Man Dumps Mistress: A Story About a Story

 

Back in May - the 22nd, to be exact - I wrote about an item which I thought did not merit being covered by the national press, but it was. It featured the couple in the photo above, by name Tony Garnett, a 29-year-old man who had left his unmarried partner of 10 years, and their two children, for the young lady with him in the picture: 22-year-old Sofiya Karkadym. As was pointed out at the time, there is nothing new about a man leaving his wife for another woman. Marriage breakup is only too common. Still, this particular sad occurrence was deemed suitable for inclusion in the lead articles of our tabloid press at the time.

Four months later, Tony and Sofiya are in the news again. The Sun trumpeted on Monday: 

 "A MAN who left his wife for a Ukrainian refugee says he has now DUMPED her - claiming he couldn’t put up with her any more."

Mr Garnett - the man in the quote - made a number of allegations against his Ukrainian lover, claiming that she had exhibited unreasonable behaviour and so he had thrown her out of the new home they shared together. Another tabloid (The Daily Mail) reported: 

"In an exclusive interview with MailOnline, he revealed today: 'I am 100 per cent through with her. We are finished as a couple.''

People who seek happy endings and hope that Tony Garnett will return to the bosom of his previously abandoned lover and family are likely to be disappointed. His former partner, Lorna Garnett, was quoted in the Mail yesterday:   

"Lorna reacted to news of her former partner splitting up from his Ukrainian girlfriend by reportedly telling friends: 'I wouldn't have him back in a million years.''

Anyone needing further details can read the tabloids referred to above. The story is a sad, but slightly sordid one, and I see no reason to dwell on the unpleasant details. To an extent, I feel sorry for all the protagonists in this affair. Even without the glare of publicity, these events would be traumatic enough. Seeing your private life scrutinised in the tabloids must make things far, far worse, especially for the two Garnett children.

All of which begs the question: why is such a common event as a marriage breakdown being reported in the tabloid press?

The answer, as was agreed in the discussion on this blog on May22, is very simple: Sofiya Karkadym is a Ukrainian refugee. She was welcomed into the Garnetts' home after she arrived in this country, then ran off with Tony 10 days later. That marked her down as a person of interest to our execrable tabloids. Had she been a British girl, this story would not have made the back pages of a local newspaper. The fact that Sofiya was a foreigner who had seemingly abused her hosts' hospitality led to her being portrayed as a wicked temptress. This would undoubtedly have stimulated the xenophobia of the average tabloid reader and led to ignorant criticism of all Ukrainians: "Bloody Ukrainians, comin' over 'ere, breakin' up marriages...etc...etc...". It's only too predictable. Tony Garnett received no criticism for deserting his family; all the opprobrium fell upon Sofiya. 

There's been no change. All the reporting about the present break-up has been from Tony Garnett's side; Sofiya has not been interviewed by any of the tabloids. She has not been able to react to the allegations made against her. In fact, the Mail has made a special point of reporting Garnett's apparent wish for Sofiya to leave the UK altogether: 

"Tony told MailOnline: ' it is the perfect storm. Her visa runs out and she's got nothing here in this country. She's not with me anymore and she's got no reason to stay...She is from Lviv which hasn't really been affected as much as other parts of Ukraine. So hopefully she'll be safe back with her family."

Well, now that's interesting. They have only just split up and already there is talk of the girl having to leave the UK! Sofiya herself has not been consulted on this matter. Every right-wing bigot in the country must have been delighted to read those words. The tabloids reinforce that wish, and the allegations of violent behaviour against Sofiya by publicising, in vivid detail (see links above) an incident where Sofiya reportedly turned up at Tony's door asking to speak to him. For Mail-averse readers, this is a grainy image of the incident, when police were called.

There was no violence, no-one was hurt, but wasn't she a villain, eh? Her side of the story, perhaps inevitably, has not been reported by the tabloids.

