David Toube, for those of you with the luck not to know or care, is one of the guiding lights behind the “Harry’s Place” blog, best described as the clubhouse for what calls itself the “decent left”, mostly numpties and wingnuts who still have some sentimental attachment to being seen as leftwing, even if their opinions would put them comfortably on the rightwing of the Republican Party. Toube then is a bit of an ass, as also seen in the video above. An inflated ego and an desire to be a latter day Orwell, to take part in a fight againmst modern day fascism has led him to troll other leftie blogs, which has now gotten him into trouble. In particular, he has gotten into trouble for this comment on a Socialist Unity post.
Aaronovitch Watch has more details, with the discussion there focusing on how bizarre it is to sue Toube for a comment he left at the Socialist Unity website, but not Socialist Unity itself. To be fair, even if this is 2010 and everybody should be used to blogs and the internet already, it wouldn’t be the first time a lawyer got confused about these matters, if it actually was a mistake and not deliberate. You could argue that since Toube is the source of this comment, it is no more than right that he gets sued for it…
There’s also some soulsearching about it all, as people balance their loathing of Toube with the reflex antipathy any blogger feels against law suits threatening free speech as well as the loathing many have for Galloway himself. I can understand the dilemma, though do not share the mistrust of Galloway. However, as Aaronovitch Watch itself has shown over and over again, there are quite a few decent leftists who feel free to be bullies, not too careful with the truth and who think calling people nazis or Hamas supporters or whatever is consequence free. Perhaps this might persuade them to be a bit more careful with their accusations…
The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war has run about half its course. Judging by the dominant reaction of the British press, its sole function is to prove what we all know to be true: that the invasion was immoral and Tony Blair is to blame. The surfeit of moral certainty among the commentators is suspect; the zealous clarity of their moral waters needs muddying.
So said Nigel Biggar in the FT yesterday; then goes on to muddle the waters indeed. Nigel –according to his byline a “regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford” — offers up a hogwash of unproven assumptions, half truths and insinuation, a veritable parade of Decent Left cliches. You could do a point by point rebuttal of it, but what’s the use? This sorry mess won’t convince anybody, though it might make the dwindling band of true believers momentarily feel goodabout themselves again. This is the best they can come up with to throw doubt on the simple truth that the War on Iraq was a disaster…
Nick Cohen, Britain’s Last Serious Leftist and ardent supporter of Amnesty International, in that he always delights in pointing out why they’re wrong to oppose the torture of people he dislikes, has an amusing verbal tic. Any prominent, vaguely liberal woman who goes on record supporting his views of torturing Muslims will, despite his weak track record of actually engaging with feminist or post-feminist thought, be called a “principled feminist” by him. See for yourself.
All of which would be amusing if it wasn’t in service of such a despicable goal.
So David Aaaaronovitch weighted in on that Amnesty International “controversy” and couldn’t resist a pop at George Galloway, calling him a “dangerous idiot”, for um, opposing the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan perhaps? Who should pop up in the comments but Martin “still not too” Bright:
George Galloway, a dangerous idiot?
Certainly dangerous, but not an idiot.
Galloway is one of a handful of high profile egregious
politicians who have defended the enemies of Western values & assiduously
promoted groups which are obviously evil.
The best example is the terrorist group Hamas, which shares many Nazi values, but cannot call on a Wagner
figure to demonstrate its cultural superiority.
Admittedly Hamas has devised new ways of murdering its political rivals, that
the Nazis would admire.
Otherwise they’re just sub Nazis, who would have never made the grade in the 1930s.
Galloway is a sub politician who has not made the grade
outside his little comfort zone. And we all know the type of people who live in Tower Hamlets.
Reputedly the most corrupt constituency in the UK.
Bright, one of those wallowing in their “I didn’t leave the left, it left me” complex shows why the left abandoned him. As diverse as it is, there’s indeed little room on the left for somebody who talks about “the type of people who live in Tower Hamlets”. Not quite politically correct. Even apart from that little slip his comment is a showcase of Decentist thinking, a fact free paranoid rant in which George Galloway has to be shown up to not just be wrong, but evil, plotting with “the enemies of Western values”, but who also has to be show up to be a nobody, a loser, only winning elections because of those people who are the most corrupt in the UK, just like Hamas, who are the new Nazis, but not quality nazis like you had back in the 1930s. Throw in a handful of weird asides (Hamas “cannot call on a Wagner figure to demonstrate its cultural superiority”? WTF?), make sure your writing is as awful as possible (the repeat of “made the grade” in two consecutive sentences) and you have your average Decentist newspaper column or blogpost, condensed into one short comment.