Skip to main content

Anti-pacifist media conspiracy?

I've been quite concerned about the news in the last few days. After the release of the British peace activist Norman Kember, along with two Canadians (whose names are never mentioned in the British media, I don't know about anywhere else) the news has very quickly turned to slagging off Mr Kember.

It seems like only a few hours after the rescue Mike Jackson, Head of the British army 'said he was "saddened" there did not seem to be any gratitude.' What?! Norman Kember hadn't made any public statement yet, he was probably still sleeping. What right does the head of the British army have to start slagging him off for something he hasn't done yet? Why did the media rush to report this? There seems to be a wish of the media to start attacking pacifists in general and the Christian Peacemaker Teams in particular. Now I'm not a pacifist, although I might be close to being one, but I find myself really disguisted with this attack on this man when he's still recovering from trauma. Am I the only person deeply uncomfortable with this?

The other issue is the Labour cash-for-peerage controversy. Now let me say I've voted for Labour in the past, and I may vote for Labour in the future. I have never voted Conservative, and never will. But I think it's terrible how Labour has spun this issue round to turn the spotlight on the Tories. It's such obvious spin, and it seems to have worked. This is not about the Tories, it's about Labour, it's about the appointment of Lords. I want some accountability about what's been going on with Labour. I don't want to be told that Labour brought in rules about declaring donations in the first place. That's not the point, and it does not excuse any wrongdoing that's happened since. And I don't want Labour politicians to jump up and down shouting 'Look at the Tories! Look at the Tories!' in such an obviously self-serving partisan distraction stratgy.

Comments

Bill Baar said…
The CPT think Bush and Blair a greater threats then the thugs who kidnapped and murdered their comrades.

They are perfect examples of the Cruel Pacifists Orwell saw back in 1941.
PeaceBang said…
Stephen, sorry to bother you in your comments, but I was wondering if you might contact me at lunadiva@msn.com. I want to ask if you'll share a paper you wrote about on the Soulful Sundown services.
Please feel free to delete this, as it's off topic. I just didn't know how else to reach you.
Thanks so much.

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with