Men

Suffering confusion over Rob Newman's post "So You Should Be" about the BBC apologising for a prog called "Bring Your Husband To Heel", which has received complaints for being sexist.Had to agree with Rob when he complains of the plethora of stuff in the media that portray men as stupid. Particularly the "double sexism"of the progs like the one above that seem to send the message that only women are capable of housework, and it's laughably funny when silly little men try and do anything so complicated as hoover the lounge.

Reading this on the above prog however, I was stumped at the line:

"The premise of the show, produced by independent firm Talkback, sees Clayton tackle stereotypical "husband problems" such as computer addiction and failing to do chores."

Because the House of Scribble was the venue of such a "stereotypical husband problem" only today. Now, I had no thoughts of bringing Mr Scribbles "to heel", but I do remember hoping that the person who created "Pro-Evo" dies a slow and undignified death.

Big Business and Binge Drinking

It needs not Scribbles to come from her sick bed to tell you that the curses of society come in waves of fashion.

When I was a youngster (300 bc approx) society was very worried that we’d shag ourselves out of existence. The message that sex = death was played at us from every direction, and condoms were chucked around like sweeties.

A couple of years later, society wasn’t so worried about AIDS anymore, and began to believe that its downfall would come from drugs. And dropping an E was as bad as injecting heroin. We were doomed, they said, doomed, doomed. I worked in Theatre in Education at this time, and there were a lot of grants available for teaching kids why they shouldn’t smoke, swallow, or inject anything that the big drug companies couldn’t profit from.

And now we’re worried about our binge-drinking culture. Well, here’s something. It’s about bloody time. Because whilst down the years health authorities have busied themselves wagging their fingers over drugs and stuffing condoms in kids’ pockets, kids have always been occupying themselves with getting pissed as much and as often as they could. Not every kid. But more kids drink than have sex or take drugs, and that is for two reasons. One, drink is easier to get hold of than sex or drugs. And two, no one until now has been that bothered by it.

In my sixth form days, there were more of us turning up with regular hangovers than not. At University, if you didn’t drink even the professors thought you weird. In work, socialising meant going down the pub. If you’re interested in sport, you must watch it down the pub, or open a few cans at home. Weddings, funerals, christenings, let’s get pissed. Birthdays, let’s get smashed. Christmas, New Year’s Eve, wasted. It’s not so much that society says it is OK to get pissed, more that it says you’ve got to. You’re a bit boring, aren’t you, a bit snobbish if you don’t want to end up with your head down a toilet bowl at the end of an evening? Why would we want to educate kids about alcohol when it’s the stuff of social life in this country.

And so of all the bad things that come with drink, the domestic violence, the lost potential, the ill health, what is it that had finally drawn society’s attention to the danger of drink? Yobbishness. Come on, all this worry over the licensing laws encouraging more people to drink, it’s not because there is a final realisation that society ought to take a more balanced approach in its attitude towards alcohol. It’s because they’re frightened the kids are getting out of control. Binge drinking, under-age drinking, all fine as long as it’s quiet and out of the way. But hoards of drunken young people, stumbling, puking, shouting along our streets, well that’s not on is it? The anarchy of getting pissed en masse attracts some, terrifies others. The chaos of it is scary. All that youthful sexuality, dressing up, and losing their heads. What would mother say?

Except, hang on. I don’t remember said people being the ones who demanded, built, and paid for the “entertainment” areas in our cities. Whose idea was it exactly to give over whole streets of city centres to a bunch of pubs? And what did they expect? That the pubs would put profits behind responsibility, and that the people who went to the pubs would have the odd glass of wine and then sip at water for the rest of the night before going home to a cup of cocoa? I might be wrong, but I have a sneaky suspicion that the whole idea of these places was to actually attract masses of people and make huge profits by getting them pissed. And yet somehow The Yobbish Culture this has created is the fault of The Youth Of Today. Anybody would think that today’s generation, unlike all previous generations who happily took the pledge, were born with some unique rogue gene that makes them hedonistic ruffians. They held a gun did they, this generation, to the heads of the drink industry? Made them sell them booze until oblivion levels are reached?

Nope, oddly, it’s the older, more responsible, less yobbish generation that is pouring the booze into the mouths of babes.

