Dominic Grieve, in plain old British parlance, is the man who bottled it.
His descent from being a different type of politician who was standing up for principles to plain old self-interested Tory MP was really quite unremarkable in the end. All it took was for a Tory whip to do some arm twisting. Dominic Grieve dumped his ‘rebel’ label with one fell swoop.
In an instant Dominic Grieve was a cause without the rebel. What his cause was in the end is best articulated in his own words because it makes no sense to Remainers whom he spectacularly let down. He said: ” We’ve managed to reach a compromise without breaking the government – and I think some people don’t realise we were getting quite close to that. I completely respect the view of my colleagues who disagree, but if we can compromise we can achieve more.”
How do you go from being a man of principle who spends hours and hours doing the rounds on political shows and in political dens trying to convince the Government that MPs should be able to vote on any Government motion if there was no deal before exit day on 29 March to a cop out? By being a Tory, that is how, who only has disdain for the principles of democracy.
Dominic Grieve’s rebel days are well and truly over. If he were to ever express contrary views again he would be in the running for the label of ‘the boy who cried wolf’ and this would be the most polite of labels bestowed upon him.
After having voted with the Government twice the closest, it seems, that Dominic Grieve will ever now come to being a rebel is when he crossed a police line.
Seven billion people inhabit planet Earth. Of those alive today, only a small number will leave a lasting impact. And only the very few will make decisions or take actions that renew their homeland and change the course of history.
History may appear to repeat iteself for generations. Cycles that seem to end. There have been times of relative peace and times of great tension.
While this cycle repeats, the light of prosperity and innovation has burned bright for most of the world.
History is always evolving and there comes a time when only a few are called upon to make a difference.
What difference will the few make? Out of the darkness can come the light and the light of hope can burn bright.
What is a people that share a common and rich heritage can find a common future? Their story is well known. But what will be their sequel?
Destiny Pictures presents a story of opportunity. A new story. A new beginning. Out of peace. Two men, two leaders, one destiny. A story about a special moment in time when a man is presented with one change that may never be repeated. What will he choose? To show vision and leadership? Or not?
There can only be two results: one of moving back, or one of moving forward.
A new world can begin today, one of friendship, respect and goodwill. Be part of that world, where the doors of opportunity are ready to be opened. Investment from around the world, where you can have medical breakthroughs, an abundance of resources, innovative technology and new discoveries.
What is? Can history be changed? Will the world embrace this change? And when will this moment in history begin?
It comes down to a choice, on this day, in this time, at this moment. The world will be watching, anticipating, hoping.
Will this leader choose to advance his country and be part of a new world? Be the hero of his people?
Will he shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has never seen? A great life, or isolation?
Maelo has been asking me all day to help her make sense of Trump’s meeting with a dictator held on the tiny island of Singapore which, apparently, many people had never heard of before but which Britain’s elite Brexiters want us to emulate post-Brexit.
Maelo has the flu and has been bed ridden for four days now. She keeps telling me that her “brain isn’t working” and wants me to interpret the world for her while she lies closeted and frustrated in her bedroom. Her questions and arguments normally spark thoughts and ideas within me but I was at a loss today to explain what Trump’s meeting with North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un, had been about.
Was the summit about making deals or foreign policy? Was it about real estate or world peace? Are Condos and hotels the new American export equivalent of Liberal Democracy? Is international relations now conducted along the lines of clairvoyancy because Trump declared that he would know within the first minute or so whether Kim was sincere in his efforts simply through touch and feel?
If Kim was sincere about denuclearization the question arises as to why he would give up the one thing that seems to hold the world in thrall to him? Would he not be just another puppet of China without all that arsenal? Or more of a puppet should I say?
Then there’s Trump’s sense of Alpha Male-ry which borders on Gorilla typesque diplomacy. Justin Trudeau who is seen as being as closest to God that a politician can be is called ‘meek and mild’ while Kim is a man of many ‘talents’ and loves his country. Trudeau would never let Canadians starve to death while Kim does it all the time without seemingly giving it a second thought. Trump, nevertheless, told us that Kim loves his country very, very much. Perhaps Kim would love his country more if his people died out and he was able to sell the land to Trump which may explain the references to ‘real estate’ by Trump. Also, how much ‘talent’ does it take, if any, to be the hereditary son of a dictator as Kim is? There is no art of politics involved is there when you simply command people to do your bidding?
