A Bitter Type of Justice

I have been writing this post for the last few weeks. However, now that there is no chance of me being held in contempt of court over it, I'm going to say what I've wanted to say for months.

I told you. I bloody told you.

Today, Thomas Mair was found guilty of murder. He murdered his local MP, Labour's Jo Cox, of Batley and Spen, in June, a week before the EU referendum. He was motivated by far-right views, and tipped into murder by the referendum. As he carried out his appalling attack on that June day, Mair shouted "Britain first," or "independence for Britain." In his bag, alongside the weapons and ammunition, was a leaflet about the referendum.

At the time, I said that senior Leave people had to be prepared to stand by their words and actions. They had helped to create a climate of hysteria, in which an incident like this was made increasingly likely.

And lots of you were not happy with this. I remember being repeatedly told, by people from across the political spectrum, that Mair was clearly mentally ill, that it was nothing to do with the referendum, that I was wrong and sick to draw the connection.

Mair did not use medical evidence in his defence. That means he must be judged to be sane. Hiding behind the excuse of mental health is awful, as it insults those with genuine mental health conditions, and seeks to sweep away what Mair did as 'not his fault,' or 'just one of those things.' It also begs the question of why Mair is any different to those we have repeatedly labelled as terrorists: the IRA, Al Qaeda, the London bombers, ISIS. Many of these groups or people were ordinary, but who also took the messages of hatred and violence to the next level. They may be disturbed, but we do not treat them as such. The judge was correct- if they were terrorists, then so is Thomas Mair.

In fact, Mair did not defend himself at all. He has let his actions speak for themselves. And the jury have found him guilty.

So today I repeat what I said on that awful day. I did not accuse any of you of being murderers, despite what some people thought. But those who shaped and projected the agenda of the Leave campaigns helped to create a climate in which politicians were dehumanised, and in which people were told this was their chance to take back control of their country from the foreigners who were standing between them and greatness.

It is hardly surprising that, in this febrile atmosphere, someone with a violent tendency, with abhorrent political ideas, saw the signals and decided to act.

The Leave campaigns should be ashamed of themselves. By beating the drum of xenophobia, and screaming a message of taking back control, they sent the signals that led to those terrible events in June.

That this message of hatred and bigotry took us out of the EU is bad enough. But that someone had to pay with their life because of it is utterly, utterly shameful.

Today, justice was seen to have been done. But it will never bring back the person whose life was tragically cut short.

The best evidence that Trump is a dictator in the making

As you may have noticed, I am no fan of the next American president. I think he is a dangerous, ignorant, quasi-fascistic demagogues, who in his pursuit of the most powerful job on Earth has provoked violence, called into question freedom of expression, and threatened minorities and the most vulnerable in society.

There has been a lot of lazy analysis since his election the week before last, about how Trump is a dictator in the making. Much of this is false, or over-hyped, or a false/easy comparison with Hitler.

Unfortunately, we must await Trump's assumption of power before we know for certain whether his strongman rhetoric will exhibit itself as strongman leadership.

But, there is one worrying sign, that should be sending a chill through any observer.

It is his taste in interior design.

This week Trump met Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister. Much of the media commentary centred on the fact that Trump shouldn't really be meeting foreign leaders before he takes office, or on the (very real and grave) questions raised by the presence of his daughter and son in law.

Me? I was gazing in horrified fascination at the inside of Trump Tower:

Similar scenes were in evidence when Trump met (/was accosted by) Nigel Farage. Look past the horrifying sight of two of the most repulsive men in Western politics sharing a moment to bask in their destruction of the Western liberal world order, what the hell are they standing in front of?!

Not only is it bloody awful, but I realised I'd seen designs like this before...

This is inside one of the palaces of Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq toppled in 2003

While this is inside a palace of Nicolae Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator who was ousted in 1989

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya doesn't come out of this well either...

The photos from inside North Korea are impossible to verify, so I won't post them. But needless to say, the trend isn't looking positive one little bit.

If Donald Trump tries to get the builders in at the White House, that will be the best sign that is he trying to override democracy. That'll be when we all have to get scared.

The Last Gasp for the Union

The West Cork constituency really was at the very edge of Britain. It comprises those parts of Ireland that border the Atlantic Ocean. The next bit of land is in North America. Even today, it is a wild, rugged part of the world. I'd know, I was there this summer. It is where my grandad is from.

One hundred years ago, it was the scene of firsts and lasts. The sitting MP had died. This meant that West Cork held the dubious honour of being the first test of Irish public opinion since the Easter Rising of April 1916.

The initial reaction to the violence in Dublin had been one of annoyance at the actions of the rebels. Ireland was already guaranteed Home Rule once the slaughter in France was over. In the eyes of many, the declaration of a republic by the Irish Republican Brotherhood had harmed the cause of Irish nationalism, by associating it with violence and treason.

However, this initial dismissal had turned to shock and outrage, as the British government executed ringleaders, and imposed martial law across Ireland. The by-election in West Cork was a chance to gauge the lie of the land.

