cherokoffdotcom

Less than a week ago, the esteemed leader of the most powerful country in the world was entirely sanguine about the Assad regime in Syria. Dear Donald saw it as an ally in the fight against ISIS. He had no interest in regime change.

One horrendous chemical weapon attack later, we have a 180 degree reversal.

It was beyond atrocious. And illegal. And any other description trotted out by any number of world leaders. As it should be.

But I don’t understand. I don’t understand why the pictures of children killed by chemicals is any more unacceptable than children killed by bullets and bombs. And that has been happening for the last 6 years in Syria.

And this is also not the first chemical attack by the Assad regime.

I dismiss Trump’s verbal response as his need to look like he is on the right side, and I am not surprised by his ability to say the exact opposite of his ramblings a few days ago without shame.

But as to the rest?

What good is a missile strike on a Syrian airfield going to accomplish? What use is all the great and the good giving their support for this action as a proportionate response to an atrocity?

Will it stop Assad? No. Will it stop Russia supporting Assad? No.

Will it end the suffering of innocents in Syria, or anywhere else in the world? No.

When will the leaders of the civilised world arrive at that point where they acknowledge the first measure of civilisation is the protection of the weak, the defenseless, the innocent.

And from there be able to put their dicks back in their respective trousers, stop swinging their balls around to prove how strong and powerful and capable they are, and start acting like human beings.

So much of the strife in the world is rooted in man’s inability to back down from an argument they cannot win. And all that results is the suffering of innocents, and recruiting of angry souls.

It was atrocious. But so was every other attack before. The weaponry was different, the result was the same.

And it will stay the same until leaders really lead, rather than just posture.

Shame on you all. The blood is on all your hands!

It seems, as with most things in this crazy world, there are graduations in weapons. Levels of bad, of wrong, of evil.

It would be nice to start from the absolute that all killing is wrong. But that one is too simple.

It seems that some killing is more acceptable than others. So, for a soldier to kill a soldier is the acceptable face of the world’s inability to deal rationally with its disagreements.

For a soldier to kill a civilian is not, but tends to be written off as collateral damage – an anodyne phrase for a totally unacceptable death.

And for a civilian to kill a civilian – well, there are laws against that.

So, the qualifications begin to be applied. Circumstance, cause and effect, aggression versus defense; all add their own justifications.

And then there are the means, the methods, the ingenuity of man to develop and evolve more and more effective methods of individual and mass destruction – now there is a phrase.

And the more destructive the method, the more remote it becomes. And the wider it spreads.

From the individual, the gun, the automatic rifle, the numbers can escalate. To the explosion, the bomb, the very big bomb.

And then there are the chemical weapons. For some reason, because they are not solid, not controllable, not discriminate, they are somehow the more evil.

But surely, it is all evil. There is as much potential for innocent victims with a gun as a gas attack, and children die from both. There is no difference, except at some stage in history chemical weapons were deemed unacceptable as a means to kill innocent people.

Yes, the latest chemical weapon attacks in Syria are atrocious, and should never happen. And every innocent death should never happen.

But no death from an aggressive act should be acceptable. And yet the response of the great and the good around the world is to pound chests and call for more destruction.

And, surprisingly enough, destruction leads to more destruction. And deeper and longer lasting hatred, and distrust, and disaster. And the total loss of humanity.

So, let us set aside the hypocrisy of condemning chemical weapons whilst justifying the retention of nuclear. Let us set aside that, in all the recent histories of those countries crying foul there are times when blind eyes were turned.

Let us start from the place that all death as a result of a violent act is wrong. And begin the conversation again. And refuse to accept any justification for an alternative to that truth.

Or, we can continue to use manufactured death as an alternative means of population control.

Your choice!

 

First things first. Ken Livingstone is a fool. A pedantic, arrogant fool.

However, his ‘crime’, as far as recent statements are concerned, is not being anti-Semitic, but not being smart enough to accept that his claim of Hitler supporting Zionism was, at best, extremely badly phrased, and at worst historically inaccurate.

He has had a colourful political career, and that is from someone who helped his first parliamentary campaign back in the 1980’s. He has, over the years, met with a number of people who, at the time, were less than publicly acceptable. Members of the IRA, Palestinian activists.

But that was not proof of his anti-British sentiments regarding the IRA, or an anti-Semitic bias regarding the Palestinians.

It is the basic principle, which I have always presumed was a mainstay of the Labour Party, that there are two sides to a conflict, and for a resolution both sides need to be heard. Not supported, not agreed with, not even justified. But heard.

