International
A case against Smith, Bryant and Kennedy: Rwandexit on foreign mistruths
![image](webadmin/images/Rusesa.jpg-20211222102249000000.jpg)
This
is not a case against the UK. Disappointing stances may sometimes arise from
people tasked with representing their constituency, as governments need to
reflect the positions of the populations they are serving.
However,
here is one truly 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, have all been
using their positions to spread mistruths on Rwanda.
The
trio is disputing the legitimacy of terrorism financier Paul Rusesabagina’s
arrest, and many of the arguments surrounding these disputes strike as deeply
prejudiced.
So
regrettably, we must gather here today, to, once again, discuss the obvious.
The
unsurprising unfortunate
The
re-emergence of blatant lies surrounding our justice system, the leadership
that upholds and instills it, and particularly, the case of one Paul
Rusesabagina, is entirely logical in the realm of spinelessness. Firstly, the
timing is ideal. Plague ages, like times of war, or any other period that
features a large scale reality shift, harbor the perfect conditions for truth
to appear malleable.
We
have seen the spike in fake news and conspiracy theories, which have bypassed
the proofing processes of traditional media via more-than-ever used social
media, where they can circulate rapidly. Their momentum is sustained by the
racist, sexist or ethnic rhetoric working their engine.
Like
a virus to a weakened immune system, sensationalist lies latch on to our
temporary appetite for conspiracies and ominous information, as we attempt to
shock our psyches into smooth absorption of seemingly perpetual bad news.
Vaccine
dangers, global China supremacy, human rights violations in Africa...the more
alarming in nature, the more these lies or gross exaggerations appeal widely –
particularly among those that increased social media use or distance, have
rendered either too impatient or too aloof to fact-check.
I’m
sure Bryant & Friends could tell their time was now, even if
subconsciously. The stage had been prepped for their soliloquies, and Carine
Rusesabagina had the lines to slip them from backstage, fictional script in
hand.
But
what these dignitaries appear not to know is that onlookers are aware of
another element to the fortuity of this timing. Rwanda seems to have turned a
somber page with France, which has overtly contested the double genocide theory
in the French President’s visit to Kigali earlier this year, admitted a degree
of responsibility in the Genocide Against the Tutsi via the Duclert Report, and handed genocidaire Felicien Kabuga to
international courts.
For all of France’s concessions, a semblance of goodwill has been in turn requested from the UK, which famously opposed the influx of Syrian refugees to the point of voting to leave the European Union, but is willing to pay £3 million of their taxpayers’ money to protect genocidaires from facing justice in the country these criminals attempted to burn.
To
deep-dive into the regrettable lies pronounced in the British Parliament last
week, I propose we consider the identities of the officials that have called
for the sanctioning of Johnston Busingye, Rwanda’s High Commissioner-designate
to the UK, and particularly their highest-ranking face, Baroness Helena Ann
Kennedy.
Baroness
Helena Kennedy describes herself as a feminist – a description I find most
agreeable. However, the Baroness strikes me as an opportunistic advocate for
the rights of, most predominantly, white women, and who does not ascribe to the
quest for the equal protection of all humans that feminism’s core definition
calls for.
For
one, Baroness Helena’s position suggests that Rwandans need not be protected
from proven terrorists. Paul Rusesabagina’s freedom, is a strange cause to
champion, for an activist who has famously denounced the injustice of female
victims of GBV not being believed by 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
FLN’s terrorist attacks (who has testified against Paul Rusesabagina), to be
believed by authorities, listened to in court, and protected by the law?
Or
perhaps it is the Rwandan authorities, courts and laws’ legitimacy that
Baroness is contesting? I hope not, for that would be racist. Nevertheless,
there are a few questionable statements in the Baroness Kennedy’s latest book,
Misjustice that suggest something rotten may lay underneath the surface.
For
instance, in the introduction of Misjustice, Baronness Kennedy speaks of the
sex trafficking of young girls by men “largely from ethnic minorities”, a
detail that could be considered relevant, but rather interesting in intent,
considering that a few paragraphs earlier, a sex trafficking scandal incriminating
high-ranking (white) Oxfam officials and (black) survivors of the Haiti
Earthquake was mentioned, without pointing to its accused’s
Caucasian origin.
Whether
prejudiced or not herself, Baroness Kennedy is wielding the racial prejudice in
her country to flavor the introduction of her book, which also mentions a
handful of unraced (white), buzz-making sexual assaulters that bade plenty ink
during the peak of the #MeToo movement.
Baroness
Kennedy strikes as a perfect ear for Carine Rusesabagina’s lies. Carine herself
has likened the luring of her father to rapists kidnapping their victims, in a
letter addressed to President Kagame’s daughter, which is too shameless to post
once more. The crutch of feminism might have pulled at Baroness Helena’s
heartstrings, particularly because latent, subtle racism, has typically played
against our current leadership.
As
repeated tirelessly, we understand how and why an inherent prejudice against
non-white people, in this case Africans, would translate into a condemnation of
a leader that has fought in turn for their liberation and now their
emancipation.
But
racism is unfortunate indeed. Baroness Kennedy perhaps ought to consider the
meaning of her own words, in her own book, to understand how damaging a
prejudice deep enough to overlook proven facts, could be.
“Patriarchy
is a system – a dynamic web – of ideas and relationships, a set of beliefs and
a set of values”, she states. But Baroness Helena, so is racism.
“It
explains the world to us from our earliest years and informs us in the subtlest
of ways as to what is good and attractive, and what is bad and distasteful”,
the Baroness goes on. But again, so does racism. Subtle, insidious racism
dictates which Africans are good and which of their “causes” are attractive,
and which ones of us are bad and have contestable missions.
To
the Baroness stating that “Patriarchy tells us that the world is a dangerous
place, and men must be protectors, while at the same time being our greatest
oppressors”, I must mention that racism tells us that Africa is a dangerous
place, and that neo-colonialists must be our protectors, while at the same time
being our greatest oppressors.
But
though Baronness Helena Ann Kennedy is perhaps the most
high-profiled government official championing Rusesabagina’s release,
she is not alone. Chris Bryant stood up there in the very noble house of
Parliament claiming that Rusesabagina had been tortured during his
detention, despite Rusesabagina himself being 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 Tutsi, to the Nazis, so he could
defend Rusesabagina, a double-genocide theorist.
I believe that all three individuals, having used their authority to clamor established lies, deserve their tomatoes in the court of public opinion. I believe their immorality should be denounced until their lies are recanted. I believe they should be de-platformed, and their positions put into question, so that articles like this are not the only, and rather measly consequences to their overt support of a terrorist. After all, as Baroness Kennedy so aptly stated, “True justice is about more than refereeing between two sides. It is about breathing life into the rules”.
Source:
www.newtimes.co.rw