And I'm back. I've been planning to write for a while, but I've just been too busy, being a third-year student and full-time theatre producer. I will mention nothing about Brussels (apart from that time) as I'm saving that for my next blog, and in the meantime, I want to focus on the other major piece of recent news, even though this would really have worked better had I had time to write it earlier.
Iain Duncan Smith has resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary. Ho hum.
Now the more television-cult friendly readers amongst you will have noticed the Simpsons reference in the title here. In context, it refers to Iain Duncan Smith's claims that his resignation is intended to stand up for disabled people in the face of brutal Personal Independence Payment cuts by George Osborne. Much of the media, left- and right-wing, has implied that this shows some sort of nobility on the part of IDS. I'd be among them, were it not for the very obvious fact that days after his resignation, the man himself voted in favour of them. Indeed, were he to have any conscience at all, he would have resigned years ago - or even better, stayed and changed things from within, standing with more progressive politicians. Iain Duncan Smith's former department has been directly responsible not only for these cuts, but also for putting out mishandled statistics and downright lies - anyone remember Sarah's Story, which turned out to be faked?
It is quite clear to me that the real reason for Duncan Smith's exit is to stick the nail in the coffin for David Cameron and George Osborne over the EU referendum. I have so far avoided blogging about 'BrExit' and I intend to write about it soon, but that will be quite an important article and I want to make sure my facts are straight before I do. I am very much in favour of our remaining firmly within Europe though, much as it pains me to back David Cameron. My major concern is that David Cameron's popularity has gone down, and there are calls for him to resign if Britain votes to stay. My readers know full well my opinion on Cameron, so of course this is great in and of itself, but what worries me is that people will vote to leave purely for the purpose of getting rid of David Cameron. He is without a doubt the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime, but he is not worth making such a crazy decision over. There are more important things to put pressure on him for than a referendum which has, let's face it, been called for because of the increasing amounts of xenophobia in the media across the last few years.
That said, the tide does seem to be turning against the current regime. We now have Stephen Crabb, who from early days doesn't seem to be quite as draconian as Osborne, though there is controversy surrounding him as well - he was part of the expenses scandal, and there are allegations of homophobia. I hope that we're in an era resembling the poll tax riots of the late 80s and early 90s. Thatcher thought she was invincible and in the end her own party turned against her. I feel that there are elements of that unrest starting to happen again, I just think that there are much more important things to fuel it than the EU referendum.
There are two major events coming up, one of which I will not be able to attend, the other of which I very much intend to. The first one is in London on Saturday 7 May (one year since the general election) to demand a fairer voting system. (This is the one I cannot attend myself because it clashes with a performance date for the play that I am producing, but I will certainly be writing about.) The other one is on 4 July, a general strike and mass protest concerning pretty much every part of the austerity drive, and this is taking place pretty much everywhere in the UK. I haven't quite decided how I'm going to take part yet, but I will do so in some capacity, and will be writing more about both events in the coming weeks.
So take care, and keep your eyes peeled for further blogs!
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Sunday, 13 March 2016
Casual racism
Casual racism is a form of racism where someone does not intend to be racist, but still conducts themselves in an offensive manner by reacting to situations in a way which reflects their inborn prejudices. In my opinion, casual racism is even worse than any other form of racism, because it's harder to confront. If someone is genuinely well-intentioned, it feels harder to address casual racism when one sees it, especially if the person in question is someone that one knows well and is not someone that one normally associates with bigotry.
Something like this happened to me recently. I was inspired to write about it, but on this one I have to be extremely careful to protect my sources, for exactly those reasons described above. A friend and I were requiring someone to undertake some sort of job or service for us (I shall be vague to protect the innocent) which caused us to be phoning around a number of local businesses. There was one person we spoke to in particular who sounded helpful on the phone and we arranged to go and meet, however when we arrived at the address it transpired that it was only someone's house and was possibly not a legitimate business. Being cautious, we opted not to go in, just because we weren't 100% sure it was safe.
So far, this is all acceptable. The thing that made me feel really uncomfortable was that my friend was particularly concerned that the man had an Irish accent. When I questioned this, the friend responded to the effect of 'yes, but there are a lot of gypsies around, and they can be a bit dodgy'. This is someone who I have known for years and I normally very much respect; on this occasion I tried not to let my natural inclinations come out to the extent that we would fall out, but I was seething. I generally think it speaks volumes that even someone who normally comes across as being open-minded and progressive could react in such a prejudiced way. The fact that this person obviously didn't consider this to be racist in my mind makes it worse; if you think of yourself as being a good person (and most of us do) it's easy to justify something like that to oneself without considering how it would sound if you said that about other groups of people. 'There are a lot of black people around, you'd better watch yourself...' How does that sound to you?
I actually think that this experience has taught me how ingrained stereotypes are in our culture. I normally consider myself to be a pretty decent and forward-thinking person, but there have been times that I've had to catch myself thinking, doing or saying something which is discriminatory or unfair. Be honest with yourself, have you too done this on occasion? Did you realise you were doing it, or was it pointed out to you?
After reflecting on this a great deal, I have come to the conclusion that this is the biggest weapon used to provoke people into turning against each other. The way to spread hate is just to slowly spread a stereotype, like a poisonous fungus, and there will come a point where discussions about 'what is to be done about the problem' sound more like rational discussions than the hate-filled misinformation that they actually are. Here's an example: Jews and Muslims generally disliking each other. This is one of those so-called 'facts' that the majority of people in this would probably imagine to be true, even if they were on the fence politically. The truth is that Islam is largely based on Judaism, and the two faiths are incredibly similar, in terms of tradition, culture and philosophy. The aggravation between the two faiths in modern times is down to the war between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. This dispute is entirely geographical and has very little to do with faith. The common misconception here is actually very harmful, because it puts the conflict down more to a culture clash, which suggests that both should just learn to get along with one another. In reality, it is much closer to apartheid than anything else, which is something I wish people would learn, but I cannot really blame them for not knowing given that there is so much misinformation.
I worry that I've gone slightly off the subject, but my overall point is that in a world containing so many set ideas and opinions disguised as facts, it is virtually impossible not to be racist or prejudiced in some other way at some point. It is only once this is accepted that it can be fought. This is why I absolutely preach that when you see someone acting on impulse in the way I did with my friend, you challenge it, no matter how hard this is to do. It took a couple of hours, but I did speak to my friend about how that conversation had made me feel - I tried to say it in a non-confrontational way and I'm not sure how much of my point was taken, but hopefully it will make that one individual think twice next time. But above all, this should not be done in a holier-than-thou way, because chances are you've done it as well, and the last thing we need is to wind people up. That has the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve.
Thanks for reading, more updates soon.
Something like this happened to me recently. I was inspired to write about it, but on this one I have to be extremely careful to protect my sources, for exactly those reasons described above. A friend and I were requiring someone to undertake some sort of job or service for us (I shall be vague to protect the innocent) which caused us to be phoning around a number of local businesses. There was one person we spoke to in particular who sounded helpful on the phone and we arranged to go and meet, however when we arrived at the address it transpired that it was only someone's house and was possibly not a legitimate business. Being cautious, we opted not to go in, just because we weren't 100% sure it was safe.
So far, this is all acceptable. The thing that made me feel really uncomfortable was that my friend was particularly concerned that the man had an Irish accent. When I questioned this, the friend responded to the effect of 'yes, but there are a lot of gypsies around, and they can be a bit dodgy'. This is someone who I have known for years and I normally very much respect; on this occasion I tried not to let my natural inclinations come out to the extent that we would fall out, but I was seething. I generally think it speaks volumes that even someone who normally comes across as being open-minded and progressive could react in such a prejudiced way. The fact that this person obviously didn't consider this to be racist in my mind makes it worse; if you think of yourself as being a good person (and most of us do) it's easy to justify something like that to oneself without considering how it would sound if you said that about other groups of people. 'There are a lot of black people around, you'd better watch yourself...' How does that sound to you?
I actually think that this experience has taught me how ingrained stereotypes are in our culture. I normally consider myself to be a pretty decent and forward-thinking person, but there have been times that I've had to catch myself thinking, doing or saying something which is discriminatory or unfair. Be honest with yourself, have you too done this on occasion? Did you realise you were doing it, or was it pointed out to you?
After reflecting on this a great deal, I have come to the conclusion that this is the biggest weapon used to provoke people into turning against each other. The way to spread hate is just to slowly spread a stereotype, like a poisonous fungus, and there will come a point where discussions about 'what is to be done about the problem' sound more like rational discussions than the hate-filled misinformation that they actually are. Here's an example: Jews and Muslims generally disliking each other. This is one of those so-called 'facts' that the majority of people in this would probably imagine to be true, even if they were on the fence politically. The truth is that Islam is largely based on Judaism, and the two faiths are incredibly similar, in terms of tradition, culture and philosophy. The aggravation between the two faiths in modern times is down to the war between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. This dispute is entirely geographical and has very little to do with faith. The common misconception here is actually very harmful, because it puts the conflict down more to a culture clash, which suggests that both should just learn to get along with one another. In reality, it is much closer to apartheid than anything else, which is something I wish people would learn, but I cannot really blame them for not knowing given that there is so much misinformation.
I worry that I've gone slightly off the subject, but my overall point is that in a world containing so many set ideas and opinions disguised as facts, it is virtually impossible not to be racist or prejudiced in some other way at some point. It is only once this is accepted that it can be fought. This is why I absolutely preach that when you see someone acting on impulse in the way I did with my friend, you challenge it, no matter how hard this is to do. It took a couple of hours, but I did speak to my friend about how that conversation had made me feel - I tried to say it in a non-confrontational way and I'm not sure how much of my point was taken, but hopefully it will make that one individual think twice next time. But above all, this should not be done in a holier-than-thou way, because chances are you've done it as well, and the last thing we need is to wind people up. That has the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve.