Seemingly, it was business as usual. The seat was taken by the Irish Parliamentary Party, the moderate nationalist party which advocated legislative autonomy for Ireland within the United Kingdom. They took it from a breakaway group, which also advocated a limited form of Home Rule. Both were campaigning for a settlement less powerful than Scotland and Wales enjoy today.

In this most Irish of seats, it seemed as if the settlement agreed before the outbreak of war in Europe, of Irish Home Rule once the slaughter was ended, was holding. The rebellion in Dublin seemed to have failed in its aim of persuading the Irish to abandon the Union between Britain and Ireland.

But it was false hope. The West Cork by-election of November 1916 actually marks the last time a candidate committed, in some form, to the Union between Ireland and Great Britain secured political representation outside of the future Northern Ireland.

Divisions within the republican party Sinn Fein meant they had not fielded a candidate. However, in every by-election held in Southern Ireland after this one, Sinn Fein swept all before them. When the general election of 1918 was held, they took every seat outside of the North, with the exception of the oddities of the Dublin University constituency.

West Cork proved a last gasp for moderate Irish nationalism, that would have kept Ireland and Britain united. From now on, the march to Irish independence was unstoppable.

Donald Trump vs the Media

One of the more worrying narratives to already emerge from the nascent Trump administration is the idea that he is trying to restrict media access to the White House. Some of Trump's supporters and surrogates have already suggested he refuse journalist credentials to those newspapers and TV channels that fought in the last ditch to try and stop him becoming President.

Fine. If Donald Trump wants to go to war with the media, let him.

Why am I so sanguine about this? One of those newspapers he has apparently considered blocking from the White House is the Washington Post. Amongst all the giants of journalism Trump is considering shunning, this would be suicidal.

Why? The Washington Post has previous in this area. I reckon they'd love to claim their second Presidential scalp...

N.B. I'm sure a longer piece on Trump and the media is in me somewhere, just not during assessment week!

Night in the City on a Hill

What a catastrophe.

I am not going to row back on what I said yesterday. I still maintain that Donald Trump is singularly unfit to hold the office of President of the United States of America. He is a racist, misogynistic demagogue. He has cut a path to the US Presidency by insulting minorities, women, and anyone who has stood in his way. He has threatened to use the organs of the state to put his political and media opponents on trial. He has incited violence, and undermined confidence in the political process. He has threatened to pull America out of it's commitments around the world, removing the defensive umbrella that provides the security of the Western world. And his economic policies, if he follows through on what he says, will do enormous harm to the world economy. The day America defaults on its debt is a day we will all become poorer.

And the message he has sent around the world is this. You can insult your way to the highest office in the land. Sexual assault, fraud, inciting violence, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, none of these are barriers. What he has promised to do is virtually impossible, therefore letting down those who are already feeling powerless and alone. All you have to do is say what people want to hear, and it will get you power.

What a terrible message to send round the world. From January, the leader of the free world be a rapist, who doesn't pay his taxes, and has insulted and lied his way to the Oval Office. It is utterly, utterly shameful.

On a purely technical note, if this election was held in any other country, Hillary Clinton would today be celebrating a knife-edge victory over Donald Trump. As I write, she holds a 1% lead over Trump in the popular vote. But it is virtually meaningless. For the second time in my lifetime, the Electoral College has delivered the loser of the popular vote the ultimate prize. Last time, we ended up with Dubya. This time, we got the Donald. Neither of those are compelling arguments in favour of the system.

I am going to write a piece soon about this tidal wave of populism which is sweeping the Western world, and how those of us who say we are on the left can start try and work out a way forward.

But that is for the future. Today is for looking aghast at the fear and loathing that the 2016 election has wreaked.

It is now night in the city on a hill. The dawn will be a long time coming.

The Dark Night of the Soul in the City on a Hill

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid

(Matthew 5:14)

Today is US election day. American voters face a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. One is the epitome of the technocracy, someone who has operated inside the Washington political scene for a quarter of a century. The other has been described as 'Rome burning in man form.' It was on a comedy show, but no one is laughing now.

For a long time now, the United States of America has been described as a city on a hill. The expression, Biblical in origin, began its association with Americans in 1630, nearly a century and a half before the creation of the United States. It was used in a sermon by one of the Pilgrim Fathers, John Winthrop, whilst on his way to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It has subsequently been used by figures such as John F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and most famously, Ronald Reagan.

These political leaders have used the expression as a metaphor. They are espousing the idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States of America has a role as a leader, and a beacon. John Winthrop was using the quotation as a exhortation to moral, Christian leadership. Since then, it has been invoked to justify the leading clout of America around the world.

Now, God knows I am not the biggest fan of the United States of America. There are many parts of its culture, society and politics that I find abhorrent, from the extreme poverty to the rampant consumerism, mass gun deaths and appalling social divisions. And it hasn't helped itself internationally a lot of the time either, be it invading and destroying a sovereign state for no good reason, through to drone strikes and illegal killings by special forces.

And yet... The United States is the sole global superpower. And it is a liberal democracy. And, on the whole, it has used this power around the world for good.

