Nigel Farage and Jeremy Clarkson - 'Common assault' not 'common sense'

Right wing populists are rarely out of the news in Britain, but this week has been dominated by them much more than usual.

On one hand you have UKIP party leader Nigel Farage getting in to trouble for essentially calling for equality legislation to be scrapped in an interview

Whilst at the same time Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended for allegedly punching his producer on Top Gear.  For both of them the same pattern has emerged - those who like them will defend them to the teeth, those that dislike them call for their heads.

I know that sounds obvious, but it's still irritating.  As a Socialist I'm far on the left, so you can guess my opinion on Farage and Clarkson - I'm not exactly a fan.

But you soon realise that when you espouse an opinion about either of them that mocks them you are only playing to the choir, you will only have people respond who completely agree with you already.  It seems impossible to actually effect, let alone change, anyone's opinion on these two.

Same thing the other way round.  Clarkson has been accused of punching a colleague at work.  As such he has been suspended following an investigation.  Because of the suspension the BBC are considering cancelling the rest of the current series of Top Gear as he wouldn't be available to film and, frankly, it would be weird to just go ahead without him.

So far, so clear.  I think we all know that if you're accused of assaulting a colleague at work you will be, at best, suspended as the allegation is investigated.

And yet there is a (currently) 600,000 signatures strong petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be immediately reinstated.  WHAT??

There are many arguments that can made to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson shouldn't be on TV.  He has a rich history of controversy already.  But all that to one side for now, as it stands at this time, he has been accused of punching a colleague at work and so has been suspended.

WHAT IS THERE TO ARGUE AGAINST?  Without making comment about his guilt or otherwise, how can anyone argue against him being suspended?

And yet, here we are, with a petition signed by over 600,000 people who have decided, with no need for any form of evidence whatsoever, that Jeremy Clarkson should just be reinstated.  The reason why?  Because they think it is all a conspiracy.

Right wing blogger Guido Fawkes started the petition, and wrote in The Sun on Thursday explaining why.  Now, someone like Guido Fawkes is very hard to satirise because his language is so absurdly reactionary that he himself appear to be an ironic joke.  But he's not, he's very real.  To give you an example, he said he loved Clarkson for all the reasons:

"...a bunch of Left-wing pinkos at the BBC have been out to get him for ages"

Seriously, "left-wing pinkos"?  What is this, 1950's America?  McCarthyism on the march once again?  What a bizarrely archaic term.  But then this comes from the same lexicon in which Tory Ministers also pluck the term "pleb" from (allegedly/probably), so maybe not that surprising.

The BBC Trust meet to discuss Clarkson, yesterday

The point is they think Clarkson is subject to a conspiracy where the liberal-lefties at the BBC are out to get him.

Top Gear, in it's current form after being revamped in 2002, has been a massive success for the BBC.  The programme is estimated to have around 350 million views per week in 170 different countries.  Do we really believe that the BBC would want to kill off this cash cow?

Of course not.  Yes, Clarkson can cause them all manor of headaches, but the figures speak for themselves.

I suppose the reason they might have suspended him, and I don't know if I've mentioned this, is because he is accused of punching a colleague whilst at work!!

Meanwhile on the other side of the green in this village made up entirely of idiots lives Nigel Farage.  A man who is pure Marmite, both because he divides opinion but also because he is the by-product left over from a process, in this case mainstream politicians stoking up racism and anti-immigrant sentiments.

In an interview that has just come out with Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Farage was questioned on his views regarding the existing Equalities legislation.  His response:

"I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to chose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to chose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so.  I think you should be able to chose on the basis of nationality, yes.  I do."

So he suggests that discrimination in employment should be allowed.  Unsurprisingly, there are many who didn't take well the suggestion of rolling back legislation that we have had in place in one form or another since 1965.

Sadique Khan, Labour's shadow justice secretary, said:

"when my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no irish' and what UKIP is suggesting would take us back to those days"

The bizarre thing is, that since the contents of the interview became public causing Nigel Farage to do some backtracking, he and others in UKIP have presented data in interviews that are indeed sympathetic to those suffering from racism.

One UKIP candidate interviewed on the radio gave the statistics about how much harder it was for young black men to find employment than young white men, but still went on to say that the equalities legislation was unnecessary because "people can just use common sense instead".

