Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 22, 2013 22:47:34 GMT
I watched this exchange yesterday and was hoping Hitchens would write about it,
Here it is:
Here it is:
Michael Heseltine, Marlene Dietrich and Me, Life and Times of a Minor Hate Figure
The life of a minor hate figure has its joys and sorrows. Being invited to be on the Question Time panel contains some of each. I am glad of any chance to put across my views. I enjoy the clash, and I am stimulated by the ability to speak where many listen. I know there will be a festival of loathing on Twitter, in which it will be stated ( as if axiomatic) that I am a **** and a **** and also a ****** ( and quite possibly a ************). Then there will be the usual screeches from the ghastly coven of the Christopher Hitchens Fan Club that it is impossible that I can be related to their hero, that I am not his brother but his afterbirth, that the wrong one died, etc. All these things have actually been said in public places by human beings who (I have no doubt) think well of themselves, buy the Big Issue and are kind to animals. The hostility will not vary whatever I say. Over the years, on QT, I have opposed the Iraq and Afghan wars, supported railway nationalisation, attacked the sale of council housing, opposed identity cards and detention without trial, but none of this matters. I am ‘Right Wing’ and therefore evil. If any of these people finds himself or herself agreeing with me, it never leads to any thought or reconsideration.
I can no longer be bothered to read these electronic grunts, yelps and snarls as, though there is the occasional intelligent comment trapped in their midst, there are too many dull and unoriginal playground jibes. It is a useful spiritual exercise, up to a point, to be exposed to this sort of mob dislike. Anyone who wants any part in public life should learn to cope with it. But there is a danger of wallowing, and even coming to enjoy it.
Actually the invitation took me (for the third time in a week) outside my normal routine, in several good ways. I had already had an enjoyable debate on World War Two at the King’s School Canterbury, which left me hoarse but pleased that I had got my point across and made a number of people actually think. This gave me the chance to spend the night in the Cathedral close in a room which actually looked on to the floodlit church, a privilege most people will never have. And Canterbury on a clear winter’s day has many beauties. The next day I went to Walthamstow, a part of London I’d never previously visited, at the invitation of Stella Creasy MP, who had challenged me to come there after we clashed on ‘Question Time’ a few months ago. I wasn’t sure what she was hoping to communicate to me, as I pride myself on being a frequent visitor to my own country and wasn’t exactly surprised by what I found. But I met some pleasant and intelligent people and , once the music had stopped, had some interesting conversations. Stella has (perhaps deliberately) misunderstood my characterisation of the Labour elite as ‘Fat Bourgeois Bohemians’ as an attack on her own waistline, which seems enviably unfat to me. Actually the point is that Labour's metropolitan elite despise the very people whose votes they need. I am also amused by her difficulties over the fact that she went to a grammar school, and supports a party which has made new grammar schools illegal. It's always funny watching the gymnastic contortions of Grammar-School-Educated Labour politicians. Where wil they end up putting their heads?
From our subsequent exchanges on Twitter (yes, I really am ClarkeMicah) I have gained one interesting fact. She says she does not think Gillian Duffy, the famous voter to whom Gordon Brown showed one face before revealing another to the cameras, is a bigot (though her former party leader definitely did). I think we may be able to build on this, especially after we have all found out how many Romanians and Bulgarians choose to come here when the EU gives them the freedom to do so. I suspect there will be many accusations of ‘bigotry’ winging about by then.
Anyway, in preparation for Question Time yesterday, I returned to the part of London where I took my first steps in national journalism. One of the glories of Fleet Street was( and remains) the sight of St Paul’s Cathedral (in those days half-obscured by the railway bridge which ran above Ludgate Hill), a building so powerful that (like many structures which possess a drum and a dome) it seems almost to vibrate when you are close to it, or inside it, like a gigantic musical instrument that has just been struck by a celestial musician.
I slipped into the cathedral for Evensong, the most moving of Anglican services even when stripped (as it almost always is) of the General Confession and Absolution, the Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty or the Prayer of St Chrysostom, and accompanied by loudspeakered ‘readings’ from a poetry-free version of the Bible. On Thursday night the Psalms (137 and 138) were sung with particular beauty, though the grisly final verses of the 137th were (as so often) tactfully omitted . The Thomas Tallis anthem was extraordinarily poignant and took full advantage of a building that was almost unimaginable at the time Tallis wrote his music. After filing out into the dusk I crossed the formerly wobbly bridge and took a long walk by the Thames in the freezing wind, trying to think about what I might say on the programme.
