How to start a political correctness scare

July 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm (Journalism)

harriet-harman

At the risk of trespassing on the territory Anton covers so well, I couldn’t help flagging up this story in today’s Mail as a shining example of how a political correctness story gets going. Furthermore, this revolves, as usual, around Harriet Harman, who seems to press a very particular button in the strange world of the Mail:

Labour is opening up a new front in its obsession with equal rights. It wants to stamp out prejudice against… Northerners.

The extraordinary plans are being dreamed up by Harriet Harman, the Government’s equalities supremo and Gordon Brown’s deputy.

Extraordinary? So what exactly is Lady Harman planning to do?

The Mail on Sunday has learned that she wants to introduce rules to halt discrimination against people from ‘up North’ and other regions, and has instructed her Equalities Office to look at ‘diversity proposals’ to stop Londoners and other Southerners lording it over the rest of the country.

Equalities Minister Michael Foster said the intention was to prevent membership of the boards of national public bodies being too ‘London-centric or South-East-centric’.

His remark will spark fears that hundreds of public organisations – from the Arts Council to the Big Lottery Fund – will be required to have special quotas for Yorkshiremen, Geordies or Cornishmen whenever a vacancy comes up on their boards.

Gotta love the weasel circumlocution “will spark fears”. The Mail doesn’t seem to have found anyone whose fears have actually been sparked – indeed, the article seems designed to spark fears. They have, however, got a quote from Theresa May (the Tory frontbencher, not the Page Three girl) making some anodyne remark about appointing people on merit, and another from rentaquote Tory MP Philip Davies, who loves these kind of stories, branding it “equal opportunities gone berserk”, which at least is a slight change from the usual “political correctness gone mad” that the Mail favours.

So what is the substance behind this? Well, it all seems to stem from comments made in an obscure parliamentary debate by Lady Harman’s sidekick Michael Foster. Yorkshire MP Meg Munn asked Foster about regional diversity on bodies – such as the Arts Council – that have a supposedly national remit but are virtually monopolised by people from London and its environs. Foster said this was an important point and the government would look at it. And that was it.

It’s not even as if it was a particularly bizarre question. If you know Cornwall, for instance, you’ll know that one major gripe in local politics is the way that quangos or statutory agencies are usually formed around a “Devonwall” remit – Devon and Cornwall Police is an obvious example – or are formed on the level of the “South West” planning region, an enormous area stretching as far as Swindon, and take little account of Cornwall’s needs. In the absence of specifically Cornish bodies, it would make sense to campaign for Cornish input into the broader bodies.

So the idea of regional balance isn’t a bad one, as long as we’re not talking about a crude system of automatic quotas. Not that I would put it entirely beyond New Labour to do such a thing, but it’s clear that hasn’t been proposed. In fact, nothing concrete has been proposed – Foster just said he was looking at the issue. All this is evident from the actual text of the article, but it doesn’t stand in the way of a good PC scare story.

Elsewhere in the Mail, there’s a big long article from Peter Sissons about his retirement from the BBC, and the falling journalistic standards thereof. Sissons, as one would expect, is bracing on the subject and makes a number of excellent points, although he does sound a little like a grumpy old man. This time at least he steers clear of assailing the “autocuties” now in vogue at the Beeb – their existence will be immediately apparent to anyone who watches News 24, but one does run the risk of sounding a little sexist for pointing this out. But on the plus side, Sissons does manage to come out as a supporter of the George W Bush line on climate change.

Still, for sheer offensiveness nothing today beats the Sunday Express’s huge front-page splash of “Police Must Recruit Gypsies”, which builds its case on, well, a document from the Association of Police Authorities that discussed making police forces more representative of their communities. The Express, predictably, is outraged, and manages to insinuate that the recruitment of Romanichals or travellers into the police would endanger the public. Even the Police Federation wouldn’t provide a quote backing that up, only making the argument that recruitment standards shouldn’t be lowered to meet diversity targets.

On the other hand, the Express does manage to work in quotes from the Campaign Against Political Correctness (a husband-and-wife outfit specialising in providing quotes on these sort of stories), rentaquote Tory MP Philip Davies (this busy man acts as patron of the Campaign Against Political Correctness) and that old standby of the lazy journalist, the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Three for the price of one!

I’ll grant that it’s not the most offensive front-page splash the Express has ever run, or even the most offensive recent splash. But it does at least stand in a proud tradition.

Leave a Comment

Tsuris in Jerusalem, as the Hasidim get into the Orangefest spirit

July 12, 2009 at 12:36 pm (Judaica)

I love this. We’re now on the third week of this protest by Hasidim in Jerusalem against the opening of a car park on Shabbes. This has involved the frummers getting stuck into the police with a venom usually only reserved for fighting with rival Hasidic sects, thanks to the cops deciding to uphold the sinful opening of the car park.

Perhaps now we’ll see David Hirsh and Norman Geras coming out with forthright condemnations of this blatant anti-Semitism on the part of, er, the Israeli authorities. Then again, maybe not.

Leave a Comment

How casting works (at least for women)

July 11, 2009 at 6:27 pm (TV)

arlene-phillips_280_667391a

On the face of it, Strictly Come Dancing doesn’t have much in common with MasterChef, and stylistically they couldn’t be further apart. But the reason why I find both of them compulsive viewing has a lot to do with the way they get the basics right. There is an arc whereby the contestants develop their skills. There are meaningful tasks meant to test those skills. And there are credible judges.

The desire for credible judges may spin out of the BBC’s slightly snooty attitude to reality shows, but it works. Over on the third channel, one might chuckle at the thought of Cheryl Cole (the weakest singer in Girls Aloud, which is really saying something) judging a singing contest. Or there is the stunning absurdity of Piers Moron judging a talent show. But we all know the shows from the Cowell stable are panto, and they don’t really pretend to be otherwise.