In practice they're saying is "we know that racism exists, but we think the best thing to do is just get rid of the legislation designed to stop it".

Now, I tried to find the exact details of that radio interview I heard, but it's impossible to find.  Trying to goggle phrases like 'UKIP candidate defends Farage' throws up so many stories from soooooooooooooooooo many gaffes, it is impossible to wade through.

I might as well have goggled 'pieces of hay that look like needles'.

But again, there are so many that will jump to his defence even though the position seems indefensible, and they will say it's 'common sense' whilst they do it.  That's the most egotistical thing of the populist right.  I can argue my politics quite vigorously, but I still realise that I am putting across a certain political point of view.

They believe that they are not merely arguing a position, but that what they say is what 'everyone is thinking'... it's common sense.  How egotistical is that?

When asked about his views after that interview Nigel Farage said that UKIP as a party was 'colour blind'.  As they are still arguing that jobs shouldn't go to foreigners, can we call that 'blind prejudice'?

At least he doesn't wear jeans and a jacket...

As a caveat to this piece I suppose I should point out that Nigel Farage has not himself signed the petition to reinstate Jeremy Clarkson.  When asked about it he said:

"It seems to me that as boss of Ukip, if I punched one of our press office – it’s tempting at times, I have to say – but I’d be in very, very hot water indeed and I would without doubt be suspended for a period of time pending a disciplinary hearing.

So I think people signing up online saying Clarkson should be re-employed are doing so really without any knowledge of what went on or whether there’s any history there, so as far as I’m concerned the jury’s out, but I’m not going to worry too much for Jeremy Clarkson."

So to everyone who has signed the petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be reinstated, you are potentially being more reactionary then Nigel Farage.  That should be a sobering thought for you, but I don't suppose it is unfortunately.

Charlie Hebdo - Free speech, racism and resistance

The attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead sent shock waves around the world.  Many people have felt uncomfortable with defending the magazine though, believing it's content to be offensive and bigoted.  This leaves many unsure on what is the right stance to take in the aftermath of the killings.

Whatever can be said about Charlie Hebdo as a publication, there can be no doubt what-so-ever that the killings were wrong.  No caveats of "but..." on the end of that, it was just wrong.  There is no cartoon imaginable that could deserve the drawer to be executed.

And lets face it, there is always the opportunity to offend.  I know this very well from comedy.  I've even done family friendly improv-comedy shows that have lead to complaints. 

What I have learnt from this is that whilst you can argue your corner to discuss issues around a potential misunderstanding, you cannot tell someone what they can are cannot be offended by.  It is entirely down to the point of view of the individual.

Charlie Hebdo offended many with various cartoons that can, and correctly in my view, be considered bigoted.  Perhaps there is more nuance to many of them than you would realise on first viewing, but there are certainly aspects that generalise about racial minorities.  This is racism.

The main cause of offence for Muslims of course are the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed.  Any image of Muhammed is considered harem, strictly forbidden.

It may seem extreme to non-Muslims, but consider the myriad images of Jesus that depict him as a white, western male, like a pensive Brad Pitt after a bout of the shits.  That should be offensive to Christians, but instead the image has stuck.

Whilst some would say Muslims shouldn't be offended by the cartoons, that to me is not the point.  They are offended by it.  Not just some perceived section of the religion that is deemed "fundamentalist" or "extreme", but potentially all of them.  What is the point of that?

In France there were Unity demonstrations attended by millions of people.  Many holding Je Suis Charlie banners, and some holding Je Suis Ahmed banners.  At the very head of the march was superb showing of sheer, brilliant, hypocrisy.

I wonder if the other few million are shouting "hold up!"

Leading political figures from around the world led the demonstration, linking arms in their own sign of unity.  Unity, that is, in getting a nice photo op, not unity with the rest of the demonstration as can be seen in the picture above.

Above all though is their hypocrisy in marching in defence of free speech.  They all have crimes against their names in this respect, but to name just a few:

• Sameh Shoukry, Egypt Foreign minister - Egypt currently has three Al-Jazeera journalists in prison on "Terrorism" charges.  In July 2013 1000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were slaughtered when trying to demonstrate.  There are 40,000 political prisoners in jail
• Ahmet Davutoglu, Prime Minister of Turkey - The country that held the record for the most journalists in prison anywhere in the world in 2012 and 2013
• Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel - 7 journalists murdered in attacks n Gaza in 2014.

