And another thing…

JOHN Maples, the Tory MP, asked Harriert Harman today at PMQs to remind the House why British troops were in Afghanistan. It was an appropriate question, given that the names of seven servicemen had been added to the list of the fallen at the start of the session.

The controversy that will always surround the subject of Iraq is often extended to Afghanistan. You often hear anti-war types condemning British involvement in "Iraq and Afghanistan", as if the circumstances of our involvement were identical. 

(Remember Paul Marsden? He was the Labour MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham who defected to the LibDems shortly after troop deployment in Afghanistan. He did so because of his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Problem was, the LibDems had supported the military intervention there as well. Poor Paul…)

There is no question over the legality of action in Afghanistan, or its legitimacy in terms of UN authorisation. Given the offensive action taken against America by a certain honoured guest of the Taleban at the time, the US had no choice but to demand bin Laden be handed over. The Taleban’s refusal to do so was in effect an invitation to the international community to invade. Which the international community rightly accepted.

So the legal basis for invasion and occupation was firmly established, as was the UN’s moral justification. But beyond the immediate necessity of bringing bin Laden to justice, there was an added reason to support the Afghan campaign: the fight against fascism.

If you persecute gays, treat women as second class citizens, rule by intimidation and violence, deny citizens the basic tenets of democracy and consider those of a different ethnicity, race or religion to be worthy of death and imprisonment, then you are a fascist. And the Taleban, being able to tick all of these boxes, were and remain fascists.

Some on the Left in Britain try to give the impression that they’re opposed to fascism while marching in support of the Taleban and Saddam’s former regime, a regime modelled deliberately on Nazism in many respects. They are liars and hypocrites. Their voices have not been listened to in this debate, and neither should they be. British soldiers are fighting and dying in the campaign to build a democratic and free Afghanistan. We should be hoping and praying for their safety and for their success against the remnants of a vile and disgusting fascist regime.

SO, at last the Law Lords have seen fit to get rid of the loathsome entity which goes by the name of Abu Qatada.

He could have been removed earlier but a court decided that would hurt his feelings and therefore was against his human rights or something.

But here’s the bit that still perplexes me:

Last year the Court of Appeal blocked Qatada’s removal after accepting his argument that he had not faced a fair trial in his absence. He was released on bail – but then re-arrested and returned to prison because security officials said they had intelligence that he was considering fleeing the UK.

“Security officials said they had intelligence that he was considering fleeing the UK”? And we couldn’t tolerate that, could we? After all, if he had left the country of his own accord, then we wouldn’t have been able to bring him back to court to force him to leave the- …Oh, hang on…

Alas, the deal has not yet been done on getting rid of Qatada. The European Court of Human Rights is still to hear an appeal, so expect lots of excuses about how mean the authorities in Jordan will be to him if he returns to face a jail term for terrorism.

THE LATEST developments in the bare knuckle fight between Harry’s Place and academic Jenna Delich continues, with the latest twist focusing on 9/11 “conspiracies”.

Conspiracy theories and the strange individuals who waste their time reading about them can be easily dispensed with. What is more dangerous are those who seek to use their status, position and skills to justify or excuse acts of terrorism.

A few years back I was greatly offended by an article in The New Statesman by John Pilger. No surprise there, you might say – isn’t everyone? Pilger had written a piece about 9/11 and had come out with all the usual nonsense about how America wasn’t really the victim. What incensed me was his use of the word “terrorists” to describe Muhammad Atta and his fellow murderers. Let me make this clear: Pilger inserted inverted commas round the word “terrorist” within his article.

Now, my understanding of journalistic rules is that there are two reasons for using double inverted commas: when quoting someone, and to indicate irony. Pilger was not quoting anyone, so he was using “terrorist” as an ironic description of the… er, terrorists.

The implication Pilger intended was that Atta and his henchmen were unfairly labelled as terrorists by the mainstream media, but that he wasn’t going to make the same mistake, oh no. After all, anyone who hated the United States that much can’t be all bad, surely?

I found myself writing a letter of complaint, which was published and, surprisingly, responded to by Pilger himself. Can’t remember now what names he called me; they probably weren’t any worse than some of the things left as comments on this blog.

We should be very careful indeed of those in the mainstream media using language that seeks, even in a subtle way, to excuse or justify acts of random murder. Explain, yes; excuse, never.