Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs@NeilClark66
I'm confused, can anyone help me? Part 1.
Published time: April 15, 2014 10:06
An anti-government protester waves a flag in front of the seized office of the SBU state security service in Luhansk, eastern Ukraine April 14, 2014. (Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov)
I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.
The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.
Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar Dilkoff)
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.
Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of 'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, “You just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.
Have I misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
AFP Photo / Pool / Mario Tama
We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I've just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo / Rahmatullah Alizadah)
Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our 'way of life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless 'War on Terror' against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.
When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi
Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the‘aggressive one’.
I'm confused, can anyone help me? Part 2
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found atwww.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter
I'm confused. Jen Psaki, US State Department spokesperson, says that the Ukrainian government has 'every right' to use air strikes against its opponents in Ukraine on the grounds that it 'is defending the country'.
Yet in 2011, alleged air strikes by Libyan government forces against its opponents were used as a reason for the imposition of a 'no-fly zone' which was followed by a NATO-led military intervention against Libya. We were told that the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was 'killing his own people' and had to be stopped.
The deaths of over 200 people in Libya was, according to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 'unacceptable'. But the Ukrainian government is killing its own people today, and despite more than 200 people being killed (as of 10th July the number of civilian deaths was 478, including seven children), western leaders do not say that the Ukrainian leader, Petro Poroshenko, has to be stopped, or that the bloodshed is 'unacceptable' and nor are there any calls for a 'no-fly zone' to be imposed. Why is it acceptable for the Ukrainian government to launch a military offensive, including air strikes against its own people, but unacceptable for the Libyan government in 2011 to do likewise? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
In the lead up to the US-led military intervention against Libya in 2011, western politicians and commentators couldn't stop talking about the country. These caring 'humanitarians', it seemed, had so much concern for the plight of the Libyan people. Three years on, and Libya is in chaos, with regular fighting between rebel militia. Only on Sunday it was reported at least seven people had been killed and over 30 injured in clashes between rival militias near Tripoli's international airport. But despite Libya's troubles, western politicians and leading commentators are no longer mentioning the country, in fact it seems they've forgotten about it all together. Why were they so interested in Libya and the plight of its people in 2011, but not interested today? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
In Britain, neocon pundits and politicians warn us repeatedly about the threat of radical Islam at home. We are told of alleged sinister plots by Islamic extremists to take control of our classrooms. Yet the same neocons who want us to be worried about the 'threat' of radical Islam, have supported the violent overthrow of the secular Syrian government by rebels dominated by Islamic jihadists who have beheaded and blown up many people. These same neocons also backed radical Islamic fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Why are the neocons so opposed to what they regard as Islamic extremism at home, but so supportive of it in certain countries abroad? If ' Islamic extremism' really is such a bad thing, then surely it is a bad thing everywhere? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Britons who have fought with anti-government rebels in Syria have been arrested under anti-terrorist legislation when they have returned home.
Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters (Reuters / Khalil Ashawi)
Yet the British government wanted us to go to war against Syria last summer and has given rebels fighting the Syrian Army financial support. Why are Britons being criminalized for fighting for a cause i.e. the violent overthrow of President Assad which the British government and much of Britain's political/media elite enthusiastically supports? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
At time of writing, over 160 people, including about 30 children, have been killed in Israel's latest bombardment of Gaza, and thousands of citizens have fled. In 2011 I remember lots of western political figures and media commentators telling us that the US and its allies had a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Libya from attack by government forces. But I haven't heard calls from the same people saying that there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' people in Gaza under attack from Israeli strikes. Nor have I heard them say there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Ukraine coming under attack from Ukrainian government forces. Why does 'R2P' apply to some people but not to others? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Israel has justified its military operation in Gaza on the grounds that it is fighting terrorism. Yet in 1999 I remember the Yugoslav government using the same arguments to justify its actions in Kosovo saying it was carrying out a counter-terrorist operation against the KLA (UCK) who had been killing, among others, Yugoslav state officials. But while Israel’s 'anti-terrorist' justifications are accepted by western leaders, Yugoslavia's were not, and the country was bombed for 78 days by NATO with its leader later sent to trial at The Hague for war crimes. Why is it ok for Israel to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns, but not ok for the Yugoslav government to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns in 1999? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Before the Iraq war we were told by neocon supporters of military intervention that toppling Saddam Hussein was a crucial step in winning the 'war on terror'. When the interviewer said “If we go into Iraq and we take down Hussein?” Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, replied: “Then I think it's over for the terrorists.” Perle also said: “There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power.” But it's over eleven years now since Saddam Hussein was in power and the 'war on terror' is still going on- in fact even tougher 'anti-terror' security checks at our airports are being introduced. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Tony Blair says that “The starting point is to identify the nature of the battle. It is against Islamist extremism. That is the fight.” Yet this same Tony Blair led a war to topple a secular Arab leader, Saddam Hussein who was an enemy of Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and has also backed western intervention against the secular government of President Assad in Syria. The Assad government is fighting against ISIS, which also threatens the government in Iraq, yet Blair says that we must “support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency.” Why should we be supporting the fight against ISIS in Iraq- but trying to topple a government which is fighting ISIS in Syria? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Get short URL Published time: November 18, 2014 17:11
Syrian men pretend they are casting their votes during a mock election calling for the "criminal" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be stripped of his Syrian nationality, on June 3, 2014 in the mostly rebel-held city of Aleppo.(AFP Photo / Baraa AL-Halabi)
At time of writing, over 160 people, including about 30 children, have been killed in Israel's latest bombardment of Gaza, and thousands of citizens have fled. In 2011 I remember lots of western political figures and media commentators telling us that the US and its allies had a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Libya from attack by government forces. But I haven't heard calls from the same people saying that there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' people in Gaza under attack from Israeli strikes. Nor have I heard them say there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Ukraine coming under attack from Ukrainian government forces. Why does 'R2P' apply to some people but not to others? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Israel has justified its military operation in Gaza on the grounds that it is fighting terrorism. Yet in 1999 I remember the Yugoslav government using the same arguments to justify its actions in Kosovo saying it was carrying out a counter-terrorist operation against the KLA (UCK) who had been killing, among others, Yugoslav state officials. But while Israel’s 'anti-terrorist' justifications are accepted by western leaders, Yugoslavia's were not, and the country was bombed for 78 days by NATO with its leader later sent to trial at The Hague for war crimes. Why is it ok for Israel to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns, but not ok for the Yugoslav government to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns in 1999? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Before the Iraq war we were told by neocon supporters of military intervention that toppling Saddam Hussein was a crucial step in winning the 'war on terror'. When the interviewer said “If we go into Iraq and we take down Hussein?” Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, replied: “Then I think it's over for the terrorists.” Perle also said: “There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power.” But it's over eleven years now since Saddam Hussein was in power and the 'war on terror' is still going on- in fact even tougher 'anti-terror' security checks at our airports are being introduced. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Tony Blair says that “The starting point is to identify the nature of the battle. It is against Islamist extremism. That is the fight.” Yet this same Tony Blair led a war to topple a secular Arab leader, Saddam Hussein who was an enemy of Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and has also backed western intervention against the secular government of President Assad in Syria. The Assad government is fighting against ISIS, which also threatens the government in Iraq, yet Blair says that we must “support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency.” Why should we be supporting the fight against ISIS in Iraq- but trying to topple a government which is fighting ISIS in Syria? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
I’m confused, can anyone help me? Part Three
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found atwww.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on TwitterGet short URL Published time: November 18, 2014 17:11
Syrian men pretend they are casting their votes during a mock election calling for the "criminal" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be stripped of his Syrian nationality, on June 3, 2014 in the mostly rebel-held city of Aleppo.(AFP Photo / Baraa AL-Halabi)
TagsConflict, Election, Human rights, Law,Politics, Protest, Pussy Riot, Violence, War
I’m confused. The first thing I’m confused about is democratic legitimacy after elections are held in war-torn countries.
Western leaders have hailed the recent parliamentary elections in Ukraine, as a great triumph of “democracy.”
Barack Obama said it was “an important milestone in Ukraine’s democratic development.” Top EU officials said it represented “a victory of the people of Ukraine and of democracy.”
Yet large parts of war-torn Ukraine took no part in the vote. Turnout, according to the Ukraine Central Election Commission was just 52.42 percent.
In May’s presidential elections, turnout, according to official figures, was 60.3 percent. They were won by Petro Poroshenko with 54.7 percent of the vote. Again, western leaders hailed the results as a great victory for “democracy.”
Now let’s consider the case of Syria, another war-torn country where there were also important elections this year.
Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada.
Unlike Ukraine’s elections, leading western politicians did not say the result of Syria’s first multi-candidate presidential election in over forty years represented an “important milestone in Syria’s democratic development”- even though, according to official figures, the turnout was much higher than in Ukraine, at 73.42 percent.
Far from it, the same people who hailed the elections in Ukraine haughtily dismissed the election in Syria as a “farce.”