The danger to society does not come from people getting out their heads on Friday and Saturday nights, it comes from the power of big business and society’s complicity in their money-grabbing exploits. Whilst it shakes it’s head in shock and despair at displays of drunken wantonness, at the same time society makes it as easy as possible for its citizens to get totally smashed. It sanctions what it condemns. Messing with our heads, whilst taking our cash.

We could do with a bit of a reality check about the effects of alcohol throughout society, and look at what happens behind closed doors as well as on our streets.

And yet obviously our streets are messed up by fun-loving, puking, young people types, and properly handled I do think the 24 hour drinking licences could be of use. They could help stop the bedlam on the streets at chucking out time, make it easier to get transport home, stop the mad binges to beat Last Orders. I’m a bit ancient now to be toddling down Broad Street in a tiny dress and high heals, but on the occasions when I’m out on the town, it would be nice to have a drink after midnight myself, without having to go to a nightclub. I don’t believe, actually, that the change to the licensing laws will enhance our tendency to binge drink or create the downfall of society as we know it. Just because you give a 24 hour licence to a pub, doesn't mean that we force people to drink for 24 hours.

Yet if we’re a bit worried about where we are going with all this boozing, well then there are a few things we could do. One, tackle attitudes towards alcohol in schools and chuck the kind of money at it that we spend on campaigns about sex, drugs, and cigarettes. Two, be as hard on booze sponsorship as we have been on cigarette sponsorship and advertising, to try and break our automaton response to big events and getting pissed. Three, get the drink industry to be more responsible – if we can scare them into submission over having smokers in their pubs, then we can do it over serving pissed people another drink. We mustn’t let media hysteria about drunken yobs fool us as to who is the real trouble maker here. Remember, big business kills, but a yob is just a young person who’s too young to know better.

Now, that was a long post I’m off for a… oh shit, I’ve left my fags down the pub.

Iraq Constitution finally out there

"We, the Iraqi people now rising from suppression and looking forward to a future in a republican, federal, democratic and pluralist system, have made a pact to respect the rule of law, reject the politics of aggression, give attention to the rights of women, men and children, spread the culture of diversity, and uproot terrorism."

And we all wish them luck. Don't we?

I must have been ill...

I watched the cricket!

With a patient Mr Scribbles by my side I learnt a little bit about what was going on, and it's amazing how much more interesting something can be when you actually understand it. Some might say it is a sexier game than football. Something to do with the white sportswear and all those intense, moody looks. But, being married, I wouldn't know about that.

If I hadn't been ill however, I don't know I'd have had the patience for a whole afternoon of it. No wonder it was one for the toffs - hours and hours and days and days and days of the stuff. Couldn't do that whilst holding down a job at the local factory could you? Nope, ninety minutes on a Saturday afternoon is all the workers could slot in.

Anyway, here's to stuffing the Aussies.

And if the chickens don't get you...

Global warming. Europe is either under floods of water or on fire, and here in Edgbaston we've gone from bleak rainy weather, to happy continental sit-outsidy sunshine, to windy city, to winter hail, and now to a sort of can't-make-my-mind-up weak sunshine. In one afternoon.

You can turn the telly off when it comes to threats from terrorism or contagious diseases, but I don't want to have to start sitting in rooms with the curtains closed just yet.

Thoughts from the Fever

Under normal circumstances I’d write a debunk of the “Don’t Get Me Started” prog last night on FIVE, starring Mr Buerk and his views on how our “feminised” society will lead us all to hell.

Unfortunately I’m ill. I’ve just spent the last few days snivelling and shivering in the grip of fever, and I find my devastating wit and incisive analysis dulled. Yes, I know, it’s scary. Never mind the threat from female values - how will the troubled world get on if it doesn’t have Scribbles to bring to it reason and succour?

So, having dragged myself bravely out of my sick bed where lately I have had conversations with Robbie Coltrane dressed as Dr Johnson (is that a Blackadder thing?) and thought I was in a Sheridan play (I hate Sheridan, even more than I hate Brecht, of all the plays I had to be in, why one of his? And why the constant trap door illusion?), I will settle with the following:

Mr Buerk’s argument was rubbish. What an odd squashed world indeed viewed through such peculiar examples and starting off from such a tiny, flimsy stance.

