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...

Burma - While I Remember....

 It's strange how the focus of our attention can slip. Earlier this year, we, thanks to the media, were riveted by accounts of Putin's  invasion of  Ukraine. Now, unless we make the effort to read the specialist press, we have no idea how the fighting is going. Our media have other matters to concern them. If it sounds like I am finger-pointing, I have to own up to having taken my eye off the ball in one of the four countries where I identified a threat to democracy in 2019: Myanmar/Burma. Happily, if that's the right word, I was shaken out of my unawareness after receiving a copy of "Burma Campaign News", sent by the Burma Campaign, U.K. I confess to having cursorily read the magazine in the past; this time, I read with attention.

Conscious as we are, and rightly so, of the plight of civilians in Ukraine, it's disturbing to read of what has been inflicted on Burmese civilians by their own military, since the anti-democratic coup of 2021. Over 2,000 people have been killed and 700, 000 have been forced to flee. A particularly nasty aspect of the military's campaign has been the indiscriminate use of air power, especially against the ethnic Karen people. Here is one day's reporting of bombing against the Karen, with 28 airstrikes carried out near the Thai border:
"The Karen Human Rights Group said the footage obtained from the Thai side of the border appears to show air raids targeting a civilian area and reveals a drone conducting reconnaissance over a village before deploying military jets to bomb the area.
"28 Burmese military airstrikes in Dooplaya, Karen State today,” wrote Zoya Phan, the campaign manager at Burma Campaign UK. “Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas is a war crime. Time for the UK, EU, USA and international community to sanction aviation fuel a support referring Burma to the International Criminal Court.”

This is one of the key demands of the Burma campaign U.K. - that aviation supplies to the Burmese regime be stopped. Anyone wishing to support this campaign (as I now will) can find an online form HERE. If you explore the Burma Campaign website, you will find many similar petitions.

One facet of the Burmese military repression that has received international media attention is the persecution of  the Rohingya Muslim minority, which has been in full swing since 2017, before the military coup. Readers will be disgusted, if not surprised, to learn that our present Home Secretary, Liz Truss, has been slow to join the international condemnation of the genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. As the Burma Campaign UK says:

"On Friday 22nd July the International Court of Justice, known as the World Court, has ruled that a case on whether or not genocide was committed against the Rohingya will now proceed...
Despite calls for the British government to join the case, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss refuses to do so... The military have enjoyed impunity for decades, encouraging more violations of international law and the attempted military coup which began last year. Now, finally, an international court is hearing evidence of their crimes. But the British government is refusing to take part..."

Just how vicious the campaign against the Rohingya can be is here illustrated by one awful incident in 2018:

The picture above shows most of a group of 10 men captured by the Burmese military in September, 2018. They all have two things in common: they are Rohingya and about to die violent deaths. Away from the camera, Buddhist villagers, presumably neighbours to these men, are digging a shallow grave. 
Reuters continue the story: 

"Soon afterwards, on the morning of Sept. 2, all 10 lay dead. At least two were hacked to death by Buddhist villagers. The rest were shot by Myanmar troops, two of the gravediggers said.“One grave for 10 people,” said Soe Chay, 55, a retired soldier from Inn Din’s Rakhine Buddhist community who said he helped dig the pit and saw the killings. The soldiers shot each man two or three times, he said. “When they were being buried, some were still making noises. Others were already dead.”

And this, please note, is just one of thousands of crimes committed against the Rohingya in the Burmese military's campaign of genocide. One wonders what it would take to galvanise Liz Truss into action.

Lastly, it will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that the Myanmar Army has reintroduced capital punishment. Not, it would appear, for criminals, or their own murderous troops, but opponents of the regime. Amnesty International reports that Myanmar state media has announced four executions recently. Two of these executions were highly significant: 

"Phyo Zeya Thaw, a former member of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, and prominent democracy activist Kyaw Min Yu, also known as Ko Jimmy, were convicted of and sentenced to death by a military tribunal in January for offenses involving explosives, bombings and financing terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Law – charges that Amnesty International believes to be politically motivated."

No prizes are offered for guessing the real reason for those executions. At present, 114 prisoners in Myanmar await execution. The authorities, though, do not always observe such legal niceties. According to the Assistance Association  of Political Prisoners, over 500 people have been killed in detention sice the coup started. Even surviving political prisoners live in in harsh conditions.

I confess: my attention slipped and I took my eye off the ball with Burma. It won't happen in the future.

