Election by media

I'm sick and tired of seeing Labour-bashing headlines in the media. You'd think they were disastrous for the country, which they just are not, whatever you think.

I can't pretend to add anything new or insightful to the deluge of commentary on this issue, but Cameron is getting away with murder in the media: whatever he says goes, without a scrap of critical enquiry from virtually any media outlet, apart from the Guardian or New Statesman. And every time he stands there before the camera looking steadfast and unexamined, he is surely preparing himself for a disastrous premiership, should he win, which I sincerely, deeply, yearningly hope he does not.

For example, the big question that should be asked of Cameron, surely one of the first in being in any way a pre-emptive critical strike on the superficiality of his views, would be this: if his party is now progressive, then what is all this talk of support for hunting, clawing back New Labour's historic, though still compromised, achievement on this persistent issue of class division and cruelty to animals? And another thing, has Cameron said anything about what the Conservatives did to minorities, especially gays and lesbians - before you even start on the black community - in their previous incarnations? Has he said anything about upholding New Labour's achievements on equality legislation, which in this modern day and age shouldn't be confined to one political party but be a universal aim of all political parties? (But then how are we to distinguish between political parties these days if it isn't for their respective approaches to equality, with the Conservatives historically and still to this present day trailing far behind the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat Party - not to forget the Green Party?)

This post, as rambling as they get, is a response to News International's dramatic switch to supporting Cameron. In other words, the party that they think the public want to vote for in droves at the new election, thus ensuring high circulation numbers from now until then. I saw a clip of Cameron earlier this evening in which, like Brown, he stood impartial on the issue of newspapers' right to express their opinion, but also like Brown, allowed the relevant emotion glimmer through this impartiality to reveal that, as in Cameron's case, this was certainly good news. The thing that made me laugh uproariously was Cameron's assertion that The Sun was one of the country's most important newspapers. After I threw my head back in hilarious response, I pondered why he should think this, given that The Sun is a pile of shit and is a waste of the paper and ink from which it is made, especially in this carbon-conscious day and age. Ah, that would be it: he wants to snuggle up to the superficially racist and homophobic male electorate, thereby completing the circle of the Conservative Party's core voting base: from the Bullingdon Club to the Working Men's Club, particularly in those dyed-in-the-wool reactionary working-class communities; from the 'scall' to the old pal.

End of ramble.

Something for the weekend

Boulez conducts Boulez with the Berliner Philharmoniker.

This is one of the most thrilling, and shortest, pieces written for orchestra. Boulez has been orchestrating his early piano pieces from the 1940s, Notations, for a number of years now, and slowly his devoted audiences are reaping their vast fruits. They are incredible pieces of music, expanding their micro originals into monolithic gems for the orchestra. Notations II is the sharpest example. I've seen Boulez conduct it with the London Symphony, and they were incandescent every time. Boulez's Notations never fail to grip you; they are by turns nocturnal-sounding, aggressive (even violent), beautiful, diaphanous, hugely complex, and most of all physically arresting. This performance, taken from a live concert in Berlin earlier this year, is wonderful to watch not only for the piece, but for images of Boulez's firm, resolute conducting gestures; the way in which he turns the frayed, massive pages of his score; for the sight of an orchestra so large and yet unwaveringly in control of the complexity; and delightfully at the end, Boulez's smile against a backdrop of rapt Bravos! from the devoted audience (London's audience was the same). His smile says it all: his impish glee at having created something so violent, controlled, almost unstoppable if not for the massive stab from the entire orchestra that pulls the breaks on the work, saving it from toppling over into real chaos.

Enjoy the weekend!

Glasgow's modern art gallery supports censorship?

Apparently it does.

This pinpoints the dangers of censorship:

[Dani] Marti's work, which included an intimate video conversation with an HIV-positive male, was pulled because CSG believed it would be detrimental to the programme, and could potentially "overshadow" more important issues. Now Marti's pieces, along with some other elements of the programme, will be held at Tramway, a less accessible venue on the south side of the city. Unsurprisingly, the artist wasn't best pleased with the concession, arguing that CSG were "compromising the civil rights of the people in [the] work by refusing to let them speak to a wide audience, as was originally intended".

It looks like the gallery has surrendered to the hate-baiting Daily Mail, too. You can't think of a worse scenario for a modern art gallery in a modern city to have generated, seemingly without any attempt by that gallery to defend itself, its artists, the work, and the principles inherent in the exhibiting and supporting of art work to the public. There is no reason why these works cannot be displayed in the original plan. Have they not heard of signage? What about the gallery assistants and the gallery's other staff, who exist to support the art work and the public simultaneously by being sensitive to the needs of different sections of society; in other words, advising certain people as they enter the gallery spaces. It's quite simple, really. And any adverse feedback should be dealt with in the usual way, either as manifestations of public crankery, or a sensitively-termed letter detailing the need to exhibit such work and the issues that it raises. You might like to call it being modern and civilised.

Invidious and disrespectful

In its infinite wisdom, The Times has published a poll asking whether Gordon Brown was right to apologise posthumously to Alan Turing for the inhumane treatment he suffered at the hands of the British government up until his death by suicide at the age of 41.

