Ukraine and Media Fairy Tales

Such a shame. All that media infrastructure, all those highly educated journalists, cutting edge information technology. And what do we get from Western MSM coverage of the Ukraine crisis? Fairytales about big bad Russian ogres and Western-approved of princesses. This is naked self-serving, Western national self-interest dressed up as humanitarian concern for Ukrainians. It is as if the centuries of educational and technological progress since Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm first conjured up stories of good versus evil had never occurred.

Now our storytellers are be-suited official sources and their dutiful establishment conduits in the media, telling us about big bad Russian bears hiding in the Ukrainian woods, stirring up the locals, spreading fear and panic. But these storytellers, with their breathless pronouncements, and their flashing cameras, are not actually telling us a damn thing about the woods - only about the trees. In fact they point our faces straight at the trees, the individual events, the falling of a President, the fragility of the interim government, images of goodies and baddies. They hold our faces up against the fracas, and we feel part of it, informed and so can go about our daily business under the illusion that we know what the fuck is going on when the whole exercise has actually diverted us from the truth. We can’t see the woods for the trees. Not that we are meant to.

I heard an Economist journo on BBC 4 this morning describing how Russia will likely now indulge in “encouraging insurrections” perhaps even with a view to ensuring partition of the Russophile east Ukraine from the Europhile/NATOphile western Ukrainians. A lot of western orientated commentators would have no difficulty nodding sagely along to that view yet at the same time accusing anyone suggesting there has been comparable Western interference and manipulation in the current Ukrainian story of being a nutty conspiracy theorist.

So it can’t be the concept of conspiracy they object to because they already have attributed conspiratorial motives and methods to Russia. No, it’s the notion that we, lovely-peace-loving-humanitarian-democratic us, are somehow above the fray.

Those who claim to abhor conspiracy theories are often the first to promote them as long as they explain the behaviour of an enemy. Understandable this may be. Objective it is not. Informative? Perhaps, in some lopsided way. But it’s another excellent view of those “fascinating” trees - and yet another diversion from those pesky woods.

The woods, in this case, is the geo-political context of what is happening in Ukraine. Russia has been out-foxed by the political and intelligence machinations of the West.  All’s fair in politics and war. And Russia is no innocent abroad here. But the notion that “Machiavellian” Russia is somehow “interfering” in Ukraine while the “honourable” West is simply wanting to ensure events take their “natural” course is as infantile as any fairy tale. Are we really to suppose the West has no interest here?

This is not about anything other than the march of NATO, the vanguard of Western corporate interests. Not that The West is uniquely wicked. On the contrary, this is just what empires do, have always done and always will do. And the West is simply the current leading empire. The notion that we are in some post-history age without empires and where the Great Powers subjugate their economic interests to the rule of international law is indeed comforting, like many a bed time story. However, in the real word, the opposite is true. As Chomsky says, “You don’t need to be a genius to see it. In fact, it takes genius NOT to see it.”

If one considers the history of Great Powers then it’s obvious that Russia has no choice but to resist Western expansion or to accept Western influence on her borders and then perhaps within them. If Russia were to accept that her status as a Great Power would be imperilled. This is why of course Russia went to war in Georgia in 2008. That is why she has resisted Western interests in Syria. And this is why she is deeply unsettled by growing Western influence in Ukraine.

Russia has been out-manoeuvred politically in Ukraine. This deeply divided country on her borders appears to have chosen to lean westward. Certainly this is the wish of many in Western Ukraine. But to suppose that that wish was something Western interests did nothing to encourage is to pretend that Great Power politics does not exist. That takes us back to the land of Hans Christian Andersen.

One expects Great Powers to behave this way. But aren’t we, in a supposedly sophisticated western democracy, entitled to journalism that challenges their press-released narratives? Don’t we deserve more than fairy tales? Or do we just want the comfort of of a bed time story?

The Pathetic Imitation of Sectarianism

When some Aberdeen fans sound sectarian what you are hearing is simply a pathetic affectation of sectarianism, which has been facilitated by Scotland’s long-time tolerance and dismissal of real sectarianism as just “banter”. Whether affected or real, sectarianism is inexcusable. 

Here’s the thing, though. Aberdeen fans are not sectarian. Nor is Aberdeen a city remotely interested in such nonsense. Moreover, while working up there in the 1980s, the North East, a predominately protestant area, was unusually understanding of Irish Nationalism and while not supporting the IRA, for example, it empathised to quite a degree such an organisation’s motives if not it’s actions.

