Hypocrite of the Month: Vote now.

March has been a busy time for hypocrites, so before the list grows any longer now might be an appropriate time to take stock of those who say one thing at one time but say another when the situation suits them. Please vote at end.

William Hague:

When Israeli agents, allegedly, assassinated a Hamas terrorist in Dubai William Hague, then shadow Foreign Secretary, stood shoulder to shoulder with then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in his condemnation of Israel for using faked foreign, including British, passports and was in full agreement with Miliband’s decision to expel an Israeli diplomat from the London embassy.

Last week Hague sent in that secret service mission to eastern Libya to make contact with rebel forces only to find them detained by those rebels in the confusion when the secret mission dropped in from a helicopter in the the dead of night. And the mission was found to have in their possession…….faked foreign passports.

Shami Chackrabarti:

Shami is the director of human rights group Liberty and in this capacity behaves as the conscience of Britain appearing regularly on BBC’s Question Time to berate the government over such human rights laws as the length of detention without trial for suspected terrorists.

She is also a member of the council of the London School of Economics and was part of the decision making process that allowed LSE to accept a huge donation from Colonel Gadaffi. She accepts she was fooled but fooled by what? Didn’t she know the human rights situation in Libya? Howard Davies resigned as Director of LSE but there is, currently, silence from Shami.

Omar Barghouti:

Omar detests Israel and ideally wants it gone as a Jewish state. He lives in Ramallah but is studying for a Ph.D at Tel Aviv university while calling for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, which includes an academic boycott. Meanwhile, he consumes Israeli products on a huge scale, taking for himself the best Israel has to offer.

The United Nations
:

Last week nine children were accidentally killed in a NATO air strike when trying to knock out Taliban positions but the UN has been silent. When Israel killed nine terrorists aboard the Mavi Marmara there was a worldwide outcry and the UN called for a full investigation.

Stop The War Coalition
:

While calling vociferously for successful revolutions against the ruling autocrats in Arab countries you will be hard pushed to find STWC support for the opposition in Iran despite the murders, arrests and sackings of opposition figures and anyone who dissents from the murderous ways of the evil Ahmadinejad/Khamenei twins. And despite the fact that Iran had been caught red-handed trying to heavily arm the Taliban in order to kill NATO troops.

Newsnight:

On Tuesday night BBC’s Newsnight gratuitously introduced the anarchist Noam Chomsky as being “Jewish” in a piece about the left-wing liberals in the West. I thought the time had passed when someone’s religion is relevant. In the following piece Jeremy Paxman went on to interview Chomsky who was then allowed to air unchallenged attacks on Israel.

Neil Warnock:

A bit of fun amidst the gloom, unless you are a QPR supporter. QPR are on the verge of promotion to the Premier League but now stand accused of failing to properly register a player when they signed him in 2009. This could lead to a big points deduction and the end of their hopes of reaching the big time.

When QPR’s current manager, Neil Warnock, was managing Sheffield United in the Premier League West Ham United had incorrectly registered Carlos Tevez. It was argued that West Ham should have had points deducted. This would have relegated them instead of Sheffield United.

There was no points deduction and Sheffield United were relegated. Warnock claimed that Sheffield United would have stayed up if the rules were adhered to. Now the boot is on the other foot can he morally argue against a points deduction for QPR if they are found guilty?

36 responses to “Hypocrite of the Month: Vote now.

  1. Was a toss-up between the two tossers Barghouti and the foetus but then I’m used to that pair. The irony of Neil Warnock was too delicious to refuse. :o)

  2. For me it was a close call between the two tossers, the detestable Paxman and and the idiot Wee Willy. I went for the former, because he has been squarely on the side of Israel’s vilifiers and demonisers for much longer.

  3. Neil Warnock I didn’t get being a football illiterate but besides that I succumbed to a bit of racism and decided all those poor darling just couldn’t help themselves since it is their culture but William Hague really “disappointed” me.

  4. ooops I forgot to congratulate you Richard – I think it is a first class idea.

  5. That was a tough decision. I ended up opting for Schoolboy William because of his comparatively powerful position and the corresponding quagmire of hypocrisy and fraudulence that he wallows in.

  6. I wish there was an option to vote for “all of the above”. OK, perhaps teh football question could be omitted as I’m pretty ignorant about it. But all the rest? Pah! A pox on all their houses.

    I voted for Hague in the end. I have no expectations at all from the UN, Barghouti, or the media types. I have fairly low expectations from British politicians too, but even so, I didn’t expect them to be quite so overtly hypocritical. I should have known better.

  7. To my mind you can’t really call a group of people hypocritical since there will be differences of opinion among them. My vote gors to Omar Barghouti. In the ‘Palestine’ that he espouses he would be strung up in a nanosecond.

  8. Can I vote for all of them?

  9. Sharon Klaff

    Once again Richard a great post.

    I am hard pushed to decide. Voting for one out of a rag bag of charlatans kind of makes one worse than the other whereas they are all seasoned experts in this field.

