no Domain yet

Ah yes... isn't it funny?!? Hilarious! A Monty Python-like skirmish between French and English fishermen in the English Channel. The French probably shouted that the English mothers were hamsters, and their fathers stank of elderberries.

Actually... no. It's NOT funny. This is the first warning sign, regarding the brave new world we're headed into.

To those of us who've opposed Brexit with every fibre of our being, among the countless economic reasons why it's the most colossal self-harm a nation's ever inflicted upon itself, there's also the small matter of the cohesion of Europe. That tiny, almost insignificant detail, eg: that the European Union was specifically set up in the wake of WWII to ensure the powers of Europe were forever tied together and bonded as one community - exactly so such calamity could never happen again. That larger picture was almost more important than anything else.

Hey, but that's just "libtard", "remainer" whinging, isn't it?

Actually, again... no. Say what you want, the fragmentation of that ethic and union is a human catastrophe. A complete disaster for the peoples of Europe. You only need to look at history to know, almost with certainty, that it's only a matter of time now before countries in Europe turn on one another once again. More so, impoverishment, economic shocks and hardship, and the "resentment" of foreign neighbours generally precipitates wars, in the same way taking a hit on a bong precipitates the munchies.

I used to think the emergent gammon of Britain didn't get it; or simply didn't believe the significance. Whereas now I think I realise the truth. Which is that aggressive nationalism in Britain is breeding an active desire for confrontation. Those regressed human beings adore violence: it's part of their DNA. And again make no mistake, Brextremists will love this. It's the actual first visualisation of the "war" they've had in their heads this whole time.

No, not all Brexit voters are "gammon", but certainly, all "gammon" voted for Brexit. (I know some abhor use of the term, which is almost exclusively why I like to use it.)

Of course, some will shout that "the French started it". That may be true, though I'm loathed to trust our media's reporting of it alone. Either way, the key detail here is that the British have always enjoyed preferential treatment and specifically tailored/negotiated arrangements with the EU: we literally WERE allowed to have our cake and eat it too, to some degree. We had the best of both worlds, and still that wasn't enough for some.

Yes, it seems the British fishers were abiding by those previously agreed rules. But in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've said "bollocks" to those agreements. And it seems some French fishermen have, as a consequence, said "bollocks" to those rules and the existing British monopoly. Who could blame them? You reap what you sow, and all that.

Dangerous Melting Pot

Nowhere else in the world is quite like Europe; nowhere else are there so many rich, successful and proud, competing nations - all with so much history, different cultures and languages, living side by side and on top of one another. Which makes it a particularly dangerous melting pot for war and hostility, unless they are bound together somehow. Not to mention, larger continents outside Europe are essentially the descendants of Europeans: colonialism may have ended, but its legacy endures, which is why what happens in Europe affects the entire world. It always has.

FUN FACT: To this day, England and France were at war with one another, longer and more continuously than pretty much any other adversaries in world history. The famous 'Hundred Years War' was actually rounding down, didn't give account of stops and starts, and was even before Napoleon reared his head centuries later! You're a fool if you think that sort of cultural enmity entirely disappears. (Stop by at a few pubs in Glasgow, and ask locals whether they're still cross about stuff the English did centuries ago.)

This "skirmish" is the beginning. A cynic might say, it's pretty much the first dead canary in the coal mine.

I'm 39 years old; next year I will turn 40.

I don't quite know how that happened, as I still feel like a big kid who's really only just left home, and moved out into the big wide world to seek his fortune. The years have whizzed by in a heartbeat. It's a cliche, but it's true.

But what blows my mind even more, thinking about it, is if you go back to the year of my birth, 1979, and then go back before that "another me" (eg: 39 years), this country was in the middle of World War II. When I was young, and was taught about the World Wars etc, they always seemed this far-off and distant event from history, and I genuinely grew up believing such things could never happen again.

Today we commemorate 100 years since the Battle of Amiens in World War I. And the truth is, it's not so long ago: it's not some distant event from another time. And the events of World War II, even less so. My own mum was born in 1939, the year it started, and my grandfather, William McNamara, was a doctor in the Armed Forces.

