On The Road In The Kingdom Of Fear

One of the things I expected from University was political discourse; especially politics with leftist principles. It would appear that some of the most active ‘leftist’ political organisations on campus are significantly lacking in principles.

Firstly, I must emphasise, this is not an attack on the anti-war movement as a whole. I was passionately anti-war, I wear my ‘George Bush is a Stupid Monkey’ t-shirt with pride and have even class myself as a Socialist. However, I have become increasingly disillusioned with what I once thought was my political foundation. This is a condemnation of those who lead the anti-war organisations and whose politics are riddled with contradictions and the stench of quasi-totalitarian fancies. It does not take long, when you pick at its surface, to reveal the true allegiances of some, if not many, of the anti-war movements leaders.

Let us begin with the most rabid of anti-war vocalists; George Galloway.

In 1994; Galloway, who admits he knew of the genocidal tendencies of Saddam, saluted the dictator with the words, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." Galloway now claims this was a “salute to the Iraqi people”. Utter bullshit. The words following these were; “I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."

This cock-sucking of Saddam shouldn’t surprise; he has a history of supporting tyrannical dictatorships, once describing the collapse of the Soviet Union (50 million dead) as “the biggest catastrophe of my life”. The Ba'thist President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad is, according to Galloway, “the last castle of Arab dignity”. He appears to have forgotten the occupation of Lebanon and the recent assassination of Rafik Hariri.


Galloway was against getting rid of Milosevic, thus aligning himself with Serbian ethnic cleansers; implementers of the genocide against Bosnian Muslims. On the subject of genocide, he also claims in his autobiography that the post-Gulf war massacres of Kurds and Shia were part of “a civil war that involved massive violence on both sides.” This is plainly ridiculous, and yet another example of Galloway siding with Saddam and his vile kleptocracy.

The list goes on, and as Christopher Hitchens said in their recent debate, “the man’s hunt for a tyrannical fatherland never ends”.

I’m not talking about a few badly chosen words, this is just the tip of the sewage pile. Tariq Aziz, the de facto head of Government under Saddam is considerd a “dear friend”, with whom he spent the Christmas holiday of 1999 and even admits to have been “disco dancing” with. Galloway also organised a petition to try and gain his release from American custody.

As well as having a close personal friendship with one of the chief cabinet ministers of a tyrannical dictator, Mr Galloway also cohorts with known exacerbates of terrorism, for instance, Dr Muhammad al-Massari.

Galloway ran the 'Massari Must Stay Campaign' against his deportation in the early 1990's. The good doctor runs a lovely pro-terrorist website featuring advice on how to slit throats. The BBC has also previously reported that al-Massari helped Osama Bin Laden open a UK office in the mid-Nineties and now claims it is legitimate for Muslims to assassinate the Prime Minister.

Opposition to the Afghan invasion is another marked aspect of RESPECT’s agenda. It is one thing to be against the war in Iraq, but to suggest Afghans were better off under the rule of the Islamo-facsist Taliban is another altogether. One of the leaders of Manchester RESPECT gave her game away in a tirade against Bush (which I, on the whole, agreed with). She let slip that “Bush and Blair are trampling on Afghan democracy”. I questioned her on this point, citing the fact that 25% of the new Afghan parliament is reserved for women. In a country where five years ago women were oppressed second-class citizens they are now represented with women’s rights enshrined in the constitution. Despite the obvious problems in Afghanistan, this is undoubtedly a great step towards a better society. I have never seen a member of the Stop The War Coalition or RESPECT holding up signs calling for ‘women’s rights in Afghanistan’. They are obsessed with anti-Americanism in the face of real progress in a former hermit state.

Likewise, just as RESPCT appeases fascism in the form of the Taliban; the coalition manages to accommodate extreme homophobia within its ranks. According to the Electoral Commission, the largest donor to the Respect Party’s war-chest was a Dr Naseem. He gave 30% of their total budget of ₤53,486 and, three times what Galloway contributed. He was also the Respect candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr and a member of the party’s executive committee and an active campaigner.

Dr Naseem sports the usual right-wing religious fundamentalist hallmarks, the linking of homosexuality to paedophilia and saying both are “a danger to society”. But how, pray tell, does Naseem suggest we deal with public displays of homosexuality or “lewdness witnessed by several people”. The penalty for that is death.

The Muslim Association of Britain is also part of the RESPECT coalition. Its extreme homophobia and sexism make the Christian Coalition look tolerant and reasonable by comparison. It is also the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood – which claims Hamas as its militant group in the Palestinian Territories and has as part of its motto “To die for Allah is our highest expectation”.

Some may criticise these examples as guilt by association; it is fair to say that in politics you cannot choose who supports your views or votes for you. But Dr Rahman provided 30% of the funding for the RESPECT campaign. Any decent person would reject money coming from someone who would gladly stone all homosexuals to death. This obviously isn’t the case for the morally repugnant RESPECT.

I could go further with examples of abhorrence among members of the RESPECT coalition; including the Socialist Workers Party and the MAB, but I must close this diatribe.
If I leave you with anything from this polemic, let me pose this to you: is it not true that just as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo raise serious questions about the Americans commitment to Justice, Liberty and the Rule of Law, do the contradictions and moral paradoxes associated with members of the anti-war movement not bring into question, firstly their credibility, but most importantly whether, Galloway specifically, is anti-war at all? Certainly in my viewing of the evidence, and in the fight against fascism, it would appear that rather than being anti-war; Galloway is pro-war, just on the other side.