As I said though, every leaders government has crimes in its name to some degree or other against freedom of speech.

It's not just world leaders who have a conflicting view on free speech, we all do.  Mehdi Hassan in an excellent article in the New Statesman talks about this conflict.  He points out that Charlie Hebdo fired one of it's cartoonists, Maurice Sinet, in 2008 for making anti-Semitic remarks.  So attacking Muslims is fine, commendable even, but attacking Jewish people means you loose your job.

In no way am I defending anti-Semitism, but again, it's certainly a hypocritical position to take.  He also pointed out that in a YouGov poll, 82% of the UK's voters said they would like to see jail sentences for those who burn poppies!

You can't vigorously defend free speech unless you defend the right for someone to say something that deeply offends you.  That's the point.

"All these political arguments are all good and fine," I hear you say, "but when are you going to mention Boyzone?"

Don't worry fans, that time is now.

The reason why, is that this debate reminds me of when Stephen Gately died in 2009, and the furore that followed after a piece was published in the Daily Mail by Jan Moir.  She blamed his death on his lifestyle, which was seen as her essentially blaming his death on him being Gay.

Unsurprisingly, the balloon went up over that.  The Press Complaints Commission received over 1000 complaints, possibly record breaking.  And understandably so, it was an appalling piece of gutter "journalism".

At the same time Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, was appearing on Question Time.  As soon as it was announced he would be appearing there was an explosion of protests in response, saying he should not be allowed on the program.  Needless to say, free speech was a hot topic at the time.

When asked on Question Time whether the Daily Mail should have published the article by Jan Moir the entire panel said that they should be free to publish, and clearly said that there should be no pressure from Government to change any legal framework to stop such freedom of expression.

The only person to say they shouldn't have published was Nick Griffin.  It's fair to say that as a life long committed Nazi, he ain't exactly "Gay-friendly".  However, for the first time in his life, he was right.

The problem was the framing of the argument.  The right answer, to me, is pretty obvious.  Should the Daily Mail have published the article?  No.  Should they have been free to publish the article?  Yes.

You have to defend freedom of expression completely, but individuals and organisations still have the choice of how to express themselves.  If a columnist at the Daily Mail sent the editor an article detailing their view that Jimmy Saville was such a good entertainer he deserved to have a few under age girls as personal sex slaves, do you think they would publish it?  Of course not!

Should they be free to?  Yes.  But then people would stop buying the paper, which is our freedom. A freedom I use to my advantage every day.

Rewinding slightly though, were the protests right saying that Nick Griffin shouldn't be allowed on Question Time?  Yes, I think they were.  The reason is that he is a Nazi.  They hide what they truly believe in the hope of gaining respectability in order to grow their organisation.  Organisations that wish to gain power, and once they do, would impose a system with no freedom of speech what-so-ever.  No democracy, just Fascist rule.

You cannot have the right to free speech if you wish to smash it.

One worrying trend following the attacks in Paris has been the rise in Islamophobic attacks in France.  Largely unreported in the media, 26 Mosques have been attacked, with such things as pigs heads, grenades, and even someone shooting a gun through a window.  60 attacks have been reported, but there may be many more that have gone unreported.

Do you think that the two gunmen who carried out the killings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo did so because of some cartoons?  That is why they targeted the office, but is that really why you would be willing to fill?

They were willing to kill, and sacrifice themselves,because of the ongoing bloodshed of Muslims around the world.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the list just goes on and on.  We are presented an image in the Britain of all these conflict zones being "over there".  Europe and America is "over here".

9 people shot in Paris shocks you.  Many more slaughtered anywhere in the Middle East and you don't care.  However, Muslims are taught to feel a connection with everyone of their faith.  Those countries aren't merely "over there" for them.

But also, they are angry for other reasons.  They face problems at home of racism of course, but also the effects of austerity, of job losses, of cuts in services and benefits.  Problems that effect us all.

There is the message from our Government that is like a parent, putting an arm around Muslims and saying "it's ok, you're welcome here.  But whilst you're under my roof, you must live by my rules."  The problem is, our government is an abusive parent.

