Gorgeous George's moral maze
No this isn't a TV programme (yet). Last week, George Galloway said it would be "morally justified" if a suicide bomber were to kill Tony Blair, just stopping short of calling for the assassination himself. But he was not quite so clear-cut when asked whether he would alert the authorities if he knew of such a scheme. He remarked what a "moral maze" that quandary was before explaining how he would report an assassination plot not because that's the law but because he feared the murder would cause an islamophobic backlash.
I'm happy to admit I'm not a fan of George's, but I've never had any sleepless nights thinking about whether or not to report anyone conspiring to murder. Even if you did follow Galloway's logic that by ordering our armed forces into action, Blair is responsible for the deaths at their hands, it still does not follow that his death is in any way justifiable. Britain thankfully does not have the death penalty. By that sort of reasoning, vigilante retribution can be argued to be morally just. Fortunately, that's not the case in our society.
But it is far from clear whether Galloway's antics are motivated in the defence of Muslims or by his fierce opposition to America. Over the years, he's been willing to fly as far as needs be to make acquaintance with dictator after dictator, so long as they're hostile towards the United States. After the first Gulf War, Galloway flew out to salute Saddam Hussein's courage, strength, and indefatigability. Last year, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad received Galloway's praise only months after the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, whose death many believe to have been at the hands of the Syrian regime. But beyond that, Galloway supported the USSR, saying that the "disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of [his] life". More recently, he opposed the military action against Serbia which stopped the mass murder of Kosovan Muslims. And now, Castro is the latest to get Galloway's praise, being referred to as his "the living person he most admires".
Galloway aside, populist politics is rife in Respect. Back when Yvonne Ridley visited Imperial, she boasted how Respect's candidates were "a rich multicultural mix of people". But it doesn't quite seem that way now in Tower Hamlets. Of Respect's twelve councillors, all twelve are Bengali. The fallout of their campaigning tactics has resulted in voting on racial grounds. In some wards where only one or two Respect councillors were elected, it was the Khans, Begums and Munims that were elected not the Townesends and Empsons that stood for Respect. The likely cause of this is people only voting for the Bengali candidates a very worrying sign of divisions on ethnic and religious grounds.
The far-left is keen to take on racism and populism from the BNP and other far-right parties. But when the effects of racial tensions and religious divisions are evident in their own back yard, Respect has decided to capitalise on it rather than confront it. If that's not the intention, the effect of campaigning that splits the community is devastating and hard to undo. Their strategy to focus on anti-war campaigning and targeting areas with a high Bengali populations may be paying off electorally. But when the dust has settled, such tactics leave a polarised populace, with the danger of those who feel disenfranchised voting for the far-right. It's time Respect showed a little more respect to the communities they now represent.