“This election bore no relation to genuine democracy. It was held in the midst of civil war,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague.
“Today’s presidential election in Syria is a disgrace,” said US State Department spokesperson Maria Harf.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called Syria’s election a “fake.” Fabius did not telephone Bashar al-Assad, the winner, to offer his “warmest congratulations” as he did with Poroshenko.
How come one election held in a country divided by war is hailed as a “victory of the people and of democracy” but another election- where the turnout is higher -denounced? Why are Poroshenko and the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk deemed to be the legitimate representatives of the Ukrainian people but Bashar al-Assad, despite his higher level of popular support, denied any kind of democratic legitimacy? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
At the recent G20 summit in Brisbane, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine.” Leaving aside the fact that there’s no hard evidence that Russia is in Ukraine - and that Harper didn’t produce any- the statement seems to imply that the Canadian Prime Minister doesn’t like other countries interfering in the affairs of others and believes in state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders.
But in 2003, Harper was a strong supporter of the US-led invasion of Iraq (and wanted Canada to join in), a clear example of one county “getting” into another. He actually thought it was a “mistake” of the then Canadian government not to take part in the invasion of Iraq. Why is Stephen Harper so concerned about a non-existent Russian invasion of Ukraine, but happy to support a real, actual, and blatantly illegal invasion of Iraq?Does the Canadian Prime Minister support state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders, or doesn’t he? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
David Cameron tells us that ISIS poses a “clear and present threat to the United Kingdom.” Yet only last year he was trying desperately to persuade Parliament to vote for air strikes against a secular Syrian government that was fighting ISIS and other radical extremists associated to al Al-Qaeda. Cameron describes ISIS as “an evil against which the whole world must unite,” but even now the British government, in common with other western governments is still working for the violent overthrow of the government in Damascus whose forces are the only ones on the ground in Syria capable of defeating ISIS. If defeating ISIS really was so important, why is the west trying to topple the anti-ISIS Syrian government? Why, if “the whole world must unite” against ISIS, won’t the British and western governments work with the Syrian government? I‘m confused. Can anyone help me?
Trenton Oldfield.(AFP Photo / Leon Neal)
To coincide with the launch of RT UK, we’ve seen a wave of attacks on RT by self-proclaimed “democrats” and “liberals” in the British media.Some of these attacks have urged Ofcom - the broadcasting regulator - to take action against RT. I always thought that being a “democrat” and “liberal” meant support for alternative voices being heard, not trying to stop people from hearing them. John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty, a classic text on liberalism, wrote of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” and that “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”
So how come western “liberals” want to silence the opinions expressed on RT? Why are those who claim to be anti-censorship, so censorious when it comes to RT? I would have thought people calling themselves “democrats” and “liberals” would welcome a wide variety of news channels for people to watch, yet instead of that supporters of “free speech” are attacking a channel which broadcasts opinions which they don’t agree with it. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Western politicians say that they are appalled by the “barbarism” shown by ISIS in the various beheading videos they have released.But if beheading people is so bad (as most people would agree that it is), why is there no similar condemnation of the beheadings which take place in Saudi Arabia? In August, Amnesty International reported a “surge” in beheadings in Saudi Arabia, amounting to at least 23 in three weeks. Why are beheadings by ISIS “savage” but the ones carried out in Saudi Arabia acceptable? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Pussy Riot, the Russian punk protest group who were jailed after a demonstration in an Orthodox Cathedral in Moscow are feted as heroes in the West, with a whole range of public figures including the pop star Madonna coming forward to express their support. But there was no such celebrity support for Trenton Oldfield, a protestor who was jailed for six months in Britain after trying to disrupt the Oxford- Cambridge University boat race in 2012. Oldfield said he was protesting against elitism, inequality and government cuts. If Pussy Riot’s cause is deserving of “progressive” support, then why isn’t Oldfield’s? Why are some anti-government protestors who go to jail hailed as heroes, but others totally ignored? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
RT.com
I’m confused. The first thing I’m confused about is democratic legitimacy after elections are held in war-torn countries.
Western leaders have hailed the recent parliamentary elections in Ukraine, as a great triumph of “democracy.”
Barack Obama said it was “an important milestone in Ukraine’s democratic development.” Top EU officials said it represented “a victory of the people of Ukraine and of democracy.”
Yet large parts of war-torn Ukraine took no part in the vote. Turnout, according to the Ukraine Central Election Commission was just 52.42 percent.
