web analytics

Recently, one of Britain’s loudest foulmouths announced his intention to contest the Bradford West by-election, having been outside a legislature since he lost his seat in 2010. It is not yet know whether he will stand as an independent or under his contrived party ‘RESPECT’.

Looking over, and remembering, his record — noting some of the serious and heroic action which he supports — I feel myself being annoyed by the fact that such an irritating man chooses such fine (in some cases) causes. But this is so often the case, humans are able to combine the disparate.

One news writeup described Galloways ‘eloquent’ opposition to the war in Iraq, I would say the opposite — his opposition was foul, illiterate and hysterical. There was a fantastic debate in 2005 (now on YouTube) between Christopher Hitchens and Galloway — Hitch makes one of his very best points just after 00:38:00. It is amusing to watch, because I’m sure that most people who opposed the war would have wanted Hitchens to be on their side, and for the bellowing and simplistic foulmouth to be against them. Essentially, and I am attempting to be even handed, it was a case of Hitchens constructing the moral and legal precedent for the invasion, and Galloway roaring the most unsophisticated of juxtapositions like: ‘You did write like an angel, and now you are working for the devil!’ For me, someone who is confused about the intervention, I marveled as the Hitch tossed and gored Galloway, though I hope that the pacifists who were watching or who were present covered their faces to see such a loser forwarding their cause.

But then there’s the causes! The man was General Secretary of War on Want, a supporter of CND, that is more than most people can claim. Yet he gorges himself, while he is not fighting for welfare or for the besieged Palestine, on the basest and most outrageous fodder. While many politicians with some progressive goals snag themselves though having sex with the wrong person, Galloway’s inamorata was the damned Soviet Union.

I hope you remember his speech to the commons on the day of the 7/7 attacks in London:–

I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning’s bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts… The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), in an otherwise fine speech, described today’s events as “unpredictable”. They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own security services predicted them and warned the Government that if we [invaded Iraq] we would be at greater risk from terrorist attacks such as the one that we have suffered this morning… Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last.

This was always the theme with Galloway, he tiptoed just shy of supporting violence; positioning himself so as to give the impression of someone who favours the attacks, while not letting accusations stick with quite adhesion which would have been desired. I admit that I may be entering a meta-realm of rhetorical speculation when I say that the repeated denouncements with which he framed his speech were him compensating for the views which he actually held.

Galloway’s support of insalubrious regimes across the globe is despicable (and hypocritical, in that it was often the policy of cold-war America to back the despotic executive so long as it was not communist; George Galloway backs the dictator provided that they are anti-American). Despite the fact that he backs a few of my policies, I hope that Galloway looses the bi-election, or even better, I hope that he doesn’t run — or should I make those statements only after I have seen his opponents? Nevertheless, it is people like him, with their pornographic rhetoric and cretinous oratory, who cheapen decent causes. Shut up, get out of the way, and let the real rebels take their action.

7 thoughts on “George Galloway: Return of the Absurd”

  1. If you think Galloway has a ‘foulmouth’ you’ve obviously never met an average Scot or, for that matter, any normal person. I don’t remember him using any ‘foul’ language in public – perhaps you can show that he has?

    Calling Galloway hysterical in this piece of shrill cuntishness is the best part.

  2. Thank you very much for your comment.

    Considering whether Galloway is a foul-mouth: I would not rule out his using profane language in public, but that was not what I meant when I used the word; what I meant was that he uses crude and harsh language often (which is an established definition of the word). It would be an act of unfairness to say that Galloway is representative of the Scottish population — I don’t want to imply that Scots are the same as Welsh people, for example, but to say that they are collectively as rude as George Galloway would be untrue, providing counter-examples would be a concession.
    Furthermore, I reject the proposal that Galloway represents the relative rudeness of an average person, Galloway is notably louder and harsher, either through affectation or nature.

    To address your appraisal of my post, and what seems to be the the accusation of hypocrisy on my part, I submit that decision to the floor.



  3. what makes Galloway despicable is his hypocrisy.
    he supports evil regimes like the one in Syria (the most recent example) and lies to defend them

  4. What has caused this ability to lie so easily about Galloway? I am baffled. He never supported any Syrian regime, and is very clear about his disdain for all Arab dictatorships. His words quoted by Mr. Cox sound completely reasonable to me. The logic used here in order to disparage Galloway is irrational and based on emotion and falsehood…and hatred.

    I am more lost than ever as to why he is completely lambasted by folks who agree with his positions, but hate his way of speaking. He does write weekly, and I would beg you folks to read his columns. Your hatred is more and more seeming to come from a type of class warfare. Is Scotland hated here just because Scottish folks are from a different class? Is that true? I am an American, so maybe I am missing something.

    I watched his debate with Hitchens several times now, and found myself coming to a completely opposite few than Mr. Cox. If this is due to lies perpetuated by media in Britain, which is the only excuse I can find, then my only hope is that Rupert Murdoch and the BBC cease being in control of the media of record. God help us!

  5. Joe, I do intend to reply to your accusations, however, do you think you could condense them into a single comment for me, so that I can reply in a more succinct and direct way. Thanks.


  6. Oliver, I am sorry that I wrote in such an accusing manner. Please accept my apologies. I will try to explain, as to why I wrote so defensively, on behalf of Mr. Galloway. I must admit that I did not understand how much you actually admire Mr. Blair. I understand now, especially after re-reading some of your recent political musings, that Mr. Blair is a friend of yours, or, if not an actual friend, that you certainly admire him as much as I admire Mr. Galloway, and more than I understood when I commented previously.

    This new understanding I have now helps to explain why you would find George Galloway to be so offensive, although I must say, calling him one of Britain’s “loudest foulmouth” is an unnecessary personal attack, and extremely rude. No doubt, Galloway is completely unabashed, and often very angry, in his criticism of Mr. Blair. However, I would submit to you, that considering how many dangerous and despicable public personalities exist these days in both of our countries, it seems very wrong to say that Mr. Galloway is one of Britain’s loudest and foulest voices, as his reasoning regarding Mr. Blair, for example is based on logic, whether one agrees with his reasons or not. So, considering that Mr. Galloway’s voice is a rare and lonely voice, and so vehemently supportive of some of the worlds most disadvantaged people, and most under reported causes, I ask you why personally attacking him can make any sense.. What other voices in the ‘west’ speak so often for justice for the people of Palestine and Israel? I say this as a Jew, as a struggling jazz musician, living at, or below the poverty level all of my adult life. For these reasons, even I, as a rather privileged American, have encountered racism and class-ism directed at me by very foul voices of oppression, and in very loud and destructive ways

    Joe H.

Leave a Reply