The defence of Jeremy Corbyn – a study in rank hypocrisy

Tribal loyalty does nobody any favours. This proves it

Goodness me this is a tedious one. As ever, the context: during today’s session of PMQ’s, following a particularly bellowing broadside from the Prime Minister in the direction of the Leader of HM Opposition, the Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn was caught on camera mouthing what appeared to be an unflattering term. While the words are disputed (sigh…I’ll come back to that), he called her a ‘stupid woman‘.

And before anyone starts, of course this is a ridiculous thing for us to be talking about and focusing on, but it has thrown up so many wider talking points. And those are what I want to discuss.

Because of course, it isn’t about the words. It’s about the person, the target and the fanatical, almost religious, tribalism that now dominates our public discourse. I wrote early on in my blogging life that you can tell someone’s opinion on one subject with a horrifyingly high degree of accuracy, based purely on their opinion on another, entirely separate matter. And here we are again.

To paraphrase the American comedian Bill Burr, all that matters is whether you wear a blue tie or a red tie. That’s it. That’s all you need in order to know what you think about this. Corbynite? Well it’s not a problem. Hate the guy? He must be punished, end of story.

What is particularly depressing has been the responses from the followers of the new Messiah. These range from the absurd (he didn’t say ‘woman’, he said ‘people’), to the deflective (look at what else is going on in the country!), from the downright evasive (Why are we even talking about this?) to the ridiculous (the guy is in trouble for saying something accurate!). What a horrible shame.

Firstly, the absurd. He said ‘people’, guys! No…no he really didn’t. If this is where you are then there really is no hope for conversation. I’d recommend you navigate away from here. I’ll even give you a link to something you’ll like. Go on.

‘We’ve got experts that said categorically…‘ Yeh and so have the other side. Stop being so dense.

Secondly, the deflective. Which would be a perfectly fair argument if it wasn’t for the fact that you wouldn’t be deflecting had a Tory done this. It is simply inconsistent to give JC a free pass on something that another would not. You’d be screaming ‘STRAIGHT WHITE OLD MALE CALLS POOR WEAK WILLED OPPOSITION MEMBER A STUPID WOMAN!!’ Of course there are worse things going on and this obviously doesn’t matter, but it would in reverse. Have some pride – be consistent.

The evasive. Yes ok it happened, but why are we talking about it? You know perfectly well why we’re talking about it. Had he just owned up and either apologised or defended his words, then we wouldn’t need to carry on talking about it. But he hasn’t, he’s lied and covered himself up in the face of blatant evidence – that’s worth talking about.

And finally, the ridiculous. The squalid, creepy defence of the Dear Leader. The backing from those who are quickest to jump on poor taste language, ‘microaggressions’, tiny hints of racism and sexism, the trawlers of social media histories, the petition signers.

‘But…but she is a stupid woman! He was only being accurate!’

Indeed. The problem with this becomes clear with a moment’s thought. To be entirely fair, I did see one or two of my friends come against this line furiously, maintaining their dignity. But come on…this is a slimy and quite shocking thing to do.

Again, had a Tory done this, you would be queueing up to explain why ‘stupid woman’ is different to ‘stupid man’, why their ‘privilege’ disallowed them from making any such statement, that any apology would not be accepted, such was the high cost of the offence.

Let’s take the argument and apply it. It was an accurate statement apparently. Ok, putting aside that it’s an opinion and not a fact, let’s say he was technically accurate to call her a ‘stupid woman’. She’s a woman, and she’s stupid, right? Stupid woman.

Well Diane Abbott is black. She’s demonstrably overweight and seems to have a flimsy grasp of numbers. So it would be totally fine for a Tory to be caught on camera following a statement from Ms. Abbott muttering ‘stupid fat black woman’. Wouldn’t it? Those are all technically accurate words, no?

Perhaps Emily Thornberry could be referred to as a ‘fat, snobby woman’ without fear of recourse? Or maybe Ed Miliband could be called a ‘conniving, backstabbing Jew’? Still accurate, individual words?

These are obviously pejoratives in their context, and nasty ones at that. It is easy to see that, as long as you are willing to. And I don’t claim that these are on the same level as ‘stupid woman’ because they aren’t, but why does that make ‘stupid woman’ ok?

I simply do not understand party tribalism. This is what you get from it and it’s pathetic. I remember wondering what to call this blog when I started it and had a few ideas – I’m so glad I went with Off the Party Line. That’s where we need to be – thinking, allowing for doubt, criticising your own side and praising the other whenever required. How can you have a moral purpose if you stick to party lines? I’ve praised and defended Corbyn in the past, several times, despite the fact I don’t like him or his ideas. And everyone makes mistakes, nobody can be perfect. But defending him even when he does something wrong?