Other thoughts passing through my delirium

24 hour drinking will make train stations unsafe

Having just watched C4 news and now ITN, the police seem to be using the media to make the point that if we relax licensing laws, then it will make our train stations unsafe. Where does one start with such a leap of logic like that?

Sad story of Rory Blackwell

News reports are full of how we mustn’t speculate on what happened, before going on to do exactly that.

Hand of God

Maradona says, yes, he did use his hand to score that goal. But he admitted this years ago didn’t he? Didn’t he say it was the hand of God?

If al-qeada or the boys in blue don’t get you, the chickens will

Now we've all got to be terrified of Bird flu. Living is a dangerous business, nicht wahr?

TV adverts

Why are the TV adverts so much louder than the TV progs?

Do you find it a balancing act carrying all those bank loans and credit cards bills? Why not replace your existing credit with one loan?

What planet have I woken up on this morning?

Weird no? This is what happens when you take drugs, kids.

Fifth in the League

And so Pompey are crushed by a devastating performance by West Bromwich Albion.

We are on our way. The Premiership quakes.

Goodbye, Mo.

It is the greatest pity that there are not many more of us like you. If others could put aside their egos, their grudges, their judgments in the way that you could, politics would achieve more. Clever, engaging, determined, you were as impressive as you were likeable. You may never have felt yourself quite in the fold of Blair’s government, but you were never without friends – near and far.

A fun loving person who was also wise, some things you said have stuck with me. I’ll keep those things safe.

Goodbye Mo. Thank you.

Women and the Iraq Constitution

This, from Haifa Zangana in today’s Guardian, makes depressing reading.

Tag-line: “The battle over the constitution is regarded by most Iraqi women, confined to their homes by the occupation, as an irrelevance.”

Zangana’s makes the point that the constitution is a process “designed not to represent the Iraqi people’s need for a constitution but to comply with an imposed timetable aimed at legitimising the occupation.” Now, that’s my first quibble. I don’t agree that the constitution is about legitimising “the occupation”, although I do have my worries about the keenness of the coalition to keep to the timetable in order that they may leave Iraq.

She says that the constitution “is being written in a war zone, in a country on the verge of civil war” and that “Most Iraqi women.. feel that the constitution is not their priority.” “Women leaders” “bicker” over “nominal posts” she says, whilst “The suffering of their sisters in cities showered with napalm, phosphorus and cluster bombs by the US jets… is met with rhetoric about training women for leadership and democracy”

Well, when you put it like that. But the truth is that during a time of revolution bloodshed and high ideals and are always awkward bedfellows. Her words put me in mind of the French Revolution and the struggle the women’s movement faced then too. In France amongst all the carnage there was an unruly rush by various liberal fractions to grab as much freedom and rights as possible. But mostly it was a scramble for the freedom and rights of all men. Mary Wollstonecraft’s, writer of the famous A Vindication of the rights of Woman, was attracted to France at the time of revolution because she saw in the country’s struggle for a new order a place for her feminist agenda.

But once there she recognised a world of difference between what she thought the Revolution was about and what was actually happening. The amount of slaughter and blood being shed shocked her to the core, and just like Zangana, for a time thought her ideals pointless in such a place. It took a while before she could argue, even to herself, that the Revolution was a painful process that would play its part in freeing the minds of a nation to enable it to embrace a new political order.

But the process played out without the voice of women, because within a few years of the revolution the women’s movement was defeated. They were overwhelmed from several fronts. They were attacked physically, but they were also attacked for being immoral, for being silly, for destroying the peace of homelife, and for talking too much. In 1793 a civil code which would have ensured equality and independence was rejected. The message was clear - women were not equal to men. And make no bones about it; the women of France still pay the price today.

Zangana says that “In Iraq, “women’s rights” is an absurd discourse chewing on meaningless words” and she talks disdainfully of “western-style women’s rights and democracy.” And in this, not only is she incredibly racist, but she also shows her complete ignorance of how women’s rights were secured in the west. Since the dawning of the idea of human rights and equality, intellectually, sexually, politically, woman has always had to argue against current thinking and fight through abuse and reactive panic to gain what men had already got. The democracy and equality that I share in Britain in 2005 was not a spontaneous occurrence in the western hemisphere, but a state-of-affairs that women had to fight for in exactly the same way that the women of Iraq are now fighting. Then as now women, not just men, argued against female emancipation. In Victorian England Caroline Norton proclaimed that the idea that women were equal to men as “silly” even as she made her impressive campaign for equality of wives and mothers under the law, and it took half a lifetime for Florence Nightingale to agree that women could actually have the skills and intelligence to become doctors.