So, what can we take from this? The obvious point, of course, is that the tabloids are biased against Sofiya, but we knew that. Less obvious is the fact that the tabloids are using the incident as a means to smear all Ukrainians. What puzzles me is why they are doing this. After all, we are allies of Ukraine against Putin's invasion. It could be a simple desire to exploit xenophobia to sell papers, but they do that already with other groups: Muslims, EU nationals and refugees spring to mind. Or could it be something else? Could it be that they sense - or think they sense - a growth of intolerance towards all migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and seek to exploit it? It might be all these things, or something I haven't thought of yet.

Whatever, we who despise the tabloids must be vigilant for their xenophobic hate-mongering and perhaps be more vocal in opposing them. As they grow more strident, so must we. At the very least, we can point out to Daily Mail readers that one marriage breakup does not justify smearing a whole people - people who have come to us for security and protection. Developing a resentment towards all Ukrainians is grossly unfair and can only please xenophobic bigots, White Van Man and Vladimir Putin.

Or is that the idea?

British Republicanism: An Image Problem

 

To a foreign observer it must seem strange: at a time of national mourning, when hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities are queueing to pay their respects to the late Queen, a small number of anti-monarchist protesters are commanding so much press and media attention. It has raised questions about free speech, good taste, the right to protest and the anti-monarchist/republican cause in Britain in general and England in particular. I think it worth looking back at the republican movement in Britain (as distinct from Irish republicanism) and, following from the title, the image of the movement to outsiders. Why does British republicanism have such an image problem?

We should start our discussion by reminding ourselves that we once had a republican government, fronted up by the man in the picture: Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658). This was the Commonwealth established by the victorious Parliamentary forces after the English Civil War. It lasted from 1649 until 1660 and has been described as a Protestant version of the Taliban. As David Ross says: 

"Church attendance (Protestant only) was compulsory. Horse racing and cockfights were banned, plays were prohibited, gambling dens and brothels were closed, as were many alehouses. Drunkenness and blasphemy were harshly dealt with. People being people, these measures were extremely unpopular."

They certainly were, and, following Cromwell's death and the ineffectual reign of his son, Richard, the monarchy was restored in 1660. The new king, Charles II, had no time for such restrictions, and dispensed with them nationally and personally - but that's another story. The point is that the Commonwealth seems to have left a folk memory that rejects Republicanism and inspires affection for the monarch.

The French Revolution of 1789, following upon the success of the colonists in the American War of Independence, led to a republican revival among the British intelligentsia. Writers such as Tom Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin supported the anti-monarchist cause in France and Britain but modified their views after the commencement of The Terror.

The flag above is the British republican flag, which came into being in 1816, and is said to have been in use until 1935. It first appeared during the Spa Fields Riots of 1816 and was reportedly flown during the Pentrich Rising (1817) and the Peterloo Massacre, 1819. Britain's rulers took a dim view of republicanism, passing the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This act made republican advocacy an offence which could lead to transportation to Australia or (later) life imprisonment. It has never been repealed.

During the latter years of Queen Victoria's reign, the monarch withdrew from public life following the death of her consort, Prince Albert. During the 1870s, politicians such as Charles Dilke and Charles Bradlaugh called for a republic on the style of France and the USA. The emerging labour movement saw an emergent republicanism. The founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, was an outspoken critic of the monarchy. One of his statements was: "The life of one Welsh miner is of greater commercial and moral value to the British nation than the whole Royal crowd put together."

Within the Labour Party, republicanism has remained a strong presence, but has been by no means popular with all members. In 1923, at the Labour Party's annual conference, two motions were proposed. The first was "that the Royal Family is no longer a necessary party of the British constitution". The second: "that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished". Both motions were defeated, and the Labour Party stopped officially expressing republican views. In 1936, following the Abdication Crisis and the exit of Edward VIII, MP James Maxton tabled a "republican amendment" to the Abdication Bill, which would have established a Republic in Britain. Maxton argued that the monarchy had now "outlived its usefulness". Five MPs voted for the bill. It was defeated by 403 votes.

