1984 Today

Every year I read 1984. Every year I write a similarly depressing rant.




I’ve just had a few days holiday, and found myself rereading a favourite book of mine; 1984 by George Orwell. I had always consoled myself with the notion that such a horrendous state of affairs could never occur, or at least never be sustained, in this day and age. Well, after having steeped my paranoid brain in such a pink, fluffy, and candy coated idea I sat myself down and read through the days news. This is never a good idea if one wishes to keep deluding oneself that 1984 is a nightmare that will remain within the confines of the literary world.

First up on the roll call that keeps me awake at night is the unfolding situation in that most favoured and feminist of holiday destinations, Afghanistan. I could go on at great length about the Taliban who control most of the country; about their strict interpretation and stricter imposition of Islam (a religion which holds tolerance as one of it's sacred precepts...) and Sharia law. Or about their quite remarkably shoddy treatment of women which would make even the most hardened woman hater blanch in disgust. Perhaps I could even pontificate about the inherent vandalism of their destruction of two ancient statues of Buddha, and act that sparked international condemnation (Christ, even Iran kicked off at them about it; Iran for gods' sake, a country long considered the epitome of religious fanaticism!)

Instead, I shall content myself with mentioning the latest human rights atrocity, being the edict that the Buddhists of Afghanistan must wear a mark upon themselves at all times that will identify them as such. As I'm sure you're aware, the last time a fashion statement like this was made was when that famous Austrian style guru Adolf decreed that the yellow Star of David was *the* fashion accessory for Jews in Germany and the occupied territories. And of course this led to a particularly horrific time in World history.

At the end of WWII the allies declared at the Nuremberg trials that the atrocities committed by the Nazi's should never be allowed to happen again. Hmm, thus far in my lifetime I have seen concentration camps being set up in the Balkans, the attempted genocide of an entire group of people purely on racial grounds in Rwanda, and now we see the discrimination of a group based on religious grounds. So we've not really stuck to that promise we made in Nuremberg really, have we. Or if we have, the reasons for our intervention seem to have been arbitrary. Or have they?

Do you think it's co-incidental that, having stood by and idly watched the Iran-Iraq war claim hundreds of thousands of lives (well, we weren't entirely idle; after all, we made a fortune selling weapons to both sides...), we intervened when Kuwait, a major oil producing nation for the west, was invaded? Or that, although we stayed idle when Rwanda was busy collapsing in on itself we took action in the Sierra Leone (sending troops and military advisors to the elected government) which has diamond mines in the rebel held territory of that country?

In Orwells 1984, the perpetual state of war between Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia was purely over the resource rich countries that bordered the 3 major powers. It seems to me that we currently only go to war to secure our access to those same resource rich countries. The lofty ideal of the Nuremberg trials, to secure the human rights of the oppressed and persecuted, exist on paper only.

Now then, for the next item on my nightmarish agenda we have something a little closer to home. 61 year old Helen John was yesterday jailed for 3 months for causing criminal damage. She had cut a hole in a perimeter fence surrounding an American Military base. Aside from the fact that she could have wantonly and negligently let Americans escape into the general British populace, a 3-month sentence seems a little harsh. Then I found out that she was due to stand against Tony Blair at the general election. Hmmm....

Now lets clear a few things up before I proceed. I don't believe that our government is so totalitarian that they have to imprison someone who would be, at best, a minor irritant to Tony Blair in his efforts to get re-elected to his constituency. Nor do I believe that the government exerted any pressure to imprison an old lady for a minor offence that nearly always gets the miscreant a fine. I would however be interested to see what the political leanings of the magistrates who jailed her were.

I mention it merely to make you aware of it and I do that because recent history does seem to show that if we ignore minor abuses of power, it makes us less likely to be concerned, as they gradually become big abuses of power. I'm referring to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, a man who appears to have seen a picture of Hitler and thought "Mm, that moustache looks really good, I must grow one", who first began acting like a dictator when he authorised the large scale land seizures of white owned farms by "war veterans" (the war that is alluded to is the War of Independence when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. Most of these "veterans" weren't even born when the war took place) which despite having no legal basis for doing so, was generally rather popular amongst many people there. He then moved on to attempting to replace the independent judiciary with his own people, and (co-incidentally enough) attempting to have his rival for the presidency imprisoned before the elections. Again, we have a parallel in 1984, where the Party were so successful in their neutralisation of any opposition that they even had control of what little rebellion there was.

As I've been rambling for some time now, I shall make this my final point. The Labour party have complained bitterly that the press are colluding with protesters on the campaign trail in order to cause visible demonstrations whenever a minister makes an appearance, and thus create news stories. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that this shows a level of paranoia that makes even me seem well adjusted. Rather, let us contemplate what the implications of that complaint actually are.

They are essentially whining because the press is making the government look bad. Maybe I missed a meeting, but I thought that the function of an independent media was to report the news? And I could be wrong on this, but isn't a general election newsworthy? Even if it were not, I'm damn sure that the antics of Basher Prescott are. So is the haranguing of Tony Blair by a protester, and the booing of Jack Straw by the Police Federation. They've also complained that the troubles that my lookalike is having on his campaign trail are not being as widely reported. This is because Hague is a joke whose chances of getting into power are roughly the same as my chances of getting into Jennifer Lopez's pants. The media also know this, and dedicate the relevant amount of time to his campaign accordingly.

Why exactly are the government so upset about the media reporting the news? Is it because they want nothing but good news to be reported so that we will be constantly told how good things are, regardless of whatever the evidence of our own eyes may tell us? Do they just want praise of their achievements (of which there are many) and no criticism of their shortcomings (of which there are an equal amount)? Without wishing to belabour the comparison, The Ministry of Truth in 1984 concerned itself with ensuring that all media reports were favourable to the Party. Admittedly, they went as far as doctoring previous reports so that it seemed as if the Party was infallible, but I'm sure you can see the cause of my concern.

All in all, using just 3 examples one can start to draw parallels with today’s world and the hideous totalitarian nightmare world of 1984. Sleep tight.