The matter of the Iraqi interpreters is becoming something of a meme among British bloggers. Neil Clark’s morally bankrupt diatribe has managed to unite people from across the political spectrum in disgust. Curiously, while Neil rages against the neo-con right as the people campaigning for these translators, many of those involved are themselves opposed to the war and far from neo-cons. Unless Justin McKeating is now a neo-con? Did I miss something? I notice on reading the comments on on Neil’s own blog where he republishes the same article, that there is a continuation of this erroneous assumption. I repeat, just to be clear, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. It seemed pretty obvious to me at the time that the outcome would be a bloody and protracted guerilla war with the various internal factions all having a go at the invaders and each other. No, I am not a military expert – I can read history books. It’s a shame that Messrs Bush and Blair didn’t do likewise. However, now that our troops are there and there are civilians acting on their behalf in secondary roles, then those employing them owe a duty of care. To do otherwise would be immoral. Does that make me a neo-con? I don’t think so.
Anyway, Dan Hardie comments below and I’ll paste it here again:
Thanks for your support, but the best way to hurt this disgusting man Clark – and it will hurt him – is to write to your MP and request a change in policy. Links are below.
As a blogger, it would be great if you’d put a post up asking your readers to do that, and then put a second post up (yes, I know I’m asking a helluva lot) giving the MPs’ replies. So far every single letter written has led to MPs contacting the relevant Ministries: Defence, Foreign Office and above all the Home Office. This could work.
Talking points for a letter to MPs can be found on my site: http://danhardie.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/we-cant-turn-them-away/
Help with researching your MP is here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ Tim Ireland has a campaign video here: http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/08/you_know_the_dr.asp
Justin McKeating is keeping track of MPs responses here: http://www.chickyog.net/2007/08/07/we-can%e2%80%99t-turn-them-away-mps-response/
If this hurts Neil Clark, then all the better. I’ll certainly be letting you know how my MP responds.
On another note, Neil has been claiming that the backlash to his piece is an attempt at infringement of his right to free speech. The footnote to the same article republished on his own blog makes this complaint:
UPDATE: It seems those* so keen to spread freedom of speech and freedom of expression around the globe are not so keen on it at home.
*link doesn’t work
On the matter of free speech and the exercise thereof, Neil is entitled to say whatever he likes, no matter how repugnant or offensive and I support that right absolutely. Nowhere have I seen any suggestion that he cannot speak freely (I can’t speak for the broken link, though). However, what is happening here is a consequence of that freedom. If you say something that sickens ordinary, decent people who, unlike Clark, have a moral compass, don’t be too surprised if they condemn you as a consequence. All of which rather echoes his comments about the consequences of the choice made by the Iraqi interpreters – it’s just that the consequences of Neil’s article are rather less lethal than the choice made by the interpreters.
Neil has had his say, the rest of us are now having ours and we are repulsed by what can only be described as moral bankruptcy. If it is government policy to leave people who have acted in secondary roles during this campaign to certain torture and death; if – knowing this – they walk away, leaving those people to their fate, then that policy is wrong. To state that; well, they made their choice, too bad; is inhuman and unforgivable in a civil, civilised society.
This has nothing to do with libertarianism or authoritarianism; it has nothing to do with the politics of the left or the right; the pro-war or the anti-war factions; it is a matter of plain, simple humanity; of the difference between right and wrong. If we have no humanity then there is nothing that sets us apart from evil.
—————
Update: Okay, I’ve found the linked piece at Harry’s Place. Er, no, it does not attempt to infringe Clark’s freedom of speech. What it does do, is complain about the editorial policy that publishes an article glorifying mass murderers (no, they are not freedom fighters, they are murderers). David Brown, in complaining to the editorial team makes a valid point that the article is a reflection on the paper itself. Frankly, if I was an editor and Neil’s article landed on my desk, I would reject it. Rejection of an article – or calls for an editor to do so – do not constitute an infringement of free speech. No one is obliged to publish what we write – that doesn’t mean that we cannot publish it ourselves, or stand on the street corner and shout it through a megaphone. Neil is being disingenuous. He wrote a nasty article, he has been roundly and rightly criticised for it. It would seem that he cannot stand the heat.
Interestingly also, the Grauniad is, by Neil’s apparent standards, not such a fervent supporter of free speech either – they closed the comments on his article after just three hours…
That does rather suggest that they realised they had goofed. They really shouldn’t have published it – at least not without some severe editing.
Have to add this to the competition list. Neil clark comp at my place, that is.