's attractive and successful in her own right.  They have two lovely daughters.  Oh yes, you might have heard about them, recently, being described as ungracious tarts and tramps ...unsurprisingly, a right wing commentator.  That's right folks, it isn't enough to attack a man in power, or smear his woman, his children are now fair game.

(For the record, I can't even recall if Reagan or Bush I or II had children.  I know Clinton did, because the right wing media liked to focus on her and show unflattering pictures and Rush Limbaugh referred to her as a 'dog'.  Nice going, Rush.)

Michelle has also come in for negative attention.  I argue a lot on the interweb, and recall a discussion with a British right winger in which he speculated with just a bit too much interest in what might happen in the Obama bedroom.  Slightly more significantly, we have a yarn doing the rounds, concerning about how Michelle has twisted an anecdote she told as a positive experience two years ago, into an example of everyday racism, post Michael Brown.

Basically, in the first version of the story, Michelle describes going to Target in disguise and how a woman asks her to get something from a shelf:

No one knew that was me because a woman actually walked up to me, right? I was in the detergent aisle, and she said — I kid you not — she said, ‘Excuse me, I just have to ask you something,’ and I thought, ‘Oh, cover’s blown.’ She said, ‘Can you reach on that shelf and hand me the detergent?’ I kid you not…And the only thing she said — I reached up, ’cause she was short, and I reached up, pulled it down — she said, ‘Well, you didn’t have to make it look so easy.’ That was my interaction. I felt so good. … She had no idea who I was.

So she 'felt so good' and wasn't it cute and heartwarming and yaddah yaddah yaddah.  Thn, two year later, according to the right wing narrative, she's re-telling the same story, but with a different spin on it:

I tell this story – I mean, even as the first lady – during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.

See the difference?  The heartwarming has been transmogrified into the harrowing.  The first lady is being mistaken for a shop assistant!  Because she is black!

That's the right wing spin on it, of course.  Don't take my word for it.  Here's the lad himself, the chap responsible for highlighting this glaring example of hypocrisy - the not at all worryingly named 'Allahpundit':

Are there any Targets in the metro D.C. area where the employees don’t wear red polo shirts with Target logos on them? They do in every one I’ve ever been to. Which means, unless FLOTUS was disguised as a Target employee, the odds that anyone shopping there thought she was “the help” are small. I myself have been asked in the grocery store by a fellow customer to help them get something off the top shelf. You know why? It’s not because they thought I worked there; I had a cart just like they did. It’s because they were short and I was tall enough to reach — just like FLOTUS, who stands almost six feet. That’s her “racism” story at Target.

Only, alas, Allahpundit is so blinded by his own hating he can't see what the story is actually about.  The issue Michelle is raising is not that someone asked her for help - that's still presented as a sweet encounter ("she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her") but the way that she felt she was being ignored by the staff - "the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her".  The point she is trying to make is that the stores salespeople were not interested in her, presumably because she was black and so viewed as low value - a phenomenon that has been commented on by many minority ethnic groups.

(It is worth noting that Michelle doesn't tell us the ethnicity of the woman asking her for help - Allahpundit simply assumes she is white.  Big assumption, and rather revealing about his/her attitude.  Or perhaps his/her knowledge that the story only works if this person is white.)

But Allahpundit, blinded by his right wing hate, can't see it.  Because no power on Earth exceeds the power of the right ... to delude and bamboozle itself.

Trayvon Martins

Like all sane people, I'm disgusted about the shooting of Trayvon Martins, and the apparent carte blanche extended to his killer. A young man walking home is shot by a fat necked freak on a power trip, who stalked him and triggered a confrontation.

There was a good piece by Gary Yonge in the Gaurdian on this:

One can only speculate as to Zimmerman's intentions. Efforts to create a crude morality play around this shooting in which Martin is sanctified and Zimmerman is pathologised miss the point. Zimmerman's assumptions on seeing Martin may have been reprehensible but they were not illogical. Black men in America are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted and executed than any other group. With almost one in 10 black men behind bars there are more of them in prison, on probation or on parole today than were enslaved in 1850. To assume that when you see a black man you see a criminal is rooted in the fact that black men have been systematically criminalised. That excuses nothing but explains a great deal.

Add to this lax gun laws, entrenched segregation, deep economic inequalities and a statute that endorses vigilantism, and a murder of this kind is inevitable. Indeed what makes Martin's case noteworthy is not that it happened but that it has sparked such widespread indignation beyond his immediate community. It is not at all uncommon for young black men to leave the world in a shower of bullets followed by deafening silence.

Eight kids under the age of 19 are killed by guns in America every day. While researching the stories of those who fell one November day in 2006 I ran across the story of Brandon Moore. Brandon was 16 when he was shot in the back in the middle of the afternoon by an off-duty cop moonlighting as a security guard in Detroit. The guard had previously shot a man dead during a neighbourhood fracas, shot his wife (though not fatally) in a domestic dispute and had been involved in a fatal hit-and-run car accident while under the influence of alcohol. Brandon's death was dismissed in the city's two main newspapers in less than 200 words. They never even mentioned his name. Brandon's death was ruled to be justifiable homicide. A year later the guard was still in the police force.

the latest developments include the claim that Zimmerman's taped conversation with 911 has been edited to make him seem more gung-ho, and quicker to identify the suspect as black than was actually the case. Putting aside the merits of the case for the moment, am I the only one dazed by the absurdity of this claim, advanced as it is by the very same band of people who happily swallow and then regurgitate every bit of misrepresentative, misquoted puss Anthony Watts vomits up about climate change? Rich indeed. the same bunch of wingnuts who blithely quoted Rush Limbaugh's severely edited version of Danny Glover's comments about the Haiti earthquake? And, more recently, drank down the warm piss of Watts, alleging Jim Hansen claimed AGW would make the oceans boil? the freaks who won't shut up about 'Climategate'?

Have they actually changed anything he said, or presented anything so drastically out of context as to change its meaning? Or just cut lots of snuffling, muttering and heavy breathing?

"He didn't comment on Martins's skin colour until the responder asked him about it," they wail. Indeed. But it's a bit childish to suggest Zimmerman doesn't notice Martins's skin colour until someone asks him about it, don't you think?

Until you can provide evidence that Martins stalked Zimmerman, confronted him and was killed while trying to beat him to death with a packet of skittles, I think the 'Cruelly Misrepresented by the Liberal Media' card should stay safely up the sleeves, boys.

The other contention is that this isn't about race at all. Treyvon Martins was not killed because he was black, but because of the insanity of letting power hungry neanderthals handle guns and think they have the right to use them on their fellows.

There's some truth in that, but as race and class overlap significantly (when you're black) it's fruitless to try to disentangle them. Would Zimmerman have acted the same if it had been a white male hoodie wearing bearer-of-skittles? We don't know. To some extent, it doesn't matter - if this case was all about the hoodie, the other 99 similar cases were more about the skin tone. But I'm willing to bet the amount of melanin in Martins' skin had at least as much influence on Zimmerman's response as the hoodie, the victim' s sex, and the skittles. A white kid clowning around in the rain would have been more liekly to be dismissed as just that - a white kid clowning in the rain, not some drugged up criminal intent on malfeasance.