Salman Rushdie Stabbed - Another Attack on Free Speech

 

It has taken Islamist fanatics 34 years to catch up with Salman Rushdie, but, on Friday, one of them succeeded. The details of this horrific attack are well enough known. In a tranquil part of New York State, he was attacked on stage during a lecture, and received what are usually euphemistically described as "life-changing" injuries: a damaged liver, severed nerves in one arm and irreparable damage to one eye. The attacker, Hedi Mattar, of Fairview, New Jersey, also lashed out at the event organiser, Henry Reese,73. CNN reports that Mattar pleads not guilty to a charge of second degree murder:

" Matar, a New Jersey resident, also was charged with assault in the second degree, with intent to cause physical injury with a deadly weapon. Matar pleaded not guilty, according to Nathaniel Barone, his public defender. The attorney said Matar has been "very cooperative" and communicating openly, but he did not discuss the content of those conversations."

The fact that Mattar pleads not guilty is of interest; unless he pleads insanity, then it is a sign that he feels no guilt for his crime because he thought he was doing the right thing. He might even justify his actions by saying that he was executing the 34-year old fatwa placed on Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran, seen below.

As someone around at the time, I remember, only too well, the controversy that erupted over Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses", published in 1988. It was roundly condemned by Muslim elders at the time and was publicly burned in street demonstrations. Book shops in towns and cities with large Muslim populations never seemed to have copies on display. It got nastier. On February 14, 1989, the then-dying Ayatollah called for Rushdie's death. In a fatwa, which is a religious decree, and not, as some believe, a death sentence, Khomeini urged "Muslims of the world rapidly to execute the author and the publishers of the book" so that "no one will any longer dare to offend the sacred values of Islam.". France 24 continues:

"Khomeini, who was 89 and had just four months to live, added that anyone who was killed trying to carry out the death sentence should be considered a "martyr" who would go to paradise".

Some people took him up on that. On September 14, four bombs were placed outside Penguin bookshops in Britain. On July 3, 1991, Ettore Capriolo, Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was beaten and attacked with a knife in his Milan flat by a man thought to be Iranian. Then, on July 12, 1991, the Japanese translator of the book, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed to death in Tokyo by an unknown attacker. We can only be glad that there were no more violent attacks - at least related to Salman Rushdie - until now.

Pausing to reflect on this, it occurs to me that this must all seem very bizarre to people who were either very young, or not even born, when the book was first published. I'm prepared to bet that a high proportion of such people have never even heard of Rushdie, the fatwa or The Satanic Verses. Why, they might ask, was there such a fuss over a book? And that's worth considering...

Geoffrey Robertson QC, defended Rushdie in  a now-forgotten blasphemy case brought against his client. Robertson in The Guardian says that a private prosecutor issued a summons against Rushdie to try and get him to appear in court at the the Old Bailey. It was rejected, wisely. Rushdie's appearance could have led to rioting. What is of interest here is that the charges against Rushdie summarise Muslim objections to The Satanic Verses. Robertson shows that the book is not an invitation to apostasy (anathema to Islamists) by showing how the two leading characters in the book are confused by Western culture. One returns to his roots, the other kills himself. I have to quote Mr Robertson at length here, where he details his refutation of the charges brought by his client's accusers..

"Our opponents could in the end only allege six blasphemies in the book, and each one was based either on a misreading or on theological error:

God is described in the book as "The Destroyer of Man". As He is similarly described in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, especially of men who are unbelievers or enemies of the Jews. 

The book contains criticisms of the prophet Abraham for his conduct towards Hagar and Ismael, their son. Abraham deserves criticism and is not seen as without fault in Islamic, Christian or Jewish traditions. 

Rushdie refers to Muhammad as "Mahoud". He called him variously "a conjuror", "a magician" and a "false prophet". Rushdie does nothing of the sort. These descriptions come from the mouth of a drunken apostate, a character with whom neither author nor reader has sympathy.

The book grossly insults the wives of the Prophet by having whores use their names. This is the point. The wives are expressly said to be chaste, and the adoption of their names by whores in a brothel symbolises the perversion and decadence into which the city had fallen before it surrendered to Islam.

The book vilifies the close companions of the Prophet, calling them "bums from Persia" and "clowns", whereas the Qur'an treats them as men of righteousness. These phrases are used by a depraved hack poet, hired to pen propaganda against the Prophet. They do not represent the author's beliefs.

The book criticises the teachings of Islam for containing too many rules and seeking to control every aspect of everyday life. Characters in the book do make such criticisms, but they cannot amount to blasphemy because they do not vilify God or the Prophet."

Geoffrey Robertson, and by extension his client, Salman Rushdie, won the case. If I am ever in court for libel, I hope Mr Robertson represents me. Thanks to their success in this case, the crime of blasphemy was abolished. Sadly, it did not lead to a lifting of the fatwa, and a price (said to be 6 million US dollars, or equivalent) is still out on Rushdie's head. Hedi Mattar, presumably, was hoping to collect. Logically, the book is proven not to be blasphemous, but that will not matter to fanatics. Even though all of their allegations are proven to be false, they will carry on believing them - and they have done, as this awful attack demonstrates. It is thought that Ayatollah Khomeni had not read "The Satanic Verses". Neither, I suspect, has Hedi Mattar, nor any of the other fanatics around the world, especially in Iran. The expression "dying of ignorance" takes on a whole new meaning in this context.

