It should be a law that bad books should be small, so that those who insist, foolishly, on finishing every book they start, are not subjected to the trauma of spending weeks or months in the company of bad books. Alas, it is not so. Credo, by Melvyn Bragg, is a very poor book. It is about nine hundred pages long, and I don't think I enjoyed a single one of them. Baudolino, by Umberto Eco, is a slender five hundred pages long, but by the time I reached the end I was fuming, and wondering if I could scrape together the monies to go to Italy and through the book in Eco's face.
One reason I am so annoyed is that I had really high hopes for this novel. I thought the Name of the Rose was very good. I'm disposed to like Umberto Eco, because he's fantastically clever and not ashamed of it, and also because, as he is a semiotician, it would be easier - and hence less interesting - to dislike him.
Baudolino promised to be good. It is set int he Dark Ages, culminating with the sacking of Byzantium by the rabble of the Fourth Crusade. I like the 9so-called) Dark ages. I like tales of adventure and warfare, and this book promised this. I also like clever writers, and Eco is certainly clever.
The first chapter of Baudolino is fantastic. It is supposed to be the narrative of Baudolino, scrawled on parchemnt filched from his mentor. He has scrapped it clea of what was written on it, but imperfectly. Also, Baudolino, at this stage, is only semi-literate. So the opening chapter is confused and exhilarating, as we pick our way through the jumble of Latin fragments from the text that preceded Baudolino's, straining to catch the meaning of his erratic syntax and spelling. It is a treat. This, surely, is what clever Professors turned writers should be doing - showing us, in a playful way, what a delight the simple act of reading can be.
Unfortunately, after that fabulous opening gambit, Eco decides not to bother with the shambling prose of his peasant boy hero, and fast forwards to his dotage, where he recounts his life to Niketa, a Byzantium official recently rescued from maurading Crusaders. So out goes the teasing muddle of the opening chapter, and it is replaced by a very long, eventful tale, which is rendered lifeless by the bland and spiritless style in which it is told.
It shouldn't be like this. There are endless sieges, battles, a murder mystery, a quest, sex with fantastical creatures and parisian whores, debates about the nature of the world, faith, and enough major characters to populate a small Balkan country. But the flaw is the way in which the tale is told. It is like Eco used up all his energy in that first chapter, and after that can't be bothered trying to make the subsequent tale challenging, or even interesting. One is tempted to speculate that he dreamed up the idea for the opening chapter, then had to come up with a story to append to it.
It might seem odd to accuse the author of a five hundred page book of 'Can't be arsed-ness' but Baudolino often feels like Eco can not be bothered with his story. Scenes and events seem to bore him, so he trundles on another dramatic happening to see if that one will be more amusing. it isn't, so along comes another, and another. Soon, one realises, a lot of stuff is happening, but nothing important is occurring. The treatment of Baudolino's wife is an example. She is introduced on page 228. By page 231 she is dead. We've barely had time to learn her name, and she is out of the book. In between, she hasn't had time to develop as a character, so we don't feel much sorrow at her passing, so the references Baudolino makes to her lack emotional power.
A lot of the problems of the book lie in the style of writing. This is a serious charge to level at a semiotician. But the writing is balnd and uninteresting. Some of it is told in the first person past tense, some in the third person, but neither perspective has impact, interest or tension. Sometimes, it gets plain careless. On an epic quest, the companions confront many dangers. Here is how one of them is described:
At midnight, as the men were thinking they might get some sleep, crested serpents arrived, each with two or three heads. With their tails they swept the ground and they kept their jaws wide open, with in which three tongues darted. Their stink was perceptible at a mile's distance, and all had the impression that their eyes, which sparkled in the lunar light, spread poison, as for that matter, the basilisk does ...
There are several problems here. First of all, the passage is boring. An encounter with giant serpents at night should be terrifying to read, not bland. People should be yelling, all our senses should be used to convey the intensity of combat. Apparently, however, no-one even bothered to utter a word during the skirmish. Second, there is little description. What do the serpents smell like? Burning tyres? Sewers? Boiled cabbage? Third, Eco forgets one of the first rules of creative writing - show, don't tell. How do the companions discover the serpents are mutli-headed, multi-tongued, and possessed of a lethal gaze? The description above reads more like a cargo dispatch. DELIVERY: One dozen triple headed serpents, stinking. Fianlly, Eco presents the information in the wrong order. The first thing that the companions would have become aware of was the smell. Then perhaps the sound of things moving in the darkness. The they might see something moving in the shadows, then the realisation that they were confronting something unnatural and terrifying. Now, imagine this encounter is one of several, each recounted in the same bland style, each offerring no hope that this one will be the last. At one point, Eco indicates he has tried to use different voices in the writing:
As he [Baudolino] had been tender and pastoral in telling of Abdul's death, so now he was epic and majestic in reporting the fording of that river.
Only, there is no noticable difference in tone between different sections. The whole book, apart from the excellent first chapter, is told in the same monotonous voice, as far as this reader can judge.
The book is very long, and through out it is written in a boring style devoid of drama and interest. the characters are unappealing and the polt, though straining for epic qualities, is boring. Read (or as I intend to, re-read) The Name of the Rose, which is a much better book than this.
Sunday, 13 May 2007
Friday, 11 May 2007
Tony Blair - Recalling Our One Night Stand
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's gone at last. He had five good years and five bad years. It started with a kiss.
I voted for Tony Blair in 1997. Rather, I voted for the member of the Labour Party who was standing in the Stirling electorate where I lived. It was a duty. The sitting MP was Michael Forsyth, one of the most strident Tory voices in scotland. He had to go, and he did, in due course. I remember he made a decent resigantion speech. So did Malcolm Rifkind, a more moderate and likeable conservative, who was also ousted that night, as the Tory Party in Scotland was eradicated.
It was a bloody good night. I was one year out of university. The Tories had been in power for as long as I could remember. My elder brother says he can remember the Winter of Discontent, when Callaghan lead a doomed Labour government, but I can't. My first political memory was the Falklands war, a military caper resulting from the Thatcher government's incompetence and pig headed insistance on cutting government spending. To save the cost of a super-annuated icebreaker, they ended up paying millions, and an incalculatable cost in lives, British and Argentinian. Mysteriously, the British electorate rewarded her with a massive election victory.