So, why do we hear, emanating from the Aberdeen end at Celtic Park, on the last two visits especially, songs one would normally expect sung by the worst elements of The Rangers support?

There are the Jimmy Savile chants. Clearly there is a desire to insult sporting rivals and, these chants are an obvious – and odious – choice.  Knowing that an element of fans of Celtic’s greatest rivals, The Rangers/Sevco, have constructed (for their own nefarious reasons) a fictitious narrative regarding Celtic and paedophilia, rival fans know that parroting this nonsense will insult Celtic fans. And so it is sung by some Aberdeen fans as a rather pathetic imitation of The Rangers sub-culture. The irony of some Aberdeen fans seeking to emulate the worst of The Rangers fans would no doubt be lost on the idiots singing this.

Do Aberdeen fans singing this crap believe it at all? It’s remarkable that, when fans are castigated for singing something inappropriate in “jest”, they often then attempt to justify these chants. In doing so they haul out instances of paedophilia, and cover up of it, in the Catholic Church, as if that organisation was the only structure in society where such abuse every occurred (and it certainly occurred there). For instance, they could just as easily sing chants about systematic abuse of children in non-denominational state care homes, or paedophilia rings in political circles, or wherever it may exist. Surely if anyone had a genuine concern regarding the abuse of children in care (which all right-minded people share) they would sing just as loudly about all these instances rather than focus on just one area. Such selectivity of condemnation reduces the complaint from a moral one to a convenient one. And to reduce such a serious subject to nothing more than a stick to beat an opponent with exposes an immoral cynicism.

Paedophilia is the result of people with power over other people abusing that power. It has nothing to do with what religion, what nationality, what political affiliations or what race the abusers are. Chanting about cynically selected examples of paedophilia is, in the case of The Rangers chanters, an attempt to justify their hatreds, and their feelings of superiority over their Celtic rivals and over Catholics in general. These hatreds and feelings of sectarian or racial superiority are alien concepts in Aberdeen.

Those Aberdeen fans who, in an attempt to wind up Celtic supporters by singing about Jimmy Savile and paedophilia, need to decide if they’re happier singing songs affecting the real hatreds, bitterness and sectarianism of Scotland’s least loved sub-culture, than singing about Barry Robson, Peter Pawlette, Willo Flood et al going to Glasgow and dominating and defeating the Scottish Champions on their home ground. `

The Abuse of Neil Lennon

It’s striking that intelligent journalists suspend their faculties when discussing the outrageous abuse of Neil Lennon in Scotland. They trot out their trite trying to keep both sides happy phrases about Lennon being “feisty” or other such unconscious (and sometimes, conscious) blame the victim nonsense.  If Lennon was black then none of them would be discussing his “feistiness”.  Was Mark Walters (a 1980s Rangers player who was the victim of outrageous racism, including banana throwing) “feisty”? Barry Robson put in another “feisty” performance yesterday at Celtic Park for my team, Aberdeen.  Was he subjected to death threats as a result? No, I think we can forget all about “feisty” and instead ask ourselves what kind of environment has allowed the abuse of Lennon to thrive.

Sure, there is abuse of Lennon which is not sectarian as Lennon himself pointed out last week after the vile Tynecastle abuse from some Aberdeen fans. Gordon Strachan for example attracted all sorts of abuse as an player and was indeed attacked on the pitch at Celtic Park which had nothing to do with his religion. Dennis Wise in England was subjected to sustained abuse unrelated to religion, as were others. That happens in football, sadly.

However, this is to miss the point. The degree and consistency of the abuse Neil Lennon attracts is far more sinister. Bullets, bombs, physical attacks, and death threats from terrorist organisations have nothing to do with football or with winding up opponents. 90% of the abuse Lennon receives is both racist and sectarian. Much of the abuse he receives, from Aberdeen fans for example, may not be directly sectarian, but a sectarian and anti-Irish culture in parts of Scotland has already rendered Lennon as target, a hate figure, fair game for anyone else to join in it seems.

How did this happen? This is a very dangerous situation and should be investigated by anyone masquerading as a journalist - and “feisty” is one word that won’t be necessary. 

Why "Taig of The Day" Is Not Funny

I'm relieved for Angela Haggerty after the conviction in court of a podcaster who’s idea of humour contravened Scots Law’s idea of legality.