He has, for many years been a very vocal critic of some aspects of the behaviour and policies of the Israeli government, as have I. That doesn’t mean that he is anti-Semitic, or anti-Zionist, or that I am.

It means that we find some of the Israeli government sponsored or approved activities in relation to Palestinians and their lands are not fair or acceptable. This is an opinion held widely within Israel itself.

And yet not acceptable if held by Ken Livingstone.

I have read, and re-read his original statement, and subsequent comments. And there is nothing that is anti-semitic, unless you really want it to be.

It may be badly constructed, it may even be historically wrong, but some of the condemnation, even from normally measured individuals and organisations, smacks more of post-truth populism than any rational debate.

As I said, Ken Livingstone is a fool, but I have seen no evidence of anti-Semitism. Just a pedantic fool and an incredible over-reaction.

There may be a lot more going on behind all this than Ken’s idiocy, but I try hard to avoid conspiracy theories. After all, who would want to use this as leverage to remove Jeremy Corbyn?

 

 

For a moment I thought it was April 1st again.

Cries of anguish were heard. Accusations of blasphemy – well almost – flew. And the reason for all the hullabaloo?

Apparently the word Easter had been dropped from the promotional campaign for the chocolate egg hunts to be run at National Trust sites across the country, and sponsored by Cadbury.

So, the deeply religious founder of the Cadbury chocolate giant would be distraught by the removal of the religious tie in. As was the Archbishop of York, almost ready to instigate the next inquisition.

And why am I bothered?

Because into the fray strode that well-known vicar’s daughter Theresa May, stating her disappointment in the absence of the Easter message from the egg hunt, both as a christian and as a member of the National Trust.

There are two things that occur to me, right off the cuff.

Firstly, although not renowned as a biblical scholar, I am fairly confident in stating that no mention is made in the bible of eggs at Easter, chocolate or otherwise. Never mind bunnies! So, not associating a very commercial enterprise with Easter seems a positive.

Secondly, and of deeper concern, is that Theresa May can staple her religious beliefs to her sleeve so vehemently over such an unimportant circumstance.

And yet, the hand and arm in that same sleeve will be shaking the hands of the rulers of Saudi Arabia. You know, the country with an exemplary record of mis-treating women and migrants.

The loyal and vital ally who indiscriminately bombs innocent people in Yemen. With impunity. Because we want their money, and oil, and help with fighting evil in the Middle East. Even though a fair amount of the funding for that evil can be traced back to Saudi Arabia.

I am willing to admit again that I am no expert in either the bible, or the meaning and derivation of words, but that strikes me as very non-christian, and wholly hypocritical.

But what would I know? I am a significantly lapsed Jew! Not a member of one of these new-fangled religions.

For centuries the Church in England has been intimately and intricately involved in all areas of life, and especially those that are not directly related to the practice of a religious belief.

Whilst the ‘social’ involvement can be seen as an extension of an assumed pastoral role, and has had some positive input over the years – alongside some extremely oppressive and harmful activities – the institutional and political involvement has been established in the establishment for many hundreds of years.

Whilst it may carry less direct influence than previously, it does retain a political involvement and influence within the House of Lords. And it does, when it deems appropriate, look to use its influence in areas that trouble its adherents.

So, whether it be equality of marriage rights, the rights of women relating to abortion, and the rights of women within the church itself, statements, postures and pontifications emerge on a regular basis.

But for all their presence, and influence, and the apparent descriptor of England as a christian country, their responsibilities appear to have limits.

This doesn’t seem to be the case where Islam is concerned. It requires just one confused, misguided, misled or mi-used individual, who to claims to be a Muslim, to create the oft-repeated blaming of the whole religion for not protecting us – the non-Muslims – from attack.

So, it seems only fair that the responsibility for violent actions of non-Muslims against a Muslim are placed at the door of the church for resolution. And especially in a country that is apparently governed by Christian values, with each of its recent leaders declaring their political roots in christian beliefs.

Or does that all sound a little extreme, a little far-fetched, a little ridiculous?

Well of course it does. Especially as the belligerent and racist xenophobia of organisations like UKIP, and a government running scared, are much more likely guilty parties.

And that applies equally to Islam. Every Muslim is not responsible for the actions of every criminal claiming Islam as a justification. Because the same is not true for any religious denomination.

The causes for the actions on both sides are complex, intricate, involved and very untidy. We need to change the posturing to a serious discussion if we ever want to see a solution emerge.

