Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: file_get_contents(http://grant-adamson.me.uk/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/admin/inc/webfonts.json) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 678
Categories

Wordblog revived

incorporating New Life

Archives

Alt-right Brietbart bids to extend its media influence in Europe after Trump victory

If, in the United Kingdom, there was concern about some media reaction to the High Court ruling on Article 50, there is worse to come. A new generation of web-based news organisations are squaring up for a battle.

Yesterday, Brietbart.com’s London office published a story headed: BBC Plan to Counter ‘Christian Bias’ Could Include Broadcasting Muslim Call to Prayer. It is true that the BBC is looking at the balance of its religious content and has invited faith leaders to talks. I could find nothing in the copy to justify the headline which plays into the Islamaphobic agenda.

President elect Donald Trump has nominated Stephen Bannon, chief executive of Brietbart, as his chief strategist. Brietbart, regarded as an online home of the alt-right, is now planning expansion in Europe and other parts of the world.

Its objective is, according the AP news agency to be “the best source of news on the new administration”. AP says:

That scares its critics, which consider Breitbart News the home of cheerleaders rather than journalists — and often offensive at that.

Politico.com, one of a generation of new largely online news organisations, makes its fears clear with the headline, Will America Now Have a Pravda? The intro reads:

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take control of the American executive branch, he will have a weapon at his disposal that few if any presidents have enjoyed—a direct connection to a faithful media operation that reaches millions of loyal populist readers in the form of Breitbart, the self-styled honey badger of alt-right journalism.

To balance my comment on the Brietbart headline, the Politico story has no quoted source for the use of the name “Pravda”. A quote suggesting Brietbart could become the closest thing the US has had to a “state-run media enterprise” is the nearest it gets.

Politico is a more mainstream news organisation and its European site, Politico.eu is a partnership with the German Springer group. It also publishes print editions in both the US and Europe.

The executive editor of Brietbart London is James Delingpole who has also written for the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, The Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.

Yesterday he wrote a climate change denying piece for Brietbart which includes this:

Gosh I do wish I’d taken my own advice and gone long on fossil fuels, short on renewables in the run up to the U.S. presidential election. I would have even bigger a reason to celebrate the Donald Trump victory than I do already.

Make no mistake, the Donald Trump presidency represents the biggest blow yet to the Great Global Warming Swindle.

I fear the Anglo-American idea of impartial journalism is facing its greatest threat on both sides of the Atlantic.

Trump victory will make Brexit even more painful

The Iberian peninsular breaks away from the mainland and heads towards America before eventually returning to Europe, in The Stone Raft, a wonderful novel by José Saramago.

It feels today as if the United Kingdom will start a similar journey into dangerous waters when the decision to leave the EU is made irrevocable by signing Article 50. But the far coast is much less attractive with a protectionist Donald Trump in the White House.

While the political establishments in both the UK and the USA have miscalculated the anger of many electors the similarity of the Brexit and Presidential votes ends there. The consequences are very different.

As the Economist comments:

Brexit is a giant shock to Britain’s place in the world. It will sever old links and require new ones to be forged. As some of its keenest proponents concede, this transition will bring painful costs. Most of all it demands lots of good will and flexibility on all sides. In so far as Mr Trump’s win means a meaner, more fractious, more volatile global order, it raises those costs and shrinks that space for compromise and consensus essential for a smooth Brexit.

It seems to me that we now need, more than ever, to be a part of strong European Union and its trading bloc.

The silence of Teresa May and her ministers acquiesces in attack on judges

Silence is acquiescence. The silence of Theresa May in the face of yesterday’s newspaper attacks on the British judiciary tells us much about our prime minister and her cabinet.

The silence of her Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss, has come under attack from a former Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, in today’s Guardian, pointing out that she has a constitutional duty to defend the judges. He writes:

 She needs to make it clear immediately that the government has no quarrel with the judges and has total confidence in them. Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse. So far Truss has been completely silent, no doubt waiting for guidance from a prime minister who appears so mesmerised by the fear of what the public may do or think that she is willing to throw constitutional propriety overboard.

Truss’s silence feeds the sense that the government is either hopeless at avoiding conflict or couldn’t care less about the constitution.

That a national newspaper, The Daily Mail, can run a front page with pictures of three judges over the headline “Enemies of the people” without being criticised by the government is extraordinary. That our government is failing to defend the separation of powers between the parliament and the judiciary, one of the corner stones of our constitution and democracy, is more extraordinary.

It is as if our government, many of its supporters and much of the official oppositions (the Labour Party) are rabbits caught in the headlights of the hard brexiteers steam-roller.

But not all. Dominic Grieve, a former Tory Attorney General, has done what Truss should have done yesterday. His analysis was forthright and the story in the Huffington Post starts:

The criticism of the judiciary over the recent Article 50 ruling is “chilling” and reminiscent of “Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe”…. He also described attacks the judiciary as “chilling and outrageous” and “smacking of the fascist state”

The Huff Post report on the silence of Theresa May continues

Bob Neill, the Conservative chairman of the justice select committee, said the attacks were “threatening the independence of our judiciary” and had “no place in a civilised land”.
He told The Times: [pay wall] “Some of the things which have been said about the court’s judgment by politicians have been utterly disgraceful.
“All ministers from the Prime Minister down must now make clear that the independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our democracy. You have to respect that even if you think they have got a decision wrong.

Anna Soubry, a remain campaigner said media reports were “inciting hatred” and continued: “I think we have to call this out and say ‘not in my name’.”

Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, a brexit campaigner, who resigned his seat yesterday, said in his letter to constituents:

It has been a great honour to serve the people of Sleaford and North Hykeham for the last six years, but it has become clear to me over the last few months that my growing and very significant policy differences with the current Government mean I am unable to properly represent the people who elected me,

That goes to the heart of the problem. Too many MPs feel cowed by brexiteers to be “delegates” rather than fulfilling their constitutional role as “representatives”.

Those parliamentarians  who have spoken out against the attacks on the judiciary emphasises the silence of Theresa May, Liz Truss and other members of the Government.

 

 

 

When judges are called ‘Enemies of the people’ I am afraid for our future

The language being used today following the High Court ruling on the use of the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit is frightening. The headlines in at four national newspapers effectively seek to undermine the rule of law.

The Daily Mail: Under pictures of the three judges who made the ruling is: ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

The Sun shouts WHO DO EU THINK YOU ARE.

The Daily Telegraph cries: The judges versus the people.

The Daily Express evokes Churchill’s fight on the beaches speech with its headline, WE MUST GET OUT OF THE EU, printed over the Union flag.

The Guardian has a measured headline, Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit. But its first paragraph starts: “Theresa May is heading for a rebellion over her Brexit strategy…” I can find no justification for the use of the word “rebellion” in following paragraphs.

The front pages can be seen on the BBC website.

For the record, the judges’ ruling was about the process of Brexit not about whether the UK should leave the EU. The ruling upholds sovereign power of the legislature: it supports our MPs and restates the separation of powers between the parliament and the executive. That is something I thought every democrat supported.

The language reflects a very nasty country which is emerging. It is empowering those who feel they can abuse women wearing a head-scarf, those speaking another language and those they think do not look “English”.

A friend told me yesterday of an incident in a pub. He was talking to another friend about Brexit when he felt someone poking him on the shoulder. He turned to be told: “I don’t agree with what you are saying.”

My friend responded that he was having a private conversation and was not talking to the man who had prodded him who then said: “I am Anglo-Saxon, pure Anglo-Saxon.”

My friend rightly ignored this although I would have been tempted to point out that the man was clearly descended from Germanic immigrants.

It is not just in this country that the language of political discourse is being debased.  The United States presidential election has descended into a slanging match between the two leading contenders. Russia sounds increasingly bellicose. In Turkey academics, journalists and civil servants are arrested or arbitrarily sacked. There are more examples.

We are seeing something of the language and attitudes which allowed Mussolini, Franco and Hitler to rise to power and was also heard in Britain before the Second World War.

It is frightening. I woke this morning thinking I was less afraid for the future during the Cuba missile crisis 50 years ago.