My next signifigant memory was of school teachers being on strike rather a lot, which was okay with me. Point is, the Tories had been in power forever, as far as I was aware. First Thatcher, then Major, miraculously winning his second term in the 90s, and then slowly being crucified by his hoplessly divided party. It was always going to be a good night, the night that got swept away.
It was like a hallucination. It was hard to believe what was actually happen. Everyone knew Labour would win in 97, but I don't think anyone had realised this would mean the Tories would be out of power. It was hard to understand. I can still feel the strange, dizzy sensation when the BBC revealled its exit poll predicting a ridiculously large majority.
I was watching the results with Irish Pete, a good friend who I have lost contact with, sadly. We had armed ourselves with plenty of booze and cigars. The cigars were meant for when Labour's absolute majority was declared, but when we heard that Michael Portillo had been beaten by the rather wet looking Stephen Twigg, we had to smoke them early. No one had expected this - least of all Michael Portillo. His face said it all. He was cast, ratherabsurdly, as George Foreman to Twigg's Muhammed Ali. Like Foreman, he was beaten, but, like Foreman, after the pain had lessened, he set about re-inventing himself as a decent human being. This, of course, meant he could never again be a serious contender to lead the Conservative Party.
It was a bloody good night. With hindsight, I think I can pinpoint the exact moment where it became clear Blairism wasn't going to work, however. With victory secure, Tony Blair was driven to Downing Street. There was a throng outside to welcome him - apparently, shepherded there by Peter Mandelson, to make a good show for the cameras. On wonders where he got them from - most Labour supporters were either unconcious or nursing hangovers. Perhaps they were Tories. In the end, Tony gave them about as much to cheer about as the people who voted for him.
On the steps of Number 10, he paused for a few seconds with his wife, Cherie Booth. He kissed her. It was awkward and unnatural looking. Then he did it again. And that was it. I felt vaguely uncomfortable watching it, and I remember thinking, "Stop that, that's silly, just go inside the door and get on with the job." And in some strange and mysterious way, I feel all the bad things that happened under Tony's ten year reign were prefigured in that moment. The dodgy dossier, the total absence of WMD in Iraq, cash for honours, spin doctory, the evasion of any action on climate change, the failure to follow through on 'The Project' - the formation of an unstoppable force of centre-left political parties - shirking the reform of the House of Lords and Britain's electoral system. It was all there, in that moment, when he went in for the second kiss, the manufactured, for the camera, audience manipulating, did-you-get-it-the-first-time, focus group lead, Mandelson approved kiss, aimed at key voters and designed not to frighten Middle England.
It wasn't all bad after that - the first five years were generally good, the second set of five generally bad, but after that kiss it was clear it was never going to be as good as it should have been. The fact that it wasn't as bad as it might have been is something, but not much of a legacy.
I voted for Tony Blair in 1997. Rather, I voted for the member of the Labour Party who was standing in the Stirling electorate where I lived. It was a duty. The sitting MP was Michael Forsyth, one of the most strident Tory voices in scotland. He had to go, and he did, in due course. I remember he made a decent resigantion speech. So did Malcolm Rifkind, a more moderate and likeable conservative, who was also ousted that night, as the Tory Party in Scotland was eradicated.
It was a bloody good night. I was one year out of university. The Tories had been in power for as long as I could remember. My elder brother says he can remember the Winter of Discontent, when Callaghan lead a doomed Labour government, but I can't. My first political memory was the Falklands war, a military caper resulting from the Thatcher government's incompetence and pig headed insistance on cutting government spending. To save the cost of a super-annuated icebreaker, they ended up paying millions, and an incalculatable cost in lives, British and Argentinian. Mysteriously, the British electorate rewarded her with a massive election victory.
My next signifigant memory was of school teachers being on strike rather a lot, which was okay with me. Point is, the Tories had been in power forever, as far as I was aware. First Thatcher, then Major, miraculously winning his second term in the 90s, and then slowly being crucified by his hoplessly divided party. It was always going to be a good night, the night that got swept away.
It was like a hallucination. It was hard to believe what was actually happen. Everyone knew Labour would win in 97, but I don't think anyone had realised this would mean the Tories would be out of power. It was hard to understand. I can still feel the strange, dizzy sensation when the BBC revealled its exit poll predicting a ridiculously large majority.
I was watching the results with Irish Pete, a good friend who I have lost contact with, sadly. We had armed ourselves with plenty of booze and cigars. The cigars were meant for when Labour's absolute majority was declared, but when we heard that Michael Portillo had been beaten by the rather wet looking Stephen Twigg, we had to smoke them early. No one had expected this - least of all Michael Portillo. His face said it all. He was cast, ratherabsurdly, as George Foreman to Twigg's Muhammed Ali. Like Foreman, he was beaten, but, like Foreman, after the pain had lessened, he set about re-inventing himself as a decent human being. This, of course, meant he could never again be a serious contender to lead the Conservative Party.
It was a bloody good night. With hindsight, I think I can pinpoint the exact moment where it became clear Blairism wasn't going to work, however. With victory secure, Tony Blair was driven to Downing Street. There was a throng outside to welcome him - apparently, shepherded there by Peter Mandelson, to make a good show for the cameras. On wonders where he got them from - most Labour supporters were either unconcious or nursing hangovers. Perhaps they were Tories. In the end, Tony gave them about as much to cheer about as the people who voted for him.
On the steps of Number 10, he paused for a few seconds with his wife, Cherie Booth. He kissed her. It was awkward and unnatural looking. Then he did it again. And that was it. I felt vaguely uncomfortable watching it, and I remember thinking, "Stop that, that's silly, just go inside the door and get on with the job." And in some strange and mysterious way, I feel all the bad things that happened under Tony's ten year reign were prefigured in that moment. The dodgy dossier, the total absence of WMD in Iraq, cash for honours, spin doctory, the evasion of any action on climate change, the failure to follow through on 'The Project' - the formation of an unstoppable force of centre-left political parties - shirking the reform of the House of Lords and Britain's electoral system. It was all there, in that moment, when he went in for the second kiss, the manufactured, for the camera, audience manipulating, did-you-get-it-the-first-time, focus group lead, Mandelson approved kiss, aimed at key voters and designed not to frighten Middle England.
It wasn't all bad after that - the first five years were generally good, the second set of five generally bad, but after that kiss it was clear it was never going to be as good as it should have been. The fact that it wasn't as bad as it might have been is something, but not much of a legacy.