I think now that we can look back at the book's publication and the fatwa as the beginning of Islamist terrorism, which was further inflamed by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The road to 9/11,7/7 and the London Bridge attacks began in 1988.

Ironically, I bought the book after the fatwa was issued - or rather because of it. Unfortunately, I found it unreadable and gave up two-thirds of the way through. I'm told that was quite common. 

The latest news of Salman Rushdie is that he is off his ventilator and talking. I can only send him my best wishes. I can't remember what happened to my original copy of the book, but, out of solidarity with Salman Rushdie and all victims of terrorism, I intend to buy the book again.

As We Face the Final Showdown...

 

As Ragtime Cowboy Boris does his Terminator impression, and rides off into what is sure to be a well-heeled sunset (at least for him), we who are glad to see the back of him are left with an unwanted legacy of two lacklustre candidates for prime minister who face a final duel on TV tonight. I'm sure that some people can't wait.

As one of the many who don't give a rap who wins, be it Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak, and would like to see the Conservative party booted out of office tomorrow, I thought it a good idea to remind myself, and readers, of just what a pair of lummoxes Rishi and Liz are. First, let's look at what they have in common - in other words common reasons why we should dislike them. The estimable Adrian Ramsay, of the Green Party, has summarised these reasons admirably: 

“Both have voted for cuts to welfare benefits, against free school meals and for harsher asylum policies. And both seem more interested in pandering to the fossil fuel lobby and climate sceptics in their own ranks than actually addressing the climate crisis. A pledge on committing to net zero by 2050 had to be extracted from them under duress... we need a politics of compassion towards the most vulnerable in society, not a competition in nastiness."

All valid, but there is more to be said, so let's examine the cases of both candidates separately.

Speaking for myself, I think that Liz Truss would be bad for the UK as she can't seem to be able to open her mouth without putting her foot in it. One major blunder of hers was to denigrate her old school in Leeds, which has drawn withering criticism from a number of sources. One such critique came from Martin Pengelly in The Guardian, who attended the same school. He writes: 

"... when we were at Roundhay, Conservatives controlled education policy and spending, and how when the school was rebuilt, Labour did. The history of the school’s official rating also tells such a tale, from “satisfactory” under the Conservatives to “outstanding” under Labour.
Still, this is not 1992 or 2002 or even 2012. It is 2022, when the candidates to lead the Conservative party of Boris Johnson seem untroubled by truth. Truss left Roundhay in 1993. I left in 1996. Simply put, we were both taught well by the same good teachers, from whose work I have benefited every single day since I left the school – as I am sure Truss has too."

And, as has been reported, Ms Truss has not always been a Tory. It has already been noted that she was once a Libdem member who, as Wikipedia says:

"She was president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats and a member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students. She expressed republican sentiments in a speech at the 1994 Liberal Democrat Federal Conference, stating: "I agree with Paddy Ashdown when he said, 'Everybody in Britain should have the chance to be a somebody', but only one family can provide the head of state... we believe in referenda on major constitutional issues; we do not believe people should be born to rule, or that they should put up and shut up about decisions which affect their everyday lives"."

Ah well, ex-poachers make the best gamekeepers, don't they?

More worrying, at least for me, has been her impetuosity, as our Foreign Secretary, in speaking out provocatively on sensitive matters.

Hopefully, we all agree that the war in Ukraine requires the utmost diplomatic skills of our politicians. If we do , then consider this from Liz Truss in February, as reported by the BBC:

"Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has said she supports individuals from the UK who might want to go to Ukraine to join an international force to fight.
She told the BBC it was up to people to make their own decisions, but argued it was a battle "for democracy".
She said Ukrainians were fighting for freedom, "not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe".

Actually, I don't disapprove of these sentiments, but, at such a critical time, moderation in language would have been the correct note to strike.

Private Eye, that underrated organ, points out that Rishi Sunak has some interesting questions to answer about his business dealings in the past. There is, for starters, his wife's offshore fortune. As The Eye says, there is also his "tax-efficient jingoism" which led our boy in 2019 to say, on the campaign trail,  that he got into politics because he loved his country. He didn't mention his non-domiciled status, his US green card, to which he only admitted earlier this year.

But most of all, there is widespread resentment (justified, I believe) about the face that Sunak is coming from such a wealthy background. His wife, Akshata Murthy, is singled out for attack here, As the BBC says: 

"Ms Murty received £11.6 million of income from the company ( a company based in India) last year.But because of her status as a 'non-dom', Ms Murty didn't have to pay tax on this money to the UK government. The BBC estimates she would have avoided £2.1m a year in UK tax.
While this is her right to do so - some people are upset with Mr Sunak as a result.
This is because many people feel it's unfair that Mr Sunak and his family are benefitting from not paying tax while asking lots of people in the UK to pay tax, at a time when there is a big rise in the cost of living".