    I am pleased to see that you included Shami Chakrabati as she is the one cutie pie revered as keeper of our human rights – sanctimonious in her certainty that she knows better than any individual what is right and what is wrong. For her to claim she was fooled by a tyrant is like Jamie Oliver being fooled by a turkey twizzler. She should return her CBE and sent to work in the refugee camps without pay.

    I never heard of Neil Warnock and know very little about football. However, just because football is not politics does not make one less of a hypocrite if that is what he has done. I can’t vote for him though as his decisions have no impact on how we live.

    So how does one choose one hypocrite as being worse than any other? I have tossed coins, scissored, papered and stoned, tried to catch foes by their toes and still no clue. Should it be Hague whose great teenage promise has proved him to be simply an obnoxious precocious bigot with little ability; Newsnight for adhering to BBC bias; Bargouthi for simply being true to type; STWC for being nothing of the kind?

    It’s a pity there is not an “all of the above”.

  10. Absolutely superb post Richard.
    Wonderfully comical, full of irony and resting on a bed of hard incontrovertible facts.
    All credit for deftly coalescing this pitiful salad of toe-curling inconsistencies.
    It is a toss up between Warnock and Hague – toss being the operative word. Though as a West Ham supporter, I would have to go for the ill-fated Warnock who seems to have the most untenable position.

    You might also have included all outspoken humanitarians who drive a (Gaddafi owned) Fiat.

    Or Israel tourism officials who, despite my wave of protests, have continually chosen to send hoards of tourists on package deals to the (Gaddafi owned) Corinthia Hotel in Prague.

    Or even West Ham United. – The Hammers have unreservedly backed FIFA’s campaign to “Kick Racism out of Football” – while I remember they were the team who put it there in the first place.

  11. Sharon, the refugees have suffered enough. They should not have to put up with the repulsive Chakrabarti as well.

  12. Great post again Richard. Did you know that an anagram of Neil Warnock is Colin Wanker?

  13. Why is it hypocritical for the BBC to mention Chomsky is Jewish? You might think it undesirable or irrelevant, but how is it hypocritical?

    (I watched that Newsnight slot. They mentioned Chomsky is Jewish in reference to his criticism of Israel, so it was relevant.)

    Anyway, my vote goes to Hague.

    • whenever German “BBC” radio tells me that a critic of Israel is Jewish the way it is done suggests that he has extra-authority and/or higher knowledge due to that fact.

      And though I readily confess to being a paranoic I insist that when it comes to the above I am not. Transcripts make those infos quite often sound quite unobjectionable but add the voice of the informer and you get a different picture i.e. the “if even he as a Jew says so, it must be the gospel-like truth”.

    • Maybe bigoted is more accurate than hypocritical. However, when an As-a-Jew vilifies Israel, and a non-Jew wheeles him out to do the vilifying, there is a definite stench of hypocrisy because the non-Jew claims that he is not a racist -thus, emphasising the ethnicity is hypocritical.

      • I don’t like Chomsky, his Israel-bashing or the prominence the media gives him, just to be clear. But to mention he is Jewish, in the context of his Israel criticism is neither hypocritical or irrelevant.

        Indeed, to mention he is Jewish in such a context follows basic journalistic practice, though. In the same way as an Iraqi supporter of the Iraq war has their nationality mentioned. In the same way that Muslim critics of Islam like Irshad Manji have their religion mentioned.

        I would have thought the above was obvious to you, Richard? Indeed, on your own blog you have written about Jewish critics of Israel and have yourself drawn attention to the fact they are Jewish. So it’s okay for you to do it, but not anyone else? There’s a word beginning with ‘h’ for that!😉

      • richardmillett

        I don’t think i have cited someone’s religion or nationality to try to prove a point. I have made an issue of it only when they have.

        In the old days the media was accused of racism when they referred to a “Jewish businessman”. Now a Jewish businessman will be called “a businessman”. But in academia the Jewish label has survived. Arguably it is relevant in the context of a discussion on Israel, but i don’t think it is. Chomsky didn’t make his Jewishness an issue from what I saw and if he didn’t then i think the BBC was wrong to. I feel the BBC was being hypocritical in an age in which we don’t normally cite someone’s religion.

        And, anyway, Chomsky’s arguments surely have the same force irrespective of his being Jewish.

      • I would argue that it’s not his religion we are discussing – he is a left-wing lunatic – but his ethnic background.

  14. I had to vote the UN, I’m sure they are stronger in numbers, and hide themselves in their numbers too. Also, they are good for naught, so they are hypocritical in receiving a pay-check as well.
    Great post!!
    The reason for the mention of Chomsky being Jewish is a false premise to give more credit to his criticism of Israel. In any case the hypocrite is the man himself, as he allows that behaviour to put more weight to his discourse without being offended by the exploitation of his ethnicity (which he endorses of course).

    • When a critic of Israel is identified as a Jew it lends weight to his views.

      When a supporter of Israel is identified as a Jew…”well he would say that, wouldn’t he…?”