And note too that Zangana does not find men’s rights “absurd” or “meaningless.” Freedom and equality for men no doubt remain commendable no matter the carnage.

But it is in this that Zangana really reveals herself: “Most Iaqi women do not regard traditional society, exemplified by the neighbourhood and extended family, however restrictive at times, as the enemy. In fact, it has in practice been the protector of women and children, of their physical safety and welfare, despite lowest-common-denominator demands on dress and personal conduct.” (emphasis mine).

This is an old argument that women are better off under the protection of men than independent of them. And so we are reduced to children, and grouped with animals the mentally incapable. Hopeless and dependent, we can wish for no more than that our protectors be kind, that they are not too “restrictive”, and that they don’t make too many “demands”, because if they do then quite frankly you are fucked. Once you hand over the reigns of power, you are at your rulers mercy for better or for worse.

And it also raises the spectre that to let women loose on society is to ruin the peace of the home. But to crash in with a high ideal of my own, what kind of home is forged out of a marriage where one party is dominant over the other? I can’t believe that a partnership that resembles a master and his pet, can be anywhere near as satisfying as a partnership of equals; not for the woman and not for the man. Male or female, ask yourself now, would you like a life-time partner who was uneducated, helpless against you, and ignorant of the world? And what does it say of anybody who would?

Women are tribal, just the same as men. I’m not surprised there isn’t a wholesale rejection by women of their traditional role in Iraqi society. And I well can understand that in the daily struggle to stay alive that high ideals may seem irrelevant. But the Iraqi constitution is not meaningless, and elbowing women aside whilst equality is up for grabs will have consequences for generation after generation. Now is not the time to cling to the known. Now is the time to learn from history and look to the future.

What a Wonderful World

Explosions in Iraq, 42 dead, 80 injured. Apparently timed to coincide with resumed talks on the constitution.

Mr Menezes. No positive identification, he didn’t run nor vault the ticket barrier, he wasn’t wearing a padded jacket, there was no attempt to warn him, and he was already restrained before he was shot in the head.

I don’t feel like we’re winning today.

MICHAEL BUERK YOU ARSEHOLE

It's... I.... where do you... I think I need to calm down before I write anything much on this.

As women in Iraq are currently being murdered and raped for not wearing a veil and risking their lives to try and secure basic rights under their own constitution, I really think this is the wrong time for some old, middle-class, white, male, smug, rich, wanker to be given air time to say such things as women making important decisions in top jobs is a "problem" that society needs "to admit to". I'd like to write something about Michael Buerk probably not being able to get it up which is why he finds women such a threat, but that would just be petty of me and demeaning of such a usually thoughtful blogger, ALTHOUGH PROBABLY VERY ACCURATE.

update:
I have clamed down and regret making a cheap personal gibe about Michael Buerk's ability to get it up. But I stand by my accusation that he is old, middle-class, white, male, smug, rich and a wanker (not in the literal sense, I would have no way of knowing, and would never wish to) and that it is very wrong to allow this kind of shoddy, whiney kind of sexism be given out as entertainment at the moment when for some women in this world it is no laughing matter. Somebody put the silly man out to grass before he does any harm.

update:
Better women than me have more sensible things to say about this.

And this is interesting. Mr Buerk says:

"Look at the changes in the workplace. There is no manufacturing industry any more; there are no mines; few vital jobs require physical strength," he added.

Now I'm all confused, because if manufactoring jobs and working down mines was so great then why wasn't Mr Buerk doing it for a living instead of his poncy media stuff? And who said that the only definition of masculinity was doing a physical job with rubbish pay? Scribbles would like to assure any male readers whose jobs require mental power rather than physical, that they can still probably class themselves as men and not to let Mr Buerk worry them.

15 August

Today in Iraq, Iraqi leaders sign draft constitution. (update on this here)

60 years ago today Japan surrenders.


Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war
John Milton 1608-1674

Film with an identity crisis

Went to see The Island Sunday afternoon – a futuristic big-budget flick with Ewan McGregor.

