As if we haven’t had enough coded racism aimed at campaigner Gina Miller from those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet, the Murdoch goons at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun have summoned Rod Liddle, the saddest of has-beens, to indulge in not just the more straightforward kind, but mix it up with a little blatant hypocrisy, just to give all those hard-working Sun readers a little variety.
I've only had one glash, honeshtly
His predictably tedious column starts, well, predictably, telling “It’s time for Remainers to accept it doesn’t matter who tries to block Brexit next… they’ll never win … The Supreme Court may have sided with Gina Miller and against the will of the people, but Article 50 will still be triggered and the UK will leave the EU”. On the question of an unelected Prime Minister by-passing Parliament, the “will of the people” is thus far unknown. But hey ho.
Liddle, never one to duck the chance to patronise his audience, isn’t interested in mere reality, and simply doubles down. “WHAT a surprise, huh? Their eminent lordships of the Supreme Court have voted against the democratic will of the people”. Wrong. The Justices of the Supreme Court were asked, as were those at the High Court before them, to interpret the law. This they have done. I suspect Sun readers can grasp that one.
Still, details, eh? Do go on. “Eleven of their gilded, ageing eminences heard the case at enormous public cost - and the result was eight to three”. So says a gilded and ageing pundit well past his shelf life. Then, after telling his readers that they probably all voted Remain (no citation), Liddle overreaches himself: “So, eight very well-orf white judges can thwart the will of more than half the country”. “White judges”.
That’s staggering hypocrisy from a pundit whose contribution to diversity is not unadjacent to zero, and who tinged his column with just a little Islamophobia today, as witness “Iraqi soldiers have been filmed torturing IS fighters … What lovely, lovely, people they all are. With such a respect for human life and a sense of moral decency”. Does the name Abu Ghraib ring a bell, Rod? But he’s not done with brown and black people yet.
Liddle turns his attention to gun violence in Chicago: “It’s also reported that four of every five victims are black people. But the horrible campaigners Black Lives Matter only care when it’s white cops killing black people”. Got a statement from BLM, did you? No, thought not. Perhaps it’s because they’re “horrible”, instead of being concerned about the way that white people don’t consider the deaths of black people to be so important.
And the not-really-racism continues: “WELL done to the Birmingham school which has banned a four-year-old Muslim girl from wearing a headscarf … some local Muslims are getting arsey. They say it contravenes equality laws … Good. I hope it does. Then we can get rid of those laws, too”. Then the column shows not a woman, or a child, wearing a headscarf, but a full veil - not that he wants to give readers a false impression.
But he does want them to know that he’s all in favour of turning the clocks back to the days when it was legal - and, sadly, acceptable - for landlords to openly advertise “No blacks, no Irish”. Yes folks, this is the pundit who sneers that the Supreme Court is too white - then puts the boot into, er, people who are not white.
Rod Liddle is not just a racist bigot, but a hypocrite with it. No surprise there, then.