23rd January, 2022
On the 22nd of July last year, Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central, was kicked out of the House of Commons for calling Boris Johnson a liar. It was Judith Cummins, Acting Deputy Speaker who gave Dawn the ultimatum: retract her accusation, or be banished. Dawn Butler refused to back down, held fast to her belief that Johnson was lying to the public, and was sent out like a naughty schoolgirl for her trouble.
Dawn was asked to ‘correct the record’ in a demonstration of just how broken the current political system is. It reminded me of such ludicrous moments as Jeremy Corbyn being deemed unfit for Prime Minister due to his not wearing a tie, or being somehow dangerous due to him not watching the Queen’s speech. And who can forget the obsessive and somehow newsworthy speculation about whether or not Corbyn would wear a poppy - would it be white or red? How big might it be? Was small pin not respectful enough? Did it, in fact, indicate his desire to dance on the graves of the dead? Does a small poppy suggest you hate Britain? Is the size of said poppy a coded pro-Nazi message?
This pointless bureaucracy, this obsession with rules and protocol which does nothing to advance justice, only creates an environment more hostile to outsiders (read: those who speak freely, will not play the game, may be from minority groups and/or working class, or be personally emotionally connected to the issues at hand) is my current nemesis. Tone policing is a very polite sounding form of evil. The notion being, of course, that the truth is all well and good, but what really matters is the etiquette. The phrasing. The specific word choice. The tone of voice. The neutrality and distance in the facial expression.
In the case of Dawn Butler who fell foul of this poisonous and oppressive phenomenon, usually reasonable people seemed to lose their minds and any attachment they once had to reality along with it. In that moment it did not matter if Johnson lying was costing the lives of the vulnerable, impacting the economy, and undermining faith in democracy itself. It did not matter that we knew he was lying, and could prove it. What value has reality anyway, in the performance of politics?
The truth does not matter. What matters, clearly, is following the rules set by... who? When?And for what? And to whose benefit?
Dawn Butler was labelled by her many critics as an angry and aggressive black woman, a lazy stereotype made even more absurd by the way women of colour in the political sphere seem to have to be extra careful, are constantly aware that they cannot move in these environments in the same way as others might. A sarcastic quip from a woman of colour can earn her endless abuse. A similar post from a white woman such as Jess Phillips is applauded, raved about, by what seems to be a very specific white, female, middle class, Miranda-eqsue crowd. Go Jess! Get the patriarchy girl! Love that you were so proud to have told the most racially abused woman in politics to eff off! Sisterhood! Girlboss! Enjoy the Spectator party! Bantz and giggles with Rees Mogg!
Quite obviously I am not a fan of Jess Phillips, but in some ways it is less about her, and more about the way that left wing women of colour are routinely attacked, harassed, and smeared as agitators, traitors, idiotic, mutineers, and emotionally unstable loose canons. They are patronised, gaslighted, and mocked, and they endure all this with very little support. In fact, it seems the Labour Party of today is attempting to flirt with their abusers, to wink secretly, to whistle at a pitch just a touch too difficult to be picked up by the human ear. Hey, it's deniable if it's high enough.
Who can forget Diane Abbott botching her figures during a radio interview, and being haunted forevermore by this mistake? Who can forget the insane campaign against her for the crime of drinking a can of mojito on the train, in her own time, without bothering a soul? And this, in the context of the current revelations of ‘boozy parties’ during lockdown, allegedly involving a suitcase full of wine stealthily smuggled back to Downing Street for secret festivities, while Elizabeth Windsor was preparing to say farewell to her husband under strict lockdown protocol, now seems all the more absurd.
Why bring Elizabeth up? I'm glad you asked. It's because I see a pattern of normalised and institutionalised racism that crosses genres and spheres. It is also doubly relevant in light of Starmer's new tactic to rebrand Labour as 'Her Majesty's Opposition' (bleurgh). Bear with me while I explain.
I am no great supporter of the monarchy, and believe it is an outdated institution which harms society, as well as the individual family members who are born under an intense scrutiny they do not choose, and live a life of extreme material privilege, combined with extreme emotional deficit – or at least, a denial of the basic human emotions and feeling in public. They are mascots more than people, put on pedestals by royalists, torn apart on a personal basis by some of those who oppose the notion of monarchy. I will talk more about this another day, but there is no opting in, no consent, only opting out, and as we have witnessed so publicly with Harry and his wife Meghan, to do so seems akin to trying to leave an abusive relationship. You cannot escape unscathed.
I bring Meghan Markle into this because she is another example, albeit in a different sphere, of how woman of colour are held to insanely high standards we all notice but few dare to talk about. Markle is painted as some pantomime villain, endures an ongoing obsessive harassment campaign from the tabloids who despise her for the intersecting issues of her gender, race, ‘woke’ status (read: woman of colour that talks about equality), her ability to articulate, the crime of infecting a white prince with her evil liberal ideas, introducing some darker pigment into the royal family, and most of all, for the grave sin of refusing to simply sit there and take their abuse. Meghan named the abuse. Meghan did not fall silent, she spoke up. For this, she has been relentlessly attacked ever since.
I also believe what we see here is the additional angle of punishing whistleblowers, and those that set boundaries with their abusive families or institutions, as demonstrated by the frankly deranged relationship the media seems to have with Thomas Markle, with the intention of pressuring a grown woman into entering into contact with a parental figure she does not wish to have in her life. Heaven forfend we supported grown adults in having clear boundaries! Goodness, if we allowed that, then what else might be toppled? (The answer is obviously any and all corrupt systems, hence the framing of Meghan as some sort of evil torturer of her poor old father - a man who accepts money to speak ill of his own daughter and wilfully shared a platform with Piers Morgan.)
Don't get me wrong, it is not the blatant racism inherent in British society which is the shock. Even as a light skinned woman of colour who has grown up with the many privileges of growing up with my white family and being perceived as white, racism has been a constant undercurrent of my life. So no, it is not the double standards faced by women of colour which particularly shocks me, having fallen victim to this dynamic myself - the alarm, the new element here is the sheer shamelessness of it all. It is the unmasking. It is the move to abandon all shielding optics, all semblance of fairness and equality. Any pretence at impartiality, even the useless and hindering impartiality of those who take a central stance when it comes to racism - has now gone. It is deemed unnecessary. Meghan Markle is an open target. There is nothing veiled about it, nothing subtle. And any who stand with her are fair game.
I have been following the coverage of Meghan Markle by British media for a while now, and every week it seems they turn up the volume, the intensity. The papers recently ran cover stories about Kate Middleton’s fortieth birthday – in which they framed Meghan as the wicked fairy, writing headlines about her being ‘warned’ not to ruin the occasion – as though she has nothing better to do from across the pond than scheme to take down Perfect Princess Kate – who by coincidence is white and never dares insult the tabloids by telling them to stop acting like creeps.
This is not a post about the royals, and it’s not anti-Kate Middleton, but the extent to which the tabloids will not let Meghan go is remarkable. For Kate to rise, Meghan must be dragged down. They exist, to these tabloid vultures, as two ends of a see-saw. The details of their personal relationship are irrelevant, for these women are now mascots. Though miles apart, they have been tied together by a familiar racist trope. Meghan the agitator, the betrayer, the infiltrator. Meghan the sly, the conniving, the celebrity-courting. Meghan the angry, the overly-emotional. Meghan the bully, Meghan the loud mouth, Meghan the devious mastermind, Meghan the unnatural, Meghan the outside influence poisoning it all. Meghan who sneaked in, learned their ways, and then betrayed them. Meghan the accepted, the tolerated, who was an enemy within. Meghan, who through demonstrating autonomy, threatens Elizabeth herself, and therefore all of Britain.
I'm sure I don't need to point out the racism inherent in this point of view, and the unspoken narrative used against people of colour, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers quite openly. They are tolerated, ought to be grateful for being tolerated, should owe a debt due to their acceptance, and any hint of disagreement or difference will be punished. This is not equality, this is charity, and to turn down charity would be wicked. To demand equality would be out of place, above your station.
In order for this racism to fly, Kate is therefore positioned accordingly, assigned attributes that may seem flattering, but may be entirely false. She must be the pure and classy white woman. Kate the humble. Kate the gentle. Kate the silent. Kate the deferential. Kate the holy mother. Kate the shy and retiring. Kate without needs. Kate who endures. Kate - who understands the system. Kate, who respects tradition. Kate, who will not rock the boat. Kate the British. Kate the English. Kate the unstained.
