It Isn't Just David Cameron Who Thinks Those of Us Who Oppose Air Strikes On Syria Are "Terrorist Sympathisers"

It seems Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour has taken over from Islam as the root of all evil. Not since 7/7 have I witnessed such naked hysteria and loathing in the British media. The same reductionist, lazy language is now also being invoked in response to the awakening beast of left wing politics.

The obvious way of describing the divisions in Labour is along ideological lines. Jeremy Corbyn represents the overwhelming majority of labour supporters who gave him a landslide victory, and with it, a mandate to lead the party to the left, in line with its founding principles. There are those, more aligned to the Blair/Thatcher ideology on the right, who, despite being in the minority, are resisting change at all costs. Even if it means letting the Tories off the hook. These people are pro austerity, pro war and have more in common with the other right wing parties than that of Labour.

If the media was seeking to be impartial, it would refer to both factions in line with their ideological leanings, one being left wing, the other, right wing. Whilst the term “left winger”, “trots”, and “terrorist sympathisers” is regularly used to depict the Corbyn majority, the right wingers (who support bombing and austerity, which has seen child poverty and poverty related suicides rise exponentially) are described as “moderates” and “modernisers”.  The media think that, if they don’t refer to the right wingers as being, right wing, we might not notice the fact that there are already plenty of right wing parties and they’re not Labour.

The rhetoric is heavily loaded against the left, in a way that is far too commonplace in reporting the plight of Muslims around the world. Take Gaza for example. Last year, 600 Palestinian and 3 Israeli civilians, were killed during an escalation of hostilities. At the time, I came across this in a left leaning newspaper, “…For more than five years the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas nor Israel appeared ready to stop fighting…” 

Why is religion only referenced when it’s Islam and why is it used as code for “terrorist”? If religion is deemed relevant, why not cite both? Why do we never hear the phrase, “Jewish fundamentalist” when reporting on a state that has breached numerous international laws and stands accused of “possible” war crimes and crimes against humanity? 

But it is not Palestinians that David Cameron and Hilary Benn want to rescue from a life of occupation, persecution and starvation.  Nor is it the beleaguered victims of the ongoing Darfur genocide (which Hilary Benn was criticised for downplaying during his time as Labour’s Secretary of State for International Development) Why are there no plans to bomb the fascist despot in Khartoum? These are all Muslims suffering at the hands of brutal regimes, so why is it not OK to walk by on the other side of the road when some Muslims are being persecuted but OK when it’s others? Are some Muslims more worthy than others?

The media would have us believe that Hilary Benn is a leader in waiting. He may well have a future in the Tory party but not as a Labour leader. If you find yourself unable to oppose your political opponent on the grounds that you have more in common with them than not, that’s a pretty good indicator that you’re in the wrong party. The government of the day needs to be held to account by a robust opposition (the clue is in the name), that constantly challenges, questions and opposes its ideology and actions.

Corbyn’s leadership style is inclusive and is loathed by those who seek to maintain the fear and control of the past. Ironically, those Corbyn traits that are depicted in the media as “weakness” (listening to ordinary people, engaging with Labour’s grass roots, being driven by principle and integrity, as opposed to the whim of focus groups) are the very traits that endear him to the public.  But the party faithful who gave him his mandate will not tolerate him floundering over his response to the saboteurs in his midst. They had their chance and in return for being given a seat at the top table of the shadow cabinet, they plotted to undermine the new direction of labour. The dignified response would be for them to do the decent thing and go, but if they don’t, they should be shown the door.

A degree of dissent and disagreement is healthy within organisations. The challenging and questioning leads to better decisions and prevents “group think”. If the level of dissent however, becomes dysfunctionally divisive, to the extent that it impedes the organisation's ability to be effective, decisive remedial action is called for. Taking on the Tories and their toxic austerity agenda, requires every shred of Labour’s energy and focus. Either respect the democratically elected leader and his left wing mandate, or join one of the many right wing options out there (Tory, Lib Dem, UKIP, take your pick).