Listening to the podcast in the cold light of court, together with many of the vile tweets which resulted from it, was a chastening experience. That anyone could imagine chants such as “Taig of the day”, among others, were somehow acceptable in modern society shows how entrenched bigotry had become. That such chants went down like a lead balloon in court of law shows progress of sorts.

I first came across the word “Taig” while working in N. Ireland in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Painted on a wall in a loyalist area was the slogan “Kill all Taigs.” This was at a time when some seemed to be taking that badly scrawled graffiti as an actual instruction. Just as chillingly, many who were not carrying out these murderous acts cheered, both vocally and silently, conditioned by decades, if not centuries, of reducing others to something less than human.

Calling people “Taigs’ is not “banter”. It’s part of a process that dehumanises people in the eyes of others. And once a person or group of people has been dehumanised then they are considered by some as fair game for ... well ... potentially anything. If N. Ireland taught us anything, it taught us that.

Punk For Beginners - John Lennon

I was a teenager grabbing a few more minutes in bed on the morning of 8^thDecember 1980 when maternal shouting at me to get up was interrupted by an audible gasp. TheRadio Clyde news bulletin had to be serious to interrupt parental attempts to get me out of bed. I heard my dad say, “What happened to him?” My mother replied, “He’s been shot. Shot dead.”

Ronald Regan had recently won the 1980 US presidential election and my first thought was it was him who’d been shot dead. I shouted, “Who’s been shot?” My mother came into my room. “John Lennon”, she said. I can still feel the same dreadful feeling at the pit of my stomach even now whenever his murder is remembered, like millions of others around the world I’m sure.

It wasn’t fashionable to be a Beatlesor John Lennon fan in the UK at the time, in the immediate post-punk era when such music was considered distinctly un-revolutionary or worse, un-cool. Us Beatles fans were swimming against the New Wave tide. Plus, Double Fantasy had been not long released and disappointed with its lack of the sort of angst teenagers often seek in their music. It didn’t help our case much, we felt.

Still, I fought The Beatles corner faithfully during many schoolboy musical wars at Woodfarm High, reminding my punk friends that John Lennon could have been the first punk, that Billy Idol/Generation Xcovered the angry Gimmie Some Truth from Lennon’s Imagine album, and that Siousie and the Bancheescovered The Beatles Helter Skelterfrom the Double White album. These facts were met with flat denials of fashionably New Wave pals. When confronted with vinyl proof, unwittingly provided by my secret source – my Punk wee sister who’sGeneration X and Souxsie records I ... err ... borrowed to help me win my case – these New Wavers grudgingly acknowledged there might have been such a concept as rebellion in music before Johnny Rotten.

To see the Beatles and Lennon in particular coming back into vogue in the early 1990s felt like a vindication.  To hear their influence on so many successful modern acts, to think that they are still in vogue across generations now mean the world makes at least a little sense. And when I hear my least favourite Lennon album, Double Fantasy, now, I hear a once troubled soul finding peace. I’d say he’d earned it.

It’s ironic that Imagine was ever considered by some as saccharine-like musical Schmaltz when it’s the most anti-establishment song he ever wrote, dressed up for reactionaries, a sort of Anarchy In The UK - or everywhere else for that matter - for mainstream tastes, like a musical Trojan Horse for revolutionary concepts. Now, there’s something Punks and other revolutionaries could learn from...

That night, December 8^th 1980, there was a programme on TV on the life and times of Lennon. The presenter appeared genuinely affected by the day’s events. But he finished with a comment that made a lot of sense, something like, “I never knew John Lennon personally. So the John Lennon I know is still alive”. There really is some sort of immorality after all.

You And Whose Army - What Motivated The Rangers To Invite The Armed Forces To Ibrox

The behaviour of some The Rangers fans and some Forces personnel at the recent UK Armed Forces celebration at Ibrox has been ably covered elsewhere. But what, I wonder, was the motivation of the chiefs at Ibrox (who might soon outnumber the Indians) in inviting UK Armed Forces on Armed Forces Day? Was it to celebrate the Forces contribution to society? To some that would be fair enough. Or, was it to celebrate the Ibrox feeling of Britishness and being part of The Union? There’s nothing wrong with a section of society celebrating its sense of identity, if it’s done respectfully.

But in a society that, though perhaps not as broken as N. Ireland, still has fractures there’s something suspect about a section of that society appearing to claim ownership of an army that is supposed to be at the service of everyone.  

