By Barry Speker OBE
Interference in the elections of other countries is generally frowned upon, especially when it affects our own democratic processes. Hence the protests about 100 Labour Party activists going off to the US to campaign for Kamala Harris in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and other key states.
A post (now deleted) by labour’s head of operations Sofia Patel, revealed that the activists were expected to pay for their own travel but that their accommodation would be ‘sorted’.
Nigel Farage, the only politician who does actively campaign abroad (for Donald) described the Patel trip as ‘direct interference’ and Elon Musk called it illegal.
However, it is an embarrassment for the country and certainly for the Government. Not only is it self delusional to imagine that this troup of labour enthusiasts have anything which would resonate with US floating voters, but why should those voters care about the views of such interlopers? Americans care little about our views on the USA.
Inevitably the PM denies any interference and acknowledges that the Government must be ready and willing to work closely with whichever candidate becomes President of our most important ally. Whether Mr Trump is convinced by his recent cordial dinner with Sir Keir remains to be seen.
An important and prize-winning film has not been allowed to be screened in Britain for five years. ‘An Officer and a Spy’ (in French ‘J’Accuse’) is based on Robert Harris’s bestselling novel about the Dreyfus affair in late 19th century France.
The novel relates to the scandal in which Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a French army officer, was falsely accused of being a German spy because of endemic French anti-semitism.
The ban of the film is due to the scandal related to its director Roman Polanski, arrested in the United States in 1977 on sex charges and having fled to France on the eve of his sentencing.
The film won the grand jury prize in Venice and has been widely distributed in Europe, but not in Britain, although it will be seen at the UK Jewish Film Festival.
Should it be shown widely now? Whatever the charges against Polanski, Alfred Dreyfus was the entirely innocent victim of frenzied bigotry, and suffered a court martial and jail sentence which were a perversion of justice.
Can ‘bad’ people produce great art? Ezra Pound was a fascist. Dostoevsky, T S Eliot and Roald Dahl were vehement anti-semites. Oscar Wilde abused underage boys. The list of artists who have committed or supported evil things is endless. They are not all banned.
Polanski is now 91. The ban is no doubt to punish him. After his demise there will probably be no outcry about showing his films.
What is troubling is that the ban deprives us of the benefit of seeing the film. The qualities of the film and the book on which it is based are a separate matter from the demerits of the filmmaker.
An Officer and a Spy is not a film about paedophilia, sexual deviation or pornography. On the contrary it is a warning against the abuse of other human beings. We must be mature enough to distinguish between the art and the artist.
We were honoured to be at the wedding of Garho and Chanel Ng held at a stunning venue – The Old Barn, South Causey Inn.
It was an opportunity for Garho’s proud Dad to put on a stunning show of the Lion Dance which Edmund has pioneered in the North East for many years – and the lion had a brand new outfit for the occasion.
For once, Garho was not participating in the athleticism of the lion dance or the drumming. A great time was had by all.
One can only despair at the continuing ineffectiveness of the United Nations. Its misguided leadership persists in appeasing terrorist groups and terror states which commit horrific violence.
It was announced that secretary-general Antonio Guterres is set to meet Vladimir Putin in Moscow as part of the Russian leader’s BRICS summit of 36 world leaders.
If he does attend, this will make a complete mockery of the UN Charter which enshrines that the UN and its member states are to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law
. and promote “universal respect for, and observance of human rights”.
Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, deemed illegal and immoral by the free world, is bringing untold suffering. A visit by the head of the UN to the Kremlin shows no regard for the rule-based order or the primacy of international law.
The failure by Guterres to attend Ukraine’s first peace conference recently in Switzerland makes the visit even more perplexing.
The visit to Russia cannot avoid being interpreted as giving succour to an imperialistic autocrat- and of course Russia is a permanent member of the security council with power to veto any UN decision.
What does this say about the future of the UN in preserving world peace and defending other countries from invasion? Rachel Reeves’ budget does not seem such a great problem!
barryspeker@hotmail.com