Thanks for reading, more updates soon.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Clearing the Calais 'jungle'
It's been a while since I've posted, but I thought I ought to register my disgust at the news this week that in France, riot police are bulldozing part of the refugee camp referred to as the 'jungle'. I've read numerous reports on this occurrence, with varying impressions as to how things are going - some reports have suggested that this is being handled in a more humane manner than other similar affairs in the past, even mentioning means of housing those who are being evicted. Generally I doubt the accuracy of this - in my experience, reports of heavy-handedness amongst those in authority tend to be more accurate than reports claiming lack thereof with regards to the same incident. What it comes down to, however, is that these camps are holding more people than we currently have the resources to cope with.
I don't think there's any doubt about the fact that even notwithstanding the demolition (which ultimately is what it comes down to) the whole situation with this 'jungle' is far from ideal. It's not somewhere people can live indefinitely, not that anyone would even want to, of course, given the appalling conditions that refugees end up in whilst trying not to fall through the system even without being targeted in this way. It's quite obvious that there are far too many to house efficiently in one place, and that this is a situation that benefits no one. However, I fail to see how demolishing the non-ideal makeshift camp is going to help in the slightest. There have been reports of tear gas, batons used on pregnant women and children, water cannons and fire in regards to what French authorities are calling a 'humanitarian operation'. I would find that laughable were it not so serious.
Yet again, we seem to believe as a society that being heavy-handed with those in need is more productive that giving any understanding to how they ended up in this situation in the first place. This is an attitude that is quite common in Britain, and has become increasingly so over the last few years. In many ways I have believed that like a lot of European countries, France is more progressive than the UK - evidently, not in these circumstances. When you have at minimum 3,700 people (some reports estimate closer to 5,000) and nowhere to house them, this is an awkward situation, but I think that if everyone came together, attempted to look at why this problem has happened and showed a little compassion, far more long-term progress could be made than by demolishing a makeshift camp which ultimately is just going to lead to far more people having nowhere to go than there would be in any case.
I can't help but feel that the overall intention here is to show the public that 'something is being done. This is actually a typical reflection of the attitudes of governments, news media and the general public - we have a culture of promoting the taking of drastic action in undesirable situations, regardless of whether that action is progressive or will cause more problems down the line. I have been relieved to see that Médicin sans Frontiérs (the French equivalent of Doctors Without Borders) has set up a purpose-built camp in Dunkirk with the intention of providing proper humanitarian aid. I wish them well with this goal, and only hope that they are able to provide assistance to as many desperate people as possible. I can't help feeling though that it should not fall to a non-Governmental organisation to provide this. A more compassionate, humanitarian approach from the powers that be would go a lot further than being heavy-handed with no reason to be.
I genuinely wish the best of luck to any refugees in Calais or in any other part of the world, and if any of my readers would like to contact me with regards to any campaigns, they are entirely welcome to do so.
Sources: Fantastic Guardian article, another decent one, The BBC. As always, personal opinions are entirely my own.
I don't think there's any doubt about the fact that even notwithstanding the demolition (which ultimately is what it comes down to) the whole situation with this 'jungle' is far from ideal. It's not somewhere people can live indefinitely, not that anyone would even want to, of course, given the appalling conditions that refugees end up in whilst trying not to fall through the system even without being targeted in this way. It's quite obvious that there are far too many to house efficiently in one place, and that this is a situation that benefits no one. However, I fail to see how demolishing the non-ideal makeshift camp is going to help in the slightest. There have been reports of tear gas, batons used on pregnant women and children, water cannons and fire in regards to what French authorities are calling a 'humanitarian operation'. I would find that laughable were it not so serious.
Yet again, we seem to believe as a society that being heavy-handed with those in need is more productive that giving any understanding to how they ended up in this situation in the first place. This is an attitude that is quite common in Britain, and has become increasingly so over the last few years. In many ways I have believed that like a lot of European countries, France is more progressive than the UK - evidently, not in these circumstances. When you have at minimum 3,700 people (some reports estimate closer to 5,000) and nowhere to house them, this is an awkward situation, but I think that if everyone came together, attempted to look at why this problem has happened and showed a little compassion, far more long-term progress could be made than by demolishing a makeshift camp which ultimately is just going to lead to far more people having nowhere to go than there would be in any case.
I can't help but feel that the overall intention here is to show the public that 'something is being done. This is actually a typical reflection of the attitudes of governments, news media and the general public - we have a culture of promoting the taking of drastic action in undesirable situations, regardless of whether that action is progressive or will cause more problems down the line. I have been relieved to see that Médicin sans Frontiérs (the French equivalent of Doctors Without Borders) has set up a purpose-built camp in Dunkirk with the intention of providing proper humanitarian aid. I wish them well with this goal, and only hope that they are able to provide assistance to as many desperate people as possible. I can't help feeling though that it should not fall to a non-Governmental organisation to provide this. A more compassionate, humanitarian approach from the powers that be would go a lot further than being heavy-handed with no reason to be.
I genuinely wish the best of luck to any refugees in Calais or in any other part of the world, and if any of my readers would like to contact me with regards to any campaigns, they are entirely welcome to do so.
Sources: Fantastic Guardian article, another decent one, The BBC. As always, personal opinions are entirely my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)