The late Christopher Hitchens was very fond his trumpet-call that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” His attacks against the faithful are just as relevant to those whose reverence of the police service blinds them to some of the most damning suspicions that confront it.
Let’s try. I have an extraordinary claim for you: that the following chronicle of events is nothing but “a thousand fuckups”, honest and sweet:
- Even though Mark Duggan was not carrying a gun, which he had somehow managed to throw 20ft without any witness seeing, V53 shot him in the honest belief that he was;
- V53 shot him again when it seemed as though Duggan’s phantom gun was pointing in his direction;
- There was nothing of interest in Duggan’s minicab, which was mysteriously removed from the scene before being returned;
- The Met’s descent first from the erroneous claim that Duggan had fired on police, then to the claim that he had a gun, then that a trained marksman had thought that he had, was an awkward list of blunders;
- The neatly-collaborating statements of both V53 and his colleague was unrelated to the eight hours in which they had been conferring;
- So too was their refusal to answer any questions in separate interviews.
I will grant you that each of those points, on its own, is plausible; we are all human. But taken together, V53’s series of events are most fantastical.
So where, I ask, is the extraordinary evidence to explain it? The defensive mechanisms will kick in: no member of the public can hope to share in the inquest’s insight, I am told. I don’t dispute that; worse, I know full well that I lack both the skills and the patience to come up with anything of use from the evidence. Legal systems uproot our lefty assumptions, they say – no anti-racist battle cries, no strikes. Just the jury’s impartial conclusions.
No, forget all of that. My question is – what possible extra “detail” could salvage this incredible story?
I ask because the police are simply not measured to the same standards as the public under their watch. Not a single officer, in the last fifty years, has been convicted for death in custody. And how does this come as a surprise – to all but the merriest utopians – when juries like that at the inquest into Duggan’s death have to be “certain” of the officer’s malicious intent? There’s not a single psychologist in Britain who could do that.
Perhaps the officer was telling the truth about his mistake; I am in no position to say. Nor do I know whether or not V53 was intended to be the scapegoat of an inept, or institutionally racist, police service; as it stands, these questions cannot be answered while officers are absolved of the burden of proof.
But may I remind you that someone died here - anyone who does not question this verdict not only shows himself content with the prospect of executions on the streets of London, but surrenders his analytical faculties to the lame, brain-dead assumptions that saturate most of this country’s understanding of police integrity.
Don’t assume the best of the police.
The Education Secretary insists that the mad butchery in the name of God, King, and Country nearly 100 years ago was entirely “just”:
In an article for the Daily Mail, Mr Gove says he has little time for the view of the Department for Culture and the Foreign Office that the commemorations should not lay fault at Germany’s door.
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a ‘just war’ to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
‘The First World War may have been a uniquely horrific war, but it was also plainly a just war,’ he says. ‘The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified.’
Mr Gove writes: ‘Richard Evans may hold a professorship, but these arguments, like the interpretations of Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder, are more reflective of the attitude of an undergraduate cynic playing to the gallery in a Cambridge Footlights revue rather than a sober academic contributing to a proper historical debate.’
The Education Secretary says it is time to listen to historians such as Margaret Macmillan who has ‘demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order’.
Let the propaganda die, Michael. But don’t take it from me; the Thatcherite Niall Ferguson has explained very well why the First World War was a mesh of blunders and lies.
Britain did not go to war over Belgium. Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, wrote to the German Ambassador that “the neutrality of Belgium affected feeling in this country” but he would not guarantee the neutrality of his government if the Germans attacked through France; though Britain’s 1839 Treaty with Belgium would turn out to be a delightful legalistic convenience. As it happens, archives released in the years since have shown the Committee for Imperial Defence (that chivalrous band of humanitarians) were considering invading Belgium from a strategic point of view. It is simply ludicrous to pretend that Britain’s casus belli was in defence of the “Western liberal order”.
Britain’s Liberal government, though, was another matter. With a slender majority in the Commons, there was a serious threat that the government would have to call a general election if Britain reneged on its pledge to Belgian neutrality; it would have led to the resignation of Grey at the very least. It was judged to be more more convenient to fight the greatest war that humanity had ever waged; better to round up those too poor to vote than to compete for the consent of those who could.
For all the propaganda, indeed, liberal ideas were a wasted effort on those who signed up. Posters of soldiers standing in English meadows had no bearing on the thousands of the dispossessed urban class moving en masse to enroll; declaration of war led to financial collapse and rocketed unemployment, to which – and never let it be said that war has no ironies – the only salvation was found in uniform in Europe’s trenches. It was grab a gun (or a long stick, if there were not enough) or go hungry. With a consistent stream of food supplies and its inevitable sense of comradeship – relief from whip-cracking bosses – the reality was that the conditions that many faced at the front were far superior to the lives they lived in England.