I was more or less sure that Jury Trial would come up, and was happy about that as I know quite a bit about since writing my book on crime. I assumed that the case of the woman with 11 children would be discussed, plus the looming energy crisis, perhaps David Cameron’s regrets for Amritsar or Theresa May’s blustering about deportation. Maybe the renaming of a building at Sandhurst in return or a donation, or John O’ Farrell’s anti-Thatcher outburst. How wrong can you be? I was baffled when the ancient subject of the London census came up, and not thrilled when the political parties were given another chance to blame each other for the ruin of the national economy, when there were better subjects to discuss. But as I understand it, the questions must be selected from those the audience submits, and it seems to me that QT audiences (especially London ones) are predominantly readers of unpopular papers with a liberal, policy-wonkish slant.
Here I must just set down a few thoughts on Lord Heseltine’s strange attack on me, and his claim that I had defamed the armed forces and called soldiers ‘stupid’. Anyone who watched the programme on the i-player can see that both allegations are plainly untrue. I come, I might add, from a family with strong connections to the armed services.
I think the whole thing was opportunist , probably done by Lord Heseltine on behalf of his friend David Cameron (the two are politically very close indeed), in an deliberate effort to damage me with conservative-minded viewers. In fact it makes no sense any other way. The discussion was about jury trial, not war. Lord Heseltine had trundled out the ancient cliché (usually employed by the left) about how if people were old enough to fight they were old enough to vote etc. I have always thought this rather suspect and thought it was time someone said it was, and why. I did not attack the armed forces. I did not call young men stupid. I simply said a truthful thing about young men’s unwise willingness to go to war, risk their lives and be ready to kill.
You might as well impeach Marlene Dietrich for singing ‘Where have all the Flowers Gone?’ (which as I recall concludes with the melancholy reflection that all the young men have gone to graveyards, every one, because of their readiness to go to war). As for the war poets, with their anthems for doomed youth and their cold reflections on the horrors of mutilation compared with the glory of the splendid uniforms, who knows what Tarzan might have said about them?
For those interested, a rough preliminary transcript of the exchange is below, leaving out various ragged bits when the interruption makes the words incomplete or too messy to be much use. Please do check it against the programme. The word ‘stupid’ was emphatically not used by me in this context, as any user of the I player can confirm.
‘One thing I might say to Michael Heseltine is that the very reason we send young men out as soldiers, often wrongly, is because they are young and unwise and are prepared to kill and risk terrible danger in a way that wise people wouldn't - (interruptions prevent me from finishing the point. The word ‘stupid’ is certainly not used)
Lord Heseltine then claimed this was a’ Scandalous reflection on Britain's Armed Forces’
I tried to continue my point, which actually concerned Jury trial, by saying:
‘and secondly you might be aware there are strong moves now to lower the voting age to 16 and how many of you would want your future decided by 16 year olds?’
Lord Heseltine, however, continued his attack on me, saying:
‘I have to say that as a former Secretary of State for Defence to describe the British Armed Forces in the language you did is disgraceful’
Realising by now that he was determined to smear me,
I replied:
‘You always were a very effective demagogue, Lord Heseltine. But I think I haven't described the British Armed Forces in any sense at all I've simply told the truth, young men are unwise’
Lord Heseltine replied :
‘You've described the soldiers in language which is viciously unfair to them’
I replied :’ Young men are unwise. You were unwise when you were young and so was I. Don't try to deny it or to silence me with silly rhetoric of the kind you usually use’
Lord Heseltine retorted:
‘You were certainly unwise because you used to work for the Socialist Workers Party’
The exchange continues:
Hitchens:
I've said nothing uncomplimentary about the Armed Forces and you know that perfectly well
Heseltine:
You wait till you see the transcript
Hitchens:
How dare you say that I have?
Dimbleby: Just to clarify, what you say you said , just say once more what you said about 18 year olds?
Hitchens:
That cynical politicians send young men out to kill and be killed
Heseltine:
No that's not what you said, You said they were stupid
Hitchens:
I said no such thing. Check the recording.