Britain - Rally on Behalf of Illegal Immigrants
Rally to urge fairer deal for illegal
immigrants
· Group seeks citizenship route for 'shadow people'
· Move to legality would boost taxes, says study
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Monday
May 7, 2007
The Guardian
Faith leaders including Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops will join MPs
and trade union leaders today in calling on the government to regularise the
position of an estimated 500,000 illegal migrants living in Britain.
The Trafalgar Square rally, organised by Strangers into Citizens, marks the
launch of the first broad-based campaign to lobby for a "pathway into
citizenship" through a two-year work permit for migrants who have been in
Britain for more than four years so that they can earn a living legally and pay
taxes.
The rally is being held as MPs prepare to debate the report stage of the
new borders bill to crack down on illegal migrants and deny them access to
public services.
It follows an ORB opinion poll showing that 66% of British people
agreed that undocumented migrants who have been in Britain more than four years
should be allowed to stay and not be called illegal. Two-thirds also believe
that asylum seekers should be allowed to work while they wait for their claims
to be determined.
Austen Ivereigh, the coordinator of the Strangers into Citizens
campaign, said it wanted to highlight the plight of the "shadow people" who were
condemned, often for years, to a limbo of fear and furtiveness.
"The Home Office estimates there are around 500,000 illegal immigrants,
a combination of visa overstayers and refused asylum seekers, and admits it does
not have the resources to deport them, with current removals running at 25,000 a
year."
He said naturalisation programmes had already been introduced by Spain,
Germany and the US as part of a border enforcement strategy and were about
extending the rule of law, not undermining it.
(Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,2074078,00.html)
I think this is very obviously a good idea, and it will very obviously be attacked for entirely predictable reasons.
It will be criticised because it is a) rewarding criminals, and b) will encourge more illegal migrants as Britain will be seen as soft on illegal immigrants, and c) because it may be a security risk. Neither claim stands up.
First, it isn't rewarding criminals - it is allowing those who have lived a law abiding life in all other respects to formalise their immigration status. If an illegal immigrant has worked hard and not committed any crime over a period of years, aren't they exactly the sort of immigrant we want? Take away the illegal part of the label and we'll have a model citizen.
As for being soft on illegal immigrants, I don't think it will make much difference. The number of immigrants is already high. I wonder if it can feasibly get much higher, but, even if it can, I don't think the number of illegal immigrants will increase if this measure was introduced. Look at the home countries of migrants (forgetting the Aussie and Kiwi overstayers, of course) - Afghanistan, Iraq, allsorted Africa countries torn by strife. Most of these people are motivated by fear and desperation. Learning that, if they manage to sneak into Britain, survive for five years or so in the black economy, without access to public services, and keep their noses absolutely clean, they might, MIGHT be allowed to stay on legally isn't much of a sales pitch. It isn't going to prompt a tidal wave of people straggling through the Chunnel and spilling, half aphixiated, out of lorries from Europe.
Finally, the security risk claim is obviously nonsense. These people are already here, but we have no idea who they ar, where they are and how many there are. If Islamic Terrorists wanted to infiltrate Britain and carry out atrocities, they could do it right now, probably. They certainly won't bother infiltrating, working illegally at a kebab shop for five years and then identifying themselves to the police - what would be the sense in that? If they wanted to get in legally, they could probably arrange it. If they wanted to get in illegally, they could probably arrange it. Why go for the 'third way'?
Like I said, the people who will benefit from this legislation are exactly the sort of people Britain want. Also, once their position is regularised, they will be in the tax system, contributing. On top of that, it will also mean less tax money has to be squandered on the pointless and seemingly impossible job of tracking down and deporting illegal immigrants. Resources will be concentrated on the true criminal class, instead of being wasted on a basically decent bunch of hard working people. Also, we can make it a condition that the immigrants seeking naturalisation must help the police (or whoever) with their investigations into the people traffickers who brought the illegal immigrants to Britain in the first place - meaning the real criminals will be morelikely to be punished.
Of course, this is all far to sensible to happen. Instead, it will be buried under the usual howls of "PC gone mad", wailing about "Uncontrollable immigration" and general drivel.
Final thought - when you read the term 'Illegal immigrant', what image does it conjure in your mind? A shifty Arab intent on imposing Sharia Law on Britain? A teenage Russian sex worker? The cute Aussie barmaid at your local who stayed on after her visa ran out?
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
David Irving's Trip to Poland II
After Treblinka, Irving continued on to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
At Auschwitz, Irivng notices a series of watchtowers, which he suspects as having been erected post war. he points out that photographs taken of the camp during its operation, reproduced at the entrance to the camp, don't show the towers. He seems to think this is a big deal, in line with his disposition to latch on to any thing that can be read as suggesting the Holocaust is a fraud. but some thoughts occur immediately - if the towers were in fact erected after the war, they might be replacing towers that had existed but had at some point been dismantled - building materials being valuable in Germany in 1945, after all. The photographs could have been taken before the towers were constructed, or after they were dismantled. Also, why didn't he think to ask someone at the camp when the towers were built? Perhaps he did, and didn't like the answer he got, so neglected to include it. Finally, if the towers were constructed as part of some nefarious plot, why wouldn't the dishonesty of those involved not stretch to faking the photographs so they included the towers? The fact that the photographs were on display suggests there is no hoax being perpetrated. Like the Treblinka museum, the lack of guile suggests honesty. But Irving, of course, chooses to see it differently ...
Irving mentions various alleged inconsistencies that seem to suggest the Holocaust is not a historical fact. He clambers onto the ruins of a gas chamber to see if he can find the holes - the absence of which has been a recurring tool used by Holocaust deniers to imply that the site was never a gas chamber. This is remarkably arrogant on Irving's part - does he actually think he'll spot something no-one has ever seen before, on some of the most studied concrete rubble in the world? or is he just posing for another self-important photograph?
The caption beneath the photograph reads: "David Irving searches for the controversial Zyklon-B inlet holes on the roof of the morgue (Leichenkeller I) of Crematorium II at Birkenau. Van Pelt also searched, and found there were no holes." This is typical Irving. Van Pelt did indeed examine the rubble for holes, and found there were none, but observed:
So again, Irving makes a statement that is superficially true, but disingenuous.
