Recent remarks by the odious buffoon George Galloway and also Spiked Online editor, Brendan O'Neill - a man being devoured by his own neck, the appearance which reinforces the pulmonate qualities of his arguments - contend that opposition to the Iranian theocracy's continuing judicial murder of homosexuals and illegal detention and persecution of trade unionists lends a 'pink tinge' to the 'khaki war machine'* (Galloway), and that support for Tibetan self-determination constitutes racism, a patronising romanticising of 'child-like' Tibetans and a fear/hatred of modernity - continuing Chinese occupation being necessary to save Tibetans from lapsing into barbarism, obscurantism and superstition** (Galloway and O'Neill). The argument is - to use the philosophical term - complete bollocks. For these two and the others who support this line there are no contradictions, merely questions which are binary - they have no thesis, there is no antithesis, and most certainly no synthesis.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticize: or at least criticize 'constructively,' which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

George Orwell--Tribune, 23 November 1945

* A phrase with which Galloway seems inordinately pleased, given the relish with which he repeats it.

** Not that Galloway is averse to barbarism, obscurantism and superstition, himself--merely [what he considers] the wrong sort of barbarism, obscurantism and superstition.