(As you will see, he was indeed wrong to claim I had said they were stupid).
The life of a minor hate figure has its joys and sorrows. Being invited to be on the Question Time panel contains some of each. I am glad of any chance to put across my views. I enjoy the clash, and I am stimulated by the ability to speak where many listen. I know there will be a festival of loathing on Twitter, in which it will be stated ( as if axiomatic) that I am a **** and a **** and also a ****** ( and quite possibly a ************). Then there will be the usual screeches from the ghastly coven of the Christopher Hitchens Fan Club that it is impossible that I can be related to their hero, that I am not his brother but his afterbirth, that the wrong one died, etc. All these things have actually been said in public places by human beings who (I have no doubt) think well of themselves, buy the Big Issue and are kind to animals. The hostility will not vary whatever I say. Over the years, on QT, I have opposed the Iraq and Afghan wars, supported railway nationalisation, attacked the sale of council housing, opposed identity cards and detention without trial, but none of this matters. I am ‘Right Wing’ and therefore evil. If any of these people finds himself or herself agreeing with me, it never leads to any thought or reconsideration.
I can no longer be bothered to read these electronic grunts, yelps and snarls as, though there is the occasional intelligent comment trapped in their midst, there are too many dull and unoriginal playground jibes. It is a useful spiritual exercise, up to a point, to be exposed to this sort of mob dislike. Anyone who wants any part in public life should learn to cope with it. But there is a danger of wallowing, and even coming to enjoy it.
Actually the invitation took me (for the third time in a week) outside my normal routine, in several good ways. I had already had an enjoyable debate on World War Two at the King’s School Canterbury, which left me hoarse but pleased that I had got my point across and made a number of people actually think. This gave me the chance to spend the night in the Cathedral close in a room which actually looked on to the floodlit church, a privilege most people will never have. And Canterbury on a clear winter’s day has many beauties. The next day I went to Walthamstow, a part of London I’d never previously visited, at the invitation of Stella Creasy MP, who had challenged me to come there after we clashed on ‘Question Time’ a few months ago. I wasn’t sure what she was hoping to communicate to me, as I pride myself on being a frequent visitor to my own country and wasn’t exactly surprised by what I found. But I met some pleasant and intelligent people and , once the music had stopped, had some interesting conversations. Stella has (perhaps deliberately) misunderstood my characterisation of the Labour elite as ‘Fat Bourgeois Bohemians’ as an attack on her own waistline, which seems enviably unfat to me. Actually the point is that Labour's metropolitan elite despise the very people whose votes they need. I am also amused by her difficulties over the fact that she went to a grammar school, and supports a party which has made new grammar schools illegal. It's always funny watching the gymnastic contortions of Grammar-School-Educated Labour politicians. Where wil they end up putting their heads?
From our subsequent exchanges on Twitter (yes, I really am ClarkeMicah) I have gained one interesting fact. She says she does not think Gillian Duffy, the famous voter to whom Gordon Brown showed one face before revealing another to the cameras, is a bigot (though her former party leader definitely did). I think we may be able to build on this, especially after we have all found out how many Romanians and Bulgarians choose to come here when the EU gives them the freedom to do so. I suspect there will be many accusations of ‘bigotry’ winging about by then.
Anyway, in preparation for Question Time yesterday, I returned to the part of London where I took my first steps in national journalism. One of the glories of Fleet Street was( and remains) the sight of St Paul’s Cathedral (in those days half-obscured by the railway bridge which ran above Ludgate Hill), a building so powerful that (like many structures which possess a drum and a dome) it seems almost to vibrate when you are close to it, or inside it, like a gigantic musical instrument that has just been struck by a celestial musician.
I slipped into the cathedral for Evensong, the most moving of Anglican services even when stripped (as it almost always is) of the General Confession and Absolution, the Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty or the Prayer of St Chrysostom, and accompanied by loudspeakered ‘readings’ from a poetry-free version of the Bible. On Thursday night the Psalms (137 and 138) were sung with particular beauty, though the grisly final verses of the 137th were (as so often) tactfully omitted . The Thomas Tallis anthem was extraordinarily poignant and took full advantage of a building that was almost unimaginable at the time Tallis wrote his music. After filing out into the dusk I crossed the formerly wobbly bridge and took a long walk by the Thames in the freezing wind, trying to think about what I might say on the programme.
