Jo Cox MP on Aleppo and the West’s betrayal of Syria

June 16, 2016 at 5:32 pm (Anti-Racism, campaigning, children, good people, internationalism, Jim D, labour party, Middle East, Syria, tragedy)

Jo Cox was both a dedicated constituency MP and a true internationalist. This is what she said in Parliament on 3 May this year about Aleppo, the betrayal of Syria and our duty to refugee children:

RIP comrade

37 Comments

  1. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    If you are a revolutionary socialist it is incumbent on you to maintain you head and speak what you think to be correct, even when others will howl you down as they react and become but servants to passing sentiment. This article does the latter.

    Jo Cox was very much a Labour MP. Oxbridge. Former policy wonk. And so much an internationalist that she wanted Britain to provide aid to Syria – in the manner of sending them expensive ordinance, delivered by RAF bombers and which would lacerate, gouge and kill its recipients in the cause of furthering British imperialism.

    The killing of Cox is to be condemned with its apparent reactionary motive (although note how it is reported that it was “Britain First” that was said, when it could not possibly be known whether it was that or the other possibility: “Britain first”.)

    But no-one should mourn such figures as Cox – they are the enemy.

    • Steven Johnston said,

      There is no such thing as imperialism anymore, that died years ago!
      As the cost of maintaining an empire exceeds any cost benefits, so why would any capitalist nation want an empire?

    • seditionsquare said,

      She refused to vote for bombing Syria and, in her limited time in Parliament, pressed for humanitarian aid in warzones. That’s your idea of an enemy?

      • Marc McKenzie said,

        It seems that way. It is sad that some feel that it is okay to speak ill of the dead–especially one who did much to help others–because of the supposed fight against “imperialism” in the name of the “revolution”.

      • Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

        You are mistaken.

        She abstained in the Syria vote but she, along with a Tory MP, wrote an article in the Observer that called for “a military component that protects civilians as a necessary prerequisite to any future UN or internationally provided safe havens.”
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/british-forces-ethical-solution-syria-humanitarian-crisis

        You don’t such with flowers.

      • seditionsquare said,

        While I don’t argue that she may have been naive about foreign policy, the fact of the matter is that when she was called upon to vote for bombing ISIS the following December (under the ludicrous terms set by the Conservative government) she refused to do so on humanitarian grounds.

  2. Glasgow Working Class said,

    My condolences to her family. The remain mob will milk this to its end however we should get out of this corrupt EU. The campaign should start immediately, life goes on. There is a ridilulous Princess Diana feeling about this tragedy seemingly emerging.

  3. Lamia said,

    Jo Cox was not ‘the enemy’.

    I disagree with her views on the EU referendum, I respect her for her stance on Syria. But that is neither here nor there. It is a cruel and unjust fate for her and for her family. RIP.

  4. Political Tourist said,

    The right wingers on here just can’t help themselves.
    Some Fash geezer has just murdered a Labour MP and the rightists on here are still spouting nonsense about Leaving.
    You couldn’t make it up.
    Give it a rest.

    • Jim Denham said,

      For once I agree with you, PT; I considered deleting the first two comments, but on balance have left them as examples of sub-political nastiness and sheer stupidity.

    • Glasgow Working Class said,

      You are the narrowback Nat si old bhoy and a right winger.

  5. John Rogan said,

    The suspect, Tommy Mair, was a long term supporter of the neo-Nazi National Alliance.

    The SPL show how he bought a manual from them in 1999 on how to build a gun.

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/16/alleged-killer-british-mp-was-longtime-supporter-neo-nazi-national-alliance

  6. Jim Denham said,

    Not quite as objectionable as the first two comments above, but still pretty crass: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/23031/16-06-2016/shocking-killing-of-jo-cox

