Should Galloway Speak? (Copy)

We have been challenged!

We were asked point blank, “did we want to see the Galloway event cancelled?” We’d be delighted to see him bugger off to one of the more repressive regimes that he seems to favour. But pending that, we would NOT like to see his talk cancelled.

If you cancel one, then you can cancel another. In addition, cancelling a talk will not solve a problem. There are people in Newham who believe that he will articulate views they favour. The battle has to be about ideas and values. Ideally, that battle of ideas would be conducted with courtesy and respect. Occasionally, that ideal might be reached. But, though a conflict of values can be beaten by banning, the consequences are invariably worse.

So, thank you to the individual that challenged us. You were right.

And on to the heat generated by Galloway’s imminent arrival.

We see that social media is still alive to his attendance pitting at least one Newham councillor who is prepared to put his head above the parapet against some of Galloway’s supporters. And looking at the names, it is evident that there are several who are (or recently were) in the Labour Party.

It is a debate that is not being conducted at the highest level. Essentially, Cllr Lewis Godfrey, (we have mentioned him in the past!) asserts that Galloway is a hypocrite. Galloway’s supporters then pile on. For some reason, none of Godfrey’s colleagues seem to have supported either their colleague or his position on this matter.

The allegation (our paraphrase thereof) is that Galloway is a hypocrite because:

1. He comes out in favour of Muslims when in conflict with Jews, (“oppressed by Jews”?) but not when they are oppressed or killed either by other Muslims or rather distasteful (apparently left-wing) authoritarian regimes.

2. He claims to be a left-democrat, but seems to favour some extremely anti-democratic, not to say murderous, autocrats.

The response is not of the highest calibre, but includes:

“He’s coming to talk about Palestine, nothing else”.

“Godfrey’s a hypocrite”.

We include some of the exchanges below. But the central point is this.

Galloway is coming to give his views on Palestine, (It’s all the fault of the Zionist, colonial, settler, genocidal, apartheid, occupiers. I hope that we haven’t missed any out).

Galloway, who has made a career by championing certain Muslim, Islamic and Islamist causes, is accused of hypocrisy. This is because he is silent on the killing and oppression of Muslims in other parts of the world.

This is not a complete list, but a rough sketch from memory. Currently:

The Chinese have imposed the most invasive monitoring of people in Xin Jiang province (East Turkestan). They have imprisoned in excess of 1m and use them as slave labour in a process of “re-education”.

Afghanistan, where two competing teams of religious fanatics battle to exercise control over a population that is starving.

Iran, given his history on Press TV, it seems safe to assume that he rather favours the mullahs and the perpetrators of religious oppression than he does the people who struggle against that oppression, (those killed for not wearing a hijab or changing their religion or being gay for instance).

Iraq under Saddam, where Galloway switched from supporting the opposition to supporting Saddam when the west did the opposite.

Syria, where some 600,000 have been killed, mostly by Syrians, but ably assisted by Russians and Iranians, and 12m displaced, with over half having fled the country.

In the Yemen, in Somalia/Somaliland and Sudan… you get the idea.

He has been wholly silent on the abuses by the PA, by Hamas or any of the myriad other groups which abuse Palestinian Arabs, whilst portraying a facade of anti-imperialist/anti-Zionist rhetoric.

And this does not begin to touch the genocidal campaigns by Muslims/Islamists in Nagorno Karabakh, in Palestine/Israel, in Nigeria, in the Maghreb and every state of the Sahel, in West Papua etc. 

He has been either silent on or supportive of revolutionary movements in Arab/Muslim states that have come to power by killing off their fellow Muslims and/or others in the Yemen and Lebanon.

On top of this, he seems to have a predilection for authoritarian despots who retain power by the liquidation of their political opponents, (Saddam, al Assad, Xi, Putin etc.) and famously lamented the demise of the Soviet Union, (“Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life”).

You make your choice. Villain or Hero? Champion of the oppressed or a bigot and an apologist for genocide? A left-wing progressive or a supporter of right-wing despots? A principled politician or a mouthpiece for any obnoxious regime that has the money to employ him? 

Ultimately the reader will have to make up his, her or their (this is for you Cllrs Higgins and Keeling), minds.

The exchanges are below, if you want a laugh at someone else’s expense.