[Media-watch] MSPWatch

Wed Apr 30 14:39:46 BST 2003

Sent to the MSPWatch list - for further details visit the site at
http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/Index.htm
<http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/Index.htm> 

As the election looms, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the
subscribers to MSPWatch for their support with the website. In particular I
wish to thank those who have given their time freely to help us extend the
site, especially Swithun and Veronika. I cannot say whether this project has
made any difference to the elections - the number of hits has been
relatively small (about 2300 in the month or so since the site was
established), but who is to say that the message contained within the site
has not been more widely disseminated.

Depressingly, the 'success' in the war seems to have boosted support for
Labour (in the opinion polls at least). The inevitable crushing of a
weakened third world country by the world's superpower and its ally is
hardly vindication of a flawed, illegal and deeply immoral policy, but that
is how our supposedly independent media has portrayed it. Searching
questions about the putative reasons for the war have been absent, both
before and since the conflict. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Why did we not listen to people with expertise (e.g. Scott Ritter) who have
said all along that Iraq does not, and cannot possess them? Will there be a
public inquiry to investigate and discredit those politicians who used the
issue as a casus belli.  The Guardian, while falling short of calling for
such an inquiry (Leader 25th April), has drawn attention to the strong
statements which were used to whip up pro-war sentiments, and which are now
noticeably absent from the rhetoric of senior politicians: 

"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he [Saddam]
has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped," wrote Tony Blair
last September in a foreword to the government's Iraq dossier. Iraq's arms
were a "threat to the UK national interest", affording Saddam "the ability
to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world," he
warned. In case the urgent nature of the menace was still unclear, Mr Blair
added for good measure that chemical and biological arms were held at a
maximum state of readiness. "Some of these weapons are deployable within 45
minutes of an order to use them." That line was later used to maximum
hysterical effect by the pro-war press (quotes from Tony Blair's forward to
the September 2002 dossier). 

In the absence of strong calls from the media for politicians to be held to
account, it is to be wondered whether they can be held to account at all.
This is especially true, given that the world views of those who can hold
them to account (the electorate) are often largely formed from the picture
presented by that same mass media. Nevertheless we should try. The Scottish
election could be seen as a chance to send a strong signal to bellicose
politicians that their deceptions and ignoring of the electorate have not
gone unnoticed. Use your votes tomorrow to send an unequivocal message this
will not be tolerated. I suggest the following actions:

*	

	Use your first vote to vote for a candidate, irrespective of party,
who is opposed to the war. I would seek to make one qualification here. In
some seats, failing to vote Labour may have the effect of letting in another
candidate who is in support of military adventurism; in some cases that
might even be a Tory. Voting for a smaller party in these cases might be
counter-productive. Clearly a Labour candidate who has been ambivalent on
the issue of war is preferable to a Tory who is in outright support of
military action in Iraq. We have recently put up details of marginal seats
on the website. This information gives details of the size of the majority
last time, the likely second placed party, and the stance where known of the
2 candidates on war. Visit
http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/Marginal%20seats.pdf
<http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/Marginal%20seats.pdf>  for
details
*	

	Use your second vote to vote for one of the small parties which
opposes war. In many cases a small shift in the regional share of the votes
will result in the election of a Green or SSP candidate, and may reduce the
number of Tory seats. Greater representation for the smaller parties will
undoubtedly be good for parliamentary democracy, as well as having the
effect of increasing the numbers of anti-war MSPs. Given that further
military action is on the cards in Bush's war on terror, it is essential
that the Scottish Parliament is better equipped in future to discourage Tony
Blair's government from joining in.
*	

	Write to your Westminster MP calling for an immediate public inquiry
into the issue of alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the possibly
fraudulent use of this issue to justify a war which contravenes
international war. Contact details are found at
http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/MP%7Elist.htm
<http://staff.stir.ac.uk/m.r.priestley/MSPWatch/MP%7Elist.htm> . My letter
is as follows; please feel free to plagiarise it:

It now seems unlikely that weapons of mass destruction will be found in
Iraq, as was indicated by many credible commentators before the war - could
it be that Iraq was telling the truth when it said that it had destroyed
such weapons, and could it be that Scott Ritter, who was so comprehensively
rubbished by politicians and the media, was actually right?  

The existence of this putative threat has led to:

*	billions being spent on the war, to the potential detriment of
public services in Britain 

*	the invasion of a sovereign country and the dangerous setting of new
international precedents involving the use of American power 

*	the sidelining of the UN to the future detriment of international
relations

I do not call the inevitable crushing of a third world country by the worlds
superpower to be vindication of policy. Thousands of Iraqi citizens have
been killed, and thousands more have been maimed for life. While Saddam
Hussein was a foul despot, even his depredations did not match the loss of
life and limb caused by this war. Amnesty International figures place deaths
attributable to him in the order of hundreds per year if we leave out the
casualties of war (and remember that we supported Iraq during the Iranian
conflict, and inflicted tens of thousands ourselves in the first Gulf War);
this contrasts sharply with the millions of casualties claimed by Tony Blair

The Prime Minister has been proven to be wrong, and his poor judgement is a
major contributory factor in the consequences outlined above. These
consequences are sufficiently serious to merit a public inquiry. I therefore
call upon you to use your position in Parliament to demand such an inquiry.

I also attach the latest Medialens action about Iraq. This serves as a
timely reminder of the illegality and immorality of this war.

Best wishes, and thanks again,
Mark

  --------

Mark Priestley 
Lecturer in Education 
Institute of Education 
University of Stirling 
Stirling FK9 4LA 
Tel. +44 (0) 1786 466272 
Fax +44 (0) 1786 467633 

Email m.r.priestley at stir.ac.uk 
Website http://www.ioe.stir.ac.uk/ <http://www.ioe.stir.ac.uk/>
<http://www.ioe.stir.ac.uk/Staff/priestley.htm> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20030430/ebd46125/attachment.htm