And these are the people that Boris has left to govern us. Some people think that this will facilitate his return to power. Let's hope that it enables a Labour landslide.

Abortion Rights - the USA and Beyond

 

Like many people, including the President of the United States, I was shocked and dismayed at the decision of the US Supreme Court in the overturning of the Wade v Roe (or is it Roe v Wade?) judgement. By ruling in favour of Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks, it has effectively ended the constitutional right to an abortion for millions of US women. Anti-abortion states are now able to ban the procedure.  Half of the 50 US states are thought to be preparing to introduce fresh restrictions or prohibitions. As might be expected, this has given huge satisfaction to the anti-abortion lobby in the USA and caused deep anger among Americans who are pro-choice.

I send full support to the pro-choicers in the USA, and will return to them later. What concerns me, as a UK resident, is the international fallout that will inevitably follow this retrograde step. It has been roundly condemned by politicians worldwide, including President Biden, ex-president Barack Obama, the United Nations, the head of the World Health Organisation, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson. It is thought that it could affect abortion provision in Third World countries. As Devex says: 

"This will be seen as a “first step” to “further erode access to abortion, using some of the same tactics,” Alexandra Johns, the executive director of the Asia Pacific Alliance for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, told Devex".

And - of course - millions of people who support women's rights and the right to abortion were deeply dismayed. I can cope, but the same cannot be said, to give just one example, for  a poverty-stricken woman with an unwanted pregnancy in Mexico City who could now be denied a legal abortion thanks to a resurgent anti-abortion movement. Illegal abortions may well rise in number in the USA and other places.

But not everyone abroad condemned the ruling. Here in the UK, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) expressed a view shared publicly by the Vatican and many other "Pro-Life" bodies:

"SPUC’s Michael Robinson, Executive Director (Public Affairs and Legal Services), said: “This is a momentous day for justice, the rule of law and, most of all, for the US unborn and their mothers. In the face of violence, intimidation and disgraceful European Parliament interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation, the US Supreme Court has rightly ruled in favour of the US Constitution. Justice has prevailed".

Elsewhere, SPUC go on to say:

"SPUC’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) John Deighan said: “This is a monumental day for justice, the rule of law and, most of all, for the US unborn and their mothers...Given the extreme violence displayed by pro-abortion advocates in the weeks since the draft decision was leaked, and the increasing vilification of pro-lifers in the UK, the public can see how the violence of abortion can go hand in hand with political violence."

I'd forgotten about SPUC - such is their impact upon wider society. The last time I heard of them was back in the 70s, when marchers on a pro-Choice demo I attended wore "SPUC Off!" t-shirts. Their gloating is obvious, but their facts are questionable. Mr Robinson's claim that the Supreme Court's decision was a day for justice is highly dubious. The fact that ex-President Trump placed anti-abortion judges on the panel is manipulation, not justice. Had Trump appointed pro-Choice judges, we would have heard a different story from Mr Robinson and SPUC.

Deighan's claim that pro-lifers had been subjected to violence is laughable when it is recalled that pro-Life groups have committed murders (note the irony) of eleven abortion clinic staff members, including doctors, and carried out many criminal assaults. Just about every abortion clinic in the USA is picketed daily by aggressive anti-abortion groups; some of these groups have carried out arson attacks against those clinics. As the US channel, ABC News, said in June; 

"Melissa Fowler, chief program officer at National Abortion Federation, said that NAF found that abortion clinics are not facing peaceful protests, but rather a “coordinated campaign” that threatens abortion providers".

Abortion is a topic that I have studiously avoided in the years since we started this blog. This is not just because it is a sensitive subject anyway, but because I have friends and family that hold different views to me on the subject. I do not want to upset them by what I have to say, but, given the present situation, my conscience demands that I speak out. The fact is that abortion is a subject over which there can be no satisfactory compromise. As a pro-Choice advocate, I believe that abortion is a natural human right for all women, guaranteed in legislation and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Amnesty International says: 

" It is a basic healthcare need for millions of women, girls and others who can become pregnant. Worldwide, an estimated 1 in 4 pregnancies end in an abortion every year."

AI go on to say that women have abortions all the time, no matter what the law says. That is certain; outlawing abortion only drives it underground. Criminalising abortion, say Amnesty, only makes abortions less safe. This is true. Before abortion was legalised in the UK in the 1960s, women resorted to back-street abortionists whose methods were highly unsafe - sometimes lethally so.

That's my view, but I have to accept and pay due respect to the fact that for most anti-abortionists, this is not a matter of human rights, but a matter of religion.