Which is why (surplus to the added dimension of Britain being cast back economically to Victorian Times), for any student of history, Brexit is such an utter tragedy. We are quite literally in the process of dismantling the organisations/treaties and bonds specifically set up to prevent such horrors taking place, ever, ever again.

To deny that the European Union itself was the lynch-pin in that, or to glibly assume that countries in Europe could and never would return to hostilities, is ignorance and naivety off the scale. And simply put, there is nothing in this world that was worth risking that, not for our children's futures.

NOTHING.

#CentenaryBattleOfAmiens

Oh God. It's one of those moments I'm going to dare to argue something that overtly seems to contradict the values I normally espouse. It causes me physical pain to agree with right-wing pundits over anything, even loosely, but if nothing else I guess it shows I dare to think for myself, and refuse to bow to tribalism.

I f**king detest Boris Johnson, and everything he stands for.

Indeed, anyone who follows my blog would know I oppose these Tories and 'Brextremists' virulently, with every fibre of my being. But of all the incomprehensibly stupid and offensive stuff he's said, saying "no burkas shouldn't be banned, but they look ridiculous, it makes them look like bank robbers... it's like talking to a letter-box"?

Well... it's remarkably small-fry. And people getting so up-in-arms is EXACTLY what the far-right want. And it's EXACTLY why he did it.

Why? Because the brouhaha IS oppressing free speech; no two ways about it. It may have been a distasteful comment that someone in his position shouldn't have made, and it may well have been used to rile up those who are prejudiced. But an observational comparison with an inanimate piece of clothing, is not in any way racist. It's just not.

What all these "offended" people are doing, is actually giving credence and legitimacy to arguments the right-wing would have us believe are the reason they feel the way they do. (Which is bollocks, they're mostly just racist and hateful.) We're giving them moral justification and high-ground. In fact, Johnson's comments were most likely deliberately cooked up by him and Bannon as a deliberate ploy, exactly to 'split the chamber'. To divide the left (yet again) between moral do-gooders clinging to a virtue-signalling bandwagon, and more reasonable types who'll dare to say "hang on a minute."

EG: it was another trap to fuel right-wing support, and the liberal-leaning/well-intending British public, as usual, fell right into it.

The end goal? We've just made Boris even more of a flaming hero, to some. Check the Sky News data polls if in any doubt, support for him has come out of the woodwork, from every corner. We've made him relevant again, and given him a new slogan - one with painfully reminiscent overtones of what put Trump where he is today. It's all a calculated chess game, and we just handed him greater control of the board.

Like the whole debacle with Tommy Robinson, and countless fascist/populist rabble-rousers before him, allowing them the opportunity to play on the whole "being censored" thing, is a grave mistake.



Is Johnson a dangerous liar and hypocrite? Yes. Was it an inappropriate thing for a statesman to say? Yes.

Is Johnson most likely a racist, cut from the same cloth as Steve Bannon and Trump etc? Yes. Should we be terrified he's in cahoots with them? Yes. Was this a dog-whistle to racists, Tommy Robinson supporters, and general scumbags? YES.

But the comment itself was about a piece of clothing. When we start censoring observational humour and free speech to such degree, it's a slippery slope. I wouldn't think twice about joking that a Catholic/Orthodox priest or Jewish Rabbi looks like some kind of dodgy wizard, and I'm no racist. (Just an atheist/agnostic, who finds all religion ridiculous.)

So while I agree Johnson undoubtedly did this for nefarious reasons, I'm most concerned that free speech and observational humour - the likes of which we hear from people like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr all the time - should not get caught in the crossfire. That is definitely not cool. I defy anyone to say what should or shouldn't be considered funny. You just have to reap the consequences if it's not, and run the risk of being considered a hateful bigot if your jokes go too far. (Which used to be a deterrent in itself.)

I've been all over this globe, and truly believe the cultural differences between men and women, and between people from different parts of the world... the stereotypes and funny quirks, endearing and not-so endearing traits etc: our ability to laugh and joke about them is what makes us free. When we can't, we're not.  

True equality, true liberalism, is saying "you can believe in whatever you want, be whatever you want to be, dress however you want to dress etc - just as it's equally my right to take the piss and say you're talking nonsense, or to say you look ridiculous."

We cannot... we MUST NOT lose that.