There was a feel of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four about it at first, and whilst that lasted it was a good film. Ewan played Lincoln, who was the Winston Smith character, Scarlett Johansson played the Julia part, and Sean Bean played the O’Brien role.

The characters inhabits a sort of multiplex where everybody is constantly watched and monitored, but it’s not the grubby land of scarcity of Oceana, more like a huge version of a Living Well fitness centre. It is noticed that Lincoln is having bad dreams and has started to question his environment. Step in Bean’s O’Brien character, complete with the habit of resettling his glasses on his nose. Except Bean’s O’Brien is crap. Far from being a man for whom there was no stratagem he’s not equal to, and no danger he could not foresee, he pisses himself at the slightest sign of trouble, and ends up being a bad copy of Jonathon Price’s character in Tomorrow Never Dies who was the worst Bond villain ever.

And not for this film the careful unravelling of such silly things as story lines and intrigue. No, let’s get to the point shall we? Convenient plot devices quickly see Lincoln and Blonde Side Kick breaking out of the Fitness Centre with less bother than it took me once to get out of Rubery Retail Park. Then suddenly we’re watching Logan’s Run. Oh, and now here’s a bit of humour. Oh, and now we’re watching The Matrix. Then comes the bit where somebody realised that there were millions of pounds in the special effects budget untouched and that they’d better get cracking – cue, what seemed like hours of very loud car chases, crashes and explosions which added absolutely nothing, I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to the film. (why do the studios think that people need their films shovelled full with this crap? Did Waterworld teach them nothing?) It finally ended with a contrived super-hero finale which wrapped things up in an empty and meaningless sort of way.

I can’t help feeling that hidden amongst all of these special effects, clichéd action moments, and stolen motifs from other films, there was a real gem here. Without giving the film away, there was a chance to examine in an interesting and intelligent way how money and big business combined with the human capacity for selfishness could lead us all to hell. But no, who wants to be given the chance to think when you can just sit and watch helicopters explode and big metal things being rolled into cars.

And the frustrating thing about watching a film like this is knowing that the real world is a far more dangerous and fascinating place than anything this bunch of dullards could possibly have come up with.

Decadent and Immoral? You must be from the west then.

Forgot to mention this, also from last week’s Observer.

On commenting on Tory MP, John Hayes, angst dribblings in the Spectator about Muslims being right to hold us in contempt for our decadent ways, Cristina Odone opines that it’s not just 32% of Muslims who believe that “Western Society is decadent and immoral,” but that there are “a number of others who see their values trashed by the liberal establishment.”

These people who “believe in self-restraint… in family life… in divine judgement and in judging others” are infuriated to “find themselves scorned as fundamentalists for holding the same core values that only recently were shared by the whole of society.”

She never says exactly what these core values are, nor when Britain as a “whole” departed ways with them, but she states that, “Britons cannot restore the old value system easily. But they can stop mocking the moderates who take issue with the present lax moral climate.” This is because “By deriding their dissent, they are pushing a basically innocuous force into strident outbursts or, worse, violence.”

Now, have we got that boys and girls? Lax moral climate UNNACCEPTABLE. Violence UNDERSTANDABLE.

It reminded me of the time that my mom told me in all seriousness that in the Good Old Days men never swore in front of women. It was seen a such an insult that if one ever did, then quite rightly other men would beat them up. Swearing BAD. Beating someone up GOOD.

Also, it would seem that though all decent-thinking people have gone to pains to try not to let the Islamic militant violence taint the whole of Islam, it is all right for the political right in this country to dob the whole of the western hemisphere with the wash of moral decay because some people binge drink, and others on live TV stick wine bottles up where they really aren't meant to be.

I happen to be a very moral person actually. But the morals of the left are different to the morals of the right. No doubt John and Cristina would consider my morals the "wrong type" of morals.

To be fair to Cristina though, although she believes “at some point” that the country “declined into a Roman-style moral torpor” she is “not sure” that John Hayes’ insinuation that watching Big Brother makes you less sympathetic to the victims of random attacks.

The whole article left me with three questions:

One) Shouldn’t the 32% of Muslims polled by YouGov who said that Western Society is decadent and immoral, have then been asked “and do you think this a bad thing?”

Two) When was the fabled point-in-time when the whole of Britain stopped sharing Cristina Odone’s core values?