  7. Rilke said,

    Southpiss indicates that this ‘killing’ should be condemned due to its ‘reactionary’ motive. He is consitent and has adopted the same pattern when refusing to condemn killings by Islamic fanatics in Paris, London and elsewhere. According to his line, those killings are a ‘reaction’ to Western imperialist actions and in fact are relatively innocuous in terms of comparison to the ‘devastation’ that said Western imperialism enacts. In short, there are killings that can be ‘condemned’ (reactionary ones) and ones that we should either ignore (it will help the ‘imperialists’ if we ‘condemn’ them) or in fact we should siimply accept these ‘response’ killings as part of our general social and cultural complicity in Western imperialists actions.
    There are number of points I would raise: One, it has always been my conviction that being a socialist implied not simply accepting political murder as part of the way of conducting political action. If it is acceptable in the way he outlines, then there is no real basis for not applying poltical killing in general. In other words, there can be no basis for opposing or condemning a person who disagrees with him when they either kill him or a members of his family. Unless of course, the killer can be identified as a ‘reactionary’. Even then the basis of condemnation could only be that the motive was be reactionary, not that the killing as such was ‘wrong’.
    Second, it is logically inadmissible to claim that groups or persons are the ‘enemy’ because, in his view, they poltically assist in the deaths of people when the proposed basis for the assertion in the first instance, is that killing in and of itself, is not to be denounced other than on the basis of whether it is politically ‘reactionary’ or not. The conclusion precedes rather than follows the premiss and therefore invalidates it. The only way around this logical impasse is to resort to a numbers game and I have seen him use this – the ‘West’ kills a lot of people the targets of ‘imperialsim’ only kill a few. This argument still implies that killing is wrong or not desirable, but cannot say why.The numbers are the argument not the killing.
    Third, the argument from origin is not only idiotic, but is truly disgusting. The idea that going to Oxford or working for a charity frames the legitimacy of the possilbity of being murdered seems to me to be utterly without merit to the point of simple vengefulness. It is very easy to become blood thirsty on the basis of origins and to impute the right to hurt on the assumptions of where a person comes from or what job they do. In fact, it is one of the stock in trades of the extreme right. I have a vague inclination that Southpiss may come from or live in London and he is reasonably articulate. I have a number of shall we say, acquaintances, that have a rabid and incoherent dislike of ‘smart arsed Londoners’. They often talk of wishing to hurt them.They are the kind of morons who like to talk of ‘killing coppers’ and so on. On the basis of his own argument, if attending Oxford and becoming a Labour MP and/or being a copper, are enough of a basis not to be ‘mourned’ then it is difficult to see why any one should ‘mourn’ when these ‘acquaintances’ knock his teeth out or worse. Unless of ocurse, some origins by definition, are better than others. But that argument has to be made and proved rather than simply implied.
    Where is the intricacy, the gentle care, the love and hope, the infinite longing and acute analyis that used to be part of the ‘left’? Perhaps now only the poets can save us. I do not think it any accident that Jim turns more and more to music given much of what he has to listen to on here. Many on here have become as vulgar, shallow and disgusting as the right they purport to denounce.

  8. ZINR said,

    Southpaw (and people of your ilk),

    Jo Cox was a nice MP from the sane and moderate wing of the Labour Party. She was known for her work with Save the Children and the NSPCC and the huge effort she put into the Maternal Morality Campaign. She was killed by fascist scum whose moronic and degraded nationalistic fervour flourished in the atmosphere whipped up by Farage, Galloway and similar ludicrous isolationist right wingers.

    If she is “the enemy” to you and deserved to die, how is your supposedly Revolutionary Socialism any different to Fascism?

    • ZINR said,

      …er, I meant the Maternal Mortality Campaign, obviously, not “morality”…

    • Steven Johnston said,

      The honest answer is it isn’t. He’s is a supporter of Ho Chi Minh and possibly Pol Pot. That is the problem with nationalism and national liberation movements, it’s a bit like putting a coin in a fruit machine, you never know what the result is going to be.

      I didn’t agree with her politics but she did not deserve this. Nobody does. I feel for her children, friends and family.

    • Marc McKenzie said,

      “If she is “the enemy” to you and deserved to die, how is your supposedly Revolutionary Socialism any different to Fascism?”

      There is no difference, it seems. These folks have gone so far to the Left that they end up bumping into and becoming enmeshed with the far Right.

  9. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    Actually I condemned the London, Paris killings.

    If a fascist killed Cameron, I’d condemn that (it would be an advance by fascism) as I did the killing of Cox. If an Irish republican killed the PM I wouldn’t condemn that.

    So I haven’t bothered with other than skim reading the rest of his nonsense that follows from this egregious lie – such as my supposed idea that the killing of Oxbridge MPs shouldn’t be condemned. Again I say nothing like that. I just point out that her background was of a type.

    Incidentally I think the claims that the person arrested is a ‘fascist’ seem premature. He’d have a bigger footprint than what I’ve seen, I think, and I note the claims of his mental illness. But we will see.

  10. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    ZINR – please try and read before making a fool of yourself. I condemned the killing not said she ‘deserved to die’.

    ‘Saint Jo’ wasn’t a ‘nice MP’. None of those type can be such e.g., she nominated Corbyn as an undemocratic manoeuvre – to get him on the ballot paper so he would take votes from Burnham and so help the candidate she voted for – the Blairite Liz Kendall. And she was a warmonger

    • ZINR said,

      “No one should mourn her.”

      What is the difference between saying that and saying she deserved to die?

      “None of those types can be (nice).”

      Those who benefited from her work with children’s charities would beg to differ. Engaged in many similar humanitarian ventures are you?

      • Steven Johnston said,

        Yes, her friend and family should mourn and the rest of us should mourn the loss of a fellow human being.

        She did not deserve to die and it’s disgraceful that there are comments like this so soon after her death.

        I knew Southpawpunch was a real Stalinist but I didn’t think he lacked compassion!

      • Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

        I could be. I’m replying to you. And as you can’t tell the difference between these phrases I’m also happy to offer you the remedial English comprehension classes that you need at a 50% discount.

        You also appear to have a problem with the word ‘moderate’. You are a supporter of capitalism that condemns millions to premature deaths and lesser lives for near all the rest. That’s not being ‘moderate’

    • Jim Denham said,

      The loathsome scum Southpaw may not have actually said “she deserved to die”: he *did* say “But no-one should mourn such figures as Cox – they are the enemy.” No, you piece of shit: YOU are the enemy right now.

  11. Sue r said,

    Difficult question here about culpability. Islamic terrorism in the west is often explained by mental instability, this scumbag had a history of alienation and mental illness, will people now explain his heinous act with reference to his past?

  12. Steven Johnston said,

    But so are you southpawpunch, you support state capitalism and regimes that send hundreds of millions to premature deaths. People died trying to flee the lesser lives those regimes offered. I hope you are proud of that. If that what you think being a radical is?

  13. Rilke said,

    The Sun is making much of the ‘crazed loner’ configuration for this murder, it actually has that phrase as one of the tag lines.
    The interesting point, is that the the ‘lunatic loner’ was and is, used by much of the ‘left’ in relation to killings framed and shaped by unstable individuals who have their ideological manias shaped and directed by religious zealotry. It is difficult to see how these same ‘apologist of the ‘left’ can now claim, that this murder is politically framed. We have people on this blog who argue that the Orlando killer was simply a sexually confused nutcase and therefore religiously framed hatreds and theocratically driven phobias played no part whatsoever in his actions. If this position is to be maintained, then any proofs of Cox’s murderer being in any way ideologically driven or shaped, will be almost impossible to sustain. In other words, the same pattern of dishonest political evasion and justification exists between the two positions.
    By the way, Southpiss, you denounced the Paris and London killings for being politically misguided or counter productive, not because they were killings as such, remember that.

    • Steven Johnston said,

      I agree again and it is too early to speculate the motives behind the killing. Britain First have denied any involvement with the killing and even issued a video saying the condemn it. If the left does not accept this it will have to explain why it gives clerical, but not political, fascism a free pass.

  14. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    More lies, Rilke. No I did not do as you claim (demnounced…).

    Let’s see some evidence (impossible) or withdraw.

    And no-one would wish to condemn EVERY killing (‘not because they were killings as such’) e.g. who would complain about the cops killing the Orlando killer to stop his killing – not me.

    It’s interesting how many on the Left, correctly, point out how mental illness is often ignored and those with it do not have their illness taken into account when they do things.

    That’s unless what they do is of a certain type e.g. Peter Sutcliffe killing many women. I have no idea whether Sutcliffe’s claims of mental illness were correct or a ruse, but I know they were near ignored at his trial.

    Such is happening here as well as a coach and horses being driven through the presumption of innocence for the guy arrested by the media and more,

  15. Rilke said,

    Southpiss, do not play the hypocrite with me, I am not in the mood. Check you prefious posts, especially on the Hedbo killings.
    You will be telling us next that you did not just post that you would not denounce the assassination of Cameron as long as it was enacted by a ‘Irish Republican’. If you think he is truly worth killing why don’t you fuckin do it? Who do you think you are impressing with such outlandish and viciously infantile remarks?
    As far as Sutcliffe is concerned there is no doubt that he was a very disturbed person and he has in fact, spent long periods in mental institutions. My main point is that acute neurosis and social phobias are often given form and direction by idiological forces.There is no doubt that by his own admission, Sutcliffe had come to despise women in a murderous way and we can see that versions of misogynist ideology and grotesque images related to female sexuality (it seems he also had some odd-ball religious ideas about female ‘sin’ and so on) helped to frame his deadly impulses. This is not to say that these ideological forces and patterns ’caused’ his attacks. It bemuses me that many on the ‘left’ simply wish to ignore these ideologiccal forces and prefer to rely on a very simplistic version of ‘imperialism’ to literally explain all and every phenonemon.

  16. Jim Denham said,

    Some carefully-measured, but self-evidently true, commentary, from Alex Massie at the Spectator: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/a-day-of-infamy/
    Also Polly Toynbee – not someone I always agree with, but here she’s spot-on: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox

  17. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    No – Rilke, you check them. And they say no such thing as you claim.

    You are the one who made the false claims and, obviously, without a shred of evidence. You are all weak bluster. Enough.

  18. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    So what do we have?

    An article that starts off with the lauding of a militarist MP; and comments that fulsomely praise this rightwinger and deal with criticism of her record by changing the subject (lying about what I was supposed to have said).

    The Left, as represented by debate are no somewhat right of some Liberal Democrat MPs.

    • Steven Johnston said,

      That’s a bit rich coming from a Stalinist!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: