Sometimes we come under attack, but we survive when we come together. We survive when we work together to pick ourselves up and keep going. When panic and fear takes over, we lose. That's not to say we shouldn't take precautions. In the blitz we had blackouts and air raid shelters. Protecting ourselves is different to panicking. Today we need to be vigilant and aware of police guidance. We need to know how to respond when we are under attack, rather than re-actively pouring further hate on an entire section of our community. We need to stand together rather than fall apart.
Undaunted in the wake of attack.
In the wake of an attack, how communities react gives a clearer picture of the success of terrorism than sensationalised headlines. It's a very British thing to sit amongst catastrophe and say 'well this is jolly inconvenient, let's have a cup of tea'. The point isn't that a cup of tea makes everything better. The point is that the act of making tea for a distraught friend or group of people says 'we're here for you' and 'you can survive'. It's a very British way of pulling ourselves together and being able to face our troubles.
We might not all drink tea these days. Some might prefer a glass of diet coke, a coffee, or even a beer, but the point is that we come together. In the wake of both the Manchester and London attacks people offered their sofas and spare rooms to those caught up in the chaos. Taxi drivers offered free lifts. People came together, welcoming those in need and offering comfort in the face of terror, and that is a wonderful thing to see, especially as that coming together transcended race or religion.
Hopeful of a peaceful future.
Sometimes children get caught up in attacks. The deaths of children is abhorrent and those who attack children should be wholeheartedly condemned. However, children are also sponges. If adults show fear or panic, then children will know fear and panic. If we say Muslims are to blame, they will go to school and bully Muslim classmates. We need to lead by example. Sensationalising the news breeds fear both for us and the generations behind us, and fear allows anger and hatred to spread, leading to further extremism on all sides. We need to express friendship, hope, solidarity, so that we remember the world is, on the whole, a better place than it seems to be by reading the news or the hate speech of certain columnists. We need to condemn only those responsible, without using race and religion to profile our neighbours. We can't defeat terror by being terrified into terrorising others.
This image particularly gets to me as it is of Newcastle, the city I lived in during my first year of university. It's my nearest city to this day. As the grand-daughter of a Polish-Ukrainian displaced person, this upsets me.
United, we can remain unconquered.
Our way of life has endured worse. During WW2 we welcomed refugees. We welcomed German Jews (I used to work for the son of a German Jewish couple). We welcomed the Polish, some of whom became RAF pilots and helped defend Britain. We don't survive by closing our borders and spreading fear. We survive by making people feel safe and welcomed so that we all share values and a love for this country. Yes, there will always be some individuals who revel in making others suffer, but they are not the majority and there is nothing to be gained by spreading fear, causing anger, and giving voice to further hated.
Just look at our response to the Manchester attack. Just a day after the London attacks, and in the wake of the arena bombing, Manchester held an even bigger concert raising funds for the victims and bringing people together in the most spectacular way. Not cowed. Not fearful. But celebrating the wonder of community.
Yesterday night the 'Battle for Number 10' aired on Sky News and Channel 4, hosted by Fiasal Islam and Jeremy Paxman. Jeremy Paxman has a reputation for being... well, a bit of a bastard, to be quite frank. He goes down through his guests, often choosing to rant over them while brow beating them into submission. He's a challenging opponent, so how did Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May do against him and Fiasal Islam?
Despite what this mornings newspapers claim, Murdoch's puppet was predictably atrocious, crumbling despite gentler treatment, while Corbyn held up well despite Paxman interrupting the opposition leader twice as many times as he interrupted May, and insisted on shouting over his answers rather than listening to them. By contrast, the past-his-best Tory bully gave his Prime Minster ample chance to lie and waffle as she evaded his question. Paxman's clear bias was only redeemed slightly when he called May a 'Blowhard who crumbles at the first sign of gunfire'. We expect Chancellor Mayfly will be sending her fingerment to black bag him any day now.
Fiasal, on the other hand, came across as a bit of a wet lettuce. He too showed bias, questioning Corbyn's answers far more determinedly than he questioned May's patronising evasion. However, he barely seemed present and didn't make a huge impact on the debate, except to point out that real time funding to education has been cut under the Conservatives, despite May's claims of 'record levels' of school spending.
Jeremy Corbyn at the Libertines gigs, speaking to crowds cheering his name.