Three) How come Cristina Odone earns a good living doing this type of thing when she’s shit?

Hizb ut-Tahrir not "fluffy bunnies" shock

Don't let them try and tell you that this organisation supports a reasonable thing in a reasonable way.

Read this letter in today's Guardian:

"As another scholar (in Islamic studies), I would challenge Nick Megoran's almost benign view of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Letters, August 9).

It may not encourage immediate violence, but it certainly creates an ideology that must inevitably lead to it.

It expressly argues that offensive jihad is a duty for Muslims, it derides democracy as a western evil, rejects interfaith dialogue as a conspiracy against Islam, describes compromise as un-Islamic, advocates an all-or-nothing solution to conflicts, speaks of the inevitably of a clash of civilisations, justifies the execution of apostates, recommends war against Jews, Christians and polytheists until the world is a single Islamic state, and says that "a bloody struggle [will continue] alongside the intellectual struggle".

Is it so hard to see how a young radical might move from their extremism to acts of violence?

Dr Denis MacEoin Newcastle upon Tyne"

And this shouldn't be banned?

Comment

Nick Cohen’s piece "I Still Fight Opression" in the Observer last week said some of the stuff that I have been trying to say, but says it better. Which is why Nick Cohen does what he does a for a living, and why I don't.

In particular:

“The reason why one million people marched through London without one mounting a platform to express solidarity with the victims of fascism was that it never occurred to them that there were people in Iraq who shared their values”

“Wars are usually worth opposing… But arguments have their own dynamic. If you start by refusing to look Baathism or Islamism in the face, the logic of blaming everything on Tony Blair and George W Bush pushes you into making ever more excuses for the extreme right.”

“It is presumptuous and oppressive to suggest that other cultures want the liberties we take for granted, their argument runs. So it may be, but believe that and the upshot is that democracy, feminism and human rights become good for whites but not for browns and brown-skinned people who contradict you are the tools of the neo-conservatives.”

“On the other hand when confronted with a movement of contemporary imperialism - Islamism wants an empire from the Philippines to Gibraltar - and which is tyrannical, homophobic, misogynist, racist and homicidal to boot, they feel it is valid because it is against Western culture. It expresses its feelings in a regrettably brutal manner perhaps, but that can't hide its authenticity…. The result of this inversion of principles has been that liberals can't form alliances with the victims of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq.”

“This isn't simply about international relations. Who is going to help the victims of religious intolerance in Britain's immigrant communities? Not the Liberal Democrats, who have never once offered support to liberal and democrats in Iraq. Nor an anti-war left which prefers to embrace a Muslim Association of Britain and Yusuf al-Qaradawi who believe that Muslims who freely decide to change their religion or renounce religion should be executed. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to suggest the same treatment for renegade Christians all hell would break loose. But as the bigotry comes from 'the other' there is silence.”

No further comment from me required.

Robin Cook

My very best respects to you, Sir. Rest in peace.

Where I stand with Blair and the war

I’m feeling the need to square things up a little, so here’s an honest account of where I stand on the two issues which seem to have shunted parts of the blogosphere into a deadlock.

I should start at the beginning. September the 11th 2001, as stated before on this blog, saw me in New York. My husband and I were stranded in a city steeped in grief for a week, so it was a shock to come back to Britain and be dropped into a pool of cool reflection set with a dash of anti-Americanism. Having been a direct witness to the horrors there I couldn’t contextualise the event so forgivingly.

So I supported the offensive against al-Qeada in Afghanistan. I didn’t see any room for negotiation. Thousands of people died because a bunch of macho outlaws were allowed to run their little workshops of terror. They wanted the world’s attention. They got it.

My approach to Iraq is more complicated. As I made an effort to learn more about international politics having been so caught up in the raw end of them, it seemed to me the right moment to call time on Saddam Hussein and his fun and games with the UN. The imposed sanctions, never intended as permanent, were not leading to any sort of conclusion of the situation. Instead they were causing continuous suffering to the ordinary people in Iraq whilst leaving its leader free to continue a regime of murder and torture. We had been in a state of conflict with Iraq since 1991, and if September 11th had taught us anything, surely it had taught us that you do not leave such blistering international affairs to fester. I supported the idea of military intervention if Saddam now finally refused to comply with UN resolutions.

