“It’s not what I believe in. It’s not what I got off the damn train for, frankly.”
November 9th, 2005…when I hear your voices dripping sympathy and concern, saying you do this ‘for the victims’, Tony, Charles, and the rest of you… I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?
Rachel from North London, a survivor of the 7th July bombings, writes an open letter to Blair & Clarke over the detention bill. Read it. Read it now.
(via Chicken Yoghurt, and many other blogs)
November 9th, 2005 at 18:29:00
Woo hoo.
And thanks for the link.
Off to the pub.
Rachel
November 10th, 2005 at 17:26:41
The problem with Rachel’s stance is that she herself is not able to speak on behalf of everybody involved in the bombings, and her experiences do not mean that the rest of the populations views can be discounted. Much as I regret the fact that Rachel was randomly chosen to be involved in the bombings, it does not give those individuals a veto on what is “correct” or how the rest of us should be protected.
November 10th, 2005 at 23:51:13
it does not give those individuals a veto on what is “correct” or how the rest of us should be protected
But it does assuredly give them a veto on pronouncements made in their name. Which - when certain other individuals have been milking the suffering of the victims as a source of moral authority for their own policies - is something.
By all means, Eric, tell me that you favour 90-day detention. Tell me that Tony Blair favours 90 days and that Ian Blair thinks likewise. Tell me that 90-day detention is a great idea, and that 14-day detention just doesn’t cut it. Feel free - as long as you can do it without mentioning the victims.
November 11th, 2005 at 01:00:22
Eric - Rachel may only be able to speak as somebody involved in the bombings, rather than everybody, but if you read her piece, you’ll see she assumes nothing more - she is only speaking to represent herself. That makes it a stance of infinitely more value than any politician who deigns to represent every victim of terrorism for their own ends, to use them and don their victimhood as a crude masque, rather than attempt an understanding of their suffering, as a means of promoting his own policy. Rachel speaks as someone directly affected by terror. Blair (and the rest of the Cabinet) speak as someone who has had never had to suffer, but declares themselves as representative of the victims, without any thought as to their actual opinions. That’s why I, and most people I know, choose to respect Rachel’s opinion more than any politician’s.
As Phil says, feel free to justify the terror bill all you can, just don’t try to make yourself out as the natural advocate of the victims without their consent while you do it.
November 13th, 2005 at 19:02:34
But it’s OK for you to use Rachel for your purposes?
Would you have posted a comment in support of the 90 days (with 7 days judicial review) from someone with a blog sat next to Rachel?
Of course you wouldn’t.
November 13th, 2005 at 20:26:19
Don’t be so stupid. I’m not “using” her at all, by linking to her weblog. All I’ve done is link to her and quote her, without any attempt to misrepresent her point of view or claiming to be representative her own views myself. Given her own complimentary comment further up the page, I don’t think she feels I was doing her any disfavour.
Would I have linked to the blog of a pro-internment bomb victim? Maybe, maybe not - it would depend on how well (or how badly) they made their argument. Problem is, as far as I know there aren’t any around. Feel free to point one out to me. Until then, please keep the discussion to real people, rather than hypothetical ones.
November 15th, 2005 at 22:33:24
The reason why Rachel has been linked to so much recently (apart from her being an articulate and courteous blogger) is because, with reference to the 90-day detention proposals, she provided and alternative and an unexpected viewpoint. Someone saying “I disagree” is more interesting than someone toeing the same line as those with loud opinions such as Tony Blair and The Sun.
I would not have linked to a blog from a 7/7 victim who said that they thought the 90-day plans were a good idea, because that is an expected viewpoint and therefore not, to my mind, as interesting as Rachel’s writing. (Interesting being the operative word when we’re talking about blogs, rather than important - Clearly all the tube passenger’s viewpoints carry equal importance).
The paradox is that the publicity given to Rachel and John Tulloch could give the impression that all the victims share their view-point. We may well see the alternative viewpoint being linked to more frequently in the coming days as a result! The market-place of ideas will judge them, as it judged Rachel.
November 16th, 2005 at 10:52:50
We may well see the alternative viewpoint being linked to more frequently in the coming days as a result!
Yeah right.