I have a shameful admission to make. Until my oldest daughter messaged me to say that Charlie Kirk had been shot, I had never heard of him. He seems to have been a remarkably fearless and articulate debater, a proponent of free speech and politically and spiritually on the side of the angels. He was also fair. A fierce opponent of anti-Semitism, he was not averse to questioning the involvement of wealthy Jewish financers backing open borders policies and all manner of radical causes. He also had questions – having visited Israel – of how the events of 7 October 2023 when Hamas ran amok within Israel, seemingly undisturbed, taking over 1000 lives and 250 hostages could possibly have taken place.
He had voiced the possibility that Israel may kill him when he began to criticise them, but he had upset so many people that the list of people, therefore, queuing up to kill him was probably quite long. At the time of writing we seem no closer to knowing who got there first (update: a suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, has been arrested) but it was the most professional of shots. Wearing a bullet-proof vest, making a body shot less likely to kill him, he was shot in the neck and probably died instantly. His poor wife and family were in proximity. What a terrible thing to happen.
What is shocking, but hardly surprising, is the outpouring of joy at his shooting by left-wingers on both sides of the Atlantic. As a free speech absolutist (limited only by the criteria in the US First Amendment) I must say that this pushes my tolerance to the limit. Imagine the outpouring of hate directed to anyone on the right who retrospectively expressed joy at, for example, the shooting of Malcolm X, Che Guevara or the ultimate demise of Nelson Mandela. Except that it would never happen. I only knew about Charlie Kirk after he had died and his death diminishes me.
Burning Robert
On a lighter note, and God knows we need one, the antics of the Scottish ‘government’ continue to be a source of entertainment. I was sitting in my club – the Royal Scots Club, Edinburgh if you must know – on Sunday morning and I picked up the latest copy of Scottish Field, described as “Scotland’s leading lifestyle publication”. Scanning the contents I saw an article on the removal of the poetry of Scotland’s national poet Robert Burns from the Scottish Qualifications Authority Higher curriculum.
The article was critical of the move, and so am I. I also learned that Doric classic, Lewis Grassic Gibbon’s Sunset Song has been removed. Burns and Grassic Gibbon, whose novel has a strong anti-war message, have made way for a Scottish coming-of-age novel Duck Feet by Ely Percy and poems by Pakistani Imtiaz Dharker (real name apparently).
Where Sunset Song deals with love, heroism and wrongful execution in the First World War for cowardice, Duck Feet deals with such edifying subjects as drugs, bullying, first love, sexuality and teenage pregnancy. All, no doubt, ‘relatable’ to the poverty stricken drug addled brains of many Scottish teenagers. But, surely, the purpose of literature is to educate, elevate and even help us to escape the horrors of everyday life, not cement our feet in them. Dharker’s most famous ‘poem’ is The Right Word which considers whether the person who looks like her child is a terrorist, freedom fighter, guerrilla warrior or martyr. The message is clear but it was you who said it love, not one of Scotland’s oppressive ‘white’ people.
And back to Burns. It is fair to say that he was a complex character, or that a complex and almost mythical character was built up around him. He was the classic ‘man o’pairts’ (someone clever and talented in many things). He was a farmer, an exciseman (customs officer), a poet, and a legendary womaniser amongst other things. He was no ordinary farmer, being highly educated but choosing to write in the vernacular of his native Ayrshire. He put the Scottish dialect on the map. The complete collections of his works available in all good bookshops omit his obscene poetry.
On the way to Ayr along the coast road from Glasgow there is a sign to The Bachelor’s Club where Burns learned to dance and debate. The Scottish National Trust blurb omits to mention that young ladies entertained the men by walking around naked and allowing their private parts to be explored. This was before the Internet.
Nevertheless, like Hull’s local hero Philip Larkin who was also a very flawed character, Burns wrote sublime poetry and it is tragic that Scottish schoolchildren will no longer study him. His poetry is immediately comprehensible and moving, but also contained social commentary. His famous To a Mouse, ostensibly about upturning a mouse’s nest while ploughing, may also have been about the Highland Clearances.