Whatever the case, British soldiers never became the liberal standard-bearers that legend has condescended to make them. Many of those who had played football with the Germans on Christmas Day in 1914 would see their team-mates gunned down in front them; and gripped by the bloodied terror haunting No Man’s Land they would fight all the harder, often killed on the same fields as their friends. This is not a legacy, I imagine, that we should be rushing to defend. Were it valid, there’s not a single war in history that wouldn’t be justified by the horror of soldiers dying in vain – by the fatuous and arrogant verdict that the death of one man justifies those of many more.
The Great War was a waste. Millions died for no reason that could ever have pretensions to be justification. A stupid decision, made at a late hour in Whitehall, impoverished men and made them the oxen driving a war to its exhaustion; and they deluded themselves, as all people are capable of doing, into the belief that letting the blood of every remaining Hun might vindicate the sacrifices their friends made to causes that were never theirs. Forget liberal freedoms; to call the defence of Belgium simply “tragic” is dishonest and disgraceful.
For all the failures of the British government’s propaganda drives – which made compulsory enlistment so necessary – it’s a belated irony that the Education Secretary should fall for them so easily. Some advice for him: if he is serious about returning children to literature and history, he should probably start with Wilfred Owen.
In decreasing order of likeliness:
- Make Assad and Putin fight to the death in the stadium of a Sochi Olympics turned hunger games.
- Get drunk only when necessary.
- Blog more copiously.
- Be able to run a half-marathon.
- Learn to speak Russian.
Perhaps gender segregation’s a non-issue; Universities UK has withdrawn its endorsement. But it seems to me as though the most common liberal reaction to it has by its immediate feminist knee-jerk – however laudable – generally underplayed the damage it poses to men.
Take Yvonne Ridley, whose conversion to Islam is indebted to a promise that she made to her Taliban captors a decade back to read the Koran – or the “magna carta for women“, as she calls it. (One imagines why she is so keen to jump for a Medieval metaphor.)
Yesterday evening she posted the following to Twitter:
I think #LondonTransport should offer a female-only carriage on buses and Underground during an evening. Pilot 1st to see how successful
— yvonneridley (@yvonneridley) December 26, 2013
Just some typical misogyny from the conservative choir, you might say; and let them wallow in their masochism. A number of Muslim women do not seem to worry that leaving their “spiritual” authority to the guardianship of male scholars and imams might have leave them some dangerous consequences.
But do not let me stand accused of misrepresenting her position. Ridley states that her position is purely a discussion in the interests of public safety; an additional female-only service on buses or the tube late at night, she suggests, might reduce the number of sexual offences committed against women.
— yvonneridley (@yvonneridley) December 26, 2013
I followed the discussion for a bit, and by the end of the evening Ridley was showcasing her good multi-faith credentials by praising such alternative suggestions as well-lit platforms, conductors and better security. To this, she constantly stressed that even if women were to receive their own, segregated public transport it would be voluntary; how, after all, could a reasonable fellow turn down the request of elderly women to travel alone, if it gives them safety?
Does Ridley seriously believe that segregated seating is a matter for the secular authorities, and those looking to control violence against women? Maybe; I don’t know. It is why she so instinctively considered the idea as a solution that bothers me when, to my mind, no Hindu, atheist or Christian woman would be so likely to suggest it. Ridley’s statement that “all rapists are men” might just have been to say that all men are rapists: men cannot be trusted. They are prone to sexual desires egregious to the sanctified woman, who gains in spirit what she lacks in muscle, or in legal rights:
The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
(—Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:48:826)
Gender segregation as a woman’s oasis immediately occurs to Ridley, in other words, because she has taught herself to believe that one can build a society from its chromosomes. Instead of looking to cross-gender solutions, she jumps to misandry.
If violence is disproportionately aimed at women, then it is important to bring as many of both genders into the support of campaigns against it; to question the roles of schools, and ask why alpha-males still think they matter; to encourage people to travel where it is busy; to attack binge drinking; and to promote a sense of equality between men and women. Whatever the case, it could never be healthy for one half of a society to be constantly subject to the wicked prejudice of the other.
I recently cited Milton to show can people can reach the right answers from the wrong origins; a belief in liberty of conscience so that the soul can reveal its true intentions. Ridley could learn from how the Victorian suffragists fought for equality from the deflated utopianism of the middle-class and its “separate spheres”; as Millicent Fawcett, leader the NUWSS, wrote in 1898:
To women as mothers is given the charge of the home and the care of children. Women are therefore, by nature as well as by training and occupation, more accustomed than men to concentrate their minds on the home and the domestic side of things. But this difference between men and women, instead of being a reason against their disenfranchisement , seems to me to be the strongest possible reason in favour of it; we want to see the home and the domestic side of things to count for more in politics and in the administration of public affairs than they do at present.
(—Home and Politics)
It’s a little unsatisfying that the rough-and-ready suffragettes would be the most serious blow to the pace of feminism’s first wave; that said, it would be rather encouraging if conservative Muslims could, like Britain’s tame Christian forebears, promote the integration of women rather than opine on a world from which it has taken many women rights activists a century to escape.
They’d still be wrong, though.