I never bought into the idea of a threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction. There never was distinct proof either that Iraq had WMD, or that Iraq was working with al-Qeada. I waited for the smoking gun that proved that Iraq was an “imminent” danger, I think we all did, but it never came. However, with nerves frayed from New York, I took the view that this was not something we could take chances on; that if Saddam was not letting the weapon’s inspectors do their job, then we had to create a situation in which they could.

But, as we now know, there were no WMD. What we can say about Saddam’s weapon program is that he was clearly hanging onto the production capability and the knowledge of how to make chemical and biological weapons, ready for use for as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This is enough if you consider that Saddam always energetically pursued the lifting of sanctions, and that countries such as France wanted them lifted.

I do not believe that Blair lied when he said there were WMD in Iraq. A man does not argue so passionately about something KNOWING that he will be proven wrong. But being proved wrong cost him much. As this was a pre-emptive strike, he was always going to struggle to justify military intervention. And now no WMD have been found he is open to accusation, and subject to constant criticism and sneering cynicism. Any talk of the humanitarian reasons for the war are shouted down. When he talks about his belief that democracy in Iraq will act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, he is derided, even though he may just be right.

And we can now only wonder how right he would have been about the consequences of allowing Saddam to stand. The sanctions had reached the end of their usefulness. At some point either they would have had to have been lifted, or Saddam was going to have to be made to play the game. We can only wonder what would have happened had there been no September 11th.

No such speculation however ever crosses the minds of the Stop The War Coalition. A bunch of people so without a grasp of reality that the sway they held for a while on ordinary opinion was frightening. It is not that they pit themselves against military action that angers me, it is that they pit themselves against Bush and Blair, and do not acknowledge on any level the criminality and inhumanity of Saddam Hussein.

The undoubted truth is that there are people who are alive today, and people who will not be killed tomorrow, because of the intervention of the coalition forces. By campaigning to stop the war, the Stop The War Coalition were actually trying to condemn the people of Iraq to more suffering through sanctions and more death blows by Saddam. And whilst most sane people feared for the loss of life that military intervention in Iraq would bring, these people supported violence, at first “recognising” any Iraqi’s right to try to an end the occupation “by whatever means they find necessary.”

They were never the peace movement that many people who supported them thought they were. A growing realisation of which probably accounts for their dwindling support. That people balked at the idea of war, especially against a country that had not attacked us, is entirely understandable. When I saw the truth of war when coalition forces went in on the 20 March 2003, I balked at it. It was one thing to support this thing in theory, another to have others face the reality. I never, actually, ever wanted war. That war is still the answer to so many situations is the deepest human failure there is. War is bloody. War cannot be controlled and aimed with sure accuracy at the enemy, but takes on a life of its own and the affects of it are felt far and wide. Civilians die, prisoners get degraded, people are tortured.

But I believe in democracy. I believe in the independence of the individual, in freedom of choice and expression, and in the right of the people to select who governs them. I believe in that for this country, and I believe in that for every person on this planet. I think that those fundamentals provide the healthiest environment for any human being to live in, and that any denial of those elements is cruel and unjustifiable.

The ones causing the chaos and loss of life in Iraq at the moment are the enemies of democracy. Call them what you will, insurgents, Islamic extremists, al-Queda, macho aresholes, murderers, they are the ones for whom the creation of a successful democratic Iraq poses the greatest threat. Their futile fight for a Caliphate would dry of recruits if the social environment that allows terrorism to thrive ceased to exist. For all their hollow anger, expressed in pompous and self-important statements, regarding the treatment of Muslims around the world, they are singularly prepared to kill and maim as many Muslims as may be needed to keep alive their struggle. A struggle which despite its religious context, has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with grotesque egos, a sick ideology, criminal mind-sets, and a depraved lust for blood.

There can be only war or peace. There is only one type of war, but there are two kinds of peace. There is the kind of peace that comes from deferring to your enemy, and there is the kind of peace that comes from fighting and defeating them. Just look beyond the reports of the extremists attacks in Iraq and you will see a country that is trying to get up on its feet and fight. The Iraqi people do not want to defer to the extremists, they want to defeat them. Following the work of the women’s groups in particular in their quest for equality, you cannot help but be both humbled by their spirit and inspired by their courage.