Strictly is different, in that yes, it’s an entertainment show – as the partisans of John Sergeant pointed out at tedious length last year – but it also has some substance to it, not least thanks to the high-powered judges, who are not only experienced professional dancers themselves but serious experts in the field. You have ballroom maestro Len Goodman, proprietor for many years of his own dance school; award-winning theatrical choreographer Craig Revel Horwood; pop video specialist Bruno Tonioli, who’s worked with Michael Jackson amongst others; and yes, choreography legend Arlene Phillips. For readers of a certain age, Arlene may be best known for this:

but she’s not simply a relic of the 1970s. To this day, any time you go into the West End, it’s a fair bet that there’ll be a big Arlene Phillips show on. If there’s a revival of Guys and Dolls or Saturday Night Fever, you can be pretty sure that she’ll have a hand in it.

But you see what I mean, having a heavyweight panel adds something to it. To have these guys criticise or praise your dancing is worth so much more than, say, Piers Moron saying you can’t sing. (The proper response to which should be, “Come up here and have a go yourself, matey.”) You know the way the most emotionally charged bit of the MasterChef final is when they cook for a room full of top French chefs? It works on the same principle – people who are experts in the field are the ones most worth listening to.

So why is it that Arlene Phillips is being ditched from the Strictly judges’ panel in favour of 2007 winner Alesha Dixon? To be fair, this isn’t a total travesty, in that Alesha is a very good dancer, and she’s warm and personable enough to bring something to the show. However, one has to question what her judging credentials are, in terms of her experience and technical knowledge. And in a way, that’s a hazard of having a high-powered panel – sat beside the other three, there’s a very clear danger she’ll look like a lightweight being carried by the others.

Why, then, the move? The Beeb say it’s all about refreshing the brand, but many viewers have pointed out that it only seems to be Arlene – a well-preserved 66 – who needed refreshing. There has been no move to replace Messrs Goodman, 65, Tonioli, 53, or Revel Horwood, 44, with younger models. And of course Bruce Forsyth, 81, remains in situ as host. (Sorry Vernon, you’ll have to wait a bit longer.) What’s more, this whole affair comes on the back of a long line of complaints from female broadcasters about how women of a certain age find it difficult to get a fair crack of the whip. Why is it that “refreshing the brand” always seems to mean the older woman getting rolled over?

It’s also possible, I suppose, that after last year’s big row, when a lot of viewers took against acid-tongued Arlene for her pointed criticisms of John Sergeant’s crap dancing, that some executive somewhere thought it would be a good idea to repair the damage by ditching the panel member who had taken the most stick from the public. All the same, it looks just a bit too much like Cheryl Cole being drafted in to replace Sharon Osbourne. And the funny thing is, since Strictly has had no trouble attracting contenstants as beautiful as Lisa Snowdon or Kelly Brook, there is absolutely no need to glam up the panel.

In related news, we’re still waiting for ITV to confirm who will be replacing Fern Britton on the This Morning sofa. While there has been no formal announcement, the smart money is on the big job going to former kids’ TV presenter Holly Willoughby, who is pleasant enough but has no experience in hosting a talk show. Why is it that, when her former Ministry of Mayhem co-presenter Stephen Mulhern is marooned on Animals Do The Funniest Things, Holly is enjoying such a meteoric rise up the televisual pecking order? I’ll give you two guesses:

838047cr

It’s possible, even likely, that there are experienced female broadcasters out there who are not amused at the idea of Holly’s norks beating them to a big presenting job. But they will probably stay quiet if they want to work for ITV in the future.

Of course, the really shocking examples of this casting theory are to be found on News 24. But that’s another story.

9 Comments

Quangocrats, rights theory and judicial creep

July 10, 2009 at 11:07 pm (Liberalism, Norn Iron)

kangaroo_court

I don’t read much in the way of liberal political thought – well, for research purposes yes, but not for pleasure. That includes, of course, most Anglophone Marxism, heavily soaked in liberalism as it is. The reason why modern-day liberalism annoys my brain has a lot to do with its reliance on rights theory. I prefer to read either unreconstructed communists or unreconstructed conservatives, precisely because, whatever the defects of their positions, they don’t have much time for rights theory.

At least not rights theory as social liberalism construes it. I have a lot of time for the Ron Paul school of thought, drawing on the framers of the American Constitution, who hold that the main function of a bill of rights is to protect the citizenry from the arbitrary power of the state. I’m sceptical about those thinkers who want to legally enshrine lots and lots of positive rights, for three reasons. Firstly, because this formalistic approach overlooks some real-life dynamics, such as that under the old Stormont regime Catholics were not unequal in law – their subjugation was a matter of informal arrangements. Secondly, because the demand for positive rights is open-ended, and as it goes from restriction of government powers to trying to make private citizens be nice, liberalism very quickly shows its illiberal streak.

Finally, liberals have never quite figured out what you do when people’s rights conflict, especially when you’re talking about groups rather than individuals. When that happens, liberals’ default position is usually to prioritise the rights of the group they feel most affinity with. New Labour actually formalised this in the Sexual Orientation Regulations in the row over Catholic adoption agencies, when it was written into law that the right of gay couples to adopt overrode the right of Catholic organisations to operate in accordance with Catholic social teaching. The funny thing is that, given the very small numbers of gay couples applying to adopt, and given the unlikely scenario of many, or even any, of them deciding to apply via the Catholic agencies, that the whole argument was unnecessary – the Catholic agencies could have perfectly well been granted the legal exemption they wanted, without infringing on the right of the gay community to take their custom elsewhere.

Anyway, this is brought down to the local level by Alliance Party activist Margaret Hawkins’ employment tribunal case against her party, supported by the Equality Commission, which provided the delicious spectacle of one lot of liberals taking on another. I direct you to Newton Emerson’s entertaining column on the subject, but will just take a look at some of the highlights:

Her case was taken up by the Equality Commission and funded in full and at length, although it was increasingly apparent that there was no case to answer.

