George Galloway and a dishonourable debate at the House of Shame
I am often critical of George Galloway. I would not get as close to the Muslim association of Britain as he has. I am of the belief that Salman Rushdie was much more wronged than wronging. And I support a genuine two party outcome to the Israel/Palestinian dispute which is not a dispute with one party being all right and one party being all wrong. And certainly, I do not share his sorrow at the fall of the Soviet Union or his less than critical approach to Castro
However, I was disgusted at the suspension of George Galloway by the the dishonourable members of the House of Commons. I would recommend anyone to read Galloway's speech before the hanging court of Westminster.
The apologists for war chose to condemn Galloway on remarkably weak evidence. These bloodsoaked functionaries seemed much more concerned with Galloway's meetings with Saddam Hussein and the possible lack of ethical conduct by one contributor to the Miriam Trust than with the fact that Tory Government gave Saddam's regime credits during the time when his worst atrocities were being carried out and that Rumsfeld and co were cheerleaders in the Iran War if not much more. One of the Tory attack dogs named Robathan behaved in a manner of the most snide of playground bullies.
Frankly I am unhappy with all of the major financers of the Miriam Trust. Not only Zureikat concerns me but so does for example the King of Saudi Arabia, a state which unlike Mr Blair, I totally deplore for its callous acts of inhumanity. Yet, the background to this project was not just sanctions which were brutal albeit exploited by Saddam, but the drift to war on the part of the principle free, corporate political establishment in London. To oppose the war that was from the very beginning cold blooded murder and which has been exploited by other bloody figures for their agendas, I would have taken money from just about anywhere.
Still there was no chance of a proper hearing last night. The three right wing parties all obsessed with corporate culture, intended no fair hearing. Indeed, we saw them as one, just as when they applauded the Prince of Death, Tony Blair, on his final performance at Prime Minster's Questions.
And then, there was a lamentable performance by Speaker Martin. In the past, Speakers defended the rights of dissident MPs. Not so Speaker Martin. His main concern seemed to be to protect a committee of MPs from proper scrutiny. It is a legitimate point that they had brought their own agendas into the the hearings. At least, it is legitimate that the point be made and then assessed. But no!. Speaker Martin continues to hold in the face of all available evidence that we are governed by a party system of honourable people. Rubbish, I say! Let us be clear. The three political parties take money from dubious sources with barely a nod and a wink. Even the last Liberal Democrat election campaign was financed by a man now in prison for fraud,whose sources did not concern them very much. And as for the armies of New Labour, let George Galloway have the final word;
I shall develop that argument later. Suffice, for the moment, to say this. The police found a document with a list of secret lenders to the Labour party, every single one of whom was nominated either for a “K” or for what Lord Levy described as a “big P”. This Parliament is stuffed full of political parties who were in turn stuffed full of secret loans and donations from millionaires or billionaires. None of the parties here—all three of them are culpable, a matter to which I shall return—ever asked the millionaires and billionaires who gave and lent them money where they got the money from. I am tempted to give just one example. Richard Desmond is a substantial benefactor to the Labour party. Did the treasurer of the Labour party ask Richard Desmond from which part of his considerable wealth he was donating handsomely to new Labour’s coffers? Did the treasurer of the Labour party—I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the language that I am about to use—ask if Mr. Desmond was giving from the profits of “Spunk-Loving Sluts”, “Asian Babes”, XXX pornographic television, or the profits of the Daily Star—
Oh yes, the hypocrisy of the dishonourable House reeks to the very heavens.
So once more, the House of Commons is revealed as a home for a political system which wouldn't know honour if it bit them on the leg. And once more, we see that the political casualties of the war are not its now justified opponents but those who either out of conviction or a desire to save their own tawdry careers, collaborated in sending the rockets of death through the homes of those whom they could dehumanise.
I begun by saying that George Galloway is in many ways a flawed character who illuminting as he is on talk radio, has often backed wrong judgements. Yet I notice that the Dishonourable House cared not an iota about forged documents that attempted to besmirch him or even some nasty allegations in the investigation. An Honourable House would have cared about these things. A Dishonourable House and a Dishonourable Speaker behaved as ever dishonourably yesterday with a Dishonourable Leader of the House Hariet Harman who jumped on the anti war bandwagon to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and off again within hours, moved the motion of treachery.
My concern is not the political career of George Galloway. My concern is about the quality of democracy. Well, my growing impression that it is but a charade with the current three parties whose only real difference is the speed at which they will drop to their knees at a corporate donor, leaves me with only one way of protest. My electoral registration form will be returned in a month or two's time with the message that I have no wish to be a part of the games of deceit. It will achieve nothing other than to be a sign of the contempt I feel for the farce.