Was the motivation to invite the Forces to say to other elements in society, “it’s our army”? Others might say they’re welcome to it. But that’s not the point. If such elements really believe that it’s their army then they’re not interested in notions (some might say pretences) of UK forces neutrality. For instance, should conflict break out in Belfast to the degree that army presence is deemed necessary by UK government, then how would the same armed forces who’d partied to sectarian tunes so enthusiastically at Ibrox be seen? This should concern Forces bosses because, if this claim of ownership is left unchallenged, then it brings the ostensive integrity of UK Armed Forces into disrepute.

There are many within the Armed Forces who do not support Rangers and who are disgusted by incidents such as Armed Forces Day at Ibrox and the previous Remembrance Day debacle. As one former army acquaintance told me recently, “We’re not their bloody army”. This former soldier does in fact support The Rangers yet he has no time for what he called “feeding frenzies”.

I asked another former career soldier, who is a life-long Celtic supporter from Aberdeenshire, what he made of it all. “What on earth were they thinking?” was his resigned reply. He was referring to Army top brass. Of course there’s no doubt that many Scots in the army support Rangers and one suspects if some within that grouping were asked to attend the ceremony at Ibrox they’d jump at the chance. Its conceivable then that stresses which occur in our society as a whole may place a debilitating strain one day within the UK Armed Forces.

Another motivation for The Rangers bosses inviting the nation’s Armed Forces to Ibrox was of course to curry favour with the Ibrox faithful, some of whom revel in militaristic displays like this.  Not for them the questioning of UK Armed Forces activities around the world, from Ireland to Afghanistan, where civilians have felt the full force of often less than neutral soldiering.

With memories of the recent Irish Troubles and UK Armed Forces often controversial activity in them still being fresh, the invitation to celebrate Armed Forces Day at Ibrox Park had a provocative element. Perhaps by appealing to the worst prejudices of the worst subsection of The Rangers support (who couldn't restrain themselves to respectful applause - as many at Ibrox did) is the only way those seeking to become the new regime at The Rangers feel they can impress their “troops”.#

You can call that many things, except progress.

What Is Behind Selective Condemnation of Child Abuse?

Child abuse is an unforgivable crime no matter who commits it. Covering up such a crime is unforgivable regardless of which organisation does so.  In recent years we've learned that the cover up of paedophilia runs through just about every institution entrusted with the care of society, from state-run care homes, political institutions, the Catholic church - and other churches, schools and families.

All this is obvious.

But there are some who'd use the horrific crime of child abuse for some perverted political end or to gain some sick sectarian advantage. There are some who, in the context of Northern Ireland’s and Scotland’s sectarian divisions, are keen to bring the Catholic church to book when it comes to that institution’s record of child abuse and cover up. That record is undeniably shameful.

However, many of these same people are not as keen to explore the instances of child abuse and cover up in state-run institutions. Why not? There is no difference in the gravity of the crime wherever it takes place. So why the selective focus of some? If abhorrence of paedophilia was the sole motivation for their concern, then surely they would devote as much time to shining the spotlight on all institutions? Because, if not, then something other than moral concern is at the root of their “outrage.”

Could it be anti-Catholic sectarianism that motivates some to focus exclusively on the inexcusable abuse of children which took place within the Catholic church?  It seems to some the very fact that the abusers were Catholics is reason enough to focus only on that institution’s dreadful record.

However, in actual fact, the defining feature of systematic institutional child abuse is not the religion of the perpetrators but the power they have over children. That is why the scale of abuse of children within the Catholic church is, sadly, matched at least by the scale of abuse within care home systems, whether religious or secular, around the world.

One such care home of course was the Kincora home in Belfast, run by a Loyalist (William McGrath) who systematically raped boys in his care. The cover-up involved police, secret services and others. Indeed, when one of McGrath’s co-rapists of children at Kincora, Loyalist paramilitary John McKeague, threatened to name others in this paedophile ring (which allegedly included security force figures) he was conveniently killed by the INLA, the men involved themselves suggested to be doing, consciously or unconsciously, someone else’s dirty work.

Some in Northern Ireland and Scotland who are quick to criticise, rightly, the Catholic church’s record on child abuse refuse to turn that same critical eye on institutions whose existence does not offend them as much. Is such abuse less condemnable in their eyes because it wasn't carried out by Catholics? This beggars the question what kind of people would use such a dreadful issue for cheap political or sectarian advantage? Certainly not objective thinkers, liberal people or anyone who actually cared about the crime of child abuse, wherever it takes place, and whoever carries it out.