Things became messier and murkier as a tribunal panel stepped down rather than hear a medical witness, the Alliance barrister accused the tribunal of bias and Ms Hawkins made demonstrably inaccurate statements.

Finally, the case collapsed when the Equality Commission withdrew its financial support, citing an “irretrievable breakdown” with the plaintiff.

However, by that time Ms Hawkins had entertainingly impugned several Alliance representatives and her allegations had been widely reported.

Indeed they were, but it’s also interesting what their reception said about the liberal rights mindset:

A critical claim was that David Ford said party colleague Eileen Bell would be “out of her depth” as assembly speaker. The Equality Commission took this as proof of sexism. To portray legitimate criticism of a woman by a man as sexist by default is itself a witless prejudice…

All three panel members resigned because the chair had “difficulty” with a doctor testifying that Ms Hawkins had exaggerated her claim of disability.

This was not because there was any doubt over the doctor’s testimony. It was because the panel did not think anyone claiming to be disabled should be doubted.

These, of course, are not the same people who are deciding your claim for Incapacity Benefit. But beyond some politically correct absurdities, there’s a more serious point to be made:

The Alliance Party has now accused the Equality Commission of pursuing the case to generate publicity.

If anything, this is a generous interpretation of the commission’s motivation. Many of the public bodies which presume to sit in judgment over us would prefer to be more like courts than quangos. The classic case of such a transformation is Canada’s regional human rights commissions, which were given a role in pre-existing rent tribunals.

Within a few years they had transformed them into all-encompassing star chambers hearing endless charges of so-called “hate-speech”.

These commissions repay study, because describing them as star chambers is not an exaggeration. Despite having evolved into quasi-judicial bodies, they don’t have public hearings, they don’t have any rules of evidence, and they certainly don’t operate a presumption of innocence. Your paradigmatic case is some cranky pensioner who writes a homophobic letter to her local paper, only to be hauled in front of a human rights commission and instructed to cease and desist from expressing her opinion. That her opinion may be ugly, bigoted and wrong is beside the point.

Newt continues:

Today, even Canada is not big enough for its new thought police.

In a recent celebrated case, the British Columbia Human Rights Commission found an American author guilty of “Islamophobia” over an article in an American magazine.

There are no comparable ‘quangaroo’ courts in Northern Ireland but this is not for want of demanding powers or attempting to muscle in on quasi-judicial systems. The Equality Commission already has statutory powers of investigation and enforcement and a key objective of its corporate plan is “to effect change through strategic enforcement”.

This makes the commission a sort of equality prosecution service, with a remit to pursue cases to advance its own agenda…

Should an ambitious quango wish to take the next step and graduate from prosecutor to judge and jury, Northern Ireland’s industrial and fair employment tribunals are an obvious target for a Canadian-style change-effecting strategy…

Another interesting vulnerability of the tribunal system is that it is not covered by legal aid. So a quango with a large legal budget and an in-house legal team could go a long way towards setting the tone and direction of the system’s caseload.

That’s why, at the very least, you need a strict separation of functions between the Equality Commission and the tribunals. I actually think we should be prepared to go further and debate whether we need an Equality Commission, but the rights agenda is sufficiently far advanced here to make that subject deeply taboo.

Of course, there is no evidence that the Equality Commission is engaged in cynical empire building. Then again, there was no evidence that the Alliance Party had discriminated against Margaret Hawkins. Perhaps the commission’s true goals have simply been obscured by failure. That happens a lot around here.

Exactly. Where I depart somewhat from Newt is where he talks about the left-liberal bias of our new political establishment. I think it’s necessary to be specific who we’re talking about. As I’ve said before, one big reason why the Gail Walker column in the Telegraph doesn’t work is that Gail’s shtick, apparently modelled on Amanda Platell, is to present herself as the no-nonsense Tory slapping it up the liberal elite. But the north doesn’t have a liberal elite if judged in terms of the political establishment – if you think the DUP are liberal, that would put you in the realms of fascism.

On the other hand, there are people who would deeply love there to be a liberal elite, especially if it included them. This used to manifest itself in Humespeak, and the SDLP’s perennial anti-democratic demands for commissions of liberal-minded technocrats to force the unionists to behave in a civilised manner. It manifested itself, ironically, in the Alliance Party in the days when it was effectively an NIO front party, and when its members could be relied upon to populate quangos, giving them power out of all proportion to their share of the vote.

Nowadays, these sort of people exist in serious numbers in the quangos and the community grantocracy. They are by no means all Alliance Party types – some prominent individuals are superannuated SDLP activists, some are self-proclaimed Trotskyists, most are drawn from the Great and the Good. You know, the way people like Maurice Hayes, Ken Bloomfield or Archbishop Eames seem to end up on every high-powered commission going. And this is how you see the vision of Humespeak coming to pass.

A lot of decent, progressive-minded people, browned off with our conservative population, will welcome this. Take, say, abortion – I’m in favour of legalising abortion here as a social necessity, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed that the Alliance for Choice has more or less given up on trying to win over public opinion, in favour of lobbying Westminster to impose legalisation over our heads. In a classic example of argument from outcome, it’s assumed that, if we get these nice progressive measures, it doesn’t matter if they get imposed by Britain or the EU, or magicked into law by some imaginative judicial activism.

Maybe these changes would make our lives better, but you have to allow that there’s a serious problem here of democracy. And I do suspect that a lot of liberals find democracy a terrible inconvenience when the majority of the population fail to see things there way.

Rud eile: If you’re in the mood for more political incorrectness, I thought this was seriously funny.

10 Comments

This is not an episode of Father Ted

July 9, 2009 at 9:04 pm (Catholicism, Ireland)

1224250319175_1

In today’s big story, the Limerick peasantry flock to a miraculous tree:

NEARLY 2,000 people have signed a petition seeking to prevent the removal of a tree stump on the grounds of a Co Limerick church, which they believe depicts an image of the Blessed Virgin.