Irivng then asks to visit other sites, first the Red House. He attempts to discredit the guide assigned to them, implying that she is misleading them:
Irving seems unable to avoid trying to creat offense. Witness the following lines:
Note the description of the displays as "Hollywood" - a term suggestive of phoniness and anipulation. The evidence of sufferring and murder are compared to rough school-boy traditions. Visitors are "victims" - perhaps because Irving believes they are the only ones who have ever suffered in this place? Elsewhere he describes a Holocaust survivor in similar terms, comparing him to a special effect from a Hollywood werewolf film, with the same implication of falseness. He refers to the survivor throughout as a 'werewolf' - presumably, we are to understand that Irving possesses the silver bullet that will slay the creature, and the monstrous beast of the Holocaust 'industry.'
He describes how he hectors the guide, as if this is a noble undertaking. He doesn't allow her to speak, however -we only get his version of events, which is likely not to be reliable. Instead he puts words in her mouth, which might or might not be remotely like anything she said:
He makes a habit of misrepresenting the words of others. Even handedly, he does the same to himself. In the current report, he claims "I famously said once in Canada that more women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than were ever gassed in that building." The building in question is the Cremotorium of Block 11. What he actually said was "more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s motor car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz". (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/ftp.py?people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//judgment-08.01)
The wording is ambivalent, I suspect Irving has been very careful to structure it to be imprecise. 'The gas chamber' could refer to a specific gas chamber, or to the gas chambers of Auschwitz in general. Irving has repeated the line several times, usually to the delight of his audience. If he is quibbling about the use of one specific room as a gas chamber, why does he make so many references to it? And why the imprecise wording - an odd trait in a man so obssessed with teasing out every possible inconsistency in material that counters his opinion, to the point of misreading, mistranlating or misrepresenting evidence.
At Auschwitz, Irivng notices a series of watchtowers, which he suspects as having been erected post war. he points out that photographs taken of the camp during its operation, reproduced at the entrance to the camp, don't show the towers. He seems to think this is a big deal, in line with his disposition to latch on to any thing that can be read as suggesting the Holocaust is a fraud. but some thoughts occur immediately - if the towers were in fact erected after the war, they might be replacing towers that had existed but had at some point been dismantled - building materials being valuable in Germany in 1945, after all. The photographs could have been taken before the towers were constructed, or after they were dismantled. Also, why didn't he think to ask someone at the camp when the towers were built? Perhaps he did, and didn't like the answer he got, so neglected to include it. Finally, if the towers were constructed as part of some nefarious plot, why wouldn't the dishonesty of those involved not stretch to faking the photographs so they included the towers? The fact that the photographs were on display suggests there is no hoax being perpetrated. Like the Treblinka museum, the lack of guile suggests honesty. But Irving, of course, chooses to see it differently ...
Irving mentions various alleged inconsistencies that seem to suggest the Holocaust is not a historical fact. He clambers onto the ruins of a gas chamber to see if he can find the holes - the absence of which has been a recurring tool used by Holocaust deniers to imply that the site was never a gas chamber. This is remarkably arrogant on Irving's part - does he actually think he'll spot something no-one has ever seen before, on some of the most studied concrete rubble in the world? or is he just posing for another self-important photograph?
The caption beneath the photograph reads: "David Irving searches for the controversial Zyklon-B inlet holes on the roof of the morgue (Leichenkeller I) of Crematorium II at Birkenau. Van Pelt also searched, and found there were no holes." This is typical Irving. Van Pelt did indeed examine the rubble for holes, and found there were none, but observed:
"Today,these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the
chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.Yet
does this mean they were never there?We know that after the cessation of
the gassings in the Fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was
removed,which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys.What
would have remained would have been the four narrow holes in the
slab.While there is not certainty in this particular matter,it would have
been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some
formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling,and pour some concrete
in the holes,and thus restore the slab."
(http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/vanix.asp)
So again, Irving makes a statement that is superficially true, but disingenuous.
Irivng then asks to visit other sites, first the Red House. He attempts to discredit the guide assigned to them, implying that she is misleading them:
"The lot has been levelled and grassed over, with three or four black graniteWhat Irving is trying to get at here is unclear. Poland was ruled by COmmunists after the war. Communists aren't renowned for transparency and giving out information willy-nilly. Why the big deal over the fact they chose to suppress one other tid-bit? Frankly, we can't trust Irving on this at all. Perhaps, for years after the war, the aurthorities didn't know exactly where the Red House was sited, especially if they only had 'witness accounts' to go on. This is the sort of semantic loop hole Irving likes to exploit, as if this or that minor detail is vital to proving the authenticity of the Holocaust. He always chooses to ignore vast quantities of evidence, and attaces great significance to trifles.
slabs inscribed with historical texts. I ask the guide how they know this was
the location, and she says "witness accounts". I keep to myself the fact that
for decades after the war the authorities played down the Bunkers and said that
nobody knew where they were."
Irving seems unable to avoid trying to creat offense. Witness the following lines:
"We drive on to see the other Bunker, the White House, the only other
building which really interests me (and I am after all calling the shots). The
guide takes us instead to the former sauna building, and insists on steering us
round the expensively glass-floored propaganda walk, which is pure Disneyland:
walls of portrait photos, loudspeakers, automatic endless films, texts, and a
disinfection room with the sinister, big, steel autoclaves with their doors open
at each end.
"I quietly reflect that this building erected in 1943 was a state of the
art installation for disinfecting and cleansing incoming prisoners, and their
clothing, and it seems odd the Nazis should have gone to such lengths if they
intended to kill them all -- i.e., genocide.
"I ask repeatedly and irritably why the guide is showing us this building,
we did not ask for it; but of course we have asked for it by coming, and it is
her duty to piston all her victims through this propaganda Schleuse, like
running the gauntlet at school."
Note the description of the displays as "Hollywood" - a term suggestive of phoniness and anipulation. The evidence of sufferring and murder are compared to rough school-boy traditions. Visitors are "victims" - perhaps because Irving believes they are the only ones who have ever suffered in this place? Elsewhere he describes a Holocaust survivor in similar terms, comparing him to a special effect from a Hollywood werewolf film, with the same implication of falseness. He refers to the survivor throughout as a 'werewolf' - presumably, we are to understand that Irving possesses the silver bullet that will slay the creature, and the monstrous beast of the Holocaust 'industry.'
