Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Blair: Government Choice for President of Europe

"Brown backs Blair as British choice for President of Europe" is the headline for a piece in The Times. The news was given by Baroness Kinnock.

"The UK government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for President of the Council," Mrs Kinnock told journalists in Strasbourg today.
"I am not saying there has been any formal confirmation or statement from Tony but it is certainly is the Government's position. I am sure they would not do it without asking him."
She added: "Tony Blair is seen by many as someone who has the strength of character, the stature, people know who he is and he would be someone who would have this role and step into with a lot of respect and I think would be generally welcomed."

Apart from his grossly anti-life and anti-family policies when in office, I am not sure that many EU governments would want to be associated with the cause of so much destruction in Iraq.
John Smeaton has this take on the story:

Pro-life/pro-family supporters must make it clear to their political representatives that Mr Blair's nomination is totally unacceptable. People in the UK can contact their MP via Click here for my previous blogs on Tony & Cherie Blair and their anti-life/anti-family record. In particular, click here for a masterly analysis of the Obama-Blair anti-life/anti-family agenda to undermine both law and religion respectively.


big.benny said...

I'm sure the National Exhibition Centre (NEC) on the outskirts of Birmingham will prove to be a glorious venue, not! But it would hold a very large crowd.

nickbris said...

NO CHANCE While we are outside the Eurozone.

Independent said...

I thought the cause of so much destruction in Iraq was a gentleman called Sadam Hussein, who murdered almost a million of the citizens of his own state, who gassed the Kurds, slaughtered the Shiites, engaged in war with Iran, attacked Israel with Scud missiles,subsidised suicide bombers, enriched his family and built many palaces for himself.

Blair and George Bush, incidentally a great supporter of pro-life policies, removed a loathsome dictator. To blame Blair for the destruction in Iraq is a bit like blaming Chamberalain for the destruction in Europe during the Second World War.

However it would be most unfortunate if the President of the EU were to be so far from the ideals of the founders of the Common Market. They were French and German largely Catholic idealists like Schumann and Monet who believed in the family and would have regarded the very idea of abortion as abhorrent, uncivilised, and contrary to the traditions of Christian Europe.

gemoftheocean said...

Too bad the EU and the UN can't be pushed over a cliff.

Charles Ledwith said...

I think it’s fairly safe to call Tony Blair “the cause of so much destruction in Iraq”. Blair is a bloodthirsty war criminal, guilty of waging aggressive war (which is what the Nazis were charged with), use of illegal cluster bombs and chemical weapons (white phosphorus and napalm) against civilians. Sadam Hussein was indeed a tyrant. But the “oil for food programme” supported by Blair also killed half a million Iraqi children in the first few years of its operation. And since he began his illegal war over One Million Iraqi civilians have been killed. There are mass graves in Iraq that would not have been there but for Blair’s policy of pure evil.

The British army in Basra handed control of the city over to shiite cleric Al Sadr's Machti Army (a network of shiite death-squads), paying them money and freeing Machti prisoners (including people found torturing captors), in exchange for the British army’s safe passage to Basra Airport. (Remember? it was on BBC news!) These people are now engaged in a policy of blinding and killing female students at the local university for not wearing islamic fundamentalist hoods (or for behaving in a way they regard as unislamic). Blair would no doubt have sympathy for these monsters given that he has funded islamic fundamentalist schools in Britain who have the same policy on dress code for young girls. Iraq was the only islamic country where Christians could live in relative peace, with the right to practice their religion, now they are being raped and killed because of Butcher Blair’s murderous policy of flooding Iraq with savages that Sadam Hussein had the good sense to keep out.

Tony Blair may profess to be a Catholic, but he is an unrepentant war criminal. He should be standing before the War Crimes Court in The Hague. He supported the execution of Sadam Hussein, surely Blair too should face justice. And as for George Bush being “a great supporter of pro-life policies”, he is responsible for executing dozens of people in Texas (some, we now know, wrongly), and he supported the most brutal fascist dictatorships in the world (accepting that there’s a blood price for monetary profit, as capitalists tend to do) and there’s that little matter of the One Million dead Iraqis. Pro Life? I don’t think so!

Independent said...

Mr Ledwith -"War criminal, guilty of waking aggressive war". What law did Mr Blair infringe please? Are you aware that in English law people are judged innocent until proved guilty? So why do you assume guilt?

Most of the dead civilians in Iraq died as a result of the activities of those who did not wish to accept the result of an election judged by most observers as relatively free and fair.

Mr Bush has indeed refused to intervene in the cases of many judged by courts to have been worthy of execution. He may also have supported regimes of which Mr Lediwth employs the favourite left-wing boo word "fascist" ( this is so ill defined as to have become meaningless invective )and which Mr Ledwith declines to name. However he has always supported the cause of innocent life and opposed its destruction in the womb.

His successor while appeasing what Mr Ledwith probably thinks are the liberal benign regimes of Iran, China, and North Korea, is intent on safeguarding the right of those who wish to kill unborn children.

Charles Ledwith said...

‘Independent’ writes: “…while appeasing what Mr Ledwith probably thinks are the liberal benign regimes of Iran, China, and North Korea…”

That’s right! Make up views you can attribute to me, that’s much easier than presenting an actual argument or engaging with my actual views.

What Fascist states did Bush support? Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Burma, and Angola, amongst others, and don’t forget China , which fulfils all the conditions of a fascist state (lack of democracy, control of thought, a high degree of militarization, a fierce code of conformity and enforced ‘patriotism’ – not unlike the new EU and Bush’s America, I suppose). Bush has been a staunch supporter of China despite the forced abortions, forced sterilizations, disappearances, rapes and murders in Tibet, and in China itself. And don’t forget that every fascist dictatorship in South America was installed and defended by the USA. The only states in South America which George W. Bush has condemned were the ones where the state felt it had a duty towards helping the poor and elevating inequality. “Independent’s” view seems to owe far more to the Neo-liberal capitalism of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Enoch Powell, Richard Nixon, George Bush (and his dogsbody Blair) than from the Gospels. (Perhaps “Independent” should change his name to “Far Right”!) I’m really not in the mood to give remedial political science lessons to someone who holds the lives of non-whites in such a low regard; perhaps you should read some books! You can read about what makes a state fascist here:

Most deaths in Iraq were caused early on by saturation bombing early on. 700,000 died as the direct result of UK & US extermination. And many of the anti-democratic forces in favour of direct religious rule and who are now killing Christians and non-fundamentalist muslims were deliberately imported by the British & Americans after Sadam Hussein was deposed. (And ‘well done’ for not addressing anything in my second paragraph above about Britain’s loathsome conduct in the illegal Iraq war.)

‘Independent’ writes: “What law did Mr Blair infringe please? Are you aware that in English law people are judged innocent until proved guilty? So why do you assume guilt?”

There is no need to assume, there’s overwhelming proof. And just because the British state has little or no regard for justice it does not mean that Blair is any less a war criminal. It was admitted by Geoff Hoon that the British have used cluster bombs (after he first denied it, and was later presented with proof that they were used). This is a war crime under international law, as is the use of chemical weapons; this war crime too has been established as fact. So Blair is a War Criminal, even by the standards agreed to by the British state. Blair has not been tried yet for his crimes. But Cromwell was never tried for his policy of genocide in Ireland, yet we all know he was a mass murderer. Ronald Reagan was not tried for funding mass murder in Nicaragua, yet we know he did, and he was therefore a war criminal who went unpunished. No Americans ever stood trial for their use of nuclear weapons against civilians in World War II, but this was nonetheless a crime against humanity. Not all evil people face justice in worldly courts. I believe that the natural law takes absolute precedence over the law of the British state.

‘Independent’ writes: “However he has always supported the cause of innocent life and opposed its destruction in the womb.”

We’ve all seen the piles of bodies left after American saturation bombing at the height of the war. These piles included many bodies of babies and toddlers. Bush and Blair did not discriminate between the born and the unborn, nor between women who were pregnant and those who were not. No rational or compassionate person could ever claim that Bush was ‘pro-life’. Many Catholics actually care about these atrocities against the innocent, it is sad that some do not.

Charles Ledwith said...

The above link ends: george-w-bush-and-fascism.html

An excellent book presenting an argument that mass extermination of civilian populations by saturation bombing (such as that sanctioned by Blair) is always wrong, is: Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?, by philosopher A.C. Grayling.

Bush and Blair have been staunch supporters of China despite the torture, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, disappearances, rapes and murders in Tibet (and in China itself), and despite the concentration camps we now know exist there. The USA deposed the democratically elected President Aristide in Haiti, and imposed the dictator Bazan (who went on to kill tens of thousands), and for many years funded and supported atrocities and mass murder of civilians in Nicaragua (including nuns and priests), the list goes on. The US and the UK continue to support oppressive and tyrannical regimes around the world, remaining silent on the issue or trying to "Blair-out" the past because of Blair’s professed Catholicism is clearly not an act of compassion.

Furthermore, on the subject of Blair's relationship to Fascism, Blair overturned the 2007 British High Court decision to give the island of Diego Garcia back to its native inhabitants who had been illegally deported by the British in 1968 (to make way for an American military base). (Deporting a people from its homeland is now regarded internationally as a crime against humanity.) Blair then reversed the decision by an “order in council” (involving a direct undemocratic pronouncement by the English Queen), thus enshrining the crime against humanity in British law. How like Blair, genteel and vicious, all at once! This was the act of an anti-democratic ruler who fiercely opposes human rights for those outside his immediate gaze, and the tyrannical act itself is nicely dressed up in the quaint court ritual of an anti-democratic, imperial, and racist tradition. His lying about giving British citizens a referendum on The EU Constitution (and its twin the Lisbon Treaty) also amount to anti-democratic fascism.

The Lord’s descent into the underworld

At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...