Scores of people from across the country gathered to say prayers at Holy Mary Parish Church in Rathkeale yesterday where workmen made the discovery while cutting down trees earlier this week.

People from the town organised the petition in an effort to have the stump, which was due to be dug out of the ground yesterday, made into a permanent fixture at the church. “We have almost 2,000 signatures on the petition already and we are going to continue getting more,” said shopkeeper Séamus Hogan.

“People have been coming from Kerry and Clare to see this tree, which we believe shows a clear outline of Our Lady,” he continued. Mr Hogan said the discovery was bringing people from all walks of life to Rathkeale to pray.

I suppose Limerick has been a bit short of moving statues for the last few years, so Our Lady appearing in a tree stump is a bit of a turn up for the books. And look at who the defenders of rationalism are:

Local parish priest Fr Willie Russell said on radio station Limerick Live 95FM yesterday that people should not worship the tree. “There’s nothing there . . . it’s just a tree . . . you can’t worship a tree.”

A spokesman for the Limerick diocesan office said the “church’s response to phenomena of this type is one of great scepticism”.

“While we do not wish in any way to detract from devotion to Our Lady, we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition,” he said.

Yes, here’s Pope Benny trying to give a considered response to the world’s ills in his latest, impressively crunchy encyclical, only to see his impressive intellectualism being undermined by Irish culchies praying to a tree stump. Wherever Dermot Morgan is, he must be having a chuckle to himself. See also.

12 Comments

The Nelsonian approach

July 9, 2009 at 4:47 pm (Culture, Norn Iron, Ulster Scots)

_46032601_nsministerial1

The bloke on the right will be familiar to southern readers. It’s Éamon Ó Cuív, scion of the de Valera family, Minister for Culchies and Gaeilgeoirí and uncrowned King of Connacht. The bloke on the left, if you need an introduction, is the new Stormont culture minister, Nelson McCausland, attending his first North-South Ministerial Council in the Donegal Gaeltacht. I’m sure a grand ould time was had by all, but on the way Nelson gave the Beeb the benefit of his thoughts on multiculturalism:

Speaking earlier, Mr McCausland said he would not attend a Catholic church service during his tenure as minister.

“I would not attend a service in a Roman Catholic church,” he said.

“That has always been my position and remains such.

“That does not mean I do not have good relationships with Roman Catholic people.”

And furthermore:

Some nationalists have criticised the minister’s attitude to the Irish language and the GAA.

The Ulster-Scots enthusiast told the BBC his knowledge of the Irish language would “probably remain somewhat limited”.

“I always take the view that just because somebody can say a few words in any language, it doesn’t mean they’ve got any great knowledge of it,” he said.

“I’m living at present in a cul-de-sac but it doesn’t mean I’m fluent in French.”

You said it, Nelson. And again:

Mr McCausland is also responsible for sport, following DUP leader Peter Robinson’s reshuffle last month.

His predecessor Gregory Campbell caused a row by referring to the all-Ireland football final as an “international event” after Tyrone’s victory over Kerry last September.

Mr McCausland said he did not know Tyrone were the Gaelic football champions, adding that neither did he know who the Northern Ireland champions were in squash or lacrosse.

Now, let’s not be overly cynical. It’s not as if Nelson has no cultural credentials at all. He plays the accordion, and he used to be the Heid-Yin of the Ulster-Scots Heirskip Cooncil, and those credentials are surely good enough for me. He’s even signalled that he might attend a GAA match, as long as it wasn’t on a Sunday. Since Nelson is a big cheese in the Lord’s Day Observance Society, one can only admire his fidelity to his principles.

Of course, lots of nationalists will be burying their heads in their hands and saying, “Oh Lord, we thought Gregory Campbell was bad…” But I reckon winding up nationalists was why Nelson got the job in the first place. I’m sorry if that makes Peter Robinson sound like a Machiavellian schemer, but it’s the only explanation I can think of.

8 Comments

Our elected representatives show leadership

July 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm (Education, Norn Iron, Racism)

AnnaLo225wL

Having caught a little of Thursday’s NIC-ICTU rally against racism at City Hall – work commitments meant I couldn’t stick around very long – it looked terribly disappointing. It was depressingly small, and there didn’t look to be much there beyond the usual suspects. Some union officials. Some fulltime Nice People from the grantocracy. A sprinkling of far-left activists with papers and collection buckets. The gentlemen of the press, looking desperately for a story. And once again, a no-show from our ethnic communities, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this sort of thing.

Luckily, the numbers were boosted by the UDA. There would have been even less to see if Jackie McDonald and several of his satraps hadn’t put in an appearance.

But if the rally was a bust, last week’s Assembly debate on racism wasn’t much better. There were of course some examples of the right attitudes being struck. A little prelude was had in ministerial questions, with Martin McGuinness doing his heart-on-my-sleeve bit:

As I held Fernanda, the baby who was born in Belfast, in my arms when she was five days old, I knew that her mother and father were about to take her away from her birthplace because of a despicable hate crime. I also met a young woman called Maria who came here a few months ago without a word of English. She is a lovely person who taught herself and her two children English. Maria was able to act as interpreter between us and the rest of the Roma community. That shows clearly how hard those people were trying to build new lives.

We need to face up to all the problems that are out there. All of us need to do more, and there is a particular responsibility on people to recognise that perhaps not enough was done by the system as a whole. It was very interesting to see that Assistant Chief Constable Finlay effectively threw up his hands in relation to how he thought the police handled the situation. Effectively, they did not know what was happening in the Roma community. That accusation could also be levelled at us. We all have lessons to learn and, as we go forward, the type of document to which the Member referred needs to be very thorough and proactive in relation to facing down racism and sectarianism in our society.

Well, yes. Later we got to the debate, wherein Alex Maskey (PSF, South Belfast) tabled the following motion:

That this Assembly condemns unreservedly all racist and sectarian attacks; calls for the rights and entitlements of ethnic minorities and other vulnerable communities to be protected; commends all those voluntary and statutory agencies which assisted in the recent upheaval inflicted upon members of the Roma community in Belfast; and calls on all Departments to respond appropriately and on all political leaders to display leadership and unity of purpose in tackling all manifestations of hate crime.

There’s not much you can take issue with there. One thing that does come to mind, though, is that, in political discourse in the north, racism is the new sectarianism. It’s become fashionable to view sectarianism as just a manifestation of racism, or of bad attitudes held by bad people. Actually, it’s more accurate to say that sectarianism is the basic feature of our society, and the outbreak of racist incidents over recent years is simply the addition of new targets by people who would have been involved in sectarian incidents in the past. Alex sort of touched on this:

In the aftermath of the killing of Kevin McDaid, people who comment on such matters, including those in the media, speculated on who might have been involved, the purpose of the killing and why it happened. Some of the remarks, commentaries and observations made in the media and through public discourse were shameful and sought, in my view, to either justify or minimise and explain away what happened on the day on which Mr McDaid was brutally killed. That is in contrast to how they responded to the treatment of the Roma families and suggests that an awful lot of people in this society find it much easier and are more comfortable to deal with the issue of racism than the issue of sectarianism. Sectarianism is the elephant in the room. I am struck by the fact that many people in our communities are able to tackle the issue of racism much easier and more comfortably than the issue of sectarianism.

I think that’s true. Nobody will openly defend racism – even the BNP are cagey about doing that these days. Besides, it’s a lot easier to condemn racism when we’re talking about the plight of relatively small numbers of people. In that sense, it doesn’t pose the same questions as sectarianism.

Following that, Naomi Long (Alliance, East Belfast) reflected on the racist attacks, when she had been on the scene in her capacity of Lord Mayor, and talked about the need for the Executive to produce a cohesion strategy, which would make me feel happier if I didn’t think it was just going to be another glossy booklet. Then we had an intervention from friend of this blog Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford) in characteristically forthright terms:

We er weel kent as tha wee kintrie wi’ a’ big hairt, an oor guid naem o’ waremth an feelin is bein ruinet bi’ thugs hoo irnie representative o’ tha lerge majority in tha Proavince. We hae haud sum kinserns in oor kumunity an sum metters sic as yin in Kummer laust yeer, but that wus a yin-afff an haesnae bin repeetet. Whut hooiniver is cleer ther er fowk whau er fed up wi’ tha woarl in general an takk it oot oan fowk in pertikuler; unfoartunately, it seems tae be that it’s aieser tae pikk oan tha yins that hae nae supoart netwoarks.

Yes, well, you can’t say fairer than that. What was more interesting was that Jim took the opportunity to talk about the migration of Protestants out of border areas, and of opposition to Orange parades. In his view, these were to be identified with the racist attacks in Belfast. There was to be some more of this.

We then had Danny Kennedy (UCUNF, Newry/Armagh), Carmel Hanna (SDLP, South Belfast) and Jimmy Spratt (DUP, South Belfast) all adding their condemnation of the attacks. Everybody was offering condemnation.

Unfortunately, this love-in was brought to an abrupt close by Martina Anderson (PSF, Foyle), who said:

Those attacks were the outworkings of a warped mindset that has never tolerated anything but itself. It is a mindset that for years has been ignored and even encouraged by some in the Establishment. Some of the most so-called Christian of places have been underpinned by a culture of intolerance. We have all heard the Pope being described from the pulpit as the Antichrist. Whether the targets are Romanian or Roman Catholic, the bigotry that they face is the same.

The motion calls for political leadership and unity of purpose in tackling all manifestations of hate crime. The sad fact is that it must be said that unionist Members have been found wanting in that regard. Time and time again, we have failed, and they have failed to confront hate crime, particularly sectarianism that emanates from within their community.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I am not suggesting for one second that all intolerance emanates from within the unionist community. I will repeat that: I am not suggesting for one second that all intolerance emanates from the unionist community. However, the difference is that my party has always confronted those issues head on in our own community.

We have gone toe to toe with those responsible and we have let them know in no uncertain terms that no such behaviour will be tolerated or accepted. We have had a vigil in the Bogside area of Derry after attacks in the Fountain; we have been involved in forums with residents trying to address that. We have challenged and confronted, head on, attacks that have emanated from within our community, but we do not see the same level of confrontation within the unionist community.

There’s some element of truth to that. It was noticeable during the episode with the Roma that unionist reps were prepared to say the right thing if a microphone or reporters’ notebook was stuck in their face, but it was people like Martin McGuinness and Naomi Long who were doing the touchy-feely stuff. Actually, Jackie McDonald was more proactive than unionist politicians, and that can’t be a good thing.

But this then led to splenetic responses from Robin Newton (DUP, East Belfast) and Tom Elliott (UCUNF, Fermanagh/South Tyrone), who banged on at some length about the oppression of border Protestants, the unaccountable reluctance of Catholics to have Orange parades on their doorsteps, and how Martina Anderson should apologise for everything republicans had ever done before she got to speak about intolerance. Peter Robinson then remarked:

I regret that the Member for Foyle Ms Anderson engaged in the blame game; we learned that when one points the finger, three point back at one. The responses thereafter showed that.

Yes, it’s much easier to not point fingers at all. It is in fact true that DUP representatives in the Coleraine area were remarkably understanding about the McDaid murder, but it just doesn’t do to point fingers.

Now let’s just bring this to a close with Anna Lo (Alliance, South Belfast), who actually knows something about racism:

I am very heartened by the response from all Members and parties today. I particularly welcome the First Minister’s strong words and his sincerity and commitment to deal with the problem of sectarianism and racism. However, I am also saddened by some of the comments, which seemed to me to be defensive and to stereotype our ethnic minority communities. There are good and bad apples in all communities, and we have to take that into account. Where there are large numbers of new populations, there will, of course, be some people who will misbehave, but that is no cause for racist attacks.

We must address racism and hate crimes of all types in our society. I have lived here for 35 years, and I do not believe that Northern Ireland is a racist society, but a small minority can bring us all down in the eyes of the world. We must be very careful about that.

I believe that racism is on the increase. Last year, there were nearly 1,000 incidents, but I have no doubt that the figure for this year will rocket. In the past few months, more than 80 Polish people have been intimidated, and more than 40 of them have moved out of their homes as a result of that intimidation.

Following that, Hungarian women were forced out of their homes. Next, 115 Romanian families were forced to leave their homes. Only three of those families have stayed in Northern Ireland; the remainder left last week.

The Indian community was targeted last week. Over the weekend and today, a large number of people from ethnic minorities, including myself, received serious threats to our safety. I have never seen the ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland so fearful…

We need leadership from the Government, but we also need Government action. Many public services are not geared to meet the needs of ethnic minority communities. Over the past two weeks, the Government’s response to meeting the needs of the Romanian community has been inadequate. Children were moving from place to place clutching their teddy bears, their pillows and blankets, and we could not do a thing. We had to put them in a church for one night and shift them somewhere else the next night. What on earth are we doing? We are a large, wealthy population. Why can we not deal with such a situation?

Quite. It’s all very well to get the Assembly to unanimously agree a motion condemning racism, but maybe more profitable to ask the practical questions. Going by the NICEM statement quoted by the BBC, they were as unimpressed as I was.

That was Monday. On Tuesday, our esteemed representatives were back to the normal knockabout while discussing post-primary education and the 11+. Some highlights:

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Members must allow the Minister to answer. I am hearing everything in quadraphonic sound. Perhaps the Minister would respond to the question.

Later on it got better:

Mr McCallister: In my brief time on the Education Committee, the one thing that has become clear is that we do not have clarity on anything. The Western Education and Library Board, for example, estimates that up to 8,000 pupils who would be entitled to free school meals do not claim them. In addition, there are issues about the capital value of farms. Adding that to the fact that her own equality impact assessment concludes that the criteria discriminate against those in rural and Protestant working-class areas, and given that so much of the policy is based on free school meal entitlement, how does the Minister propose to make any of her plans fit for purpose?

The Minister of Education: I believe that the Member has been on the Education Committee for only two hours. Nevertheless, I welcome him, and I am sure that he will receive copious notes on this subject from my Department.

And it didn’t get any less ill-tempered:

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr Storey): I am glad that the Assembly does not have a sports day at the end of term, because the Minister of Education could not win even the egg-and-spoon race.

As Chairperson of the Education Committee, I want to inform the House that the Education Minister has bypassed the Committee. Members will remember that when she published the sustainable schools policy, she did it by —

Mr O’Dowd: Speech.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education: Mr Deputy Speaker, am I to be continually interrupted by a Shinner?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The words “pot”, “kettle” and “black” come to mind, Mr Storey. However, Mr Storey should be allowed to continue. It is questions to the Minister on her statement, and I await the question.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education: The Minister published her sustainable schools policy by putting on her education balaclava and doing it at night. When she decided to publish transfer 2010 guidance, she did not come to the Education Committee, despite the important fact that in a letter to the Education Committee dated 5 May —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Storey, as Chairperson of the Committee, you are given a certain amount of leniency in respect of what you can say, but the time for a question to the Minister on her statement has long passed.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education: The Education Minister has ignored the Education Committee. Will the Education Minister tell the people and the parents of Northern Ireland today, first, that she has failed in relation to the abolition of academic criteria, and, secondly, when she will heed the numerous calls that have been made to her? We will have to come back to the issue of transfer. We will have to establish an agreed way to transfer our children from primary school to post-primary school rather than go down the ideological cul-de-sac that she, as Education Minister, has created and exist in the confusion over which she is happy to preside.

The Minister of Education: Go raibh maith agat. Mr Storey raised a point about sports days. Last night, I met all the GAA coaches who are part of the sports programme in P1 and P2. Members will know that we have a good sports programme with the GAA and the IFA. It might be useful for the a Cheann Comhairle, the Chairperson, of the Education Committee to have a discussion with the GAA and the IFA, because one of the issues that we discussed was ways in which sports days can be made more participative. It is not about winning or about the two or three children who win all the medals; it is about interaction. I commend the GAA and the IFA for making sports days more interesting in the primary schools in which they are working, and for training the teachers. I thank the Member for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the IFA and the GAA.

I urge the Chairperson of the Education Committee not to resort to personal insults. It is better to deal with the educational arguments. It is often the case that people resort to insults when they have nothing or little to say.

And yet more from the education debate:

Mr Deputy Speaker: I must say that Members are providing a fine example to the very children about whom they are talking.

Mr Poots: Does the Minister agree that there is a number of very important and key elements missing from her statement, such as: “Ruane makes amazing comeback to win Wimbledon ladies’ singles”; “Newry City win Champions League”; “Elvis spotted sunbathing in Warrenpoint”; and “They all lived happily ever after”?

I recommend that the Minister take a long holiday, because, when she returns, examinations will still be taking place. Furthermore, the privatised transfers that she has initiated, for which there will actually be more testing, and which will make it more difficult for children from socially challenged backgrounds to get into grammar schools, will still be in place. Is that the system that the Minister set out to create, for that is what she has created?

The Minister of Education: It is interesting to hear sporting analogies as Wimbledon takes place, and I am glad that Mr Poots has provided the House with some very good ones. I look forward to seeing Newry City win the Champions League, and all the rest.

You realise, of course, that a lot of these characters are school governors? I think, to conclude by raising the tone, we should hear what Jim Shannon had to say on the Budget Bill:

Aa’ hae tae sae Mr Speeker that Aa’ hae a feelin that this haes aw happent’ afoar aboot muckle debates in this Hoos regerdin metters aboot mony. We heer iver an iver again, aboot tha need fer a new Budget proasess , an fer soon reasins o’ giein oot mony tae this area an that. But theim that iver an iver agin caw fer this hae iver an iver agin fawed far shoart o’ spellin oot whor they wud takk tha mony fae. It is aw quare an weel tae oarder an deman mare fundin, but we canny awaes roab Peter tae pay Paul. Tha quarterly takkin in tae acoont roons, whuch er aften tauked aboot bi’ sum Memers, oaffer a reel guid soartin oot wae o’ brinnin aboot muckle changes tae tha Budget as it noo stauns. Aa’ unnerstaun that weel iver yin billyin poon o’ allocated an reduced needs hae bin maed throo tha takkin intae acoont roons iver these paust twau yeer.

And if that doesn’t hit the nail on the head, I don’t know what does.

16 Comments

Andy Murray and Scot-baiting

July 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm (Scotchies, Tennis)

4407309

As I write this I’m watching the Federer-Stifler men’s final at Wimbledon, and it’s not too bad. Usually I’m more interested in the women’s game, but unfortunately there’s been little interest this year, at least in the latter stages as the championship devolved into yet another Williams sisters bore-fest. What’s frustrating, for those of us who like to see competitive play, is that the top players have long since sussed out that the Williamses are far from unbeatable, even on grass, as long as you don’t let them sucker you into playing their game. Ah well, at least it will have pleased those people who moan every year about the East European “fembots”, who – as a group – get the sort of stick that would never be aimed at black players in this day and age.

But let’s talk about someone else who gets the fuzzy end of national stereotyping. Yes, it’s Andy Murray. I must admit that I like Murray more and more, not only because he’s become a really good player, but also because he has this endearing quality of not being an identikit national hero. He’s a bit too focused on winning for the British taste. He gives the impression of being a bit surly – much to the distress of those dozy fans who complain that he doesn’t smile enough – but actually has a sarcastic streak that I rather like. He’s got a very dry sense of humour, sometimes too dry for those who are apt to take his jokes as being deadly serious. And he doesn’t care much about being popular – he’s supposed to be an athlete, after all, not a TV personality.

But it’s his Scottishness that’s probably the biggest obstacle to the Middle England public taking him to their hearts. Tune in to popular fora like The Wright Stuff or Loose Women, and as soon as Murray’s name is mentioned, you just know you’re going to get twenty minutes of people running him down, not for his performances on court, or even (mostly) his dourness, but rather because of his ethnicity. And there are some people who will never let him live down what he said three years ago about the World Cup – the football World Cup, that is, not anything to do with his own sport.

In an excellent column, Martin Samuel takes up the story:

There was only one moment that Andy Murray appeared troubled on the day of his latest Wimbledon victory.

It was during the post-match press conference when he was asked what team he would be supporting in the Ashes.

Murray’s shoulders sagged and his forearm sank until it was resting on the table in front of him. It remained there for several seconds.

Murray knew what his inquisitor was really asking. ‘So, Jocko, how much do you hate the English? Enough to cheer on the Aussies, I bet, you kilt-wearing, shortbread-munching, miserable Scottish pillock!’

I don’t have a huge amount of patience for those Scots who spend all their time blaming the English for their woes – which is why Alex Salmond’s attempts to put a positive stress what Scots could achieve are appealing – but this is the sort of tomfoolery that would wind anyone up. It’s a bit like the way Scottish athletes remain Scottish when they lose, then mysteriously become British when they win.

Off the tennis court, Murray can’t win.

If he says he will cheer the England cricket team, he sounds like a sap who has been bullied into playing a silly media game; if he deadpans that he will cheer the Aussies, all points south of Berwick-upon-Tweed will have conniptions and take an off-the-cuff remark literally, because that is what happened the last time – when he joked that he would be supporting whoever were the England football team’s opponents in the World Cup.

Even if he tells the truth – which is, in all probability, that being Scottish and a tennis player on the brink of one of the biggest matches of his career he could not give two stuffs about cricket – it will still be viewed in some quarters as a snub to England.

Yet Tim Henman would have been wrong-footed, too, if, as he prepared to face Goran Ivanisevic in his semi-final in 2001, some bright spark had sought to discover his loyalties when Scotland played Croatia in an upcoming World Cup qualifier.

Henman did not need to pass such tests, however, because he was never placed on trial over his national identity. He was allowed to play tennis and be himself.

It was all so much simpler with Tim, wasn’t it? Middle England didn’t have any complications in dealing with Tim, because he was one of them. There’s a sort of concept of “Britishness” that sees Englishness – or a particular vision of Middle England – as being normative, while it’s the Scots who always have something to prove.

So this is no longer about what Murray says or how he feels about the union. This is about us, the English, and our attitude to getting behind a normal lad from Dunblane.

A lot of people are hiding behind the three-year-old joke that Murray made to justify their prejudices because, by now, if you still hate Andy Murray, it is not because he is anti-English but because you are anti-Scottish.

His famous remark, first reported in this newspaper, has since been analysed to death. It was made in response to teasing from Henman and an English reporter about Scotland’s failure to make it to the 2006 World Cup.

Something along the lines of: ‘So, who will you be supporting then, mate?’ Answer: ‘Anybody your lot are playing, pal.’

And that was all it was. A crack, a gag, a snappy rejoinder.

Yes, and having let himself be goaded into it by Henman and Des Kelly, he’ll never be allowed to forget it.

Since when, despite public statements about his English girlfriend, his English home, his English friends, English business advisors and even an English grandmother, Murray has been treated like a latter-day William Wallace, rampaging south with a Head racket in his hand and a chip on his shoulder.

His best bet, you know, is really just to laugh this off. I mean, Gordon Brown has tried to ingratiate himself with the Sasanach electorate by professing his deep love of the England football team, but nobody really believes it. Nor have his efforts to construct a narrative of “Britishness” shielded Brown from a barrage of Scottophobia south of the border. His very Scottishness seems to provoke that kind of reaction in some quarters, almost regardless of his politics.