Go figure. I couldn’t and took the easy way out by telling Maelo to look at Twitter and the Guardian live blog. When she was little and needed distracting I would turn the TV on. The modern equivalent is social media and the distraction ploy still works.
CNN has compiled a list of confusing Trump quotes which makes me feel so much better for not being able to make head or tail of it all today.
I was watching the Newsnight interview with Arundhati Roy regarding her views on how nationalism has been a potent force in encouraging the Indian rape culture. The brand of nationalism that is practised in India is extremely dangerous for the way that it cuts across class, caste, gender and age in commanding an uber sense of loyalty to religion. I contribute to ‘Feminism in India’ which is a leading South Asian feminist website. Below is an article which I wrote for the website after witnessing the masses of Indian nationals living in the UK who came out onto the streets in Westminster for Modi’s visit to London in April.
You could not have missed that Narendra Modi was in Central London for the hundreds of Indian men and women who turned out to either demonstrate in support of or remonstrate against him. Modi was attending the Commonwealth Heads Summit. In all my years of living in London I have never seen quite so many Indians crowded together in one area within London. Such is the power of Modi but it has attracted much controversy in the British press.
I went along to observe and report for Feminism in India. It was an experience that shook me and left me wondering whether there is any such thing at all as ‘Indian Values’ or have these, if they ever existed at all, been transmuted into ‘anti-women Cultural nationalism’.
I felt as if I had walked into a parallel universe. Both pro-Modi and anti-Modi groups were in attendance but situated a little distance away from each other. I happened upon the pro-Modi group first but it took me a few seconds to recognise this. The reason for my initial bewilderment was because this group consisted predominantly of women. They were full of defiant swagger and were chanting pro-Modi phrases.
Where was the recognition of the hostile environment that has been created by Modi’s politics which does not take paedophilia and rape seriously? Where were the banners calling for justice for Asifa? Instead there was merry making and music and colourful clothing that one could have been forgiven for wondering whether a wedding was taking place. Quite ironic considering that there are funerals taking place all over India for victims of rape and paedophilia.
The anti-Modi demonstration was, by contrast, much much smaller and serious. They held banners with Asifa’s photograph and against rape. There was no music and their mood subdued but concern over the level of rapes in India has been reflected in UK reporting.
If the numbers of women who turned out in support of Modi in London are anything to go by then Cultural nationalism is Indian feminism’s enemy. I don’t live in India and can only comment on what I saw in London.
I spent all day unravelling my long-held belief that Indian values equalled Liberal values. Perhaps my beliefs were far too subjective and devoid of evidence. There was so much to unpick. Little girls have been raped, tortured and murdered. Their relatives denied justice. The father of one rape victim was killed while in police custody. Having endured colonialism should South Asia not have a higher sense of justice? Even on a simple level of justice paedophilia should not be tolerated.
After a day of contemplation, I began to see quite clearly the causal connection between long-held Indian prejudices and the current anti-female dogma. The female value was demeaned right from decades ago when female babies were aborted without a hesitation. I remember ‘aunties’ talking about their selective abortions quite openly in my childhood.
Then there was the stigmatisation of women for not dressing in the right way. This fanned out to the use of ‘class’ as a dangerous cleavage between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ women. When girls from well-off families were raped they were referred to as ‘low class’. ‘Undeserving women’ were blamed for rapes and sexual violence, sometimes even for domestic violence. People turned a blind eye to so called ‘cultural practices’ of cruelty to daughters-in-laws.
Those who choose to ignore the plethora of wrong doings are foolish and naïve. In Nazi Germany, there was a Pastor called Martin Niemoller who railed against the German Intellectuals for not speaking up against Hitler. Niemoller’s ever famous phrase, “ …then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me” is part of a wider speech given about how society did not speak up for various persecuted groups as it happened till, finally, the silent were persecuted themselves.
Those who tolerate a lack of female justice take delight in the fact that they see themselves as belonging to some special cultural group which, they think, affords them a high level of protection. Their anti-female hatred is subsumed within Cultural nationalism. What they don’t realise is that any form of nationalism is an abstract concept. It is not material. In practical terms, what this means is that NO woman is safe while hatred against women prevails. When a woman who adheres to the dominant Cultural nationalistic fervour goes out she is just as easy a target as a woman who isn’t. (This, by the way, could apply to any anti-feminist of any race who thinks that the rape culture is contrived and overblown)