Yes, the people in the picture above are on their knees. They are part of a Christian picket outside a UK abortion clinic, and they are praying for that clinic, and all other abortion clinics, to be closed down. I do not doubt the sincerity of those people, or others like them, but I know from experience that their arguments against abortion rights are often badly thought out and over-emotional. I'd like to give three examples of Christian pro-Lifers airing their views, two Roman Catholics and one Anglican, all taken from several decades and all memorable for what was said.

CASE ONE: Way back in the 1960s, just after abortion was legalised in the UK, a very nice and devout RC lady decided to tackle me on the subject of abortion. The conversation went something like this:

Lady: I don't know why you agree with abortion, Geoffrey, it's murder!

Me: Why?

Lady: My church says so.

Me: But not everyone is a member of your church.

Lady: It's still murder!

Me: But on what grounds do you describe it as murder?

Lady: Because my church says so.

CASE TWO: This happened in the noughties in  a school where I was teaching. One teacher, a very nice man and, as in Case One, a devout Catholic, was discussing the then poor performance of the England cricket team. He insisted that it was all the fault of legalised abortion, as the number of babies lost to us since abortion was legalised meant that England had fewer cricketers to choose from.

CASE THREE: In a recent Facebook exchange, an Anglican friend declared his opposition to abortion by saying:

"I know tremendous people of my age who may well have been aborted if their mothers had been subjected to the social pressures that young or unmarried potential mums face today. I want them (i.e. unborn children) to be protected from summary execution!"

I don't want to comment on any of these three cases, as I think they speak for themselves of their lack of logic and over-emotionalism. Sadly, I think it shows that the differences between the opposing views on this topic are fundamentally irreconcilable. My last personal comment is to say that no-one is compelled to have an abortion against their will. It is, as said, a matter of choice.

Lastly, however, we must return to the USA, where the fight for abortion rights is heating up, and could well become nasty, if not downright violent. I send support to all in the US who believe that a woman's body is her own, but extend a warning: the real force behind the Supreme Court ruling - Donald Trump - is planning a return to the White House for a second term as president. He and his supporters will regard the overturning of Wade v Roe as a victory. Should Trump become president again, further reactionary measures will follow. We have been warned.

Gun Violence - an International Disease

 

     Image created by Neville Grundy. Thanks, Nev.                                       

The late Malcolm Muggeridge once said that Americans behave like an invading army in their own country, going on to comment that, among other things, they slaughter each other wholesale with firearms. The Uvalde school massacre, which happened only a few days ago on the 24th, would seem to bear this out. And who could argue against forming such a despairing verdict? The details of the atrocity are horrific enough. As the BBC says:

 "The attacker (Salvador Ramos) shot dead 19 students and two teachers, and injured at least 17 more people. Further tragedy struck two days later, when the husband of one of the murdered teachers died of a heart attack".

This attack has once again highlighted the appalling phenomenon of repeated mass shootings in the USA.  As of last Tuesday, there have been 212 such attacks this year, This is using the criterion of a mass shooting as being an incident in which four or more people were shot or killed, excluding the shooter.  Among these 212 attacks, there were 27 school shootings. The NPR website expands on this: 

"As for school shootings, according to Education Week, 2021 had 34 such incidents at educational institutions (the highest since the organization started its database). In 2020, there were 10 shootings. Both 2019 and 2018 recorded 24 shootings".

Living in a country which has only ever experienced one such atrocity - the Dunblane School massacre of 1996, these attacks set the mind reeling.  Even more staggering is it to be reminded of just how prevalent death by firearm is in America. The BBC comments: 

"Firearms deaths are a fixture in American life.There were 1.5 million of them between 1968 and 2017 - that's higher than the number of soldiers killed in every US conflict since the American War for Independence in 1775."

By no means should we think that people in the United States are complacent about these horrifying occurrences. Even today, there are angry voices of protest being raised against the ease with which guns can be purchased. For me, sadly, it brings a feeling of Deja vous. This horrible crime at Robb Elementary School brings memories of "Bowling for Columbine"  (Click link to watch whole film). This 2002 documentary looked at the events of  April 20,1999, when two teenagers shot dead 15 people and wounded 21 more at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The film maker, Michael Moore, was rightly praised and won an Oscar for his efforts to portray the events, causes and consequences of the massacre. One significant moment, at least for me, was the dialogue between Moore and the father of a boy who had died in the slaughter. They were discussing why it was that such attacks were so frequent in the USA: "What is it?" "What is it?". After first seeing the film in 2005, I had some hopes that the coverage in depth of this tragedy might lead to less of these atrocities. As events have shown, my hopes were misplaced. Following the Uvalde attack, Michael Moore is calling for the abolition of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution - the clause revered by US gun lovers.

By a strange coincidence, the main opposition group to gun control in the USA - the National Rifle Association - features in both narratives. Shortly after the Columbine attacks, the NRA held a conference in Denver, Colorado, addressed by Charlton Heston. On Friday, the same organisation held a conference in Houston, Texas, this time addressed by ex-President Trump. Both these events showed stunning callousness and tactlessness on the part of the NRA. Trump showed unbelievable, if predictable, indifference to the suffering of the relatives of the victims at Robb Elementary School by saying, as CNBC reported:

“The existence of evil in our world is not a reason to disarm law-abiding citizens,” Trump said at the NRA convention. “The existence of evil is one of the very best reasons to arm law-abiding citizens.”

If Trump's logic were valid, the USA would be one of the safest countries on the planet. It is nothing of the kind, as the high gun crime figures quoted above clearly show, Whether Trump and the NRA like it or not, there is an undeniable link between those crime figures and gun ownership. One glance at the BBC chart above shows that the US has the highest ratio of gun ownership in the world: 120.5 firearms per 100 residents. The chart relates to 2018, but experts say that millions more US citizens have acquired guns since then. Quite how Trump and the NRA can assert that evil is being deterred, when all the evidence is against it, beggars belief. The mass shootings, and the daily toll of people shot in single victim gun attacks (estimates put it as high as 60 a day) prove them wrong. Yet, even among onlookers at the Uvalde school massacre, there were voices raised saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's difficult to feel optimistic that gun control will happen in America any time soon.

While, rightly, we focus upon these terrible events on the US mainland, it is only fair that we look at gun violence as an international phenomenon. Liberal gun laws in some US states are causing America's gun problem to be exported. The recipient countries are, for the most part, America's Central American neighbours. As Ioan Grillo wrote in The Guardian last year: 

"An iron river of illegal guns flows from the US to Mexico, Central America, and across the hemisphere, helping make the Americas the world’s most homicidal region, with 47 of the world’s 50 most murderous cities".

And, as Grillo goes on to say, this state of affairs has serious repercussions for the United States:

"Thousands flee violence in the Northern Triangle of Central America - Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala – and seek asylum in the US, adding to the pressure of undocumented migrants."

For a worldwide perspective, we can turn to the "Gun Violence - Key Facts" document, published by Amnesty International. Five sobering facts stand out:

"More than 500 people die every day from gun violence.
44% of all homicides globally involve gun violence.
There were 1.4 million firearm-related deaths globally between 2012 and 2016.

An estimated 2,000 people are injured by gunshots every single day
At least 2 million people are living with firearm injuries around the globe".

The document points out the fact that the American NRA and others choose to deny: 

"Easy access to firearms – whether legal or illegal – is one of the main drivers of gun violence".

The report further goes on to say that in countries with strict gun controls, i.e. much of Western Europe including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the rate of gun violence is extremely low.

Now, as we know, handgun ownership in the UK was curtailed after the Dunblane School massacre of 1996. The only politician of any note who has expressed an interest in reversing the ban was none other than Nigel Farage, back in 2014, when he was the leader of UKIP. Perhaps the best voice to close this blog item is that of Mick North, whose 5-year old daughter, Sophie, was one of the 16 children killed in the Dunblane Massacre:

"Following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida in 2018, I wrote a speech which included the following lines: “We’re always being told of America’s love affair with the gun, yet from over here it looks more like an abusive relationship, one that causes too much pain, misery and death. Seize the opportunity and change that relationship now, and allow your children to look towards a safer future.”

Amen.

.

Man Leaves Wife - Tabloids' Xenophobic Frenzy

 

Sadly, marriage breakup happens all too often, and there's nothing new about men leaving their families to set up with a new partner. The couple in the photo are a case in point. The man is Tony Garnett, a 29-year old security guard, married with two children, and the girl in his arms is his new love, 22-year old Sofiiya Karkadym. As there is, alas, nothing new in such events in our society, you might think that nothing more need be said about such a common occurrence.

Not so - it has been reported on in great detail by the British tabloid press and, to my astonishment, even in some US papers. Were both these lovers British, it would not make the small print of a local newspaper. What makes this matter different is the fact that Sofiiya is Ukrainian - a refugee fleeing the war in her homeland and taken in by a British family. This makes her an ideal target for the hyped-up and hypocritical moral outrage of our tabloid press. Tony Garnett's wife, Lorna, told the Sun on Sunday:

  “I had my reservations at first about ­taking a refugee into our home — who wouldn’t?We were bringing a stranger into our house to live with us...And this is how Sofiia repaid me for giving her a home".

I do not propose to dwell on the details of this tragic state of affairs. Anyone who feels this to be unfair can read the Daily Mail account (much of it lifted from the Sun) or the Mirror. The real issue here is the way the tabloids are appealing to the xenophobia in their readers - especially the Daily Mail. It doesn't take much imagination to imagine the reaction of Daily Mail readers, or "White Van Man" , as we call such ignorant, right-wing bigots: "Bloody Ukrainians...comin' over 'ere...breaking up families...why do we let 'em in, eh?". 

This is a classic example of tabloid smear tactics: find one situation involving a Ukrainian that has gone wrong, and thus confirm the  "bloody foreigners" prejudice of their readers. Why worry about the repercussions for the people involved in this matter, as long as the story boosts circulation? Why care about the fact that Sofiiya and Tony could well face public opprobrium and hostility? Why be concerned for the embarrassment caused to Lorna Garnett and her two children by bringing such attention on their already melancholy situation? Why bother about the fact that racists and bigots can seize on this case as ammunition to vilify all Ukrainians? Such questions, as we might expect, are merely rhetorical, as the main aim of the Mail, Mirror, Sun and Express is to sell newspapers. Scandal, flavoured with xenophobia, is always good for business.

However, this unfortunate affair has illustrated one very important thing that we all know about already: the double standards of the tabloids. While they write with such concern and moral rectitude about the conduct of the working-class Tony Garnett, it is amazing (not to say disgusting) how they have displayed no such outrage about Partygate or the infuriatingly slow publication of the Sue Gray report. Then there is the fact that immorality, adultery and other illicit sexual behaviour is not the exclusive province of the working class. Have we forgotten?...

The Duke, the Nazis and Channel Four

 

There have been stories about Edward VIII and his links with the Nazis for years. I first read of them back in the 1970s in Socialist Worker. It didn't surprise me. Not that I knew with any certainty at that point, of course, but I'd always instinctively doubted the tragic, romantic story, much of it propounded by the Windsors themselves, of the 326-day king who had renounced the throne of Britain to be with the woman he loved. It all sounded too good to be true - and it was. Then there was the sad aftermath. According to the legend. Edward VIII morphed into the Duke of Windsor and lived his life in exile, faithfully serving his country during WW2 as Governor of the Bahamas. His wife, Wallis Simpson and Duchess of Windsor, again according to this long-refuted legend, was spurned by the Royal family and watched her husband's state funeral from a window, June 5, 1972.

As I said, later in the 70s, the true nature of the Duke, his wife and their pro-Nazi sympathies became better known. A great deal of incriminating material has become available since then , but books, films, radio programmes, etc,  about the Royal family bore me stiff, so I didn't follow the story closely. This change for me came after watching a recent Channel Four documentary based upon a new book by Andrew Lownie: "Traitor King". Mr Lownie is to be congratulated on having written a very well-researched book which convinces me that "Eddy" was indeed a traitor who should have been tried for treason - even Daily Mail readers  who saw the programme think that. Let's look at the main charges first.

Lownie is admirably clear in his condemnation of the Windsors and their pro-Nazi sympathies before and during WW2. Previous writers on this topic have portrayed them as dupes. Lowrie refutes this, saying:  

“The argument of this book is that there is plenty of evidence … that the Windsors were not foolish and naïve, but actively engaged with the German intrigues.”

As we know, prior to the King's abdication in 1936, there was a good deal of sympathy for him from supporters who wanted him to stay on as monarch. One such supporter was Winston Churchill - although he later revised his opinion of "Eddie". There were supporters beyond the corridors of power, some of whom are seen in the picture below.

Oswald Moseley and his Blackshirts were loyal friends to Eddie. During the Abdication Crisis, they would chant "Stand by the King" on their marches. As might be expected, the main Fascist leaders, Hitler and Mussolini, looked upon Eddie with favour, even before he became king. 

The admiration was mutual. The Windsors made a well publicised visit to Nazi Germany in1937. Lownie quotes Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, as saying: 

  "It's a shame he is no longer king. With him we would have entered into an alliance". 

During a visit to Dusseldorf, the Windsors visited a miners' hospital and - unbelievably - a concentration camp. Lownie quotes a companion of the Windsors as saying:

"We saw this enormous concrete building which, of course, I now know contained inmates. The duke asked "What is that?". Our host replied, "It is where they store the cold meat".

It's not known whether the Windsors understood that sick joke, but even if they didn't, they were unlikely to have disapproved. Lownie yet again: 

"The Duke was strongly pro-German...telling Diana Moseley, "Every drop of blood in my veins is German".

After WW2 began, the Duke was given the post of liaison officer to the French 1st Army. This gave him insight into the weaknesses of the Allied defences. Eddie then, consciously or (much less likely) not, revealed the weaknesses in the Allied defences to a pro-Nazi American friend, Charles Bedeaux, who then, on business trips to Holland, divulged this information to the German Ambassador who, in turn, passed the information to Berlin. When the Germans launched their offensive in May, 1940, they attacked in the sectors where the Duke had identified weak points. 

As the Germans approached Paris, the disloyal couple made a tardy escape to the Iberian peninsula, where, while Britain endured hardship and rationing, they lived a life of luxury. From the outset of their stay, Eddie had contacts with German agents and leading figures in the the Francoist regime. The Spanish foreign minister wrote to Franco, after a conversation with the Duke:

"He (Eddie) throws all the blame (for the war) on the Jews and the Reds and Eden...all of whom he would have liked to put up against a wall".

A Spanish diplomat, quoted here by Katrina Urbach,  reported that Eddie wanted to see England bombed:

"In another conversation on June 25 1940 Bermejillo reported that Windsor stressed if one bombed England effectively this could bring peace...He wants peace at any price".

The intelligence services were well aware of the duke's wavering loyalty to the Allied cause and sent an agent to shoot the Duke and Duchess if the Windsors attempted to defect.  The Germans launched an operation of their own: "Operation Willi", designed to lure the Duke into fleeing to Germany to become a sort of Quisling king-in-waiting. British intelligence got wind of this and hurried the Windsors away to the Caribbean, much to Hitler's chagrin. Coincidentally (or not), the day the Windsors sailed from Lisbon, Hitler ordered the bombing of Britain to begin.

The grossest act of betrayal is a “killer telegram” of 15 August 1940, in which the Duke - now on his way to the Bahamas - asked his Portuguese friend (and an agent for the Germans) to send a code word as soon as his return to Europe was required. The suggestion is that he was complicit in a scheme to be installed as a puppet ruler in Britain after a negotiated peace. As the Duke knew that his friend was a German agent, that proves him guilty of treachery. Communicating with the enemy was a capital offence, but, strangely, no arrests were made.

The Duke's anti-Semitism did not perish with the Third Reich, nor did his predilection for Fascists vanish. Oswald Moseley was a frequent house guest at the Windsors' home in post-war Paris. Other guests were treated to anti-Semitic outbursts, such as this, quoted by Lownie:

"On one occasion the Duke took a lady guest's hand in his and "closing her fingers together, enclosed her hands over them. The Duke continued..."The Jews had Germany in their tentacles. All Hitler tried to do was free the tentacles". With that, he released the lady's hands"

We could leave our discussion of the book there, but...

...the book points to more details about this couple. Besides their co-operation with the Nazis, Lownie paints an uncompromising picture of a thoroughly unpleasant pair. They were clearly foolishly extravagant and ungrateful to their hosts. As Marcus Field remarks in his review of the book in the Evening Standard, after the Duke left England in 1936, he stayed ...

"... initially for four months as a guest at a castle belonging to Baron Rothschild in Austria where he waited for Wallis Simpson’s divorce to be finalised (she stayed in France). A pattern was immediately established, with bills for the Duke’s shopping and £800 in phone calls charged to his host. When Kitty Rothschild gave him Cartier studs for Christmas, the Duke reciprocated with a signed photo of himself."

Nor was the Duke's racism confined to Jews. Lownie quotes from a report that the Duke sent to Churchill in 1942:

"...negroes in the mass are still children mentally and morally...liberal socialistic ideas of freedom and equality regardless of race or colour may sound fine theoretically, the forcing of the theories are...both premature and dangerous as far as the Western hemisphere is concerned..."

The Windsors left a lot to be desired as employers also. The book lists a number of examples of loyal staff who were summarily dismissed without explanation - sometimes after decades of service.

Then there is the murky affair of the murder of Sir Harry Oakes on Bermuda in 1943, while the Duke was serving as governor. This is a complex matter, but Lowrie points out that the man arrested and tried for the crime - Count Alfred de Marigny - had "history" with the Duke which led to Marigny's arraignment for murder. Marigny was cleared of the crime and this rebounded on the Duke. As Lownie comments, this was:

"...a disaster for the Duke, showing his lack of authority and judgement and revealing how he had tried to frame an innocent man"

For those interested, Lownie looks at the long-established speculation about the Windsors' sexuality and  their extra-marital "diversions". Personally, I can't see the relevance, but Lownie makes a point of asking if they were actually both gay, citing a number of sources from psychiatrists to Noel Coward, who said of the Duke:

"I'm queer and he's queer but, unlike him, I don't pretend not to be".

The problem with this is that there is no proof offered as to the Duke having gay relationships, nor did any of his previous mistresses reveal anything amiss in his sexual activities. What cannot be denied is that the Duchess had a very public affair with a younger man called Jimmy Donahue, who was openly gay. Lownie here gives way to gossip, and distracts us from the main point, which is that the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathiser and a traitor to his country. I think Lownie has established that - at least to my satisfaction - and I recommend this book to anyone interested in the Royal Family, WW2, espionage, or all three.

Now, I am well aware that many people will say that they are not interested in the antics of the Windsors and see no point in either watching the documentary or reading the book. I accept this, but would respectfully remind such people of the title of this blog item. The documentary was screened on Channel Four, which has a sterling reputation for challenging, hard-hitting programmes. The Channel byline is: "Challenge your thinking with documentaries on Four". Not if Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has her way. If she succeeds, C4 will be privatised, and we won't see documentaries like "Traitor King" any more. If you oppose this, please click on THIS LINK.

And, if you are interested, read the book!