The main difference between oppressor and oppressed . . .

. . . is opportunity.

Thus we have the light brown US Attorney General Eric Holder taking offence at Representative John Culbertson (R-Texas) quoting a former Democratic party activists to the effect that the 2008 intimidation of voters by club-bearing Black Panthers in Philadelphia was the most serious such act he had witnessed in his career. Holder replied:

When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia - which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.

Interesting. For the Attorney General "my people" is not the citizens of the United States, but only those with an African ancestor. And he seems to think that the wrong done to "his people" until the 1960s means that said people should not, today, be held to the legal standard that some brave individuals did, indeed, die to uphold.  

So, an advocate of separate legal standards for black people. In what way is that different in principle to the Jim Crow laws that the Democratic party imposed in the South for the ninety years before the 1960s?

Fatty Clarke to go?

"Ken Must Go" says the Sun. "He is a bumbling liability who seems keener to rock the boat than safeguard the streets. He is out of tune with the public and out of step with his own party".

The Mail was less strident but the sidebar to the main story about shysters is equally deadly about Clarke:

One Government source described the stance of Mr Clarke, Attorney General Dominic Grieve and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on the issue as ‘limper than an elderly lettuce’. David Cameron will next week allow Tory MPs a free vote – ensuring Parliament will resoundingly reject the idea of giving votes to prisoners. That will pave the way for a defining showdown between Britain and the European Court of Human Rights. But yesterday Mr Clarke warned MPs against voting down a change in the law, insisting ministers must abide by the verdict from Strasbourg.

"MPs must assert British democracy on prisoner votes", says the Express.

"What happens if we defy Europe? Nothing", says the Telegraph.

"Get rid of the lazy bastard", say I.

Incompetence

The MSM are yapping that the publication of the previously secret reports of the Baby P case reveals the incompetence of all involved.

First of all, none of it is news. All the details were known previously. The only "news", therefore, is that the reports containing the details have been published. Big fucking deal.

Secondly, incompetence does not begin to describe it. Everybody involved appears to have been negligent. Why are state employees forever shielded from personal liability?   

Sue, Grabbit and Run

Private Eye's apocryphal firm of solicitors has a rival in the Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), one of whom gives us the benefit of his fine legal mind in a Guardian article today.

My firm is acting for many Iraqi civilians killed or tortured by UK forces. Some died from indiscriminate attacks on civilians or from the unjustified use of lethal force. Others have been killed in custody – the most notable being Baha Mousa who died after sustaining 93 separate injuries.

So far so good. The treatment of Baha Mousa was a stench in the nostrils of humanity and those involved should have gone down for it. Paying off the family was not enough, although it is understandable that a public interest firm should wish to cover its costs.

There is a huge body of evidence about killings, ill-treatment and torture of Iraqis while in custody with UK forces. We act for hundreds of Iraqis who complain of being subjected to deeply disturbing coercive interrogation techniques at the hands of a secret squad of UK interrogators. Insofar as the logs add to this body of evidence, it will help us to gain a single public inquiry into the UK's detention policy.

Aha. Now we're talking serious money. I look forward to learning what a non-disturbing, non-coercive interrogation technique might be. "Insofar" as the logs relate to the actions of US troops, is this fine legal mind talking about guilt by association? Yup.

We also act for families in Falluja, where there has been an alarming increase in the rate of birth defects since the attacks [by US forces] on the city in November 2004. Such is the concern from the medical profession that parents are being warned not to have children because of the risks. It is suggested by many professionals that the health problems plaguing the population have been caused by the weapons systems used by coalition forces during the attacks. The UK provided material assistance to the US [that's a laugh] and bears a heavy responsibility to answer and address this emerging public health crisis. A case on behalf of those parents will be lodged at the high court in London shortly.

By the same token, it might be suggested by many professionals that PIL are international ambulance-chasers seeking maximum publicity for their claims in the hope that the British government will settle out of court to avoid the expense and embarrassment of defending the actions not only of their own but of their allies' troops.

Human Rights used to be a noble cause. It has been shamefully devalued by the political selectivity of the main international human rights organisations and by the naked opportunism of allegedly public interest lawyers who somehow only find it in the public interest to take on high profile, "deep pocket" cases.

PIL, no doubt, is an exception to the general rule. But it should perhaps be more careful not to seem like a money-grubbing organization making tenuous accusations in the hope that some of them will prove profitable.