you’ll like what i did there. george monbiot has attempted to perform (perform?) a citizen’s arrest on john bolton, citing the Nuremberg principles. although monbiot accepts himself that this was always going to be problematic given the fact that the crime of aggression, as defined by those principles, has not actually been assimilated into English and Welsh law, he apparently felt unable to allow one of the individuals who participated in the common plan that facilitated ‘the greatest crime of the 21st century’ (the war in Iraq, if you’re in doubt) to walk free amongst us innocents any longer. dizzying stuff.
a few points:
1. even definitions with good intentions come with complexities. e.g. the fbi’s definition of terrorism: “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” reasonable stuff, but by this definition countless heads of states are terrorists - that’s the real world i guess. but start chucking these words around and it gets a bit like rick from the young one’s calling everyone a fascist. sixth form stuff. how many fascists? how many war criminals? it’s degrading and if the most you’re going to do about these weighty accusations is attempt a ridiculous citizen’s arrest, well…
2. the greatest crime of the 21st century? a meaningless collection of words. what’s the point in quantifying these things? are we incapable of discussing these issues unless we think we’re dealing with the greatest hits? come on now people, this isn’t channel four and we’re not watching the 50 greatest crimes of the 21st century.
3. oh children, how did we get here? where have all the nuances gone? unthinking reactionary politics are supposed to be the right’s bag, aren’t they? can i make this point all questions? has the independent always been a bizarro daily mail? if politics is just an expression of ego, our affiliations just another consumer choice, then perhaps it’s no surprise we are where we are. so much else has become instant, superficial and degraded, why should politics be any different.
4. oh the hypocrisy: criticise 0 praise 1, analyse 0 ignore 1 (binaries not football scores). i can’t understand the refusal of some people to criticise the social and religious faults of radical Islamists or to acknowledge that the deposition of Saddam Hussein is – in spite of all the other horrendous issues arising from the war in Iraq – one thing we can all be happy with. moral consistency is more important than partisanship.
no more for now. i just wanted to say.