Fiasal and the Audience vs Jeremy Corbyn
When asked about foreign policy in the wake of terrorism, Corbyn assured viewers that we would not be softening foreign policy and that we do condemn terrorism, but that we must not leave countries ungoverned as such a vacuum allows terrorist groups to gain control. He also reiterated the importance of cutting off arms supplies and funds to I.S. as well as cutting off publicity, while also beginning a dialogue with neighbouring countries to bring about a peace process. This stance is nothing new. Corbyn seeks to properly fund our military to ensure they are correctly resourced when needed, he also intends to formulate a robust plan to deal with the aftermath any future military intervention to prevent vacuums being left in the wake of war.
As expected, the usual and over-used IRA line of questioning came up, and Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he met with Sinn Fein (not the IRA) in order to begin a peace process. He also pointed out that at the memorial for IRA bombers which he attended, he went to commemorate all of those who died in the troubles. He attended as a spokesman for peace, who had a great many Irish constituents, and who went to advocate the beginning of a dialogue which would see the troubles come to an end. As he recently stated on Sky News, he condemns all bombings, both loyalist and IRA. He sees the loss of life as avoidable. That doesn't mean he supports terrorism, it means he supports preventative strategies which preserve peace, freedom, and democracy. He also reminded the audience that the Good Friday Agreement is now used as a example in other peace-making processes and confirmed he voted FOR the Good Friday Agreement.
When asked about the Labour manifesto and his suitability as leader, he correctly stated that the manifesto was the product of party consensus. It is the Labour party's manifesto and he is leading as a leader should, by listening to his party rather than forcing his will upon them. He has also listened to the publics' concerns about public services, education, policing and defence and will work on investing in our public services rather than enforcing cuts which damage education and health care, and increase levels homelessness and poverty. He also reiterated that 95% of people would not face higher taxation.
One of the highlights was possibly Corbyn describing how he wants to get to know people, even those he disagrees with, and believes in using his ears more than his lips. This is the polar opposite of 'bloody difficult woman' May, who is obnoxious, patronising, confrontational, and wholly unsuitable for negotiating. Corbyn helped to negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, he has been awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award, and his manifesto is one for the party rather than himself. He is the antithesis of May in every possible positive way.
When questioned on immigration, Corbyn correctly reminded the audience that trade deals and citizen rights are the priorities of Brexit negotiation, while also correctly reminding the audience that the Conservatives have repeatedly missed there own immigration targets. He suspects that immigration will probably reduce, that it certainly shouldn't increase, but that we suffer a skills shortage in this country which means critical services rely on immigrant workers. Labour intend to introduce a long term education strategy to combat that shortfall, but in the meantime intend to prevent companies bringing in low paid migrants with the purpose of under-cutting low paid British workers which can result in the unemployment of British nationals. Mr Corbyn also indicated that previous funding, which the Tories cut, will be put back in place to help provide vital services for communities who have had an influx of migrants.
While Mr Corbyn accepts the result of the referendum, he intends to preserve the rights of European citizens in Britain. He also intend to protect the working time directive, paternity rights, maternity rights, environmental agreements, and trade. Corbyn also insisted he would not attempt to threaten Europe by turning Britain into a budget tax haven.
Another highlight of the night came when a clearly well-off businessman demanded to know why Labour would increase corporate tax, abolish zero hours contracts, raise minimum wage, and charge VAT on his children's private school fees. To say the gentleman in question came across as a selfish sod would be an understatement, but Corbyn handled his questions with his usual patient diplomacy, pointing out that there is a great divide between the rich and the poor in this country and asking if the gentleman was happy with over sized classes, waiting times for health care, etc, while also pointing out that Labour's house building plans and the scrapping of university fees would benefit our children.
Additionally, rises in corporation tax would hit multinationals, not small businesses, who Labour would help by working to end the practise of larger businesses defaulting on payments. Labour's increased minimum wage would also give people more money to spend in local economy. In other words, children, small business owners, the sick, working families, students, and 95% of the population would benefit from Labour's plans which would only require the top earners to pay a little more. To emphasise this point, Corbyn's Labour do not intend to raise corporate tax back to the level of the previous labour government, but nor do they intend on following the Tory example of giving tax cuts to the rich, paid for by taking money from the poor and increasing national debt.
Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he wants a world without a nuclear threat. He understands that we need to defend our nation and confirmed he would write the appropriate letters of last resort to our naval commanders if the need was there but he emphasised that he would require all the information to resort to such action and he prefers dialogue over violence.
Jeremy Corbyn Q&A and Interview
Jeremy Paxman vs Jeremy Corbyn
Paxman chose the wrong line of attack from the word go, choosing to ask Corbyn if he was annoyed so many of his core beliefs didn't make it into the Labour Party manifesto. The suggestion is ridiculous as a great many of Corbyn's core socialist principles made it into the manifesto, but it is also ridiculous in the face of Corbyn's leadership style. As the man himself said, he is not a dictator and the manifesto represents the party. It contains party values, respecting democracy and the fact our government is not a one politician show. This is a stark contract to May, whose campaign has been run on the phrases 'I, I, I' and 'me, me, me'.
It showed desperation on Paxma's part to force the opposition leader to reiterate time and time again that the manifesto was a product of the Labour Party conference and not solely his decision,as is right, because he respects democracy. For Paxman to attack Corbyn's morality while Corbyn was reiterating that he respected democracy and intended to work towards a nuclear free world reveals how hopelessly under prepared the Tory-mouthpiece was. Paxman clutched at straws and missed them completely. Mr Corbyn was quite right to point out that Paxman seemed to be struggling with the idea of a democratic process creating a manifesto.
Corbyn confirmed that benefits will not be frozen, but would increase year on year, but also said the higher minimum wage will mean the amount of benefits paid to working families should decrease as all workers will earn a real, living wage.
Paxman attacked Labour's manifesto policy of providing more police officers while the Shadow Defence Secretary wanted to disarm the police. That proved to be yet another farcical line of questioning. This is Britain. Few people want to see armed police on our streets. We want more police, yes, and more resources to go into preventing crime rather than retaliating when crime is or has happened. That does not mean we want guns on our streets or an American style gun-happy force! Paxman seemed incapable of understand that distinction, which reveals more about his own immorality than any failing in Labour's manifesto. Forcing Mr Corbyn to repeat Labour's pledge to properly fund services rather than giving tax cuts to corporations is another example of how the mainstream media ignore what the opposition leader is saying in order to push their own agenda, forcing him to repeat the same explanations over and over rather than exploring further policies.
But Paxman didn't stop there, his next line of questioning was even more ludicrous.
"There is nothing in this manifesto about getting rid of the monarchy, which is another thing you believe in, isn't it?"
Corbyn, true to form, replied with laughter, good humour, and the dismissal such a question deserved, stating:
"Look, there's nothing in there because we're not going to do it."
His answer drew cheers from the crowd and further laughter when he stated that he'd had a nice chat with the queen. He went on to point out he was fighting the election for social justice, for education, for the health service, for the future of all of us. He is not distracting the electorate with unimportant headline grabbing pledges (fox hunting, anyone?).
Not happy with that answer, Paxman went on to say that Europe would see Mr Corbyn couldn't even get his own beliefs in the manifesto, ignoring the real truth that the manifesto embodies Corbyn's socialist beliefs and his respect for democracy. What Europe will see is a man who is willing to put his mouth in park and his brain in gear, to listen and devise the best plan possible. Corbyn will negotiate rather than being content to run away with no deal, which is the worst possible deal for everyone but especially for Britain.
It's not even worth going into Paxman's next line of questioning regarding the Falklands. Those who oppose Corbyn struggle to argue against his current policies and the Labour Party manifesto, and so they use conflicts which took place before many of the electorate where born or old enough to vote in an attempt to undermine his character. They do it with IRA claims, and Paxman did it with the Falklands. Such tactics only prove that the Conservatives have nothing on Corbyn.
When Paxman questioned the opposition leader on Bin Laden and Hamas, he implied Mr Corbyn supports such people and organisations, but this is simply not true. What Corbyn supports is democracy and due process where criminals are put on trial for their crimes. He also supports dialogue with the goal of beginning a peace process. He aspires to make the world better, and does so through listening and talking, even to those he disagrees with, without supporting their cause or their behaviour.
Now, onto Mrs May...
Captain SKA - Liar Liar. This has reached number 2 in the charts but radio stations are refusing to play it.
Faisal and the Audience vs Theresa May
May started as she meant to go on, patronisingly telling the audience what their own jobs were and what they should already be aware of, even when the audience were correctly disputing the affects of the Prime Minister's policy claims. She failed to answer the question on policing, waffling on what she was 'currently' doing in the wake of the Manchester bombing and in response to cyber crime (such as the NHS ransom ware attack?) rather than admitting police and armed police numbers have fallen under the Conservative government. She insisted that her approach focused protecting police ability, not police numbers, while completely ignoring that being understaffed decreases the ability to effectively carry out responsibilities.
When asked about dementia tax, May again confirmed that only £100,000 of equity would be protected, that's less than half the average house price. She also refused to state what the cap on care charges would be and insisted the government would consult. However, we have to respect that in other consultation processes and when warned of risks by informed parties the Conservative government have regularly chosen to ignore advice rather than heed it.
The Conservatives have also privatised elements of the NHS, selling it to companies which they or their families have interests in, as well as voting against policies which protect living standards (which could reduce the profits they receive as landlords). The Tory ethos is to make money from the less fortunate. To vote them into power on a blank cheque notion gives them free reign to set the cap at whatever they like. They might still choose to take everything a person has worked for, except for that initially protected £100,000. They haven't changed anything about that policy. They haven't made it fairer. Also, if they can set the cap for care costs, what happens in the cases of those who have no homes? Does the NHS/Government have to cover the same extortionate costs? Do taxpayers have to pay care companies owned by Tory millionaires?
May was quite right to point out that Scotland has a devolved government and are they are within their rights to have different policies on fuel allowance to here in England. However, that was where truth failed her. Many pensioners die every year due of hypothermia, to take away winter fuel allowance from any seems likely to increase such horrific figures. Also, means testing is an expensive process. It requires admin and staff, and so to say it would save money that could go into health and social care shows how easily Mrs May lies a flawed logic. The money saved by denying some pensioners winter fuel allowance won't go into health any more than the £350 million from the E.U. will. It'll go into paying some of the means testing admin cost, which will probably be out sourced, and which could end up costing more than paying winter fuel allowance in the first place.
Fiasal finally showed some spunk when May was asked about school funding. When May claimed to be putting record levels of funding into schools, he reminded her that in real terms, funding is decreasing. When May promoted the idea of giving children the best possible start in life, I had to wonder how she intends to do that by taking away infants' dinners and creating a secondary school class system which allows the upper classes classes to excel and the poorer classes to suffer. May even had the gall to say that no one could predict real time education spending (refusing to dismiss further cuts) and followed that by saying Labour's figures don't add up. She then looked surprised when the audience laughed at her in the wake of her entirely uncosted manifesto. One member of the audience correctly said 'you've clearly failed'.
When confronted with the £350 million Brexit lie, May evaded the question on why the Conservative Party had misled the voting public. Instead she made claims regarding what we need to focus on now, rather than on the fraudulent claims of the past. As with the electoral fraud scandal, the message from the Conservatives is clear; lie, act illegally, as long as you can get away with it, do it, and don't worry about morality or ethics.
May insists that the government are increasing funding to the NHS while neglecting to admit that in real terms, NHS staff are suffering pay cuts, hospitals are closing, and A&E departments are collapsing under the strain. She also failed to mention that in privatising parts of the NHS, the Conservatives are allowing private companies to increase charges which the government have to pay while lowering standards. This means that the NHS costs more for less, and less money, not more, goes to the front line. Tory investors are too busy lining their pockets to care.
The midwife questioning May was spot on when she said she sees hospitals closing and services failing, and when May defended her lies plans, the midwife was also quite right to say she would believe it when she saw it. May is not deserving of any trust and, as with all Conservatives, protecting the wealthy will always come before providing front line services or for the poor.
To the gentleman who was caught on camera saying "Bollocks. That's bollocks" to Mrs May's claims, I salute you. You spoke for the nation with those three words. May's NHS promise are, indeed, complete bollocks.
Our Prime Minister claimed that being "a difficult bloody woman" was a positive attribute meaning she stood by what she believes, but as we all know, Theresa May only stands by what she believes for a brief second, as she walks past it in yet another u-turn. Her ability to plan for the long term stretches no further than the four days it takes her to change her mind. A walk in the country, plotting the savage demise of woodland creatures, is enough to spur May into calling an election despite her previous denials.
Theresa May seems horrifically weak and wobbly, alienated amongst the G7 and European leaders, pandering to Trump who doesn't give a damn about her or us, and with neither a spine nor the capacity to negotiate. Everyone knows she lies. Everyone knows she crumbles at the slightest pressure. To say she stands by what she believes is laughable at best, especially as, when questioned, she begins to stutter and fall over her own waffle.
Theresa May Q&A and Interview
Jeremy Paxman vs Theresa May
Paxman immediately went in gentler with May than he had with Corbyn. He allowed May to waffle rather than shouting over her, revealing his own bias. However, it didn't help May who often couldn't give a straight answer and who seemed immediately flustered by the subject of Brexit. Her best argument was that the people had voted and she had to stand by their decision, but we need to remember that Corbyn too wants to stand by democracy, only he wants to do it as a negotiator who listens. May wants to do it with the stance of a difficult and antagonistic child, one who is willing to stomp off to her bedroom with no deal at all if she gets upset.
When asked about social care, Mrs May chose to explain why a two year old proposal wasn't put forward, rather than explaining what made her policies acceptable. She once again emphasised that she won't give a figure on the dementia tax cap. Her waffle failed to impress either the mocking audience or Paxman, even though he didn't badger her the way he did Corbyn.
Paxman finally made a brutal but correct observation with regard to Mrs May's political style, making the number one highlight of the night.
"She's a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of gunfire!"
Cue round of applause. Cue Mrs May's night going from bad to dire. I'm sure people back at Conservative HQ were screaming at TV sets and banging their heads off walls. Fury showed in May's expression in a way it never did in Corbyn's, despite Paxman's bias. That comment became a signal to the audience, whose derision and mocking became increasingly frequent throughout the remainder of the interview.
Perhaps another low for May came when she stated she'd called the election to improve her mandate and prevent other parties frustrating the will of the people. Yes, that's right, she wanted to prevent elected MPs, chosen by the people to represent then, from interfering with her antagonistic approach to Brexit. While Corbyn listens and refuses to be a dictator, it is clear May wants to silence opposition and have her own way come hell or high water. The British people were divided on Brexit last June. The referendum has happened and both May and Corbyn have chosen to respect that, but such a decision does not mean all of the people support a hard Brexit or 'no deal will do' policy and so our elected officials, as we elected just two years ago, should have been allowed to represent us. We must hope that in seeking to override democracy, democracy will thwart Mrs May and allow the only party leader to fully respect democracy, equality, and peace-keeping to become our next Prime Minister.
When questioned on immigration May quoted Corbyn on the countries skills shortage. It will take time to solve that gap through education, and so migrant workers must be welcomed. It seems that when May's own policies fail and she can't come up further arguments, she resorts to reciting mindless spin or quotes Corbyn's thoughts as if they were her own, showing a deplorable lack of political integrity.
May religiously recites that no deal will be better than a bad deal, ignoring the reality that no deal is a terrible deal, as it positions us for economic crash. Her stance is antagonistic, nothing more, and antagonism will inhibit negotiation rather than encourage a better deal. Like 'strong and stable', the 'no deal' line is a poorly conceived catchphrase spouted by a woman who has few solid arguments and who has become a caricature of the weak and wobbly Britain we'll become in the absence of a deal.
As an addendum, we can see a clear contrast in core beliefs between Corbyn, who went on stage at a concert to promote social justice, sport, and music and had the crowd shouting his name, and Mrs May, who has inspired the release of song calling her a liar. Her media mates have banned the song from radio station playlists even though it's made it to number two in the chart, and I would encourage anyone to buy the tune in the hope we get it to number one. Corbyn wants to give our children the chance to play, to create, to live in a rich culture. Under May's watch and the scrutiny of her media puppet masters, censorship is already taking place.
The phrase 'strong and stable' was also used in Hitler's Mein Kampf in a chapter on propaganda. Hitler spoke of creating a 'strong and stable power' through appropriate use of propaganda to garner supporters and members. In another chapter, he wrote
November 9, 1923, in the fourth year of its existence, the National Socialist German Workers’ party was dissolved and forbidden throughout the entire territory of the Reich.
Today, in November, 1926, it stands again before us, free through the whole Reich, stronger and internally more stable than ever before.
I would hope that there is nothing more to be taken from this than an unfortunate coincidence. Having a leader looking to Mein Kampf for inspiration should worry anyone. At worst, I would expect the Conservatives to have been inspired by Hitler's ability to earn power by creating an image of a strong and stable leader in the wake of war, depression, and desperation. Such propaganda gave the suffering German populace hope, before Hitler began to introduce terror through his constant military presence, fear-mongering propaganda, death camps, and secret police. His reign of terror should certainly not be something our politicians aspire to.
'Final solution' propaganda
Of course, it's not just our politicians who can accidentally or intentionally replicate the tactics of the Nazi propaganda machine. The press and 'personalities' also need to take some responsibility for what is said and encouraged. Yesterday, I discussed Katie Hopkins's horrific behaviour in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing and why inciting hatred is the last thing we should do. Hatred will only ever incite more hatred, and further violence along with it. Already people have attacked Muslims and attempted to set fire to mosques. It is reminiscent to the treatment of the Jews in the early days of Hitler's demonising of them as 'undesirables'.
Make them the enemy, then make them the target; it's vile but often repeated tactic.
Hopkins seemed to encourage our own Holocaust, one targeted at Muslims. She called for a 'final solution', the exact words used by Hitler when planning the eradication of the Jews. It's a prospect any decent person would find abhorrent. It's dangerous talk. It's dangerous to normalise such statements and dehumanise a group of people into something 'alien' and 'enemy'. Such behaviour tells far right extremists and fascists that their dogma is acceptable, and that created an environment where violence can breed violence. Encouraging such behaviour is not only reckless and ignorant, but it sets a precedent which could bring a wealth of suffering.
Call in the troops
On top of having a Prime Minister using a slogan from Mein Kampf and a press who seem to think they can copy Hitler's fear-mongering tactics to attack a religion, we now have troops on our streets! They have been deployed in the wake of the Manchester bombing in order to assist with security as further attacks are deemed likely. We 'need' these troops because our police forces have suffered under Tory austerity and do not have the resources to adequately protect us. Unfortunately, our military is also under funded. That is only one aspect of what is do terrifying about the deployment of armed soldiers on our streets, though.
Take into account that an armed soldier is unlikely to stop a suicide bomber if he doesn't already know the bomber's intention. That begs the question 'why is our Prime Minister deploying troops?' The obvious answer is that we've suffered an attack and she wants to make a show of protecting us, rather than shouldering the blame for cutting funding to the police which will have negatively affected counter-terrorism. This will be especially important in the run up to an election, during a campaign which has seen her popularity fall. However, we have to question what having a military presence on our streets says for our democracy.
Soldiers on the streets intimidate the civilian population, even when that's not the intention.
When it is the intention, they can be used to sway election results.
By placing soldiers on our streets, we are showing that we fear the terrorists and undermining our own mantra of 'keep calm and carry on'. Our unbroken spirit becomes somewhat tarnished when we place soldiers in parliament, around Downing Street, and around Buckingham Palace.
We need to show our life and democracy will go on, not encourage further attack by revealing to the terrorists that they are getting to us.
Isn't it time for change?
These attacks need dealt with by police, not the military, and for that we need a government who will invest in public services. The sooner the better. We also need a government led by someone who wants peace. In 2013, Jeremy Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi International Award for Peace. Isn't it time we chose to put our faith it a peacekeeper, as opposed to Mrs May who has resorted to calling in the troops, sells weapons to countries with dubious policies on war, terror, and human rights, and has a member of the IRA as one of her councillors?
Last night an atrocity took place. Last night innocent children and teens, some as young as eight, went to a pop concert and were denied the chance to come home. They were denied a future when a coward detonated a home made device. A coward, who does not deserve any other title because - to attack children - a person cannot be anything but.
In the wake of such an atrocity we should come together to prove our culture - our multicultural, welcoming, caring, brave, progressive society - is not terrorised. We have not been cowed into change or submission. We are still who we have always been, people who want bright futures for our children, people who want freedom, tolerance, and peace in a world devoid of senseless death and suffering.
Yet there are some who deny we are such a society. They use this tragedy, an abhorrent attack on our children, to spout their vitriolic lies. They encourage hatred and retaliation, but it is not retaliation against the perpetrators they incite, it is not justice. What they encourage is attacks on other families, other businesses, other women and children. They breed hatred which in turn leads to fear among the very communities we need to work with, not against. It breeds further opposition where hatred festers, spreads, grows and creates an environment where others become entrenched in angry, hate filled dogma. In such environments, extremist views fuel atrocious acts.
One such 'person' is Katie Hopkins. We all know her; that loud mouthed apprentice with the IQ and personality of a tapeworm (or so it seems). Today, in the wake of a disgusting attack on children, she incited hatred using the very words Hitler used when planning his sustained attack of the Jewish population. The Nazis used the term 'Final Solution' to disguise the nature of the Holocaust, and now Hopkins is calling for a 'final solution' to terrorism. The underlying message is clear, when she says we need a final solution to extremist mosques and schools, she is actually encouraging an Islamic Holocaust which would not only affect extremists. She seems to be encouraging the replication one of the most horrific crimes of the twentieth century, where 6-11 million men, women, and children where exterminated following a protracted period of fear mongering and propaganda designed to breed hatred between religions and races, between the 'good' and the 'undesirable'.
I doubt she is blind to the insinuation which using such language as 'final solution' makes, but even if she is, that it breeds hatred is clear for all to see. Her twitter stream is awash with people demanding Muslims be deported, demanding mosques and schools are closed, and even demanding Muslim homes are entered. She demands we rise up, and calls us cowed ants for preaching solidarity and a continuation of our lives rather than roaring hatred at other members of our society, whether or not they're guilty of a crime. She implies our politicians and men are eunuchs, emasculated cowards who fail to protect their women and children. She shames normal, good people by encouraging behaviour which is just as bad or worse than that of terrorists.
She is encouraging a holocaust.
Take a moment to think about that.
As many as 1.5 million Jewish children died in the Holocaust.
1.5 million children.
That is what the likes of Katie Hopkins encourage, knowingly or otherwise, when using terms such as 'final solution'.
Is anyone really alright with that?
This so called 'columnist' and 'television personality' has gone so far as to write an article, painting herself as a distraught, keeling, saintly figure, horrified by the atrocity and by society's cowardly response. She attacks politicians and common people, she uses the death of a family's precious eight year old and the wonderful work of first responders to further her own hate-filled agenda. She writes as if she has the right to claim a child's death for such a purpose, not even a day after the attack.
What kind of person does that?
She describes deaths, with no regard to families grieving for those lost. She turns their loss into a mouthpiece for her twisted hatred, and yet she is still given a platform on which to speak. She is every bit as bad as any extremist Islamic cleric; a loathsome figure with a stage on which to spread hatred as though it were some brave resistance rather than extremist terrorism. She speaks for a minority, just as an extremist cleric speaks to a minority. She no more represents us than an extremist cleric represents most Muslims. So why is she given air time and print space?
Her followers and even some other 'journalists' claim to be horrified that the public have replied to her hate-speech with anger. They claim to be horrified that people are more angry at Katie Hopkins's tweet than we are at the senseless murder of children. But such a claim isn't true, we are angry at the senseless attack on our children. We are horrified and we are furious. It is that horror and fury which also makes us so angry at Katie Hopkins tweets and articles, not because she is an easy target, but because she incites more of the same.
Up to 1.5 million Jewish children died in the Holocaust.
Think about that for a second.
Now tell me you aren't angry that Hopkins is preaching the need for a 'final solution'.
I would advise you to avoid her article. Do not read it. Boycott her commentary. Report her tweets but do not retweet them or share them. Doing so only spreads her message. Katie Hopkins only has a voice while she makes money for her employers; boycott her and she will disappear.
Why do we need her to disappear?
We cannot root out the hatred of others while hatred spreads amongst ourselves. Those preaching hatred in our communities are the easiest to remove because they are in the open and think they have our ear. Get rid of Hopkins and her ilk, then we can focus more of our attention on defying terrorism. We can focus without resources being wasted fighting our own hatred and bringing to justice those who set fire to mosques and attack innocent women for wearing a hijab. It is in our best interests to root out all hate speech, not just Islamic extremist hate speech, because when we act with intolerance and hatred we had extremist terrorists an excuse to resist.
I replied to Hopkins tweets about her article, but I would like to make what I said then the basis of an open letter to the slimy pond scum columnist. She probably won't read, but as a mother, as the grand-daughter of a Polish-Ukrainian taken from home as a boy by Nazis who were collecting children to use as forced labour, as the grand-daughter of a Polish-Ukrainian boy who never saw his parents or siblings again, I need to say this.
An Open Letter To Katie Hopkins
Katie Hopkins,
I unfortunately made the mistake of reading your article regarding the Manchester Arena bombing. I was numb by the word 'bed', at the end of your first sentence, and to answer your question 'are we too sick to be saved?' I'd like to answer that you certainly seem to be.
We need a doctor, do we? Do you know what doctors do? They give people a chance hope, hope that they can carry on as normal. They may carry on with amputations, or carry on with removed organs, or carry on after a period of suffering, but they carry on. That is what we need. Doctors don't breed further illness. They let us carry on after a period of suffering or injury, and so your whole metaphor is flawed.
You show no regard for grieving families as you describe how people died in order to incite fear. You do not speak for first responders or the dead. You create vivid imagery, painting yourself as some saintly, kneeling mother, distraught and unprotected by leaders and 'eunuchs', when really you are a poisonous snake, whispering hatred and inciting fear, showing abject disrespect and disregard to those who died because of hatred.
You should be ashamed of yourself, as a mother, as a commentator on national affairs, as someone with influence. Instead you spout hatred to further your infamy. You disgust me, who - as a mother of two, as someone who has been to a gig at that arena, and as someone whose ancestry is rich with those who were subject to hatred, who survived oppression, and who fought to defy those who would see them succumb - is appalled by this attack on children. You disgust me, as a British European, as someone with spiritual faith, and as someone who knows there are times when fighting is necessary. You disgust me, because your writing is not the courage of the resistance but is an echo of Hitler's 'final solution' propaganda.
You do need to be fired. You need to be locked up and kept from inciting further hatred while we channel resources into defying terrorism, because that's what we should be doing, Katie. We should be defying terrorism, not breeding more of it, not encouraging citizen to attack citizen.
You are a waste of resources, Katie; a black hole paid to spew fecal matter. What we need is real hope; the type found in Muslim and Sikh taxi drivers giving free lifts to those caught up in the attack, the type found in a homeless man rushing into the arena to help and to hold the dying, the type found in visiting doctors and surgeons offering their help at hospitals where the wounded were taken, and the type found in people rushing out to give blood in case it's needed. The hope we need is found in people coming together despite an attack on a gathering. It is found in people saying 'We are still here, we will not become monsters who give further excuse to attack. We are still here, unified, because only unified can we be strong.'
No, a vigil does not bring back the dead. A vigil does not remove a terrorist from our streets. What a vigil does, is tell those who are grieving that we are there for them if they need us, while also telling the perpetrators that we will not be cowed or controlled. A vigil, a lit candle, a call for calm and to carry on, such things respect the dead by not encouraging further death and by not diverting focus and resources from finding the perpetrators of such crimes. A vigil is far more respectful than any call to 'rise up' and create a 'final solution'.
Keep calm and carry on is the British response to a tyrant seeking a 'final solution'. We should remember that. It has served us in the past and it will serve us again in the future.
What we need is real hope, not your false sainthood and message of hatred.
Up to 1.5 million children died in Hitler's 'final solution', Katie. Is that really what you want to repeat? Is that really the message you wish to be remembered for? I hope not, for all our children's sakes.
Regards,
A concerned member of the public and a mother.
To anyone else who stumbles upon this.
Please, give your children an extra kiss tonight. Phone your parents and tell them you love them. Help your neighbour carry heavy bags from their car, regardless of their religion, race, nationality or orientation. Cuddle up on the sofa with your partner. Welcome every person you meet with friendship rather than judgement because - while friendship can be refused - you lose nothing in offering it. Judgement and hatred will only ever deprive you of friends, of allies, and of people who could care for you.
To any journalist or member of the public who speaks in support of Hopkins or in outrage at the anger directed at her, remember that the Holocaust started with hatred. It started with blaming a people and claiming there needed to be a 'final solution'. Then remember that up to 1.5 million children died in the Holocaust. Do you really support such incitement? Are you truly unable to appreciate why people are angry?
To anyone who has lost a loved one to such senseless violence, or who has been a victim of it, I cannot understand the depth of your suffering. I truly hope I'm never in a position to understand it. All the same, you have my sympathy, my condolences, and my anger that you have been made to suffer because of senseless hatred. Anyone involved in such atrocities needs to be brought to justice, and we need to work towards ensuring further atrocities do not take place.