But back to Murray:

There are no national anthems played at Wimbledon, no reason a competitor should be wrapped in the flag.

It is the fact that our tennis has been mired in decades of ineffectuality that has made Murray so important.

And this is important, because even though you don’t compete for a nation at Wimbledon, you can still carry with you the hopes of a nation. The East European women players all mingle together and don’t go in for nationalist chest-beating, but it helps to realise that, for instance, Ana Ivanović and Jelena Janković are enormous celebrities in their native Serbia, idolised by huge numbers of young girls, some of whom may be troubling the rankings themselves in years to come. Yet lots of Brits seem to swing between either expecting the impossible from their athletes and then excoriating them for failing to do the impossible, or else preferring to wallow in endearing crapness than celebrate success.

As Martin concludes about Murray:

He, in turn, has done his bit. He says he is equally proud to be from Scotland and from Britain.

If that is not good enough, we are the ones with the problem, not him.

Quite so. But I suspect that, if he does actually win a Slam soon, many critical fans will start warming up to him. Tennis fans are funny that way.

4 Comments

Our man at the movies

July 5, 2009 at 12:29 am (Movies, Norn Iron, Paisleyism)

jeffreydonaldson

You know, I never knew Jeffrey Donaldson was a film buff. I always thought that it was Sir Gerald Kaufman who was the Commons’ answer to Barry Norman.

However, as revealed by the Daily Telegraph, Jeffrey Boy simply can’t get to sleep at night without a good movie:

Mr Donaldson, 46, a married father of two, used his Commons second home allowances to pay for films in his hotel room nearly every time he travelled from Northern Ireland to the capital on parliamentary business.

I like the way they slip in Jeffrey’s marital status. This is what is known in the journalistic trade as innuendo. Now pay attention, because there’ll be more.

In total, Mr Donaldson submitted second home claim forms, including receipts, relating to 68 pay-to-view movies.

Hotel sources confirmed that films he put on his expenses during 2004 and 2005 were in the highest price category offered to guests, covering the latest blockbusters and adult movies.

Note that it’s the category that’s being discussed here. In contradistinction to Jacqui Smith’s other half, there is no evidence to say exactly what films Jeffrey was watching in his hotel room. The Telegraph can only note that they were in the high-priced bracket, and speculate as to what that might cover:

At present, the films on offer which would fall into the highest price category at the Marriott are Sexy Scenes 2009, series 2, series 5 and series 7, Hotel For Dogs, Friday the 13th, Role Models and Death Race.

There are some titles there that aren’t familiar to me, but then I’m not as avid a moviegoer as Jeffrey. What’s important is that Jeffrey is insistent that he wasn’t watching any porn. I certainly don’t have any evidence that Jeffrey was watching Knockin’ Nurses 4, so I’m perfectly prepared to take Jeffrey’s word for it.

Mind you, even Hollywood blockbusters can be a tricky proposition in the Calvinist moral world of the DUP. These are the guys who like nothing better than to lead demonstrations against productions of Jesus Christ Superstar, so, all things considered, one hopes Jeffrey was watching nothing more risqué than Lassie Come Home.

And get a load of this wholehearted defence from Jeffrey’s party leader:

Peter Robinson, its leader, said: “Mr Donaldson has been asked to pay back any expenses which have not been properly incurred and I understand that he intends to do so.

“In the light of his categorical denials, Mr Donaldson is clearly entitled to a presumption of innocence. If any evidence to substantiate the allegations can be provided we would of course wish to consider it.”

Peter is of course aware of what can happen when DUP representatives indulge in hotel-based entertainment – that’s why the party had to give rising star Paul Berry the bum’s rush after his close encounter with a masseur of the homosexual persuasion. Not to mention various other skeletons lurking in party members’ closets. But Jeffrey’s moral conservatism is well known, and I do think Peter could have been a bit more forthright on this matter.

After all, Jeffrey is a valued colleague, and Peter has full confidence in him and wouldn’t give any succour to those who would undermine him. Isn’t that right?

3 Comments

Basque bishops to honour Civil War’s red priests

July 4, 2009 at 2:35 pm (Catholicism, Euskal Herria)

Obispos vascos450

And so the long shadow of the Spanish Civil War is still very much in evidence, at least as far as Catholic politics is concerned. One of the peculiarities of the Franco regime was that, while in general institutional Catholicism became a prop of the regime, sometimes by default and sometimes enthusiastically, as usual the Basque provinces went their own way. The Basque church was renowned as a hotbed of nationalism before the Civil War, and was no less so after it, which caused the Generalissimo no end of headaches.

This resurfaced back in 2007 with the Vatican’s mass beatification of Catholics killed by the Republicans during the Civil War, something that would have gladdened the hearts of surviving Franquistas. Noticeably excluded were fourteen Basque priests executed by the fascists. The “red priests” have long been a source of embarrassment to top Catholics in Madrid, so this probably wasn’t surprising.

It’s heartening news, therefore, that the four Basque bishops, apparently on their own initiative, are to hold a joint service on the 11th July to honour these forgotten martyrs. And so there will finally be formal recognition for Martín Lecuona, Gervasio Albizu, José Adarraga, José Ariztimuño Aitzol, José Sagarna, Alejandro Mendicute, José Otano, José Joaquín Arín, Leonardo Guridi, José Marquiegui, José Ignacio Peñagaricano, Celestino Olaindia, Jorge Iturricastillo and Román de San José.

About time too, I say. It’s nice to see the Church do the right thing, even if the combined forces of Madrid and the Vatican mean the Basque church has to operate on its own recognisance. What’s more, this will greatly annoy not only the Franco nostalgics but also the broader constituency in the Spanish state who have never let the sun go down on their antipathy to the Basques. Which can only be for the best.

2 Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »