Laughable? Childish? No, Deeply Worrying.

Blog followers in the UK will be familiar with this week’s political spat at the Conservative Party Conference between Home Secretary, Theresa May and Justice Minister Ken Clarke. For those further afield, however, I will give a very brief run down. At the Conference Theresa May gave a key note speech in which she cited a number of instances where she and the government intended to tighten up the laws concerning illegal immigrants. She suggested (probably correctly)  that some illegal immigrants are using (and maybe abusing) the Human Rights Act to fight deportation from Britain and  illustrated her case by, amongst other examples, citing the case of a Bolivian national who resisted deportation on the grounds that he owned a cat. May, who wants to abolish the Human Rights Act, said : "The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – I am not making this up – he had a pet cat." She further cast a shadow on the wisdom and professionalism of judges who had made the decision.

In fact virtually all of what she said was incorrect – the person concerned was not an “illegal immigrant” but someone who was making an application to stay in this country after their previous right had expired.  The cat item was merely one of many pieces of required evidence submitted to show that the person concerned had an established life in this country – a settled relationship,  employment, life style etc. What Theresa May said was nothing more than an unpleasant “sound bite”, an assertion not backed up by fact. She had not checked her facts and was playing to the Tory “gallery”.

Home Secretary Theresa May

Interviewed minutes afterwards, Ken Clarke, who as Justice Minister has some responsibility for Courts and their workings, denied any knowledge of the particular case and rightly suggested that he thought it very unlikely that the ownership of a cat alone would be sufficient reason for an illegal immigrant to be granted a stay in this country. It all looked a mess – two senior government ministers disputing a particular matter of fact.

And today, Ken Clarke  has followed this up by  describing Theresa May’s speech as “laughable” and “childlike”.  He is in some ways correct – except, I believe, that the whole issue is far more serious than that.  Underlying May’s comments is a very real and deeply worrying concern. Clarke (who is my MP) has had his wrists slapped by Downing Street and announced that he  “regrets his colourful use of language” .  He should, I believe, not regret it but rather  pursue Mrs May more vigorously.

In making the comments that she did – she not only trivialised a serious issue but did so with a mocking use of  emotive half truths. In using phrases like “I’m not making this up” and doing so with a smirk on her face - she was playing to the audience in the worst possible way. Even had the case she was describing been perfectly as she described it, the manner in which she used language and truth were quite unacceptable and unbefitting of a government minister. In that sense Clarke is wrong – her comments were not “childlike” or “laughable”, they were unpleasant and calculated to be vicious. May’s tactics were the tactics of rabble rousers and bullies the world over – the National Front, Nazi groups, lynch mobs. Tell the crowd half truths, spice it up with a smirk, mock those you perceive (from your position of superiority) to be inferior or vulnerable, pour scorn – in short,  stir up anger and hatred. And to make matters worse May was not only pouring scorn on those who might be described as “illegal immigrants” she was also venting her spleen on what is currently the law of the land and the judges who are responsible for upholding it. And the "faithful" at the Conference, sheep like as is the " dutiful, mindless mob" "lapped it up" - after all, it must be true, the Home Secretary said so!

I would like Mrs  May to explain which part of her job description as Home Secretary provides her with the right or privilege to do this?

But, from where I am sitting there is a terrible symmetry to all this. Ken Clarke made his comments in my local newspaper “The Nottingham Evening Post”. Well, in another bit of local news, a local Nottingham coroner yesterday criticised what she called a “baying crowd” of bystanders in Nottingham when they called for an asylum seeker Osman Rasul Mohammed – to “jump”. The Iraqi Kurd, had been in Britain for almost 10 years when an application to stay in the country was rejected and the inquest  heard  that in a distressed state he  climbed on to the railing of a seventh floor balcony and fell to his death.

Mrs May cannot, of course, be held responsible for this. Nor I suspect did the “baying crowd” even know that Mr Mohammed was an asylum seeker – they were simply being a mob and doing what mobs do – following the loudest, most strident voice. And, for me, it highlights the importance of those who are supposed to lead leading in a responsible manner.  Mrs May’s speech the other day was totally irresponsible – trivialising, mocking, smirking, playing to the audience, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator - that is what crowds and mobs thrive upon. She should be ashamed. It also further confirms my belief that we have some very third rate people in government – and especially this government. Much as I dislike and despised Margaret Thatcher her attention to detail and her ability to run government would have ensured that people like May would never have achieved such high status.

Justice Minister Ken Clarke

And, I note that “No 10 said it was delighted [at what] May had said in her conference speech“. If that is the case then it is another example of our Prime Minister’s poor judgement on these matters – she should have been sacked on the spot. But, for me - and following the comments that I made in my blog last week ("Hungarian musicians, Indian curries and German composers") - it reinforces my feeling that there is much intolerance and ill disguised prejudice stalking not only our streets but also our government at the very highest levels. Clearly, had Rudolf Botta (see blog: http://arbeale.blogspot.com/2011/09/hungarian-musicians-indian-curries.html) pleaded to Mrs May half a century ago that he should be allowed to stay in this country after fleeing his native Hungary he would have been similarly mocked and scorned as an "itinerant fiddler" not worthy of respect or consideration.

And, as a  postscript to the events, one sees the mob behaviour and mentality again in today's (Friday, Oct 7th) Tory press - the Daily Telegraph (the paper that had, I understand, carried the incorrect story that May had picked up and used). Having been exposed for  what it was - an incorrect and ill thought out piece of dirty politics - the Telegraph now reports that the immigrant in question had in fact received a police caution for shop lifting - which presumably, linked with his ownership of a pet cat proves what an undesirable he is. It also, presumably "justifies" May's comments. But of course it doesn't - the issue was not whether the man concerned  was or was not an illegal immigrant - for all I know he may be Osama bin Laden's Godfather - it was the incorrect, unpleasant manner in which the Home Secretary did her job. But, of course in the mob mentality that doesn't matter. Over forty years I have seen the gang on the school playground justify their  actions, when cornered, by any manner they choose - usually be casting irrelevant doubt on the poor victim of their bullying. The gang in Nottingham who chanted "Jump" would individually all have reasons for why they each shouted - but I would venture that none of the reasons would have anything to do with truth, logic or right. No, they would stick together and still strive to blame the victim that it was his fault - as I said above, it is what gangs and mobs do. Theresa May - would make an admirable gang leader - manipulative, mocking, scornful. But very much not, in Clarke's words, "childish and laughable".