In May’s presidential elections, turnout, according to official figures, was 60.3 percent. They were won by Petro Poroshenko with 54.7 percent of the vote. Again, western leaders hailed the results as a great victory for “democracy.”
Now let’s consider the case of Syria, another war-torn country where there were also important elections this year.
Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada.
Unlike Ukraine’s elections, leading western politicians did not say the result of Syria’s first multi-candidate presidential election in over forty years represented an “important milestone in Syria’s democratic development”- even though, according to official figures, the turnout was much higher than in Ukraine, at 73.42 percent.
Far from it, the same people who hailed the elections in Ukraine haughtily dismissed the election in Syria as a “farce.”
“This election bore no relation to genuine democracy. It was held in the midst of civil war,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague.
“Today’s presidential election in Syria is a disgrace,” said US State Department spokesperson Maria Harf.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called Syria’s election a “fake.” Fabius did not telephone Bashar al-Assad, the winner, to offer his “warmest congratulations” as he did with Poroshenko.
How come one election held in a country divided by war is hailed as a “victory of the people and of democracy” but another election- where the turnout is higher -denounced? Why are Poroshenko and the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk deemed to be the legitimate representatives of the Ukrainian people but Bashar al-Assad, despite his higher level of popular support, denied any kind of democratic legitimacy? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
At the recent G20 summit in Brisbane, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine.” Leaving aside the fact that there’s no hard evidence that Russia is in Ukraine - and that Harper didn’t produce any- the statement seems to imply that the Canadian Prime Minister doesn’t like other countries interfering in the affairs of others and believes in state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders.
But in 2003, Harper was a strong supporter of the US-led invasion of Iraq (and wanted Canada to join in), a clear example of one county “getting” into another. He actually thought it was a “mistake” of the then Canadian government not to take part in the invasion of Iraq. Why is Stephen Harper so concerned about a non-existent Russian invasion of Ukraine, but happy to support a real, actual, and blatantly illegal invasion of Iraq?Does the Canadian Prime Minister support state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders, or doesn’t he? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
David Cameron tells us that ISIS poses a “clear and present threat to the United Kingdom.” Yet only last year he was trying desperately to persuade Parliament to vote for air strikes against a secular Syrian government that was fighting ISIS and other radical extremists associated to al Al-Qaeda. Cameron describes ISIS as “an evil against which the whole world must unite,” but even now the British government, in common with other western governments is still working for the violent overthrow of the government in Damascus whose forces are the only ones on the ground in Syria capable of defeating ISIS. If defeating ISIS really was so important, why is the west trying to topple the anti-ISIS Syrian government? Why, if “the whole world must unite” against ISIS, won’t the British and western governments work with the Syrian government? I‘m confused. Can anyone help me?
Trenton Oldfield.(AFP Photo / Leon Neal)
To coincide with the launch of RT UK, we’ve seen a wave of attacks on RT by self-proclaimed “democrats” and “liberals” in the British media.Some of these attacks have urged Ofcom - the broadcasting regulator - to take action against RT. I always thought that being a “democrat” and “liberal” meant support for alternative voices being heard, not trying to stop people from hearing them. John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty, a classic text on liberalism, wrote of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” and that “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”
So how come western “liberals” want to silence the opinions expressed on RT? Why are those who claim to be anti-censorship, so censorious when it comes to RT? I would have thought people calling themselves “democrats” and “liberals” would welcome a wide variety of news channels for people to watch, yet instead of that supporters of “free speech” are attacking a channel which broadcasts opinions which they don’t agree with it. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Western politicians say that they are appalled by the “barbarism” shown by ISIS in the various beheading videos they have released.But if beheading people is so bad (as most people would agree that it is), why is there no similar condemnation of the beheadings which take place in Saudi Arabia? In August, Amnesty International reported a “surge” in beheadings in Saudi Arabia, amounting to at least 23 in three weeks. Why are beheadings by ISIS “savage” but the ones carried out in Saudi Arabia acceptable? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Pussy Riot, the Russian punk protest group who were jailed after a demonstration in an Orthodox Cathedral in Moscow are feted as heroes in the West, with a whole range of public figures including the pop star Madonna coming forward to express their support. But there was no such celebrity support for Trenton Oldfield, a protestor who was jailed for six months in Britain after trying to disrupt the Oxford- Cambridge University boat race in 2012. Oldfield said he was protesting against elitism, inequality and government cuts. If Pussy Riot’s cause is deserving of “progressive” support, then why isn’t Oldfield’s? Why are some anti-government protestors who go to jail hailed as heroes, but others totally ignored? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
RT.com
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti