On Colombian ‘democracy’
Sir: Tristan Garel-Jones’s article misrepresents Justice for Colombia’s work by implying a common agenda with the Farc (‘The day I was kidnapped’, 12 July).
JFC works to defend human rights in Colombia. We were the only British organisation to campaign for the release of Ingrid Betancourt. Last year we brought over Ingrid’s mother and relatives of other hostages, arranging events for them in Parliament, at the Law Society and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office — Lord Garel-Jones was invited but did not attend.
He says Colombia is democratic, civilised and friendly, as we are sure it is if you are a visiting British dignitary. Unfortunately it is the opposite if you happen to be a Colombian citizen who dares to join the political opposition, a trade union, or work in human rights. Over 2,500 trade unionists have been killed in Colombia in the last 15 years. State forces and their paramilitary allies are responsible for the vast majority of these killings as well as disappearances, threats and forced displacement.
Colombian ‘democracy’ is deeply penetrated by paramilitarism — some 60 pro-government congressmen have been shown to have links to the paramilitaries. President Uribe himself has been investigated for his alleged role in helping to plan a 1997 paramilitary massacre, in which 15 people were killed. Uribe was elected for a second term only after parliamentarians were bribed to vote for a constitutional reform to allow it. Furthermore, there is only one daily national newspaper, and it is controlled by the Vice President’s family. These are just some of the widely held concerns about Colombia’s democracy.
It is a shame that Lord Garel-Jones’s definition of civilisation is limited to hosting the Hay-on-Wye festival. For us it goes slightly further.
Jeremy Dear
Chair, Justice for Colombia, London NW3
Councils are accountable
Sir: Rod Liddle often entertains us, but his tirade against local government (Liddle Britain, 26 July) was an undoubted masterpiece of missing the point. He is quite entitled to dislike the decisions taken by local councils across the country — and can do something about it. Because what does set Liddle’s local councillors apart is that he is free to vote them out if he doesn’t like what they do. The alternative — unless he would prefer not to have his bin emptied, his street cleaned, his elderly relatives cared for at all — is the faceless Whitehall ‘delivery chain’ of quangos and regulators; and look at its track record of achievement. We are rather surprised that someone as vocal as Mr Liddle appears not to want to have a voice. We prefer democracy any day.
Sir Simon Milton
Chairman, Local Government Association
London SW1
Sir: Good on Rod Liddle for saying the words that politicians dare not speak: ‘All local government should be abolished’. Successive governments have tinkered with the system but it is the system that has to go. Bloated, crass and grossly expensive, local government fails in all that it does. To add insult to injury, no institution does more to desecrate the environment, with its clutter of needless signs, overflowing wheelie bins lining the streets, and parks that bear all the marks of a scorched earth policy.
True to form, it is local government workers who are first to claim above-inflation pay rises. Pickets of workers in yellow jackets stand outside their town halls, with posters exhorting motorists to honk in support. They must be joking.
Dennis Hardy
Via email
Took’s demonisation
Sir: It is a pity Mr Hall did not read my article (‘The Establishment paedophile: how a monster hid in high society’, 12 July) with particular care, having berated me for suggesting Roger Took would. If he had, he would know that I did not use the word ‘monster’ once in the body of the text. After absorbing what Took did to various children, including his own step-grandchildren, it seems to me fair enough that the Spectator editorial team chose to use the word in a headline.
As for my ‘literal demonisation’ of Took, it is evident that the cover illustration and headline, ‘The devil in our midst’, disabled Mr Hall from realising that I describe Took’s crimes soberly and accurately. In terms of thoughtfulness, I spent three months researching the article and concluded empirically, with access to evidence from the Child Protection Officers in charge of the case and court transcripts, that Took’s crimes are heinous. As a Spectator reader, Mr Hall should trust the magazine not to risk its reputation on tabloid bunkum.
It is lack of access to facts, such as I provide, which obscures the very nature of paedophilia and makes it difficult to understand, let alone prevent. It is telling that Mr Hall should send a letter condemning the messenger, rather than the crimes related.
Charlotte Metcalf
Burford, Oxfordshire
Brown in power
Sir: The slow-burn political death of our sub-Prime Minister reminds me of a passage in Tacitus Histories [1.49], regarding the short rein of the Emperor Galba who came to power in 68AD and was murdered by his praetorian guard (who else?) in 69AD.
maior privato visus dum privatus fuit, et omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset
My loose translation (I expect to be corrected) would be: ‘He seemed too great for ordinary life when he was a private citizen, and everyone agreed he would make a great leader, until he actually came to power.’
Henry Cobbe
London SW8
Lying about the dead
Sir: Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s musings on funeral addresses (Diary, 26 July) reminded me of my own late father, a Spectator reader for as long as I can remember. He left strict instructions that there should be no eulogies at his own funeral, as he called them ‘two men lying’ — one in his coffin, the other from the pulpit.
Jamie Day
St Albans, Hertfordshire
Comments