I was more or less sure that Jury Trial would come up, and was happy about that as I know quite a bit about since writing my book on crime. I assumed that the case of the woman with 11 children would be discussed, plus the looming energy crisis, perhaps David Cameron’s regrets for Amritsar or Theresa May’s blustering about deportation. Maybe the renaming of a building at Sandhurst in return or a donation, or John O’ Farrell’s anti-Thatcher outburst. How wrong can you be? I was baffled when the ancient subject of the London census came up, and not thrilled when the political parties were given another chance to blame each other for the ruin of the national economy, when there were better subjects to discuss. But as I understand it, the questions must be selected from those the audience submits, and it seems to me that QT audiences (especially London ones) are predominantly readers of unpopular papers with a liberal, policy-wonkish slant.
Here I must just set down a few thoughts on Lord Heseltine’s strange attack on me, and his claim that I had defamed the armed forces and called soldiers ‘stupid’. Anyone who watched the programme on the i-player can see that both allegations are plainly untrue. I come, I might add, from a family with strong connections to the armed services.
I think the whole thing was opportunist , probably done by Lord Heseltine on behalf of his friend David Cameron (the two are politically very close indeed), in an deliberate effort to damage me with conservative-minded viewers. In fact it makes no sense any other way. The discussion was about jury trial, not war. Lord Heseltine had trundled out the ancient cliché (usually employed by the left) about how if people were old enough to fight they were old enough to vote etc. I have always thought this rather suspect and thought it was time someone said it was, and why. I did not attack the armed forces. I did not call young men stupid. I simply said a truthful thing about young men’s unwise willingness to go to war, risk their lives and be ready to kill.
You might as well impeach Marlene Dietrich for singing ‘Where have all the Flowers Gone?’ (which as I recall concludes with the melancholy reflection that all the young men have gone to graveyards, every one, because of their readiness to go to war). As for the war poets, with their anthems for doomed youth and their cold reflections on the horrors of mutilation compared with the glory of the splendid uniforms, who knows what Tarzan might have said about them?
For those interested, a rough preliminary transcript of the exchange is below, leaving out various ragged bits when the interruption makes the words incomplete or too messy to be much use. Please do check it against the programme. The word ‘stupid’ was emphatically not used by me in this context, as any user of the I player can confirm.
‘One thing I might say to Michael Heseltine is that the very reason we send young men out as soldiers, often wrongly, is because they are young and unwise and are prepared to kill and risk terrible danger in a way that wise people wouldn't - (interruptions prevent me from finishing the point. The word ‘stupid’ is certainly not used)
Lord Heseltine then claimed this was a’ Scandalous reflection on Britain's Armed Forces’
I tried to continue my point, which actually concerned Jury trial, by saying:
‘and secondly you might be aware there are strong moves now to lower the voting age to 16 and how many of you would want your future decided by 16 year olds?’
Lord Heseltine, however, continued his attack on me, saying:
‘I have to say that as a former Secretary of State for Defence to describe the British Armed Forces in the language you did is disgraceful’
Realising by now that he was determined to smear me,
I replied:
‘You always were a very effective demagogue, Lord Heseltine. But I think I haven't described the British Armed Forces in any sense at all I've simply told the truth, young men are unwise’
Lord Heseltine replied :
‘You've described the soldiers in language which is viciously unfair to them’
I replied :’ Young men are unwise. You were unwise when you were young and so was I. Don't try to deny it or to silence me with silly rhetoric of the kind you usually use’
Lord Heseltine retorted:
‘You were certainly unwise because you used to work for the Socialist Workers Party’
The exchange continues:
Hitchens:
I've said nothing uncomplimentary about the Armed Forces and you know that perfectly well
Heseltine:
You wait till you see the transcript
Hitchens:
How dare you say that I have?
Dimbleby: Just to clarify, what you say you said , just say once more what you said about 18 year olds?
Hitchens:
That cynical politicians send young men out to kill and be killed
Heseltine:
No that's not what you said, You said they were stupid
Hitchens:
I said no such thing. Check the recording.
(As you will see, he was indeed wrong to claim I had said they were stupid).