This sort of episode makes Corbynism look more and more like a cult where the leader cannot be criticised, and it’s creepy. Watching perfectly sane and rational people claim he said ‘people’ is frightening, and the double standards are case studies in rank hypocrisy.

Oh great. Now I’ve got to defend Raheem Sterling

The winger is under fire – for a tattoo of a gun

Well thanks very much, instant reactors of the world. Now I’ve got to come to the defence of one the of slimiest, greediest, most loathsome individuals in the world – the Manchester City and London FC winger, Raheem Sterling. Fan-flipping-tastic.

It continues an apparent theme of this site. In recent times, I’ve come to the defence of Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn. Twice. It’s not always fun, but whenever anybody is being unfairly maligned or mistreated, whatever one thinks of them, one should always come to their defence.

So back to Sterling – I am loath to do this, as he is a repulsive, reptilian creature worthy of a career that spirals downwards towards ignominy and an eventual transfer to somewhere awful and humiliating like the Russian Second Division or the Scottish Third Division or Everton. Of course, these feelings of spite and bile are purely because he was a quality player who left Liverpool. I am unashamedly tribal in one aspect of life – football – and I shan’t be changing that. Indeed, if I ever met the guy I’d probably say hello and have a lovely chat. My football emotions aren’t to be taken seriously and I make no comment on the man’s character outside of football. The greedy little sod. Sorry.

So what has been his alleged crime? Mr Sterling posted a picture on Instagram that showed off his new tattoo – an M16 rifle on his lower right calf. This, safe to say, hasn’t gone down too well in this modern age of hand-wringing over guns, particularly big and scary ones, in the media.

The internet will always collapse in convulsive fits of spasmodic rage whenever any sportsperson does anything vaguely controversial

Now, I’m not going to make any comment on the offensiveness or not of his tattoo. Generally, with some exceptions, I find tattoos to be a bit of an eyesore anyway, but would never dream of telling anyone else what they should or should not have permanently etched onto their flesh. It’s not for me, but knock yourselves out if that’s what you want. Unless it contravenes a known law, you can show it off as much as you so desire.

He has explained its ‘deeper meaning’, which goes along the lines of it being a symbol against gun violence, owing to the fact that his father was himself murdered by a gunman. The positioning of it, on his right foot, symbolises the weapon that he uses to shoot with – not a gun, but his foot. again, think whatever you like about that, but its his decision and his tattoo.

It’s the reaction to it that’s got my back up. The internet will always collapse in convulsive fits of spasmodic rage whenever any sportsperson does anything vaguely controversial, and so that’s barely worth bothering with in terms of a rebuttal. But one particular reaction caught my eye and brought me here to write this defence of Mr Sterling.

A lady by the name of Lucy Cope, who founded Mothers Against Guns following the murder of her own son in 2002, gave the following statement:

“[The tattoo] is totally unacceptable. We demand he has the tattoo lasered off or covered up with a different tattoo. If he refuses, he should be dropped from the England team. He’s supposed to be a role model but chooses to glamorise guns.”

Could she not have ‘suggested‘ he cover it up? Might she not have ‘encouraged‘ him to think about removing it or changing it?

Now, I again make no comment on Ms. Cope, or her organisation. I know little about them. But I want to look at this statement and its purpose, because it seems to me extraordinary – an extreme overreaction with an unfortunate tone.

She is completely entitled to say that the tattoo is unacceptable. I take no issue with that – she can think whatever she likes and say whatever she likes in this regard, it is her opinion. Where she runs into trouble is the next phrase – “We demand…”

Ms. Cope makes a demand of a complete stranger that he either damages his body or hides it in shame. She then sets out the terms of the punishment should he refuse to comply with her demand. Of course, she has no power to enforce any of this, but the mere fact that anyone would use language like this to speak about or to another person about choices they have made speaks to the growing censoriousness that we see almost everywhere.

Could she not have ‘suggested‘ he cover it up? Might she not have ‘encouraged‘ him to think about removing it or changing it? Would not a better approach have been to actually engage him in a dialogue rather than making demands and threats?

I know exactly what I’d think if it were me being attacked. Suffice to say I’d be in no mood for a little chat

I do not wish to call into question the overwhelming emotion that such a person must feel, particularly given the tragic circumstances of her family. I’m sure I might feel exactly the same way in her situation. I also do not question her motive or intent. But this was a public statement made to a national newspaper. This kind of language does not start a healthy conversation, and I know exactly what I’d think if it were me being attacked. Suffice to say I’d be in no mood for a little chat.

It’s why I continue to implore everyone to take a step back and speak with a calm, measured tone. Take the time to think before reacting. It makes for a much calmer and less angry society, one in which we might actually be able to talk to one another rather than shout and make demands of one another. In this case, Raheem Sterling doesn’t need to answer to anyone unless he chooses to do so.

The greedy little sod.

Ken Livingstone resigns – and yet I don’t rejoice

Something still doesn’t feel quite right about this whole saga

Ken Livingstone has resigned (finally, one might say) from the Labour Party. So there we have it – the dragged out, inevitable result following a grotesque spectacle that has lasted 2 years. Two years. Has it really been that long? It simultaneously feels like an age and just a few days since the ex-Mayor of London uttered the phrase that may outlive anything else he has ever said: “Hitler was a Zionist“.

Rejoicing has come from most quarters outside of the Labour hard left to which Mr Livingstone nominally belonged. My own MP, Luciana Berger, who I very much like and has championed the cause of ridding the Labour Party of antisemitism, tweeted her approval with a note of disappointment that it has taken so long.

It is being positioned as a victory for the moderates, a victory over Jeremy Corbyn (whose response has, as is typical, been criticised) and a victory against antisemitism.

And yet…and yet…I just can’t bring myself to join the chorus. Something still doesn’t feel quite right about the whole issue. I say still, because back when this was all kicking off, I wrote in defence of Mr Livingstone:

“Here’s my problem – why didn’t anyone just challenge him on the facts? If you think you’re right about something, there is no reason to apologise. Sometimes people get hurt and that’s a shame, but if they’re hurt by something that is true, there’s not much you can do about that. As it happens, he’s wrong, so he should apologise. But the problem is, every time he is on the airwaves, he isn’t met by this challenge, he is just met by an incredulous presenter who simply cannot believe that he won’t apologise for hurting people’s feelings.

“I’ll be completely honest, I think the guy is wrong, but I do have a respect for his doggedness. He hasn’t just backed down like every other person in public life does and apologised just to end it all. Throughout this whole saga, I deliberately didn’t look up his references because I wanted to hear him faced with someone authoritative on the subject to deliver an actual riposte to his claims. The problem with not doing that, is that the people listening just hear his side, then a request for him to apologise. This leaves people going “well if he’s right, why should he?””

If somebody is going down, even an enemy of mine, you’d better have a good, logical and rational reason for it

It honestly feels like this never really happened. I saw the odd piece discussing the so-called ‘facts’ that Mr Livingstone was talking about, and some brilliantly dissected them and showed, to my satisfaction, that he was at the very least misinterpreting unquestioned historical events. David Baddiel’s piece in the Guardian was particularly good.

But the whole thing has been soaked in emotion and fury, something most of us hate when it is directed from the hard left towards the rest of us. It’s so easy to drop verbal nukes on people – ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, homophobe’, transphobe’, ‘Islamophobe’, all terms which, if they can stick, can destroy you in an instant. I hate their overuse and the casual way they are thrown around. Well, the latest powerful one is ‘antisemite’, and I’ll be damned if I start playing the same game as unthinking idiots whose tiny emotional capacities can’t separate “I think, after careful consideration, that the EU is a bloated, bureaucratic organisation which is not capable of real reform and which I think will collapse quite soon, and I’d rather Britain was away from that when it happens” from “I HATE IMMIGRUNTZ”.

I refuse to allow emotion, even when used to advance my own political ideas, to be the tool used in what should be a civilised argument. If somebody is going down, even an enemy of mine, you’d better have a good, logical and rational reason for it. If only this whole saga had taken place at the level of ‘Ken, you are wrong, here is why you are wrong and therefore why we’d like you to recant and apologise’, we may have better grounds to call for his sacking. As it is, it has taken place at the level of ‘what you said was very hurtful and we don’t like you so kindly p*** off or we’ll destroy you’, leaving the guy bewildered and in a more defensible position. He can claim he was hounded out by a mob without due process. Not something you want to leave an enemy with.

You might say that he didn’t help himself, that he seemed to just keep talking about Hitler every time a camera was pointing at him. But frankly, why shouldn’t he? That’s what he kept being asked about. It may look silly, but I’ve had to sit back and admire the guy whilst he engages in political suicide in order to not back down to emotional pressure. More power to him on that front.

He thinks he’s right. I think he’s wrong. He won’t be persuaded of that whilst people just shout in his face and demand apologies. He isn’t sorry, so why you even want him to say it is beyond me – you know it would be empty.

Listen, the Labour Party as an organisation can do whatever it likes. It’s not my problem how they go about their business. If they don’t want him there, they can get rid of him. It just seems like such spurious grounds at the moment, and without solid due process, it’s difficult to know. Antisemitism is definitely a real problem within the Labour Party. Is this a serious victory in that fight?

Somehow, it doesn’t feel like it.