Bigots and Bigotry

The definition of a bigot is given as follows:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.

I suppose that definition means that at any given time, we can all be bigots. Our country has many serious bigots in areas of colour, religion and politics. It seems that Gordon Brown has dubbed a woman who was stubbornly asking an awkward question, a 'bigoted woman'. Maybe he is right, but then also by definition, so is he! I have no doubt that this exchange will be played and replayed many times over, and even when the election is over.

We have to be careful who we call a bigot, and who we point at. The old description of pointing is true, when we point a finger, there are another three pointing back at ourselves. The fact is, we expect more of our politicians, especially those at the highest level, and it should not matter if their mic is switched on or off. Is it too much to ask that 'what we see is what we get'? Apparently it is, and this proves it. I think Gordon Brown was unfortunate in getting caught, but am I naive enough to think he is the only one who could be caught like this? Definitely not! 

This will turn out to be the gaffe of the election run up, and it may cost Gordon Brown and the Labour Party dear, because this 'mistake' had nothing to do with policy. It did have everything to do with character, honesty and integrity, and this is at the heart of all politics, and the fundamental reason for people to go into politics. When the ordinary people are labelled as bigots, because they ask difficult questions, then that politician has lost the reason he entered politics in the first place.

Isn't it odd that the thing which causes the most stir, isn't the shouting at each other, or who can give the most statistics, or policies, but an 'off mic' comment which shows character?

Gordon Brown gets angry... Shock, Horror!!

So, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has a temper. Add this to the fact that he lost the use of an eye in his youth, and is known to cry over his lost baby daughter, and what do you have? Answer, journalistic fodder!


Since when are any of these things news worthy? Since when do we pick on people who show human characteristics? Impatience leading to frustration, or bad writing because of poor sight, or an expression of deep personal grief? Politicians are not my favourite people, but guess which profession(?) has just knocked them off their perch? Yes, the journalists. The past few days have seen an endless stream of interviews with anyone who has been near the Prime Minister when anything like an outburst has been seen or heard. People have reported him thumping his papers on his desk in exasperation, and oh yes, he has been impatient with staff for not doing as he had asked. He even shouted... wow! What happened to the basic tenet of British law that you were innocent until proven guilty. We usually go out of our way to show this to the most undeserving criminal, but not to the PM! Seems he is an easy target. Even the helpline who helped break the story has now lost two of its sponsors, and the position of the chief of staff is in doubt, because they broke their fundamental rule of privacy and confidentiality. Can they be trusted now with YOUR call if you felt you were being bullied? I thought not! I would find another helpline!!


Perhaps at this point it would be wise to mention that the whole reason this has come up is because someone has written a book with unfounded allegations of fits of temper, coming from Gordon Brown. Aaahhhhh yes, now I get it! Someone wants to sell more books, and make more money, but it is more sinister than that. The opposition parties (all of them) are baying for blood. They see a man down, and instead of helping him to his feet, they sink the boot in while he is down. Have they never heard of the old wise saying, 'there but for the grace of God go I'? It seems not. Instead they talk piously as though they have never raised their voice at their staff, or lost their temper temporarily in frustration. I think it's this hypocrisy that really gets to me. Not the temper. It's the wide eyed innocence of the politicians who throw stones in the face of being reminded, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. If you would prefer a non biblical phrase, then how about 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. Yes, we are back to throwing stones again. As Shakespeare said, 'methinks he protesteth too much'.


It will not have escaped your attention that there will be a UK General Election before May, and if this strikes you as being an example of the type of opening salvo, you will be right. This will be a dirty election campaign. The opposition parties have seen to that already. Whatever happened to discussing the real things that affect us all, like health, education, crime, unemployment, and yes, of course the basic morality of our country (and why not start with our politicians)?   

Prime Minister Weeps! News!!!

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his wife Sarah are seen to weep during a TV interview as he recalls the pain of losing his 10 day old daughter, and the press seem to have a field day! What's wrong with us as a nation, and as individual people? Do we really think that we are the only ones who weep, and that those in high position have no right to cry, or express their feelings, whether in private or in public?


Before the interview was even screened, the papers (or at least some of them) weighed in with tackity boots and said it was all politically motivated. They said it was all a stunt for the media to get people to see the 'softer side' of the one time 'Iron Chancellor'. Do these people really forget that he is, after all, human? And while we are at it, what thoughts do some of these sub-human commentators have of his wife, the mother of that little life? Obviously not a lot either. Here are parents who have had the tragedy of laying to rest their baby, and all that can be heard from the editorial rooms is the sound of baying for blood. It is said that there is no greater grief than that of a parent who buries their child!


I remember it wasn't so long ago that David and Samantha Cameron buried their very young handicapped son. I don't recall there being a press 'break/tear down' of their sorrow or tears in the way that has followed the Brown's personal tragedy. What does that tell me anyway? Firstly, there are newspapers and TV programs who see this kind of thing as 'open game' and they pursue their quarry in the cause of more sales, or viewers. Secondly, these same people are below humanity, and certainly have no moral scruples. Thirdly, this is the media we deserve, because we buy their drivel, and accept their thinking. 


I have no allegiance to any political party, and am not a member of any either, so I am not motivated from that direction. I am however, a supporter of human life and dignity, at all levels. This is a clear case of 'selective journalism' and 'targeted character assassination'. Can we not allow them to grieve, and forgive them if they are caught on camera shedding a tear for their 'beautiful daughter'? If that is too much to ask, then we as a nation are further down the drain than I had previously thought.


(Related blog posted on 9 Nov 09)