Think about it the other way round. How will the world be different if, or when, the People's Republic of China is calling the global shots? Or the Russian Federation develops a greater desire and means to impose its view on the rest of the world?

America is an ally. They may have 'turned up late,' to the Second World War, as the common dismissive attitude is, but they had been bankrolling Britain's war effort for a long time before the attack on Pearl Harbour. After the war, it essentially funded the rebuilding of Western Europe by itself. Its role in NATO has helped to keep the peace in Europe for nearly seven decades. Its participation in international conflicts and peacekeeping missions is immensely valuable, and its power and sway has made it a deal broker in conflicts as diverse as Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

Like it or not, but the United States is the ultimate guarantor of Western security. It is also the economic centre of the world, despite a crippling downturn eight years ago. Not to mention a massive cultural centre. What happens there matters to all of us. Not for nothing is the President often referred to as the Leader of the Free World.

And Donald Trump wants to end that role of America as the city on a hill. He has spent the election saying that he doesn't see why the USA should be defending others, unless they pay a premium for it. He will willingly arm other countries with nuclear weapons, if it means that the USA no longer has to pay to protect them. Could you imagine what Putin may do next if the United States refused to honour its guarantees to the Baltic States? Or Poland? Would nuclear weapons spread if America's allies weten't sure they lived under the nuclear umbrella?

This city on a hill starts at home. This election has seen Donald Trump run on a demagoguic platform, attacking racial minorities, women, and the disabled, in language and terms which are abhorrent. He has incited violence against those who oppose him, has advocated using the machinery of government to go after his political and media opponents, and called the integrity of the election process itself into question. There is a very real chance that he will not acknowledge the result if he loses; the peaceful transfer of power is essential in all democracies, it isn't an optional extra. If he is elected, what sort of message will that send to those around the planet who look to the United Sates as the leader of the free Western world?

It is important that the United States remains that city on a hill, for all who believe in liberal democracy. Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton (and I seem to be in a minority in thinking she is an excellent potential president), Trump is a quasi-fascistic demagogue, and cannot be allowed to control the machinery of government. His election may be a scream of rage from those whose lives have been battered by globalisation, but he is not the answer.

I hope that tomorrow Trump is consigned to the history books. But until then, we have to sit out the long, dark night of the soul.

See you tomorrow.

Fear and Loathing in 2016- Donald Trump and the UK High Court

In the last few weeks, Donald Trump has refused to say that he will accept the results of the US presidential election if he doesn't win. He has also called for his supporters to go and monitor the polls, as he is afraid that they are going to be rigged against him.

This week, the High Court in London ruled that the government could only trigger Article 50, and begin the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, if they had first got Parliament to approve the measure.

What do these seemingly unconnected events have in common? They both terrify me.

Obviously, I am terrified at the thought of a Trump presidency, and I am writing another post about that. But for him to refuse to say that he'd honour the vote is unprecedented. His claims of widespread voter fraud are already calling the result into doubt. He is undermining the entire electoral process, before a single ballot has been counted. That is scary.

The High Court ruling has also given me the shivers. Not the ruling itself. I do welcome it, but I recognise that the law around the UK's membership of the EU is horrifically complicated. Is it an international treaty obligation, or a matter of domestic law? Can it be both? That's what the poor judges had to try and untangle.

And for their troubles, they have had a tonne of vitriol poured all over them. These headlines from Friday are particularly sickening:

It's the one from the Daily Mail that gets me. 'ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE' The ruling doesn't stop Britain leaving the EU. I'm resigned that that will happen eventually. It is just evidence that the UK's relationship with the EU is complex, and unravelling it will be an absolute nightmare.

But the link between these headlines, and the ramblings of the Donald, is this.

They are calling into question the very institutions that comprise a stable, democratic state. Free and fair elections. An impartial judiciary. The peaceful transfer of power. All of these are hallmarks of a Western liberal democracy. And now there are voices saying that somehow, these hallmarks have failed. That the system is rigged, and there is an elite controlling you, the ordinary people, and trying to frustrate you your wishes.

By seeking to label these checks and balances as 'enemies of the people,' or by saying the system is rigged against people, we may be unleashing forces we cannot control.

In 1995, this type of rhetoric was common in the USA. There were widespread anti-government messages, pushed by talk radio, the internet, and some elements of the Republican party. And then in April 1995, someone decided to act. He parked a massive truck bomb outside a federal government building in Oklahoma City. It was underneath the creche. 169 people died. 19 of them were children.

The UK is not immune. I live barely a mile from where the only MP in modern times to be killed by someone other than the IRA was shot dead in the streets of her constituency, by a man with far-right connections, at the height of the EU referendum. While this case is about to go to trial, and so I don't really want to write any more, the defence team has decided not to rely on medical evidence.

But I am scared. It only takes one person to be influenced by the messages they hear, or by the signs they see.

If Donald Trump wants to question the impartiality of the election process, or the British media want to undermine the objectivity of the law, then they must be prepared to face the consequences, and be ready to be held accountable if others decide to turn their words into actions.