Brooks Newmark MP, the Syrian Regime, and Me

Some of you may remember that, in the frenzied rush to war in August, the Tory MP Brooks Newmark (Member for Braintree) suggested in the Commons Chamber that my writings, in opposition to that war, were 'in support of the Assad regime'.

 

This, as I have shown conclusively, is not and cannot be the case. Here you may read quotations from several past articles by me in which my dislike for the Assad government is made very plain.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/my-response-to-allegations-that-i-am-an-apologist-for-syria.html

 

I contacted Mr Newmark as soon as I found he had said this, explained to him politely that he was wrong and asked him to apologise and withdraw.  I reinforced my telephone call with e-mails in which I set out the facts, as referred to in the link above.

He declined to do so. I contacted the Chairman of his Constituency Conservative Association, told him of my concerns, and asked him if he would intervene with Mr Newmark, to persuade him to withdraw the remarks. I believe he did so, though Mr Newmark did not change his position.  I said I would be willing to come to Mr Newmark's constituency and publicly debate the issue with him in front of Association members. So far as I know, Mr Newmark did not embrace this offer.

I contacted the office of the Speaker of the Commons, but was told by officials that the Speaker's commitment to total impartiality precluded his getting involved.

 

On such occasions, I try to behave as far as possible as if I did not have the great privilege of a national newspaper column. I dislike using that column to right personal wrongs, and only made a brief and passing reference to the matter in the Mail on Sunday. So I then felt justified in writing to my own MP, the Rt Hon. Andrew Smith, to ask him if he could help. My main concern was that Mr Newmark's allegation was on the official Hansard record, and that no challenge to it was on that record.

 

Mr Smith (who is a Labour MP, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and on most issues very far from being an ally of mine) courteously and tactfully took up the matter, and I here publicly record my thanks to him for his unhesitating readiness to help a constituent, regardless of politics. I can't and won't reveal all the details of his actions, except to say that he was punctilious, diligent and persistent, but I thought some of you might like to read this exchange, which took place in the Commons on Monday afternoon. Mr Newmark was aware that the point of order would be raised, but I do not believe he was present : 

 

Commons Hansard 14th October 2014, Column 451,  4.20 pm

Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of my constituent Mr Peter Hitchens, I wish to raise concern about the remark made about him in this House in the Syria debate on 29 August by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who said, in reference to an article by Mr Hitchens:

“Peter Hitchens wrote recently, in support of the Assad regime, that the Syrian Government were not lying and that it made ‘more sense’ for the opposition to poison and kill more than 1,000 of their own people.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1503.]

Mr Hitchens has raised this matter with your office and directly with the hon. Member for Braintree, as have I, but it remains unresolved. Mr Hitchens does not support the Assad regime, and it is clear from his articles that he does not. He is concerned that this allegation currently rests on the Hansard record without challenge or correction. I am sure that you would agree, Mr Speaker, that it is important, in debate, that we argue on the basis of what those who disagree with us actually say, rather than what we might choose to attribute to them. I hope through this point of order to have corrected the record on behalf of my constituent.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it, as well as for sharing his intentions by letter and e-mail with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). For my own part, speaking from the Chair, I would not seek for one moment to interpose myself in a dispute or altercation between the hon. Member for Braintree and Mr Peter Hitchens. I think that the point stands as the right hon. Gentleman has made it, and I would just like to say that the hon. Member for Braintree said what he judged and judges to be right. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no criticism of him. Mr Peter Hitchens is well known to me. I have been acquainted with him for a great many years and disagreed with him for almost all of those years on almost all matters under the sun, but it is a matter of almost uncontested fact that Mr Hitchens is a man of both provocative talent and unimpeachable integrity. We will leave the matter there.