And stop the senseless, pointless blame game. And if you can’t, then blame both sides. Your choice.

I don’t give a flying fish what dear Theresa May puts in a letter to the EU. I am not even remotely bothered by what her squad of Brexit managers leap in with apologies for.

I do not, will not, cannot, don’t see why I have to accept that the decision of 37% of the electorate should stagnate and stultify the future of the UK, and its future generations.

The one thing I do know, from watching political machinations in the UK and around the world, is that nothing is ever final. Especially when those at the top say it is!

Over the past few months we have seen, in technicolour, how political leaders can perform 180 degree turns without shame. And this is no different.

Dear Theresa has instigated a supposed one way only action. But one with a long run time. And there is no reason why, further down the line, a reverse gear is found.

It will all come down to expediency. The referendum was to supposedly save the Tory Party from UKIP – great move there Dave. And, with no constitutional or legal compliance requirements, the ‘result’ is being pushed through for the gratification of an unelected party leader with a desire for a legacy, any legacy.

The support for Remain was disappointingly lukewarm from Jeremy Corbyn, due in part to a concern about a threat to Labour strongholds. Even though constituents in those heartlands will suffer most from Brexit.

And the bullshit and the bollocks still fly around from the peddlers of post truth.

My hope, my enduring and fervent prayer, is that the EU plays hard ball, rock hard ball. And why shouldn’t they? The breakup of a united Europe is the alternative, with all the anguish of isolation that previous centuries have shown us.

So, to your undemocratic, unconstitutional Brexit – just wait. When the end gets closer, when it is clearer that, for political expediency, a reversal is necessary, none of the ‘Only One Way’ proclaimers will have any problem in doing an about-face, again.

The only thing you and I can trust in is that the decision will not be taken in our best interests, but in the perceived interests of those in power.

Comforting, isn’t it?

This is aimed primarily at the, roughly, half of the population who don’t worry about their safety every time they step outside the front door. Or meet someone new. Or meet someone for the second or third time.

Or look at their friends, and partners, and amidst the closeness and love are wondering when the switch will be flipped and the anger and violence will emerge.

As someone who was raised predominantly by a woman, and who feels more comfortable in their company – lack of a need to compete is always a good place to be – I have listened over many years to a growing litany of fear.

For all the expansion of equality in so many areas of our life, there remains one constant – men are a potential threat to women.

In most circumstances it is not intentional. And I am sad to admit that over the years I have been as guilty as the rest of raising my voice, of gesturing, of moving and standing in ways that never occurred to me to be threatening.

But they were.

And each time a man says that they would never hurt a woman, it denies the fact that society has not progressed from the state of man’s voice should be heard above a woman’s. Aggression is still an acceptable form of discourse, and means no harm.

Even with my background of female nurturing, it is all too easy to absorb society’s traits, and hard to dispose of them.

And for every step men, as a whole, take towards acknowledging and amending their behaviour, and attitudes, a judge throws a misogynistic spanner in the works.

She was intelligent and had friends, and so the abusive husband is less culpable. Really?

A victim of female genital mutilation can be asked by a Health Minister if she can still have an orgasm. Really?

Accept that the threat, or the fear of a threat, is not the fault of women.

Accept that aggression, towards anyone, verbally or physically, only establishes it as a norm to be copied.

Accept that we still, as half of the human race, have a long way to go to understand the impact our every action has on those we care for and love.

Accept this, and perhaps we can really move forward.

 

I feel that I have to state that up front, so there is no confusion. And, in all that follows, there will be no excuses made, no justification provided. Because there are none.

Two days ago, the death was announced of Martin McGuinness. To some a hero, to some a terrorist, to some both. And to many a conflicted view of a man from both sides of a long running and bloody stain on our history.

Yesterday, although not definitively proved as yet, an apparent terrorist killed and injured police officers and members of the public in and around Westminster.

There are very obvious similarities between both protagonists, the main one being the totally unjustified attacking of innocent people.

The differences are pretty clear too. Whilst Mcguinness was extremely open during his paramilitary period as to his reasons for his actions, so far there is nothing concerning yesterday’s atrocity.

No doubt something will emerge, some indication of what drove the person to do what he did. And it will be invalid, unacceptable and fruitless.

But behind every act of terrorism, every innocent life stopped or damaged, there are instigators and followers.

What primes the instigators to see violence towards the innocent as justifiable is a question for another day. What can be addressed is what drives people to follow them.