  15. Paxman and Chumpsky. A double dose of ugly pomposity and deranged smugness. My nervous system can only take so much.

  16. Yes and there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the written word, the written word accompanied by pictures, drawings and/or videos and the spoken word and the spoken word accompanied by visual stuff.

    The human voice is incapable of adding additional meaning to anything or shift its emphasis let alone change the message. No perfectly innocent sentence on paper has ever acquired slander and/or irony when spoken.

    It is all one and the same and we only go to the theater and the movies to admire the beautiful dresses, as to the spoken word we all understand it as we would when reading it for ourselves at our desks at home. In fact the actor’s voice speaking the text for us spoils it all for us, if we had our say we would all vote for the text to be transmitted via screens and the actors just walking up and down parading their costumes. Even Pantomime would spoil it all for us, body language is just so meaningless.

  17. btw why do muslims, rightfully in my mind, complain again and again that pieces about them are preferably accompanied by them in prayer taken so that their behinds figure prominently?

    why do pro-Israel-ones regularly complain that even the most secular Israeli matter is accompanied by a Jew in suggesting religiousity clothing.

    All that is totally irrelevant and does nothing to how we read a text, let alone listen to it.

  18. Isca Stieglitz

    Richard, you are naughty….Mmmmmm, decisions decisions; like a box of choccies without any nice fillings ;o)

  19. I ticked the lot . No problem.

  20. I voted for the United Nations but would have liked to vote for the lot.

    Richard, we could have a single transferable vote – and add Galloway. See CiFWatch today.

  21. Chakrabarti is particularly disgusting. Sanctimonious.

  22. I admit to being a hypocrite myself – I hate puff pieces, but as soon as there is a pro-Israel one I consider it to be loverly, first class journalism ;o)

    Brigitte, probably still No. 1 German women’s magazine (before Vogue etc), has a singularly uninformative and confusing puff piece on Dead Sea cosmetics with seducing photos including a big one of Ahava-products. Towards the end of course they encounter a wise man who produces soap in Nablus and whose business suffered due to the intifada. For somebody not familiar with the issue it ever so vaguely insinuates that the intifada was something Israel perpetrated

    – while the Israelis they quote sound like sound business men the Palestinian soap producer is presented to imply the “millenia old wisdoms of the orient”. But one probably has to be German to get miffed by that last part of the piece because one knows too well the mindset that is responsible for the imagery it creates.

    Sorry I don’t have a scanner or I’d send the stuff to Richard, but it certainly would be nice if London Ahava would display those pages, it might give Brucie some stomach cramps.

    This is what they have on their website:
    http://www.brigitte.de/beauty/haut/totes-meer-kosmetik-1084713/

  23. I wonder what all those anti-Semites on your blog, Rich, have to say about the events of Friday evening . . .

    http://melchettmike.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/itamar-infanticide-the-difference-between-us-and-them/

  24. mike,’

    you cant find one leftist blog that has not gone out of its way to use the moral equivalency argument regarding the massacre….seems they get all get their talking points from abbas

    below is the barghoutti speech that richard was at

    got it from a blog that id’d richard as “zionist” and said that barghoutti won

    prob is…barghoutti lied (or is an ignorant buffoon) mandela did not attend university during apartheid

    apartheid laws were instituted in 48….mandela had graduated before, and would not have been admitted to those institutions under apartheid

    barghoutti lost

  25. March isn’t over yet. There’s plenty of time for more hypocrisy. So I feel justified in counting back 30 days for Hypocrite of the Month.

    Surely the William Hague votes is a subset of the UN vote? William Hague as Foreign Minister instructed the British representative in the UN Security Council to vote to condemn Israeli building. That was a declaration that the building was a breach of International Peace and Security. (Hague might claim the vote was merely a reprimand but that makes him sound like an idiot as well as a hypocrite). Assuming Israel ignored the resolution, the next step would be sanctions and/or military force under Ch. VII of the UN Charter. The Arabs would insist on it.

    So a man who reportedly has been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israelsince age 15 and has been reported as saying “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.” Speech to the Balfour dinner, 3rd November 2008 votes for blockade and war against Israel.

    With friends like that …?

    Of course he is but a subset of UN hypocrisy. With the exception of Lebanon, technically at war with Israel already, all the members of the Security Council are hypocrites. I bet there was a sigh of relief when America vetoed the resolution and they didn’t have to follow through.

    • “but that makes him sound like an idiot as well as a hypocrite”

      Why is there a ‘but’ there, David? We know that he is an idiot as well as a hypocrite.

  26. Just saw this at Harry’s Place (yes I held my nose and washed after). Can you include the cat on the right as one of your contenders?

  27. OT but relevant. The 3rd Geneva Summit on Human Rights and Democracy starts today at 9AM Geneva time, to do what the UN Human Rights Council refuses to to.

    Live webcast http://www.genevasummit.org/

  28. Daniel Marks

    If I might belatedly nominate a hypocrite, it might be someone who forbids links to other people’s blogs on his, but shamelessly does the same on this excellent page. Anyway, I shall do the same:

    http://ruth33.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/while-they-were-sleeping/