He describes how he hectors the guide, as if this is a noble undertaking. He doesn't allow her to speak, however -we only get his version of events, which is likely not to be reliable. Instead he puts words in her mouth, which might or might not be remotely like anything she said:
"Our Polish Guide remains mum. It is all very undesirable, embarrassing,Viewing the ruins of the White House, he comments:
awkward, and fraught with dangers for her. She is a schoolteacher, and part-time
guide, and stands to lose both jobs if she departs from any official lines."
"There is a minor CSI-type problem. The bricks are clean, though broken orThe bricks are clean, most likely, because they have been exposed to the weather for decades - the site is a ruin, and no attempt has been made to preserve it. Again, Irving chooses to ignore this obvious explanation in favour of the implication that no-one was gassed there at all. Commenting on the buildings at Auschwitz 1, he remarks that "these shoddily erected buildings will not last many more years -- unpointed with cement, the mortar has washed out between each layer of bricks to the depth of an inch or more." Curiously, he doesn't make the link between the deterioration of one set of buildings which are maintained, and an exposed ruin which is neglected, totally.
crumbling, and show no visible stain of blue (see our later visit to Treblinka
in this respect, and the photos taken there). I ask again how they know this was
the White House, adding this time that for decades the Polish museum authorities
had denied knowing where it was."
He makes a habit of misrepresenting the words of others. Even handedly, he does the same to himself. In the current report, he claims "I famously said once in Canada that more women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than were ever gassed in that building." The building in question is the Cremotorium of Block 11. What he actually said was "more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s motor car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz". (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/ftp.py?people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//judgment-08.01)
The wording is ambivalent, I suspect Irving has been very careful to structure it to be imprecise. 'The gas chamber' could refer to a specific gas chamber, or to the gas chambers of Auschwitz in general. Irving has repeated the line several times, usually to the delight of his audience. If he is quibbling about the use of one specific room as a gas chamber, why does he make so many references to it? And why the imprecise wording - an odd trait in a man so obssessed with teasing out every possible inconsistency in material that counters his opinion, to the point of misreading, mistranlating or misrepresenting evidence.
Monday, 7 May 2007
David Irving's Trip to Poland
David Irving is not a Holocaust denier. If I say otherwise, I may get sued, because this great believer in free speech and defender of people's right to say the unsayable, doesn't like people using terms like 'Holocaust denier' to describe him. He is a man who questions with the intensity of a keen mind every part of the massive mountain of evidence relating to the Holocaust as a historical fact, and who accepts anything suggesting it might not have happened immediately, at face value. I think I'm on safe ground saying that.
Irving recenly took a trip to Poland, to visit the sites of the Holocaust or not-Holocaust. His online diary describes this visit, which he undertook in March this year. Surprisingly, it is "This is [his] first visit to the country". It seems odd that he has never visited the Polish Holocaust sites before. It seems he has experienced difficulty at the hands of bureaucrats and pen-pushers: he does find it difficult to travel, sometimes, and when he reaches a place, he sometimes finds it difficult to leave. It still seems remarkable, however, that a radical historian has never visited the sites he talks about so much. Instead, he seems to have relied upon secondhand information about the extermination camps of Poland; which is odd, as he has spent a lot of time trying to discredit the accounts of those who were there at the time.
His diary entry opens with a trip down memory lane: "Forty years on, I still recall translating Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel's description of accompanying Adolf Hitler's first drive into Poland -- the filthy hovels, the unkempt Jews, the disheveled farms and villages. I wonder how much has changed." One would assume that the 'unkempt Jews' have gone, largely. Quite where they have gone remains a mystery - Irving doesn't buy into the gnerally held idea that they were slaughtered by agents of the Nazi regime, in various ways, but frequently in gas chambers in camps built or modified for the purpose of killing large numbers of people.
He doesn't think much of the Museum at Treblinka, a site where it is estimated 780,000 people were killed. He bemoans the fact that "The museum is rather bare; it has two rooms, with placards on the walls, some original posters about the labour camp, and a few items dug up in excavations: mostly battered kitchenware, two strands of wartime barbed wire (one would have expected a lot more), but nothing of wartime significance: no bones, bullets, or bayonets, for instance." He seems to have forgotten what he wrote just a few lines before: "The Germans had meticulously deleted everything of the war years when they abandoned the site in late 1943." Again, strange that he doesn't make the link himself. And strange he doesn't make the inference that the starkness of the museum is suggestive of its authenticity. If it were a fraud, wouldn't "mankind's eternal enemies" have ensured the museum was better stocked with phoney evidence?
("Mankind's eternal enemies" is a phrase quoted by Irving from a letter he received from T.S., an admirer, complete with $20 donation. In T.S.'s own words: "I thank you ... for the contribution you have made to the struggle to wrestle the flame of truth from the hands of mankind's eternal enemies." One can only speculate who the "eternal enemies" are, and what prompted Irving to give the quotation pride of place - it is the first of several quotations from letters written by admirers.) (Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html Quotation displayed on this web address on 7th May 2007)
Irving tries to make something of the fact that people are cautioned agains tlighting candles on the site, as this poses a fire risk. To him, this "raises an obvious question -- to which there may be a simple answer -- about that element of the received Treblinka history which has the thousands of bodies buried hastily in 1942 being exhumed in 1943 and burned in open air pits". Curious that he seems to assume that SS thugs trying to erase evidence of mass murder, working in desperate haste, would observe the scrupulous safety procautions of 21st century curators.
Irving recenly took a trip to Poland, to visit the sites of the Holocaust or not-Holocaust. His online diary describes this visit, which he undertook in March this year. Surprisingly, it is "This is [his] first visit to the country". It seems odd that he has never visited the Polish Holocaust sites before. It seems he has experienced difficulty at the hands of bureaucrats and pen-pushers: he does find it difficult to travel, sometimes, and when he reaches a place, he sometimes finds it difficult to leave. It still seems remarkable, however, that a radical historian has never visited the sites he talks about so much. Instead, he seems to have relied upon secondhand information about the extermination camps of Poland; which is odd, as he has spent a lot of time trying to discredit the accounts of those who were there at the time.
His diary entry opens with a trip down memory lane: "Forty years on, I still recall translating Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel's description of accompanying Adolf Hitler's first drive into Poland -- the filthy hovels, the unkempt Jews, the disheveled farms and villages. I wonder how much has changed." One would assume that the 'unkempt Jews' have gone, largely. Quite where they have gone remains a mystery - Irving doesn't buy into the gnerally held idea that they were slaughtered by agents of the Nazi regime, in various ways, but frequently in gas chambers in camps built or modified for the purpose of killing large numbers of people.
He doesn't think much of the Museum at Treblinka, a site where it is estimated 780,000 people were killed. He bemoans the fact that "The museum is rather bare; it has two rooms, with placards on the walls, some original posters about the labour camp, and a few items dug up in excavations: mostly battered kitchenware, two strands of wartime barbed wire (one would have expected a lot more), but nothing of wartime significance: no bones, bullets, or bayonets, for instance." He seems to have forgotten what he wrote just a few lines before: "The Germans had meticulously deleted everything of the war years when they abandoned the site in late 1943." Again, strange that he doesn't make the link himself. And strange he doesn't make the inference that the starkness of the museum is suggestive of its authenticity. If it were a fraud, wouldn't "mankind's eternal enemies" have ensured the museum was better stocked with phoney evidence?
("Mankind's eternal enemies" is a phrase quoted by Irving from a letter he received from T.S., an admirer, complete with $20 donation. In T.S.'s own words: "I thank you ... for the contribution you have made to the struggle to wrestle the flame of truth from the hands of mankind's eternal enemies." One can only speculate who the "eternal enemies" are, and what prompted Irving to give the quotation pride of place - it is the first of several quotations from letters written by admirers.) (Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html Quotation displayed on this web address on 7th May 2007)
Irving tries to make something of the fact that people are cautioned agains tlighting candles on the site, as this poses a fire risk. To him, this "raises an obvious question -- to which there may be a simple answer -- about that element of the received Treblinka history which has the thousands of bodies buried hastily in 1942 being exhumed in 1943 and burned in open air pits". Curious that he seems to assume that SS thugs trying to erase evidence of mass murder, working in desperate haste, would observe the scrupulous safety procautions of 21st century curators.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Quotes on Nationalism
An archive of quotes on the topic of Nationalism.
This first selection comes from an essay written by William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies. He is trying to describe the ideas and impulses rattling around in his head when he set out to write the book. It is a beautiful piece of writing, and contains a lot of trenchant commentary on the ills of chauvinism.
The essay is titled 'Fable' and I encountered it in a collection of Golding's writings called The Hot Gates.
"There are always enough silly people in any country to form a sizeable mass movement."
"... my point is that however pathetic or amusing we we find these lesser manifestations of prejudice, when they go beyond a certain point no-one in the world can doubt that they are wholly evil. Jew and Arab in the name of religion. Jew and Nordic in the name of race. Negro and white in the name of God knows what."
"... one lot of people is inherently like any otherlot of people; and the only enemy of man is inside him."
"I condemn and detest my country's fault precisely because I am so proud of her many virtues. One of our faults is to beluieve that evil is somewhere else and inherent in another nation"
"But I know why the thing rose in Germany. I know it could happen in any country. It could happen here."
"Ugly nationalism raising its Gorgon head."
"... what I am trying to do is add together these elements, some horrible, some merely funny, but all significant ... they are a failure of human sympathy, ignorance of facts, the objectivizing of our own inadequacies to make a scapegoat."
"If humanity has a future on this planet of a hundred million years, it is unthinkable that it should spend these aeons in a ferment of national self-satisfaction and chauvanistic idiocies."
"Thepoint about off-campus history is that it is alway dead ... it is a cloak of national prestige which the uneducated pull around their shoulders to keep off the wind of personal self-knowledge."
"it is a dead thing handed on,, but dead though it is, it will not lie down. It is a monstrous creature descending to us from our ancestors, producing nothing but disunity, chaos. Disorder and war prolong in it the ghastly and ironic semblance of life. All the marching and counter marching, the flags, the heroism and cruelty, are mere galvanic twtches induced in its slaves and subjects by that hideous parody thing."
"People do not much like moral lessons. The pill has to be sugared ... also, the moralist has to be out of his victim's reach, when the full impact of the lesson strikes him. For the moralist has made an unforgivable assumption; namely, that he knows better than his reader; nor does a good intention save him. If the pill is not sufficiently sugared it will not be swallowed. If the moral is terrible enough he will be regarded as inhuman; and if the edge of his parable cuts deep enough, he will be crucified."
"So many people liquidated - lovely, elegant word."
This first selection comes from an essay written by William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies. He is trying to describe the ideas and impulses rattling around in his head when he set out to write the book. It is a beautiful piece of writing, and contains a lot of trenchant commentary on the ills of chauvinism.
The essay is titled 'Fable' and I encountered it in a collection of Golding's writings called The Hot Gates.
"There are always enough silly people in any country to form a sizeable mass movement."
"... my point is that however pathetic or amusing we we find these lesser manifestations of prejudice, when they go beyond a certain point no-one in the world can doubt that they are wholly evil. Jew and Arab in the name of religion. Jew and Nordic in the name of race. Negro and white in the name of God knows what."
"... one lot of people is inherently like any otherlot of people; and the only enemy of man is inside him."
"I condemn and detest my country's fault precisely because I am so proud of her many virtues. One of our faults is to beluieve that evil is somewhere else and inherent in another nation"
"But I know why the thing rose in Germany. I know it could happen in any country. It could happen here."
"Ugly nationalism raising its Gorgon head."
"... what I am trying to do is add together these elements, some horrible, some merely funny, but all significant ... they are a failure of human sympathy, ignorance of facts, the objectivizing of our own inadequacies to make a scapegoat."
"If humanity has a future on this planet of a hundred million years, it is unthinkable that it should spend these aeons in a ferment of national self-satisfaction and chauvanistic idiocies."
"Thepoint about off-campus history is that it is alway dead ... it is a cloak of national prestige which the uneducated pull around their shoulders to keep off the wind of personal self-knowledge."
"it is a dead thing handed on,, but dead though it is, it will not lie down. It is a monstrous creature descending to us from our ancestors, producing nothing but disunity, chaos. Disorder and war prolong in it the ghastly and ironic semblance of life. All the marching and counter marching, the flags, the heroism and cruelty, are mere galvanic twtches induced in its slaves and subjects by that hideous parody thing."