That there are people on the left in Britain who cannot bring themselves to support these people, either because they cannot stand where Tony Blair stands, or because they didn’t agree with military action, or because they don’t think anyone has the right to “impose” democracy on “foreigners”, leaves me utterly speechless. Since when did we bind ourselves up so tight with theory and ideology that we turn our backs on people like this? The war happened, we went in, we are now where we are. The country is undergoing a period of colossal change at the end of which, for the first time in a long time, there exists a chance for a better life for the ordinary people of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want it, why the hell would anyone not want it for them?

It is terrifying to have to stand up to an enemy. We would all rather just believe that the enemy is made-up, or that they have just cause, or that it’s all our fault, anything in fact rather than send the troops in. Because when we do that we somehow feel that we have degraded ourselves.

But I don’t believe we degraded ourselves by sending the troops into Iraq. I believe we made a stand. And though that brings the enemy’s eyes upon us, rather that than hiding in a corner keeping a cowardly silence. Tony Blair will not accept for this country a peace steeped in deference to such an enemy, and for that he makes me proud. He has been constantly insulted by people who openly despise him, called a liar and a war criminal, been told he has blood on his hands, and asked how he sleeps at night with the deaths of soldiers and civilians on his conscience. This, along with the weight of the duties of such an office, would have driven most men to the edge of insanity. Instead he has been nothing less than an innovative and energetic Prime Minister and a world class statesman.

Had we had anyone less as our leader, we would probably be going through a difficult time. With Blair it feels more like a difficult time to get through in order to achieve a better world. Carry on jeering at him if that’s your thing. But notice how his eyes are fixed firmly on the future. And notice too the one standing next to him. That’s me.

Stop and Search? Is that all?

Sick and tired of hearing/reading in our media about concerns that the police “Stop and Search” tactic might alienate Asian men, or even push some Asian men into the arms of the extremists.

Grrrrrrrr!

I don’t know whether this is the media going overboard with a topical issue, or whether a sizeable proportion of Asian men really are overreacting to the policy, but either way I DESPAIR AT THE HUMAN RACE ONCE AGAIN.

Let me tell you something. As a woman I make small concessions to my way of life every single bloody day because of the danger from men. I walk on the right hand side of the road so that a car can’t pull up unawares and bundle me in or snatch my bag (both such incidents have happened recently where I live). Going into town after dark I go by taxi rather than bus, despite the difference in cost being £5, because I get hassled by men in cars when I wait at the Bus Stop alone. Coming out of town I do the same because I get hassled by men when I walk from the Bus Stop to my house. If I am in a bar or a pub, I have to keep a tight grip on my drink lest a man spikes it. In unfamiliar situations, I don’t have eye contact with men in case such a glance reaches a man who gets ideas easily and harasses me. I walk the long way around rather than cut through empty parks in case a man is lying in wait behind a bush. I have to consider safety as well as style when I choose what shoes to wear. To keep me from ever being in a vulnerable position my mobile is always topped up, my car serviced, my doors locked, my husband (or someone) always aware of where I am. I vary my routine in case I’m being watched.

All this I do even without a thought. It is second nature to me. And has this turned me into a man-hater? Does it cause “tension” between me and men? Am I going to strap explosives to myself and blow them up on public transport?

Oddly, no. Because I am capable of an understanding of things beyond the simple. I don’t reason my world into solid, easily digestible politics. Men rape = all men bad. In truth I might generalise and say things like men’s socks stink and they don’t seem to recognise when a bin needs emptying, but I wouldn’t label all men as rapists and go and join a terrorist group to try and press the government into creating an all female state.

So to the media, I say this – harking on and on about “tension”, possible or current, between the Asian community and the Police is irresponsible unless you have REAL PROOF that this is the case. A few Asian men making the simple equation Police Stop And Searching Asian Men = Police Racist, is not proof of any kind. And in any case you have a responsibility to report this matter in a rounded way, and include something from the Police’s perspective as to why they have adopted this tactic at this time (obvious to me, some might need it explaining).

And to any Asian men who express resentment at this tactic, I say this – PUT YOUR WILLIES AWAY! This is not the time to be puffing out your chest and getting all macho. Understand the situation, and accept it with grace.

Actually, I don’t believe that most people’s sense of reasoning is as delicate as the media would have us believe. So to all the men who are actually accepting this situation with grace I say good for you, and welcome to the club.