Apart from the usual tropes about diversity and inclusion (except if your name is Rabbie Burns or Grassic Gibbon) there is no clear explanation of why Burns has been dropped. But with the help of ChatGPT I imagine the reasons are something along the lines of this fictional memo:
In the interests of ensuring a fully inclusive and harm-free learning environment, Education Scotland has announced that Robert Burns will no longer feature in the national curriculum. While historically regarded as Scotland’s national bard, a detailed Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Impact Assessment (EDI-IA) has raised significant concerns about his continued presence in classrooms.
Among the findings:
- Burns’ ‘To a Mouse’ was judged “speciesist,” as the mouse’s perspective was not adequately consulted.
- ‘Address to a Haggis’ was deemed problematic for denying a voice to Scotland’s national dish, effectively engaging in culinary appropriation.
- The bard’s repeated praise of whisky amounts to historic alcohol promotion, encouraging “toxic dram culture.”
- His verses to “lassies” have been ruled as examples of 18th-century heteronormative objectification, with insufficient poetic balance toward “laddies.”
- Burns’ prolific romantic activity was found incompatible with Scotland’s current commitment to reducing its carbon footprint.
- Nationalist themes in ‘Scots Wha Hae’ risk excluding those who identify as “non-sword-bearing.”
- Finally, his use of Scots dialect creates potential linguistic microaggressions against learners without prior exposure to ‘Auld Lang Syne.’
ENDS
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
A very interesting article, not least the revelation (to me, at least) of the changes to the English curriculum, and the removal of Burns poetry to be replaced with mundane material, allegedly “more relevant” and undoubtedly more shallow. As long as the students don’t have to actually think about what is before them, and can grasp the meaning immediately, then it’s good to go (into the exam room).
I am however, surprised to read the comment about Charlie Kirk RIP, regarding Israel. When questioned by a student (I refer to one of his videos online) about the unpreparedness of Israel on that October 7th, Charlie replied that it was one of the Jewish festivals – it was, in fact, the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah. This, together with the fact that there was no warning signs of an imminent attack, explained the length of time it took Israel to respond. In a world where nobody but nobody is defending Israel, and even justifying the Hamas war on the Jews, Charlie stood out.
That apart, a very informative article and the fake memo is maybe no longer quite so fake!
Apologies for this:
“was no warning signs…”
Should read, “WERE no warning signs…”
Inexcusable at any time but within a comment on the teaching of English – doubly inexcusable!
To me, sorry, equally as repugnant as revelling in the death of Charlie Kirk is jumping on the bandwagon and mourning someone you’ve never heard of, never met and likely would never ever meet.
I don’t think of it in that way.
Charlie Kirk was 31 years of age, husband and father of two small children (a one year old and a three year old) who was murdered because he spoke out to correct erroneous thinking and ideas, taking seriously his Christian duty to do so in the public square when possible.
I don’t need to have met him to be edified by that fact and horrified at the evildoer who chose to murder him, ironically in the defence of “tolerance”.
I think it was GK Chesterton who defined “tolerance” as the virtue of a man with no convictions, or words to that effect. We are finding out the accuracy of that definition as we witness the fact that those who cry “tolerance” the loudest are, in fact, the least tolerant of all. Disagree with them and you are either cancelled or murdered. Take your pick.
There is no “bandwagon” – with respect, that interpretation is a tad uncharitable.
Sorry but I most respectfully disagree, this maudlin worship of untimely death began wth Diana and is now so deeply entrenched that it’s seldom questioned. And yes there most certainly is a bandwagon with dozens of articles in the media and very distasteful ‘photos of the poor man’s widow at his open coffin.
Well, I certainly agree that the outpouring of grief following the death of Princess Diana was something to behold, but that extreme reaction was more due to the Godlessness around us and the resulting abject fear of death, than any “worship of untimely death”. That Diana was young, beautiful, famous, and royal, meant that, for those without a religious understanding of the fragility of life, the widespread apparent assumption – that she was immortal – was brutally challenged. Thus, when she died suddenly and in such tragic circumstances, what appeared as an outpouring of grief was really an outpouring of fear (of death) and an unsettling realisation that life can end at any moment for any of us – no matter our position, lofty or otherwise, in society.
That the media are posting multiple articles and photos which may be considered “distasteful”, does not take away from the facts of Charlie’s death; nor should we fail to remember Charlie as a symbol of what is very wrong in our society – not only in the USA but across the UK as well.
I’m sure you don’t believe that such a shocking murder should be shrugged off as “one of those things” or, worse perhaps, that you are of the “he had it coming to him” school of thought. I apologise for even making the rhetorical suggestion.