So a number of Muslims are angry.  And they have absolutely every right to be.  Furious in fact.  You think white people don't have the same issues?  Why do you think people get involved with the EDL or other such extremist organisations?

People feel the need to fight, but they don't know in what direction to punch.  EDL fight Muslims and immigration and multi-culturalism in general.  The terrorists in Paris attacked cartoonists.  Charlie Hebdo attacks immigrants.

EDL and the terrorist are punching sideways, attacking people who are actually in the same shit as they are. Charlie Hebdo punches down, those people who are actually the most affected.  What we need to do is all unite together and punch up.

To do that we need to organise and unite where possible, be a pole to attract people to the real fight.

Join the demonstrations in London, Cardiff or Glasgow on 21st March to Stand up to Racism.  It's not the answer, but it's certainly asking the right question.

Rotherham, and why we shouldn't listen to the racists.

So what next for this stand-up comedians lighted hearted blog posts?  A post about the Rotherham recent child abuse scandal?  Well, that is bound to be a wheeze.  Ho, ho, ho, strap in comedy lovers...

Well, maybe not.  Yes, I am covering that subject, but I must admit that a report uncovering the sexual exploitation and abuse of over 1400 children in Rotheram isn't exactly a giggle fest.  Still, as with any major news story, there are plenty of contradictions at play.

First was watching the BBC news two mornings ago which included an interview with the group "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation".  It twisted my mind as to why such a group existed.  After all, who would be against that group?

The other issue is the groups name.  Why "parents" against child sexual exploitation and not just "people"?  I don't have children myself, but does that mean they think I would be in some way neutral on the issue?  Would I be expected to complain to the BBC, demanding to know why they hadn't invited on a pro-paedophile spokesperson to provide balance?  No, I will be happily maintaining my license fee payments for the foreseeable future.

Of course a big issue with this case is the impact of race and racism, as the perpetrators here were mostly men from a Pakistani background.  With the ongoing rumblings of Investigation Yewtree turning up historical abuse cases involving mostly white male celebrities, you might be fooled in to thinking that overall race isn't really a factor.  But that's not going to hold the right wing press back.

Reading The Sun on Thursday, unsurprisingly, warmed my urine to a rolling boil.  A particular highlight being columnist Trevor Kavanagh's take on the issue, where he blames:

'mostly white, mostly Labour politicians and police... (who) represent a political class, backed by the BBC, who waved in millions of migrants during 13 years of Labour government under the discredited flag of multiculturalism.  Their avowed objective was to change the face of Britain which they deemed to be "too white"'

Of course!!  How stupid of me not to realise that the problem all along was caused by Labour, the BBC and multiculturalism!  Case solved, thanks Trev.

Aside from rantings by columnists such as Kavangh, the general argument is that the police in Rotherham, backed by Labour, didn't investigate the claims out of a fear of being seen as racist.  It would be easy to write off this argument as barking mad, because it is.  For a start, the police not wanting to be racist???  My, my, how times change.

Scarily though, you cannot just ignore this argument, because it is one that is seated well and truly in the mainstream.  The Sun are not alone in turning this horrific story about child abuse in to one for their own agenda attacking Labour and multiculturalism.

In reality, the real problem in this case is precisely the same problem as there was in the case against Jimmy Saville.  Victims and their families were blamed for the abuse, and ignored.

£60k salary v. honour.  Salary wins!

Police in Rotherham ignored the complaints because they saw the girls as complicit in their own abuse.  "If you hang around with that kind of crowd, what do you expect to happen", was their position.  In reality, where girls in any way "chose" to spend time with their abusers, that was as a result of grooming.  That's how it works, and that is why there is an age of consent.  They are children, not consenting adults, and they need protecting.

Perhaps there is some cultural aspect as to why a minority of Pakistani men thought it was acceptable to abuse young girls (and not exclusively white girls either, like the media often suggests).  But then, there is a cultural explanation as to why older white celebrities thought it was ok to do exactly the same.

As much as I mocked the name of "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation" before, one thing you can say is that they don't make any issue of race.  They, and anyone who is genuinely concerned with helping put a stop to child abuse in this way, say that the real issue is to put a stop to victim blaming, and for the police to take complaints seriously.