Why are they asking this? Their claim that an apology such as this is misplaced at a time of grave crisis is undermined by the fact that Gordon Brown has not devoted his time totally to the credit crisis since it all kicked off. So why can't this apology be offered at this time? Does it not demonstrate that the government cares, something which it is often accused of not doing? And quite the contrary to what The Times is arguing (if you can call it an argument, that is), this posthumous apology is perfectly well-timed, given the commemorations for the Second World War (and in a week, as Guardian readers will know, that has been dedicated to thinking about the past and the conduct of nation states in the past).

'You can't turn back the clock' is the insubstantial reasoning offered by the No option on The Times' poll. But does offering an apology involve turning back the clock and correcting the past? Isn't it the (symbolic) job of an apology to do precisely that? Correcting the past through the symbolic gesture of an apology is the least that can be offered in memory of those individuals grossly maltreated at the hands of governments and the laws 'at that time'.

If you held by the reasoning of 'You can't turn back the clock', no apologies would ever be offered, in any situation, anywhere, by anyone. Apologies are only offered after the event, which makes 'You can't turn back the clock' a perfectly useless statement to make.

If he had been straight, not only would Turing have lived, he would been given a knighthood at some point after 1945. Some are arguing that the Queen should bestow this honour on him posthumously. This will not happen, of course, because British diplomatic protocol would deem it to be going too far beyond an apology, which should suffice, thank you very much. Well, for me the apology came as a surprise as I read yesterday's Guardian, and also for me, it is perfectly timed and wholly appropriate. A posthumous knighthood would be even better, but perhaps we should be glad the British government has gone this far. No doubt we should be glad whilst Gordon Brown and New Labour are in power, because none of this kind of thing is likely to happen under a Conservative government. Which is exactly why it is that a centre-right paper like The Times that has offered its readers an opportunity to stamp on the memory of one who suffered so much in life - precisely because he was gay. It was invidious and disrespectful of The Times to put this poll up. Given their recent coverage of gay history and measured commentary on current gay issues, it is also a shame. You therefore have to ask about its motivations for doing this: it's like the paper's old-style reactionary instincts kicked in, by which the authoritative past which condemned gay people is ever so slightly let off the hook.

Equivocal nonsense

In their series of booklets about the Second World War, today the Guardian publishes one on the Holocaust, with a lead essay by Deborah Lipstadt. It seems that unlike El Mundo, some newspapers are capable of effectively controlling their editorial content and maintaining standards of scholarship. And yet, on this day, one is faced with a number of political equivocations that stand as total nonsense, and from which vantage point future historians will write as being at best sheer contradiction and at worst, naive, credulous hand-wringing. This has to do with two news events: the BBC, Question Time, and an appearance on this show of the BNP; and the other being this, as reported by the Guardian, on the related business of a potential ban of BNP members being governors of secondary schools. For me, there is no question but that BNP members, councillors, and the two European MEPs we're saddled with, should not have representation beyond their elected status. At least such a status enables control over their influence in everyday life; but with them creeping into other, more subtle, forms of control, such as schools governing boards and worst of all, teachers, it is much harder for right-minded people to control the extent of influence over the potentially supine minds of the young by pernicious BNP members and supporters.

But authority figures are being equivocal about these matters. Why? What nonsense it is to suggest that BNP members have a right to threaten social stability in our society on the basis of such freedoms as that of expression and franchise. What nonsense it is to be against a total ban of BNP members or outspoken voters teaching our young. And this, against the legal background of equality and incitement to racial and gay hatred laws. How can any school that knowingly employs a BNP teacher conduct themselves without accusations of double-standards when they teach the Holocaust and the Transatlantic Slave Trade? It would not surprise me if, in the absence of a ban, a BNP teacher would end up being employed as a history teacher.

In light of these remarks, and much else besides, one has to question in the strongest terms the wisdom of Judith Bennett, a former chair of the National Governors' Association who has been a school governor for 15 years, and who spoke to the Guardian on the issue of school governing boards and BNP members: "It is a concern that they might be trying to advance racist views, but I wouldn't be in favour of an outright ban." How else can the situation be monitored outside of a formal and legal ban? It doesn't help black, Asian, gay, Jewish, or indeed any schoolchild outside the BNP's racial definition that a concern exists but that nothing affirmative has been done about the situation. Then again, it doesn't help those who do happen to fall within the BNP's racial definition, either, since they would be betrayed by the very system whose responsibility it is to ensure that their minds are not knowingly and directly influenced by manipulative, divisive, morally suspect, and horrible people such as can be found in the cadre of the British National Party.

In denial or just credulous?

El Mundo may defend its decision to include an interview with the Holocaust denier David Irving on the basis of the fact that he is one of a number of people providing, as the Guardian reports, 'opinions on polemical questions left behind by the (Second World) [W]ar', but is Irving the right person on whom to rely for just this 'polemical question'? Would you approach a murderer to ask questions about the nature of being a murderer? One possible answer to this might be yes, but in doing so you would, as Israel believes El Mundo has done in this example with Irving, be placing freedom of expression above ethics. In other words, it is arguably unethical to ask questions of a murderer because that would upset the victim's family and friends, deepening their trauma. Likewise with Irving: asking questions of the world's most grossly unapologetic Holocaust denier about the history of the Second World War offends the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust. This is, and always has been, the case with Irving and other deniers. If El Mundo wished to examine what they think is the growing criminilisation of opinion, could they not have approached an expert on Holocaust denial like Deborah Lipstadt? It is more than likely that Lipstadt has a deeply informed opinion about this contemporary concern over freedom of expression, but in addition to this you will find in her answers none of the problems with historical truth that Irving and his ilk have.