Which is more important… publicising Charlie’s life and murder as an horrific pointer to the way western society is descending further and further into moral chaos, or suffering the side effects of distasteful journalism?
Sorry – I’m typing too fast, as usual. Another typo (I assure you!)
“That the media are” should be “That the media IS”… apologies.
I totally, absolutely disagree with you. Just because one did not know a person personally and had not met them, does not mean one cannot mourn them and be shocked and grieved at such a wasteful, tragic end to a young life, feel sadness for a young family, and regret for what they might have been, what good they might have done in the world. To suggest that mourning Charlie’s death is as REPUGNANT as revelling in it, is doubly repugnant in itself. Following your logic, nobody should ‘jump on the bandwagon’ and love/follow/believe in Jesus Christ, as nobody has ever seen or met him and is not likely to. (I am just giving this as an example – I am not religious). I am actually shocked and quite disgusted by your point of view, which of course you are entitled to.
My reply was to Nathanial Spit, not Patricia, although it appeared beneath Patricia’s post. I did not mention Diana, as I was sure he would be one of those who attributed the public grief to ‘hysteria’ and thus somehow shameful and not genuine. After I wrote my post, I saw that my feeling about Mr Spit was correct, and again I could not disagree with him more. I wonder if he thinks we should have just chucked her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth into a hole in the ground, shrugged our shoulders and walked on by?
Having said that, I disagree with Patricia too. I grieve for Diana to this day – (obviously not all day, every day), and hate the way the genuine (IMO) grief of the public, who did not know her personally, but identified with her and her having to live out the mistake of her marriage to a man who did not love her, in the full glare of the whole world. People look back now and maybe feel shame or embarrassment at their grief, and intellectuals tell us it was ‘hysteria’ or ‘fear’- that’s a new one on me. I am just a normal individual, and my grief then and today is genuine, and I will not be belittled by people who tell me otherwise, or belittle Diana’s memory by shrugging their shoulders as though she did not matter.
Kangarabbit,
It was not my intention to belittle anyone, any member of the public, who felt grief when Princess Diana was killed, nor did I mean to belittle Diana’s memory. She most certainly did matter, and I sincerely lament the circumstances surrounding her untimely death. I was sad for her at the time of her marriage breakdown, and, later, very sad at the news of her death. Obviously, I did not express myself clearly in my original comment, so I will try again. I can be very trying, indeed, at times!
In my own upbringing, I was taught clearly and fairly early that death would come to me, as it does to everyone else. When a friend of my mother’s died – we called her “Auntie Sadie” – my mother talked about it and offered to let us all accompany my parents to the house to pray at her coffin. We knew “Auntie Sadie” wasn’t there and we were soon able to realise that for ourselves, seeing her body; my mother always planted a kiss on the forehood of the deceased and urged us to do the same. I can’t remember if my siblings did but I declined – no way! No pressure was put upon me/us but I see now that it was part of my mother’s strategy to get us used to the reality of death and to not fear it, as it was put together with our Faith in God and life after death.
Over the many years since those childhood lessons, I have lost friend after friend and relative after relative, my mother just ten years ago. I have felt each death keenly, but – not even when my father (80) and my mother (92) died – did I experience the kind of uncontrolled sobbing and grief which I saw at the time of Diana’s passing. I sometimes feel bad that I never shed a tear at funerals. I knew that these deaths were not the end, except the end of this mortal life. Thankfully, I had been raised with true Christian hope in God’s revelation of eternal life.
That’s why I interpreted the extreme reaction to the death of Princess Diana in the way that I did. The countries of the UK have become Godless in recent history and we are seeing manifestations of that fact all the time – not least in the kind of outpourings of grief which we witness when death occurs, whether in families, friendship groups, or even the deaths of public figures.
I apologise if this is offensive to you – that is not my intention and I could be wrong. There may well be people who claim to be fully believing religious people, Christians, whatever, who experience deep grief when death strikes. Generally speaking, however, I would argue that the kind of outpourings, sobbing etc that we witnessed when Diana died, is, in fact, at least at some level, evidence of the Godlessness which is tragically everywhere in western societies these days. Pope John Paul II once said that there was a “silent apostasy” across Europe – I’d say that it is now no longer silent, but screaming.