(There's another angle on this which involves the tropes we put upon women in order to exist within a patriarchal society, but that's a conversation for another day.)
Interestingly though, the pushing of this racist trope or comparison between the women implicitly and sometimes explicitly pushed by the tabloids, bizarrely backfires on Kate Middleton even as it elevates her precarious status. By raising her as the English rose, compared to Meghan’s angry black woman villain, they involve Katherine in their racist narrative, which then involves her, politicises her every action or inaction, and therefore makes Kate complicit via silence. Which is why, although at a surface level this would appear to serve Kate, the tabloids have once again fostered discord, crossed a personal line, and used racism in order to make money.
I stand by the fact that the tabloids do not care a bit for the royal family as individuals, so it will not bother them at all that they are using Katherine Middleton as a symbol of their racist crusade, possibly against her will. It will not bother them that in making this a team sport, both women will inevitably be harmed. And what an inescapable double bind we then have for both women! Meghan facing racism, then attacked when she defends herself, reframed as the combative initiator. Her choices are to endure racism, and the personal cost to her and her family, which for Meghan has involved feelings of suicidal ideation, or, to point out the racism, take it on, and 'prove the tabloids right' (at least from their perspective), as her action can be instantly reframed as aggressive and hostile. Katherine's double bind is less lethal, but just as tricky. Sit quietly and allow, even encourage the monstering of Markle in order to buy herself a short amount of tabloid protection, which leads to accusations of complicity and a stain on her moral character - because it is difficult to see how leaving a family member, even one you may dislike, to brutal racism, covers anyone in glory, or, take a stand on behalf of Meghan, set the record straight, use her voice, and lose the little power and protection she has - find herself at the mercy of the tabloids, be viewed as corrupted like her brother in law, but with the added sexism to boot.
I've paused here to discuss the royals to demonstrate how normalised this form of racism is in modern Britain. It is both obvious and coded. Overt and hidden. 'Woke' has become a word used to attack women of colour and their allies. Only explicit racial slurs are deemed racism, and even then, the whistleblowers are deemed in some way sly or vengeful for pointing this out. If a light skinned woman of colour like Meghan Markle can be so publicly attacked, and not just by the tabloids, but also by complicit media stations such as the BBC and ITV - then this atmosphere and behaviour reads as a wider threat to any other person of colour who may be thinking of taking a stand. Know your place, it warns us. See how we'll smear you. Is it worth it?
Also worth bringing up here that Keir Starmer, who considers himself an anti-racist, commented publicly on the coverage of Meghan Markle by UK media and came to the conclusion that it wasn't racist. This stance is either delusional or corrupt. I'm not sure which is worse.
Is it a reaction of fear? Does Starmer believe the tabloids to be a danger, and wishes to dodge their attacks? If so, how cowardly, to shield himself and win his way into their good graces, and how foolish too, when we have seen first hand how the tabloids will turn on someone they have raised up if it is financially beneficial to them. Is it a reaction of ignorance? Again, a major concern. Mr By The Book seems wedded to rules, wedded to pedantic definitions, but fails, or refuses to see the reality. In a choice of justice vs printed text, we know which door Starmer will choose to walk through. Or perhaps, hover about, so as not to be seen as stepping through either door until someone goes first.
Starmer consistently chooses systems over people. Structure over justice. He fears pulling out a single faulty brick, seems to live in terror of the whole thing collapsing. After all, if we rebuilt, what would Sir Keir have to offer? How would he fill the new construction? What role could have have in the planning? He seems to offer the emptiness of the old world, the hopelessness of the two-party system, forever swinging back and forth between the lesser of two evils.
I believe Starmer will always stand with power and institutions, because he fears criticism. If we were to get on the side of justice and admit that the system itself has been unfair for many years, could Starmer handle the acknowledgment that he too played his part in doling out punishments? That he was a foot soldier that carried out his orders, and was given a pat on the head and a knighthood for his services to order and rules and to the system of old? I truly believe this is partly why Starmer must see Corbyn destroyed, because as long as Corbyn holds power, there is the terrifying notion that he may cause the public to question institutions themselves. Not rogue individuals. Not slackers or buffoons, but the institutions and rules and the implementation of these rules. Of course, if the system is questioned, Starmer is done. His entire career no longer serves him, and he's cast aside. This is why he will more likely ally with Tories than the left. The left are at risk of pointing out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. And that the imaginary robes were bestowed by those who work against the common man, given as a gift for services to the status quo, for the crushing of the many by the few.
