Mark Steel: Why should Galloway be the only fall guy?
Perhaps the explanation is their procedures were taken from 'Alice in Wonderland'
Published: 18 July 2007
At last a politician has been suspended for their role in the Iraq war. You'd have thought it would have happened before now, and you might have thought when it finally happened, it wouldn't be the politician most prominently against the war. Suspending George Galloway for his conduct in Iraq is as if last week's trial of those failed suicide bombers ended with the judge saying "This was a monstrous crime. So I'm going to let you off, and jail the bloke who chased you through the Underground."
The main reason given for the suspension is that some of the money for Galloway's charity came from a dodgy Jordanian businessman. Is this the normal attitude with charities, that no donation should be accepted without the donor being investigated? Maybe it's a new culture, and in next year's "Children in Need", Terry Wogan will say: "And how about this? We've had a grand donation of £25 from Mrs Wimthorpe in Derby. Well I've got one thing to say - who the hell are you, Wimthorpe, and what's your game? We're going to go through you with a microscope and if you've put one finger out of line you can keep your dirty money you old scallywag, spina bifida doesn't need you."
Another source of friction is that Galloway's charity, The Mariam Appeal, which assisted sick Iraqis who were suffering from the effects of sanctions against their country, was political in that it was against those sanctions. In other words, it was against the thing causing the suffering. And that's wrong, apparently.
So presumably there will also be investigations into appeals for victims of earthquakes. How dare these people oppose earthquakes in the name of charity? At least they should be balanced, and allow space for supporters of earthquakes to present their side of the story.
The original investigation into Galloway's dealings in Iraq came when The Daily Telegraph accused him of taking money from Saddam, an allegation that cost them £150,000 when they lost the libel case. Now, despite their acceptance he didn't take a penny for himself, the parliamentary committee says his charity "damaged the reputation of the house". So there's the explanation - the full report probably went: "You mean you weren't on the take? How the bloody hell does that make the rest of us look, you bastard?"
Somehow, however, the diligent committee seems to have missed other possible examples of the house being brought into disrepute, such as a Prime Minister taking the country into war because "I have no doubt that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction - absolutely no doubt, no doubt whatsoever."
And insisting we could be attacked in 45 minutes when he knew this was bollocks; and ignoring his own intelligence that this would make us targets for terrorism; and ignoring the UN and the weapons inspectors, so assisting in the creation of mass carnage, while he swans off to make millions from his memoirs.
If they want to investigate corruption in the Middle East, they could look at the $300m taken in cash from the Central Bank in Iraq, and secretly flown to Beirut in a chartered jet to buy arms, organised by the Iraqi Defence Minister whom we helped put in place. This led to his colleague, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie saying: "I am sorry to say that the corruption is worse now than in the Saddam era." No wonder Blair resigned - how do you top helping to make Iraq more corrupt than under Saddam? In his new job, is he planning to make Afghanistan less keen on heavy metal and women's football than under the Taliban?
Or the committee could glance at the billion pounds in illegal payments made to Saudi Arabia in order to secure arms deals for British Aerospace. Unlike Galloway's crime, parliament decided this matter was too trivial to warrant an inquiry. And if they did find them guilty, they'd have probably ordered them to pay it back at one dollar a week.
But instead, the person suspended is the one who opposed these things. The only explanation is the Commons procedures were originally taken from a chapter in Alice in Wonderland, in which you get charged by the authorities for being an un-criminal. And maybe that's the plan for our whole legal system, so you'll be sent to prison for being an un-corrupt arms dealer, or an un-robber, while liberal types complain that prison doesn't work because most un-criminals re-offend, and if you lock someone up for not stealing a car, when they're released they'll do something even worse such as not rob a bank.
Meanwhile robbers and murderers will be allowed to stay free, but only if they remember to ask you to draw a line under robbery and murder, and accept that, hand on heart, you thought that robbery and murder was right at the time.
Independent Offers
A-Z site map
Indy 100 prices
MORE: Travel podcasts
SAVE: Travel offers
FREE: Email headlines