This week something very frightening happened. My husband was threatened, twice, with hospitalisation by a thug. The “reason”? My husband thought that the sentence given to Jonathan May-Bowles was reasonable given the circumstances and expressed this opinion in a public forum. Some of my readers may disagree with that. That’s ok, you’re entitled to your opinion. You are not – absolutely not – entitled to threaten bodily harm to a person simply because they disagree with you.

This was one small incident. It doesn’t mean much to people beyond Nik & myself. And we refuse to be silenced by violent moronic threats. I’d also like to add that I’ve been overwhelmed with the support we’ve received. But it does seem indicative of a broader pattern having a serious effect on the way the left interacts with the wider world, and perhaps even threatening our legitimacy.

Take the case of Dominique Strauss-Khan. A working class woman made a very serious accusation against a very powerful man. Yet despite this, because of his politics, there was a real charge to trumpet his potential innocence. Of course a person is innocent until proven guilty. That’s an essential part of the justice process. But that means treating them neutrally. Not championing them and turning a blind eye to the potential dark side of their personality.

Another obvious recent case is that of Julian Assange. Wikileaks was an illegal act of high bravery. The point is that it was illegal. A true martyr accepts that the punishment is worth the effects of the crime. Assange’s supporters seem to believe that the effects of the crime are worthy of the negation of the punishment. Never mind the horrific arguments that I’ve heard excusing the allegations of sexual assault. I don’t think it works that way.

A martyr can change the system but can’t negate it. Taking the decision to release classified information knowing it would potentially result in a prison sentence is more admirable than trying to have it both ways. Like Marbles, you may agree or disagree with the action taken, but the consequences are part of that decision. To deny that is to negate what makes to act heroic to so many in the first place.

Finally, and in a very different category of misdemeanour is Johann Hari. Hari is a great writer who has frequently written exceptionally well about the damage the Tories are doing locally and nationally. I have been fulsome in my praise. So his behaviour has embarrassed me. I no longer see him as a trustworthy source. I can’t use his brilliantly written polemics as evidence, because I can’t trust them. That’s a sad result, but for me, it has to be the right reaction. I don’t want to tarnish my judgement by trying to downplay his transgressions. I’m sorry for Hari personally, but I’m angry with him for thinking so little of his audience as to put us in this position.

If we continue to see those who do things we admire (which for me does not include Marbles) as one dimensional heroes, we leave ourselves open to attack on flanks we simply shouldn’t be exposing and to deserved ridicule. It affects our ability to present ourselves as critical thinkers. Capable of rational judgement. If we lose that, we lose our ability to convince people of the worth of our arguments. I’m not willing to give that up for anyone.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 5th, 2011 at 22:56 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.