"People do not much like moral lessons. The pill has to be sugared ... also, the moralist has to be out of his victim's reach, when the full impact of the lesson strikes him. For the moralist has made an unforgivable assumption; namely, that he knows better than his reader; nor does a good intention save him. If the pill is not sufficiently sugared it will not be swallowed. If the moral is terrible enough he will be regarded as inhuman; and if the edge of his parable cuts deep enough, he will be crucified."
"So many people liquidated - lovely, elegant word."
Monday, 2 April 2007
Just Repeal Section 59, Please
I wasn't going to say anything about the so-called 'anti-smacking' bill, because I am sick of hearing about it. I think I might have been sick of it before I even heard of it, who knows? But it is impossible not to hear about it. It seems to haunt the media like the ghost of old Hamlet, or the notorious hob-goblin that . Enough, I say! Repeal section 59, because it is the only way to lay this unquiet spirit. If we don't repeal, it will rise again.
I am entirely in favour of the repeal of Section 59. But every time it is debated or discussed, something pecculiar happens. If some one advocates its repeal, I find myself arguing against them. Then someone demmands it is retained, and I launch into an internal tirade about why it has to be scrapped. The reson for this is simple - both sides of the argument seem to be inhabited by idiots, incapable of summoning a good reson in support of their position. Most of them are just plain wrong, either through stupidity or wilful dishonesty.
Sue Bradford's private members bill seeks to repeal Section 59. Let's look at Section 59, first of all. It reads as follows: "Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances."
Bradford's bill is intended to excise this, so parents will no longer be able to justify their actions with a defence of 'reasonable force' if they are charged with assaulting their child. That is all. It does not mean that every lightly administered slap will result in parents being jailed, or even charged, just as they are not currently jailed or charged at police discretion. Police will investigate a complaint made - but they do this anyway. If I see you slap your child in the suprmarket, and I am sucha hopeless busybody as to complain to a police officer about it, he will investigate the incident, whether Section 59 is repealed or not. The police officer will have the same discretion to charge the parent as they do now, and in cases of trivial smacking, they won't charge, just like they would not charge. The only difference would occur if a charge was laid - and whether or not Section 59 is on the books, that would require more than a typical smack. Then a parent won't be able to claim they thought the force used was 'reasonable' - it will be at the discretion of the court. But (to re-iterate) a parent who lightly smacks a naughty child is no more likely to end up being charged if Section 59 is repealed, than they are now.
So the endless stream of people on TV and the radio claiming that this bill will 'criminalise good parents' are talking nonsense, knowingly or otherwise. I was not surprised to see the usual suspects, the inhabitants of rightwing thinktanks and pressure roup howling their opposition to the bill. I was somewhat disappointed to see Bill English joining in with this, but I suppose he has a job to do. Polls were taken showing that 84% of New Zealanders supported a parent's right to smack a naughty child - no mention of the fact that parents will be just as safe doing so when Section 59 is repealed, as they are now.
Given the hysterical but inaccuracte nature of the opposition to Bradford's bill, one would have thought the argument would be over and the bill passed by now. Alas, not so. No matter how pathetic and shoddy the arguments put forward by the pro-Section 59 faction, the Repeal faction always managed to stoop to some new low to make their case look weaker than the (non-existant) case of their opponents. First of all, Sue Bradford offered her opinion that her bill would lead to a total ban on smacking. This was duly seized upon. Bradford's opinion, of course is irrelevant. What matters is what is on the statute book. Bradford might believe her bill will convert the moon into cheese, but if that is not what the law says, it doesn't matter. Then Labour masterfully weighed into the debate, forcing all their MPs to vote as a block in favour of repeal, which simply gave the clamouring hordes more ammunition, and damaged Labour's image further (another part of their masterplan to lose the next election, perhaps?). Finally, jus twhen it seemed that common sense might prevail, Helen Clarke started claiming this bill would ban child abuse, at which point any chance of serious discussion was lost forever.
The pro-59 camp state, rightly, that repealing section 59 won't stop savage thugs brutalising children. Coral Burrows would still be dead if Section 59 had been reprealed before her despicable swine of a step-father brutally murdered her, because scum like him don't care. This sort of argument was effectively used to make the repeal camp look hopelessly stupid and bumbling, and, frankly, they deserved it. Of course the repeal of Sction 59 will not stop the unspeakable murder and abuse of children, no more than it will criminalize caring parents who lightly smack their children. Neither extreme will be toched by the repeal, the abusers because they will simply ignore the repeal, and the responsible parents because no police officer would charge them, just like they elect not to charge now. The only people who would be affected are those in the gray area in between - the one who think thrashing a child with a cane for spilling a drink is 'reasonable force' - the sort who's behaviour all those responsible parents who will NOT be criminalised by repeal, would find shocking and abhorrent.
So please, please, put away the toys and lets be sensible about this. Repealing Section 59 will not criminalise everyday parents. It will not stop vicious thugs from being vicious thugs. But it will force those inbetween to reconsider where they stand, and what they do to their children.
ADDENDUM - 4/4/07
When the repeal of section 59 is passed (and it will be, sooner or later) the only noticable consequence will be this; a sharp increase (a spike or surge, to borrow from George Bush) in the number of complaints laid with the police about children being smacked.
What will have caused this? Not, contrary to instinct, the repeal of Section 59. That will only come into play once the complaint has been laid and followed up by the police, and charges laid.
What will cause the increase in complaints will be public ignorance; the fact that people don't understand how the law is being changed, and how this will affect them.
As a stay-at-home father, I am a member of a coffee group, which meets weekly. At the last wmeeting, this topic came up. Not one of the others present understood what the change in law actually meant to them as parents. They all seemed to be under the impression that the bill set out to ban smacking entirely. I explained this was not so, and what the bill actually entailed, and what differences this would mean compared to the current situation (short answer, none, unless you are a parent who beats their children so savagely that a police officer would consider it assault).
How can it be that a bill can be so widely and vocally debatded, and somehow people are left off knowing less about it than before?
The answer is in the populist button-pushing of the right, and the craven complicity of the mainstream media in New Zealand. The fact that the repeal bill is almost universally referred to as the 'anti-smacking bill' is an example of how the rightwing opponents of the bill have set out to deliberately misrepresent the bill, appealing to the perfectly natural fear of responsible parents that they are somehow going to be criminalised.