And, whilst society cannot and should not be held accountable for the cruel and terrible behaviour of terrorists of any allegiance, there has to be an acceptance that to follow that path requires a significant push.

Whether rooted in the discrimination and disconnection of one section of the Irish population, or in the less clear-cut alienation of sections of the wider Islamic nation, there will be – real or imagined – tipping points. Points where the apparent options narrow to one, horrific choice.

Again, I am not apologising in any way for these actions, but if we do not ask why we will never see the end.

And the first step is to try to separate the led from the leaders. And to do that, again we have to ask why.

And when we discover that, by conscious or unconscious means, we have supported, or at the very least not opposed loudly enough, the actions that lead to this extreme disaffection, as a society we have to say enough.

There is another way. There is always another way. But it is not separation, isolation, jingoism.

So be aware and be warned Trump, May, Farage, Johnson, and your international mirror images. Self-serving nationalism and blind religious dogma breeds nothing but hate.

And feeds those leaders with the followers who leave sorrow behind them on a bridge in London.

Last night I sat in the Curzon Cinema in Clevedon and watched ‘I Daniel Blake’. To be honest the location is not really relevant, but its a great little cinema, so free shout to them.

More important, much more important, was what we saw. This was not a drama. This was not a fictionalised account of someone’s life. This was real, and hard, and shaming, and uplifting, and completely unfair and wrong.

Yes, there are actors, a few actors. But all but two of those in the scenes within the Jobcentres were ex-DWP workers. Those working in the food bank were people who work in food banks. The legal adviser was a legal adviser.

This story is real. It is the brutal truth for thousands across the UK, in every part of the UK. And it is the result of the intentional targeting of those who can least afford it, and have the least influence and power to fight it.

The system has been constructed to penalise, and to defeat those who need just a little help to get back up again. And those who administer the system are not to blame. Those who design the system, and see it as a solution should be held to account.

And before anyone raises the ‘scrounger’ flag, the numbers are so small as to be irrelevant. Truly.

There is strength, and compassion, amongst it all, despite it all. Because the vast majority of people are fundamentally good. But that is no compensation for the state sponsored suffering of those struggling to survive.

But this obscenity of how so many are treated is not in clear view, and is dismissed by those in power.

And yet George Osborne can remain as an MP, whilst gaining a £650.000 a year consultancy, and now the editorship of the London Evening Standard.

The innocent are suffering the pain of the government’s expediency, and it will never be right.

This film should be shown in Parliament, in every government office, in every institution behind whose walls the ‘great and the good’ hide themselves from the reality they cause.

And Ken Loach should be loudly acclaimed for the powerful integrity he continues to show to those who prefer to ignore the fall-out of their actions.

And we should get angry. We should be angry already. And we must stay angry.

Enough is enough. There is plenty of voices, groups, organisations, commentators, pundits and general shit stirrers looking to purposefully or by default cause harm to the Labour Party, without it doing it to itself.

Whilst there should always be time for philosophical discussion and discourse over the direction, motivation and core values of the Labour Party, there are also moments in time when these should be shelved to deal with something bigger.

This is one of those moments. In fact it has been for a while.

At the moment, this country is being led by a group of individuals whose aim and intention is to achieve their goals, no matter what. And that will always mean that the least powerful will suffer the most.

The Parliamentary Labour Party has had more than enough time to make it clear what they think of Jeremy Corbyn. It is now time for them, and that means all of them, to put their personal political ambitions to one side, forget the grudges – real or imaginary – that have festered over the years, and concentrate on the threat that faces their constituencies.

This is not a game, so it is time to stop playing politics. It is time to do politics. As a coordinated, cohesive and cooperative opposition.

So, the sulking stops here. The back-biting, back-stabbing stops here. And that goes for  the Parliamentary Labour Party, Momentum and the Trade Unions. Whilst the details may vary, whilst the route may differ, the fundamentals are common to all. And they are the same as they have always been.

As and when the fight really starts, and that could be sooner than expected, there is going to be a tough enough uphill struggle to get past the separations of recent times.

They need to heal now. All those within the Labour movement have so many common values and aims, there should be no reason why a commonality of direction cannot be achieved.

Just forget the egos. Forget the sectarian allegiances, and see what is in front of you.

It is a simple choice. Allow the Tories to set and implement the agenda, or prove why the struggle for real fairness still has a place in this country.

And if you want an indication of what could emerge, just look at what happened when the Democrats took their eyes off the ball in the US.

So, get a grip, and don’t be dicks!