Post-war, the cause of republicanism was voiced by one solitary public figure - the Labour MP, Willie Hamilton. He served as an MP from 1950 to 1987, and was known for his anti-monarchist views, best expressed in his book "My Queen and I". He once described the Queen as "a middle-aged woman of limited intellect who should be ditched in the Channel", and was no less scathing about her children. He described Prince Charles as "a nitwit and a gentle parasite, but at least he's not as rude as his sister", while of Prince Edward's academic record he said: "Edward's qualifications wouldn't get Joe Soap's son into the local polytechnic." He died in 2000, a republican to the end.

Republicanism has persisted on the Left to the present day. In 1991, Tony Benn, MP, introduced the "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected president. It failed to receive a second reading.

I think we can now identify one of the causes for the image problem of republicanism. It is widely seen as a policy of the Left, and the extreme Left in particular. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, organised a "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in 1977 and are attacking the monarchy today. The previous century's republican activity has emanated from what people perceive as the far Left and, as such, a destructive and revolutionary force. This is not always the case. Caroline Lucas, MP, is a republican, along with a number of leading politicians, including some LibDems (who once included our present prime minister), that hold anti-monarchist views. A number of celebrities, none of whom are SWP members, are also republicans. Honor Blackman, for instance, declined a CBE in 2014, saying:"... since I'm a republican I thought it would be somewhat hypocritical to pop up to the Palace." Russell Brand said of The Queen:  "She's high up, above us, at the top of a class pyramid on a shelf of money with her own face on it." Daniel Radcliffe has declared: 
"I am definitely a republican in the British sense of the word. I just don't see the use of the monarchy, though I'm a fierce patriot. I'm proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country."

And there we can discern another element of the image problem. Most ordinary folk, who see the Royal Family in general and the late Queen in particular as somehow part of them, are likely to resent what these well-off celebrities say on this topic, perceiving them as a jumped-up elite who are too big for their boots. This is carefully fostered by the right-wing press, who used resentment of foreigners as part of the Brexit campaign and portrayed Remain politicians and personalities as members of a (mythical) "cosmopolitan elite".  The only organised political republican force is Republic, founded in 1983, but it has not made any significant headway - at least as far as I know. I consider myself reasonably well-informed but, until I started research for this blog, I knew nothing of them.

The image problem has not been helped by the small number of anti-monarchist protests that we have seen in the past few days. At a time when the vast majority of people - including republicans - wish to mourn their monarch with solemnity and dignity, these protests can only be counter-productive. While I am a total supporter of free speech, the protests are unlikely to win friends and influence people. I do not believe that the protesters should be prosecuted or even arrested, but I share Keir Starmer's view:

"One of the great British traditions is the ability to protest and to disagree, but I think if it can be done in the spirit of respect," he said.
"Respect the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do want to come forward and have that moment, don't ruin it for them."

In addition to that, I would like to say that these protests not only pose an image problem for republicanism, but they also provide another diversion for this government, who can (and probably will) use them as a pretext to tighten up the law on protest.

 

The Queen: Reflecting on a Royal Life

 

It might be expected that I am going to comment negatively on the passing of our Queen, Elizabeth II.  I won't do that, though. While I might be critical of royalty at times and scathing of past monarchs such as the Duke of Windsor, who deserves opprobrium, I actually have sympathy for the Royal Family and some respect for the late Queen's memory. Even when I was a Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) member back in the 1970s and we campaigned against the 1977 Silver Jubilee under the banner "Stuff the Jubilee", I could not bring myself to bear any personal malice towards the Queen. I lost my mother some years ago and can empathise with how her family and friends are feeling. It's a matter of simple humanity to me, although I am not feeling as keenly as are many others. Royalists and admirers of Her Maj are grieving intensely. I, and I suspect that I am not alone, am feeling an affectionate sadness, rather like one might feel at the passing of a distant but popular relative. I might not be part of the crowd outside Buckingham Palace or Balmoral, but I shall remember her fondly and hope she rests in peace. 

Many people are indeed feeling her loss keenly and remembering her with the utmost respect. As the new king, Charles III, said of his mother in his televised address: 

 "Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss."

 As someone who was three years old when she became Queen, I can endorse that. I cannot remember a time when she was not engaged in public duties, even while raising a family of her own. Back in the 50s, she must have been an inspiration to many people, giving colour to a drab society, murky politics and the painfully slow ending of imperial glory. 

Through the 60s and 70s, she was regarded by so many people as a fixed point in a changing world, while the Cold War dragged on, youth rebelled and dispossessed groups, such as women's rights campaigners and LGBT activists, fought for equality. We also saw in this period how the role of monarchy came to be questioned, politically by some and murderously by others. While the SWP and others on the Left questioned the amount of public money spent on the Royals, the Provisional IRA had more lethal plans. These plans led to the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin, in 1979. What is less well known is that the Provos tried to assassinate the Queen on May 9, 1981, while she opened an oil terminal at Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands. Still, she kept smiling.

Somehow, she retained her composure through the following years. There were the marriages and divorces of her children to live through. There was the increasing trend in consequence for the mass media to treat the Royals as entertainment - a sort of upper-class soap opera. In the 90s, she was subject to considerable public pressure following the death of Princess Diana. It is said that she was pressurised into recording a broadcast eulogising the late princess. If that be true, it means she was subject to the same pressure many of us felt at the time. Put simply, it was described as "Disney meets the Blackshirts" - a populist command that "You SHALL mourn - or else". Anyone who did not share in the grieving for Diana was chided for hard-heartedness; shops were intimidated into closing on the day of the funeral; magazines, such as Private Eye, which were sceptical of what was an indulgent grief fest were withdrawn from sale in some shops.

I'm pleased to say that there has been no such oppressive atmosphere about the outpouring of grief for the Queen. It feels - at least to me - that expressions of sorrow and sympathy have been spontaneous, genuine and widespread across all sectors of society. It is to the eternal credit of Her Maj that she was seen as a symbol of unity. Here in the UK, she has been eulogised by politicians of all shades of political opinion. Both Welsh and Scottish Nationalist politicians have expressed their sympathy, as has Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter: 

"My thoughts are with the Queen’s family as they come to terms with their personal loss, as well as those here and around the world who will mourn her death".

That is very well said, and we need to appreciate that Her Maj was seen as a uniting factor in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. For example, Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand, said flags would fly at half-mast and arrangements would be made for a state memorial service.
“I know that I speak for people across New Zealand in offering our deepest sympathy to members of the royal family at the passing of the Queen,” said Ardern.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I myself have received sympathetic greetings from friends in the United States, echoing the words of US President, Joe Biden, who said of the Queen:  

“She defined an era. In a world of constant change, she was a steadying presence and a source of comfort and pride for generations of Britons, including many who have never known their country without her.”

The Queen's passing has even drawn sympathy from unexpected quarters. No less a politician than Vladimir Putin contacted the new king on Thursday, saying: 

"I wish you courage and perseverance in the face of this heavy, irreparable loss...I ask you to convey the words of sincere sympathy and support to the members of the royal family and all the people of Great Britain."

Another surprise expression of sympathy (at least surprising to me) came on Thursday from Mary Lou McDonald, leader of Sinn Fein: 

“To the royal family and all who mourn the death of Queen Elizabeth, especially Irish unionists, I extend sincere sympathy. She lived a long, full life. In her lifetime relationships between our countries were changed and changing. I salute her contribution to this transformation.”

We have lost a uniting influence, nationally and internationally, and we can only hope that Charles III can rise to the challenge of inspiring that same unity. After we have laid her Majesty to rest, and the King is in Buckingham Palace, we must return to problems where unity, national and international, is sorely needed. Back we go to the energy crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and war in Ukraine. As Ecclesiastes 1:5 has it: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose".

Life goes on...