Tuesday, November 03, 2009

 

Further Questions Regarding 'this Shoddy Shaming Alliance'.

Further to my last post, The Economist has weighed into the debate in the form of its columnist Bagehot. Recent days have seen Conservatives intent upon damage limitation regarding their odd new friends in the European Conservatives and Reformists(ECR). While Bagehot accepts that history has made parties in Eastern Europe, with its tragic 20th century history more complex than our own, this does not mean that no judgements whatsoever can be made about Kaminiski's homophobia and views on the massacre of Jews at Jedwabne; he goes on to offer a few which do not ideally recommend such alliances to what is likely to be the UK's next government. He also judges that:

Their prospects of influencing European deliberations, on matters that they care about such as hedge-fund regulation, have dwindled. They have alienated and baffled other European conservatives. By abdicating the centre of European politics for the fringe, the Tories have convinced many in Europe that they can legitimately be ignored.

Like Peter Oborne, Bagehot returns to the opportunistic wooing of the euro-sceptic's vote back in 2005 when his promise to withdraw from the EPP, coralled their support against his opponent David Davis. Such true blue members gave their support for the liberal policies which have revived Tory fortunes because they had been 'bought off' by the deal on the EU. Bagehot ends by asking a question which Labour and uncommitted voters will echo as the months to the next election shorten:

It is this: if this shoddy, shaming alliance is the price he was obliged to pay his party for the changes needed to make it seem modern and compassionate, what sort of party is it that Mr Cameron leads? What else will its members demand, and what else—when his popularity and authority wane—will he be obliged to give them, after he becomes prime minister?

Comments:
The only parallel with WWII is the shameful way a President of the Czechs has been bullied by a greater power into giving away his country's sovereignty(which was so hard won in the face of another tyranny). For Hitler, read the EU. And for Klaus, read Hacha. Shame on all of them.

And in any case, this whole story has been shown for the lie that it is by the fact that the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich, has said that Kaminski is not anti-semitic, and has in fact gone out of his way to support Israel! Somewhat pulls the carpet from under your arguments and the pathetic utterances of the feeble and doomed Miliband.

We often disagree Skip, and I respect your views. But the way you are misrepresenting Kaminski(and by implication, Cameron) is a particularly poor show, and I suspect you know exactly what you are doing. It won't fool anyone.
 
Michael
I heard the rabbi too and he was rather less emphatic than you suggest.

As for your 'poor show' I thought I was merely summarising a column by a highly respected journalist who had reprised a line similar to that previously given by another respected guy- Peterr Oborne.

I'm fairly sure most of my many millions of readers will realise I'm not trying to 'fool' anyone.
 
From The Guardian(!) of 30 Oct. I'll let people make up their own minds after reading this.

"The chief rabbi of Poland, who criticised one of the Conservative party's new allies in Europe over past links to a neo-Nazi group, today refined his views, saying the leader of the Polish Law and Justice party, Michal Kaminski, was "today against antisemitism".

Speaking about Kaminski, Schudrich said: "I certainly see him as a man that today, today, is against antisemitism", adding that Law and Justice was not a "fringe right party".

Schudrich told BBC Radio 4's Today programme today that Kaminski was a "complicated person" who he acknowledged had been a member of the NOP as a teenager, but he now regarded Kaminski as a "serious ally to the state of Israel". Explaining why the politician now enjoyed his confidence, Schudrich said: "He has become a strong ally of the state of Israel and on other occasions has condemned antisemitism".

Sounds fairly conclusive to me.
 
But not really to me I fear- scarcely a ringing endorsement and, for me, it does not expunge his earlier allegiances and statements. Everyone deserves a second chance but this guy emerges from murky depths. And, once again, my opinion is worth less than those of Economist's Bagehot and the Daily Mail's Peter Oborne.
 
Funny how these people suddenly change their minds. Same as Griffin he forgot why he was against the Jews and did not understand why he did not believe the Holocaust, yes mate and we know why.
 
Hardly ringing, but very clear nonetheless.

Opinions stand on the merits of the arguments, not on the so-called reputations of those who make them. To quote a more enlightened man, Ivan Turgenev(if you excuse the irony): “I share no man's opinions; I have my own".


The facts speak for themselves and the anti-sovereignty brigade have done the one thing worse than anti-semitism - falsely accusing others of anti-semitism to mask their true agendas. Shame on them.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?