Fear Of A Slack Planet
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the civilising effect
of the general population on politicians.
My MP, writing in his regular blog, explained his support
for ‘military action’* in Syria. Almost
like he was answering my blog. Are you
reading, Stephen Williams MP?
(He’s also previously written in support of ‘military
action’* in Libya. I wonder if there’s a country in the middle east he
wouldn’t like to bomb…probably Saudi Arabia, the harsh totalitarian theocracy,
since they buy lots of weapons from Britain.)
*A quaint euphemism for killing lots of people to help them
toward freedom. The Al Qaeda network seems to have a similar viewpoint on
the necessity of killing people to help people.
The phrase ranks alongside ‘collateral damage’, ‘surgical
strike’ and ‘targeted killing’ as one of the more sophistic and odious phrases
of obfuscation in our much-abused language. As a wordsmith, I can’t help
but feel that language is an utterly inadequate tool for communication when it
is so easily abused in the service of power, money and murder.
Here’s what he wrote about it:
I believe it
is the duty of advanced democracies to use their resources to advance and
protect human rights around the world. In the main, that should be
through peaceful means…But sometimes we have to wave a big stick against
regimes that are not interested in diplomacy and human rights. That’s why I
voted to intervene in Libya two years ago, to avert a massacre by Gadaffi.
That’s why I would still vote to support British participation in a surgical
strike against Assad’s ability to mass murder Syrian civilians. It would
not be about regime change or taking sides in a civil war. It would certainly
not be an Iraq style invasion. But it would be about doing what we can to
protect the lives of innocent people from the barbarous actions of a brutal
dictator.
So, that’s alright then: it would be about protecting
innocent people, for the first time ever. Why would anyone have a hard
time believing that? Go on, just try and deconstruct the obvious
humanitarian motives of this humble, peace-loving public servant, you fucking
cynic.
I, for one, look forward to backbench MPs’ passionate
advocacy of military action against North Korea, Turkmenistan, Burma, Saudi
Arabia, Eritrea, Sudan and Uzbekistan, since they are taking time out from
their regular immigrant/welfare-recipient-hating contests to save the oppressed
people of the world.
And it’s not like the nobly-inclined violence of the
powerful ever hurt anyone who it was (apparently) intended to help, is it?
And how gratifying it is to know that we live in an
“advanced democracy”. Perhaps his
parliamentary colleagues tried to make this fantasy a reality by voting against
him in the “Let’s-bomb-another-middle-east-country-that’s-no-threat-to-us-because-the-President-thinks-it’s-a-good-idea”
government motion.
Since the vote was won by sanity, I didn’t get round to
writing to my MP to call him out for advocating international terrorism. Sorry.
I know, I know, I’m slack. I had
loads to do, mind. I read Fear And
Loathing In Las Vegas that week (it’s great).
The MP in question has previously written about his support
for Palestinians – strangely, though, he hasn’t suggested bombing Jerusalem to
help those killed by white phosphorous during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9….
If I get round to writing to him, maybe I’ll ask why that
is.
Increase The Peace.
Clayton Blizzard
No comments:
Post a Comment