March on

I went on the pro-Palestinian march through London today and it was an amazing experience.

On a brilliantly sunny autumn day the vast assembly from all round the country marched peacefully from Hyde Park to the US embassy at Vauxhall Nine Elms, south of the river. Realistically, I think it was probably my swansong for marching. I can't imagine any future protest excelling this one, either in scale or impact, both of which were huge. But the 15 kilometers I walked were more than enough at my time of my life. Of course it's a hell of a lot worse for Gazans fleeing south on foot to escape IDF bombardment - and finding themselves under fire there too. Still, even if mere virtue-signalling, I hope my participation made a difference and no one could criticise my commitment, stamina and determination.

I understood from the outset that participation on the march would be an equivocal experience. I knew some of the chanting, such as 'from the river to the sea' would be uncomfortable - and no surprise that that potentially antisemitic trope should feature as the headline in publicity being distributed by the Socialist Workers' Party, those arch-opportunists of any demo. But there were Jews marching and speaking and I didn't witness any direct antisemitism or disrespect, rather the opposite. My being there didn't signal my agreement with every viewpoint being expressed, nor did it signify love of Palestinians or hatred of Israelis. I participated simply to express my disgust and despair at the humanitarian catastrophe playing itself out in the Gaza Strip and to demand a ceasefire. Others may have had different agendas but that was mine.

Being on the march brought back memories of my participation in the 3rd anniversary Iraq War protest in 2006. That was also a huge turnout, though not as big as the first one in 2003, which was estimated at one million. On that occasion I was in Tunisia and the reaction of Tunisians to the huge march in London, which was shown on large outdoor screens, was one of astonishment. Someone came up to thank me, saying he had no idea the British cared so much about the issue. I shall never forget how proud and touched I was. So my participation in today's event was never really in doubt.

Nor did I hesitate over the fact that the march was taking place on Armistice Day. Suella Braverman's line was that to march on that day was disrespectful. Had it been organised for Remembrance Sunday I might have tended to agree. But what better day to call for a ceasefire than on the day marking a ceasefire? The clue is in its name, Suella.

Both my grandfather and father fought against tyranny in two World Wars and both suffered terribly as a result, my grandfather from being gassed in the trenches of the Western Front and my father from being taken prisoner of war by the Nazis at Arnhem. I was disgusted to see the images of those rightwing thugs disrupting the service at the Cenotaph today in the name of protecting the legacy of our war heroes. What an insult to the memory of my forefathers, made worse by being incited by our own Home Secretary, a holder of one of the supposed 'great offices of state'. 

In Braverman's case it's a great office of hate.

Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more