In doing this, the National, and those allied with National, hope to embarrass the government. In this they are suceeding very nicely. The government is starting to look very foolish indeed. But by setting out to scupper the bill, campaigning on lies and misrepresentations, they are leaving children at risk, the middle group I mentioned above. National and its allies should be ashamed of their opportunism, trading the health of children for political gain.
I am entirely in favour of the repeal of Section 59. But every time it is debated or discussed, something pecculiar happens. If some one advocates its repeal, I find myself arguing against them. Then someone demmands it is retained, and I launch into an internal tirade about why it has to be scrapped. The reson for this is simple - both sides of the argument seem to be inhabited by idiots, incapable of summoning a good reson in support of their position. Most of them are just plain wrong, either through stupidity or wilful dishonesty.
Sue Bradford's private members bill seeks to repeal Section 59. Let's look at Section 59, first of all. It reads as follows: "Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances."
Bradford's bill is intended to excise this, so parents will no longer be able to justify their actions with a defence of 'reasonable force' if they are charged with assaulting their child. That is all. It does not mean that every lightly administered slap will result in parents being jailed, or even charged, just as they are not currently jailed or charged at police discretion. Police will investigate a complaint made - but they do this anyway. If I see you slap your child in the suprmarket, and I am sucha hopeless busybody as to complain to a police officer about it, he will investigate the incident, whether Section 59 is repealed or not. The police officer will have the same discretion to charge the parent as they do now, and in cases of trivial smacking, they won't charge, just like they would not charge. The only difference would occur if a charge was laid - and whether or not Section 59 is on the books, that would require more than a typical smack. Then a parent won't be able to claim they thought the force used was 'reasonable' - it will be at the discretion of the court. But (to re-iterate) a parent who lightly smacks a naughty child is no more likely to end up being charged if Section 59 is repealed, than they are now.
So the endless stream of people on TV and the radio claiming that this bill will 'criminalise good parents' are talking nonsense, knowingly or otherwise. I was not surprised to see the usual suspects, the inhabitants of rightwing thinktanks and pressure roup howling their opposition to the bill. I was somewhat disappointed to see Bill English joining in with this, but I suppose he has a job to do. Polls were taken showing that 84% of New Zealanders supported a parent's right to smack a naughty child - no mention of the fact that parents will be just as safe doing so when Section 59 is repealed, as they are now.
Given the hysterical but inaccuracte nature of the opposition to Bradford's bill, one would have thought the argument would be over and the bill passed by now. Alas, not so. No matter how pathetic and shoddy the arguments put forward by the pro-Section 59 faction, the Repeal faction always managed to stoop to some new low to make their case look weaker than the (non-existant) case of their opponents. First of all, Sue Bradford offered her opinion that her bill would lead to a total ban on smacking. This was duly seized upon. Bradford's opinion, of course is irrelevant. What matters is what is on the statute book. Bradford might believe her bill will convert the moon into cheese, but if that is not what the law says, it doesn't matter. Then Labour masterfully weighed into the debate, forcing all their MPs to vote as a block in favour of repeal, which simply gave the clamouring hordes more ammunition, and damaged Labour's image further (another part of their masterplan to lose the next election, perhaps?). Finally, jus twhen it seemed that common sense might prevail, Helen Clarke started claiming this bill would ban child abuse, at which point any chance of serious discussion was lost forever.
The pro-59 camp state, rightly, that repealing section 59 won't stop savage thugs brutalising children. Coral Burrows would still be dead if Section 59 had been reprealed before her despicable swine of a step-father brutally murdered her, because scum like him don't care. This sort of argument was effectively used to make the repeal camp look hopelessly stupid and bumbling, and, frankly, they deserved it. Of course the repeal of Sction 59 will not stop the unspeakable murder and abuse of children, no more than it will criminalize caring parents who lightly smack their children. Neither extreme will be toched by the repeal, the abusers because they will simply ignore the repeal, and the responsible parents because no police officer would charge them, just like they elect not to charge now. The only people who would be affected are those in the gray area in between - the one who think thrashing a child with a cane for spilling a drink is 'reasonable force' - the sort who's behaviour all those responsible parents who will NOT be criminalised by repeal, would find shocking and abhorrent.
So please, please, put away the toys and lets be sensible about this. Repealing Section 59 will not criminalise everyday parents. It will not stop vicious thugs from being vicious thugs. But it will force those inbetween to reconsider where they stand, and what they do to their children.
ADDENDUM - 4/4/07
When the repeal of section 59 is passed (and it will be, sooner or later) the only noticable consequence will be this; a sharp increase (a spike or surge, to borrow from George Bush) in the number of complaints laid with the police about children being smacked.
What will have caused this? Not, contrary to instinct, the repeal of Section 59. That will only come into play once the complaint has been laid and followed up by the police, and charges laid.
What will cause the increase in complaints will be public ignorance; the fact that people don't understand how the law is being changed, and how this will affect them.
As a stay-at-home father, I am a member of a coffee group, which meets weekly. At the last wmeeting, this topic came up. Not one of the others present understood what the change in law actually meant to them as parents. They all seemed to be under the impression that the bill set out to ban smacking entirely. I explained this was not so, and what the bill actually entailed, and what differences this would mean compared to the current situation (short answer, none, unless you are a parent who beats their children so savagely that a police officer would consider it assault).
How can it be that a bill can be so widely and vocally debatded, and somehow people are left off knowing less about it than before?
The answer is in the populist button-pushing of the right, and the craven complicity of the mainstream media in New Zealand. The fact that the repeal bill is almost universally referred to as the 'anti-smacking bill' is an example of how the rightwing opponents of the bill have set out to deliberately misrepresent the bill, appealing to the perfectly natural fear of responsible parents that they are somehow going to be criminalised.
In doing this, the National, and those allied with National, hope to embarrass the government. In this they are suceeding very nicely. The government is starting to look very foolish indeed. But by setting out to scupper the bill, campaigning on lies and misrepresentations, they are leaving children at risk, the middle group I mentioned above. National and its allies should be ashamed of their opportunism, trading the health of children for political gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
For reasons cryptical, I can't log in directly, and can only access this blog by replying on an existing thread. So this is the thread ...
-
It looks like David Irving has been treated very unfairly. He's been tried and convicted and jailed (for 400 days, as he points out seve...
-
Someone cited two alleged climate experts, messrs Cliff Harris and Randy Mann in an I had argument recently. The graph below was referred ...