A Case Against Smith, Bryant and Kennedy: Rwandexit on Foreign Falsehood | New times
This is not a case against the UK. Disappointing positions can sometimes arise from those charged with representing their constituencies, as governments must reflect the positions of the populations they serve.
However, here is a really unfortunate situation.
Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Bryant (both members of the British Parliament) and Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy, a member of the House of Lords, all used their positions to spread lies about Rwanda.
The trio challenge the legitimacy of the arrest of terrorist financier Paul Rusesabagina, and many of the arguments surrounding these disputes appear to be deeply biased.
So unfortunately we have to meet here today to once again discuss the obvious.
The unfortunate one without surprise
The reappearance of blatant lies surrounding our justice system, the leadership that supports and instills it, and in particular, the case of one Paul Rusesabagina, makes perfect sense in the area of ââspinelessness. First, the timing is ideal. The ages of the plague, like times of war, or any other period that features a large-scale change in reality, are the perfect conditions for truth to appear malleable.
We have seen the rise of fake news and conspiracy theories, which have bypassed traditional media verification processes through more social media than ever before, where they can flow quickly. Their momentum is supported by the racist, sexist or ethnic rhetoric that works their engine.
Like a virus for a weakened immune system, sensationalistic lies cling to our temporary appetite for conspiracies and ominous news, as we attempt to shock our psyches into gently absorbing seemingly perpetual bad news.
The dangers of vaccines, China’s global supremacy, human rights violations in Africa … to check the facts.
I’m sure Bryant and his friends could tell their time was now, even subconsciously. The stage had been prepared for their soliloquies, and Carine Rusesabagina had the lines to take them backstage, fictional scenario in hand.
But what these dignitaries seem to not know is that spectators are aware of another element of the fortuitousness of this timing. Rwanda appears to have turned a dark page with France, which openly challenged the double genocide theory during the French president’s visit to Kigali earlier this year, admitted some responsibility for the genocide against the Tutsi via the Duclert report. , and handed the genocidaire FÃ©licien Kabuga before international tribunals.
For all the concessions of France, a semblance of goodwill was in turn asked of the United Kingdom, which was notoriously opposed to the influx of Syrian refugees to the point of voting for leaving the European Union, but is prepared to pay their taxpayers Â£ 3million. money to protect the genocidaires from justice in the country these criminals tried to burn.
To dig deeper into the regrettable lies spoken in the British Parliament last week, I propose that we examine the identity of those officials who have sought the sanction of Johnston Busingye, Rwanda’s high commissioner designate to the United Kingdom, and in particular their more senior officer face, Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy.
Baroness Helena Kennedy describes herself as a feminist – a description that I find very pleasing. However, the Baroness strikes me as an opportunist defender of rights, predominantly white women, and who does not attribute to the quest for equal protection of all humans that the fundamental definition of feminism calls for.
On the one hand, Baroness Helena’s position suggests that Rwandans do not need to be protected from proven terrorists. The freedom of Paul Rusesabagina is a strange cause to defend, for an activist who denounced the injustice of women victims of GBV who are not believed by the authorities, listened to in court and protected by the law.
Why would Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy not want Alice Kayitesi, one of the victims of the FLN attacks (who testified against Paul Rusesabagina), to be believed by the authorities, listened to in court and protected by law?
Or perhaps it is the legitimacy of the Rwandan authorities, courts and laws that the Baroness is contesting? I hope not, because that would be racist. Nonetheless, there are a few questionable statements in Baroness Kennedy’s latest book, Misjustice, which suggest that something rotten may lie beneath the surface.
For example, in the introduction to Misjustice, Baroness Kennedy talks about the sex trafficking of young girls by men “largely from ethnic minorities”, a detail that might be considered relevant, but rather interesting in intent, given that a few paragraphs earlier, a sex trafficking scandal incriminating senior (white) Oxfam officials and (black) earthquake survivors in Haiti was mentioned, without indicating the Caucasian origin of its defendant.
Whether or not she is prejudiced herself, Baroness Kennedy uses racial prejudice in her country to flavor the introduction to her book, which also mentions a handful of new (white) sex abusers who are creating a buzz and who caused a lot of ink to flow during the height of the #MeeToo Movement.
Baroness Kennedy appears to be a perfect ear for Carine Rusesabagina’s lies. Carine herself has likened her father’s luring to rapists kidnapping their victims, in a letter to President Kagame’s daughter, which is too shameless to be published once again. The crutch of feminism may have touched Baroness Helena’s heart, especially because latent and subtle racism has generally worked against our current leadership.
As we repeat over and over again, we understand how and why a prejudice inherent to non-whites, in this case Africans, would result in the condemnation of a leader who fought in turn for their liberation and now their emancipation. .
But racism is indeed unfortunate. Perhaps Baroness Kennedy should consider the meaning of her own words, in her own book, to understand how damaging a prejudice deep enough to ignore hard facts can be.
âPatriarchy is a system – a dynamic web – of ideas and relationships, a set of beliefs and a set of values,â she says. But Baroness Helena, racism too.
“He explains the world to us from a young age and informs us in a subtle way about what is good and attractive, and what is bad and unpleasant,” continues the baroness. But again, so is racism. Subtle and insidious racism dictates which Africans are good and which of their “causes” are attractive, and which of us are bad and have questionable missions.
To the Baroness declaring that “the patriarchy tells us that the world is a dangerous place, and men must be protectors, while being our greatest oppressors”, I must mention that racism tells us that Africa is a place dangerous, and that the neo-colonialists must be our protectors, while being our greatest oppressors.
But although Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy may be the most prominent MP for the liberation of Rusesabagina, she is not the only one. Chris Bryant stood there in the very noble House of Parliament, claiming that Rusesabagina had been tortured while in detention, although Rusesabagina himself is here on video claiming otherwise.
Iain Duncan-Smith compared the Rwandan government, led by the party that liberated our country, ending the genocide against the Tutsis, to the Nazis, in order to be able to defend Rusesabagina, a theorist of the double genocide.
I believe that the three individuals, having used their authority to claim established lies, deserve their tomatoes in the court of public opinion. I believe their immorality should be exposed until their lies are recanted. I think they should be twisted and their positions questioned, so that articles like this are not the only, and rather meager consequences, of their overt support for a terrorist. After all, as Baroness Kennedy so aptly put it: âTrue justice is not limited to arbitration between two parties. It’s about bringing the rules to life â.