The wider issue here is one of systems. It is the problem of systems existing that do not serve the people within them, systems that cause pain to individuals, punish emotion, punish truth, punish vulnerability or even mistakes, all to uplift a set of rules written years ago in black and white, by men who were likely full of the prejudices of their time, and were probably fairly pompous and privileged to boot. Therefore we have Starmer arm in arm with the tabloids. If people wake up, they all lose their power. And make no mistake, they value power over justice.
This brings us back to Dawn Butler (provided you are still reading!). In July of last year, these outdated protocols meant a very polite, very articulate, and remarkably calm woman of colour was ejected in disgrace for calling attention to a fact. The rules themselves enabled the later framing by her political rivals, and by racists too, of Dawn Butler as rebellious, out of place, unconcerned with or ignorant of protocol, and willing to disrespect British tradition. Few (with any intelligence) will have openly used racist language, but the rules themselves and Dawn’s ejection allowed for the racist assumption, and confirmation of the bias that the place was not meant for her, that she was acing out of turn, that she should be grateful for being there rather than calling things out. This is how things had always been done, after all, and who was she to change it? Who did she think she was?
To be transparent, I believe that Dawn is a good person, I align with her politically on most issues, and I think she has great integrity, great intelligence, and great empathy. Dawn Butler, like Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, and Zarah Sultana also, have all suffered not only from being women of colour in seats of power they seem expected to be grateful for, as though they’re being indulged – a patronising notion, but also from their associations with Jeremy Corbyn, who bizarrely seems to be being attacked by racism in his turn.
Let me clarify what I mean there. I don’t think that as a white man Jeremy Corbyn experiences racism – however, what I see in Corbyn, and similarly in the situation with Harry and Meghan, is that when a person from a group that racists believe ought to be part of the club, ought to be loyal to the status quo, dares to question the way things are done? They are attacked from a fascinating angle, which is as a foreign agent, as a traitor, as someone who has either been corrupted by those of a different race or culture, someone who has sold out their own kind, someone who is either dangerous or misled. In Corbyn, we see a tabloid and media picture of a dangerous radical – so at odds with what we know of the man who insists on ‘kinder, gentler politics’ even at points when most human beings would probably have started yelling at people. In Harry Windsor, we see his portrayal tied to his wife Meghan, to her powers of persuasion, her devious influence as a black woman, turning him away from his country, from his kind.
Jeremy Corbyn and Meghan Markle too have become bizarrely linked, despite their different circumstances, as two of the media’s favourite scapegoats. Though still suspended from the Labour Party, Corbyn is mentioned whenever any political story breaks, be that Love Island influencer Molly Mae’s comments about aspiration, or criticism of the knighthood of Tony Blair. Similarly, Meghan Markle’s name is brought up whenever there is strife in the royal family, even being dragged into the situation with Andrew Windsor, despite having nothing to do with it. Corbyn and Markle are the current bogeymen of the media. And the media are shameless in their attacks. Like school bullies who are not disciplined, they no longer attempt to disguise their behaviour. There's no detention, no letter home, not even a slap on the wrist. The teachers now wink. They shake their heads 'don't' but smile at the same time. They do not care that we see the smile, that gleeful flash of teeth. We see the smile but must not mention it. To mention it would make us quite irrational.
In terms of these links, let's briefly examine the link between Harry Windsor and Jeremy Corbyn, an unlikely uniting of distant parties. The connection being that these are two white men of reasonable privilege, who are viewed as having betrayed their kind. They are dismissed and attacked as enemies, scorned for asking questions, for daring to challenge rules and systems that actually may suit and privilege them. The mistrust via the media and their critics, in my view, speaks more of their worldview, than that of Jeremy and Harry. It does not strike such people as possible that men who benefit from a system might seek to change it, question it, attempt to make it fairer, even to their own detriment. Therefore such figures are viewed with suspicion and even fear. All because their critics cannot seem to conceive of a reality where a person with plenty, may wish to share what they have, to open doors for others, to let down a ladder rather than throw down scraps and close the hatch.
The good and powerful are meant to engage in charity. They're meant to feel pity. They're meant to lean down and shake hands and tut and sigh, and attribute no blame and offer no solutions. They certainly aren't supposed to see the 'other' as their equals and speak on their behalf. No no no, that's not the British way. The British way is Starmer's disapproval, the putting the Prime Minister on notice. The British way is to helplessly throw out your hands and be respectful to those lesser than you are, to pretend to listen, to put a plaster on the open wound and say 'there there', instead of taking the axe from the hand of the perpetrator.
I do not trust our current Leader of the Opposition. My main reason, aside from various policy decisions, broken pledges, and bizarre hesitance to stand for justice (which strikes me as odd from a former human rights lawyer), is actually linked to his former career. Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service – roles for which he was knighted, accepting the title of ‘Sir’. Generally the idea of a member of the Labour Party, let alone its leader accepting such a title does not sit well with me, but the nature of Starmer’s career itself sets off major red flags.
Starmer’s worldview seems based heavily in rules, regulations, and bureaucracy. When the Colston Four brought down the statue of a slave trader, Starmer seemed to play both sides, stating that he agreed with their motives, but stood against their actions in taking the statue down. In this instance, I do believe Starmer’s heart was in the right place, and for my many frustrations with him, and my many criticisms of him, I did agree with his statements that the statue ought not to have been up, and that if the argument against the Colston Four was rooted in maintaining history through statues, then it ought to be in a museum with the appropriate information alongside, rather than standing in public in Bristol – against the will of a great many Bristolians who exhausted every legal avenue and were ignored.
Still, he played it safe. He did not have he courage to stand with the protesters, who I do believe he agreed with, for fear of losing the votes of racists. He knew that later he might need such racists on side. No matter how it went, no matter what the conclusion, Starmer was covered. Yes, I stood against the appalling vandalism. Yes, I said I agreed with the cause. A poor man's Petyr Baelish, standing for nothing and everything. Always thinking of his own advancement.
Starmer’s response to such incidents (able to be read generously as well-meaning and designed not to offend, or read ungenerously as support for the status quo and a refusal to support justice if this will cause unpopularity) seems to be along the lines of Martin Luther King Jr’s thoughts on the ‘white moderate’:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I find this letter in its entirety to be a brilliant description of this still current phenomenon, in which moderates of privileged status will defend an unjust law or set of rules they know will cause further harm, rather than seek to challenge them and endure the attacks such bravery will bring them. In the Dawn Butler incident of July 2021, Keir Starmer offered a similarly lukewarm and ultimately unhelpful response. Bizarrely, his stance seemed to be total agreement with Butler’s ideas, yet regardless of this an acceptance that it was correct she was sent out, as she had broken the rules. My question, and my concern when it comes to Starmer, even using the generous interpretation of him as a man who is well-meaning, just afraid to rock the boat, is how can we expect him to take us forward and stand for justice, when he seems wedded to the current rules and their implementation? The current Leader of the Opposition seems able to see the flaws in current systems, yet regards himself as far too ‘grown-up’ and ‘reasonable’ to make the necessary changes to correct them. And so time and time again we have situations of his tepid support, with additional, rather patronising tutting. ‘You’re right, but you really must be more polite about it’.
Starmer, who disguised himself as a supporter of Corbyn for a decent time, has now jumped aboard the train smearing him, and again, if being generous, I think this may be due to fear. Because let us not forget that the monstering of Corbyn beyond any semblance of reality is not just a lesson to the man himself. It is a threat to any socialist, any person who dares question the status quo. This is evident in that today, even those who did not support Corbyn are often dismissed and mocked as ‘Corbynites’ for having criticisms of the current Labour Party. Rather than challenging the notion that wearing a tie and watching Elizabeth’s Christmas speech makes anyone more or less suitable for a position of power, our current shadow cabinet and their leader seem determined to try and work within this system, to make themselves ‘electable’ – that mysterious and fictitious state of being which often strangely involves being a white man who wears a suit and tie, patronises people, and calls criticism of any established rules or bodies ‘nonsense’. Starmer will most likely be eaten up by his own system, as by throwing Corbyn under the bus to appear more reasonable and electable, he’s allowed the system to move further right. And how long, I wonder, before his ‘reasonable left’ gets rebranded as dangerous? How long before an ambitious, further right member of his party plots a coup and declares Starmer a dangerous, ‘woke’ radical?
Starmer’s PMQs quote, for which he was widely commended, was as follows:
"After months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road. His defence ... that he didn't realise he was at a party is so ridiculous that it's actually offensive to the British public. Can’t the Prime Minister see why the British public think he’s lying through his teeth?”
Starmer dodged being thrown out of the Commons here via word choice, by implying this was what the public thought, and not making a direct accusation – but this very situation seems absurd to me. If MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying, then how are lies meant to be exposed? How can we have any faith in our democracy, and in the power of the Commons, if it is a venue where hindering rules, manners, and elaborate performances of etiquette trump justice and truth?
To be clear, I don’t oppose Starmer’s statement. I personally believe it’s the strongest performance he’s given to date. It is the hypocrisy that frustrates me. It’s the double standards. It’s the ‘I’m the reasonable grown up here’ attitude which is used to patronise the women of colour in his own party. It is the same dynamic I have known all my life. Women of colour are dangerous, disruptive radicals, taken in bad faith, not afforded humanity and scope for mistakes - while when white men finally come to a similar stance (usually many years later), they are considered to be the reasonable arbiters of truth. It is time, when the white man says so. It is no longer disruptive, no longer naughty, all perfectly decent.
It wasn't long ago Zarah Sultana, who has been the subject of a racist, Islamophobic, and sexist harassment campaign revealed that she had not once been contacted by Starmer. Not for support, not to check in. It's hard to read this as anything other than punishment for Zarah's support of Jeremy Corbyn. A woman of colour left in danger, left out in the cold, punished through silence as a traitor. If she can't be ejected, it seems Starmer and his team are certainly doing their bit to make the environment hostile and unpleasant enough that women like Zarah step away for their own mental health and safety. The punishment is clever. It leaves no fingerprints. Only absence. Only deniability.
Even beyond the frustration and anguish of this normalised racism is the frankly horrifying notion that we live in a country where the big scandal of the past few years, the final straw for Boris Johnson, the kicker that looks about ready to take him out (although he's clinging on) is about parties. It should be a scandal, of course, that those who made the rules were themselves breaking them, but how horrifying that the offence seems to be a rule breach, a gotcha moment, while the true crimes of the Conservative government are hardly mentioned? Where is the anger about austerity? Where is the anger about the inhumane DWP? Where is the anger about the incoming fascist bills which seek to criminalise peaceful protest, and allow refugees to drown at sea?
What a terrible time we live in where the scandal is parties. No matter that the Tories are selling off the NHS, and that Labour are shamefully also intending to privatise. The scandal is a photograph. It’s a bit of drama. A bit of soap. The scandal is the rule break. It’s the tut tut tutting, the raised eyebrow that someone didn’t play by the rules – not the notion that the rules themselves and the proposed rules of the future may be inhumane, evil, and fascistic. Never mind that though, eh? Labour and Sir Keir like to do things by the book. If the book is wrong and outdated? Doesn’t matter. The book must be obeyed. Evil can be enacted as long as there’s due process. The disabled can die so long as they die properly, with the appropriate paperwork in place. We can mourn them decently. We can watch children drown at sea and shake our heads in a typical British fashion and say, what a terrible shame, goodness, how unpleasant, lay a single flower on the mass of graves and turn away again.
How naughty, how rebellious, how angry Dawn Butler was, to have called a liar a liar. Silly little girl. Still so much to learn. Doesn’t seem to understand the rules of the game, just like Zarah and Apsana and Diane. These irritants that seem to be under the impression that telling the truth and seeking change is the order of business here. How childish, how infantile. How utterly ridiculous, how melodramatic, how hysterical, to be angry, to be upset. How embarrassing to shout in the face of human suffering. How undignified to rail against oppression. How unprofessional to weep about dead children. How unpatriotic to feel the pain of others, of our siblings the world over. They really must clean up their act.
(If you enjoyed this you can tip me on PayPal or just get in touch via the contact option below. Solidarity x )
Comments