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.
Tuesday, 19 January 2016
We shut down Westminster Bridge
Today, I was a significant part of a protest group on Westminster Bridge outside Parliament, standing against the recent decision to replace student maintenance grants with loans, and in favour of Labour's debate against it, which was taking place simultaneously.
I will confess to the fact that I have been a little bit torn on the subject of the grants. I receive one myself, and it has been pretty invaluable throughout my University education, and I said as much in the interview I gave to London Student last week - in fact, I'm not sure if I would have become a student were it not available to me, but I prefer not to speculate on what might have been. However, I have been reading quite a lot of debate on the matter recently, and surprisingly I did find myself questioning my own viewpoints. I think that whilst I may not be entirely convinced, those against it actually have a reasonable point about how if you borrow money from the Government it is acceptable that you are expected to pay that back once you're earning enough. It is a more reasonable point than some of the frankly idiotic comments I have received on campaigns in the past.
But before you start thinking that I'm about to do a U-turn, read on! After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that no matter how reasonable the rules may be in theory, we live in the real world and there it's a very different story. The gap between the rich and the other 98% is far too wide as it is. We already have unreasonably extortionate tuition fees not enough financial support alongside them and much debt after graduating, and that is just the inequality where education is concerned! The social divide has widened and is continuing to widen, and ultimately, this is about more than just one issue. This is not about the wholly undemocratic way that the decision was made (though that was bad enough in itself, and was one of the things we were protesting about) and contrary to what a good friend of mine suggested recently, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was the Conservatives who implemented it. This is about the ideology of inequality generally, and regardless of the technicalities around it, this will discourage working-class students from education, it will put those who do decide to complete degree courses into more debt which even if they never earn enough to repay it will affect them adversely in a psychological way, and in the long run the social divide will be widened even further. Perhaps if our society was more equal I might feel differently about it - but then again, perhaps not. I became an activist in 2010 when tuition fees were raised because I felt that enough was enough and that free education should be available for all. I still believe that. In that way, arguments about the grants are a mere technicality.
The demonstration today had a lower turn-out than expected, but I can honestly say that I have rarely seen such collective enthusiasm from those who have turned out. I'm sure those attending will agree with me that there was a really exciting and positive atmosphere today. There were possibly thirty seconds or so when I was concerned that things may get confrontational, but generally the police behaved very well. It is always the police who determine whether or not a demo will get violent, but today they let us chant, they allowed us to come and go, they grudgingly allowed us to remain on the bridge for quite a long time before we moved to Parliament Square and disbanded.
Unfortunately the debate today did not go the way we had hoped. Labour's challenge was voted down, albeit by the very narrow margin of 306 to 292. It's disappointing, but no more than I expected. As always, I do not expect this to be the end of the fight. The revolution continues, both for this issue specifically and against the general ideological inequality which is ever-present in this country and worldwide. I recommend this article by Emma Yeomans in London Student (the same reporter who interviewed me for a similar article last week) for other opinions on this campaign. It features an excellent interview with my friend and colleague Aaron Parr.
I'd like to thank everyone who was there today - we had a blast and hopefully our presence may have changed something. Definitely willing and passionate about sticking at it, continuing our campaign. After all, to take inspiration from a chant, the resolution is revolution, right?
I will confess to the fact that I have been a little bit torn on the subject of the grants. I receive one myself, and it has been pretty invaluable throughout my University education, and I said as much in the interview I gave to London Student last week - in fact, I'm not sure if I would have become a student were it not available to me, but I prefer not to speculate on what might have been. However, I have been reading quite a lot of debate on the matter recently, and surprisingly I did find myself questioning my own viewpoints. I think that whilst I may not be entirely convinced, those against it actually have a reasonable point about how if you borrow money from the Government it is acceptable that you are expected to pay that back once you're earning enough. It is a more reasonable point than some of the frankly idiotic comments I have received on campaigns in the past.
But before you start thinking that I'm about to do a U-turn, read on! After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that no matter how reasonable the rules may be in theory, we live in the real world and there it's a very different story. The gap between the rich and the other 98% is far too wide as it is. We already have unreasonably extortionate tuition fees not enough financial support alongside them and much debt after graduating, and that is just the inequality where education is concerned! The social divide has widened and is continuing to widen, and ultimately, this is about more than just one issue. This is not about the wholly undemocratic way that the decision was made (though that was bad enough in itself, and was one of the things we were protesting about) and contrary to what a good friend of mine suggested recently, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was the Conservatives who implemented it. This is about the ideology of inequality generally, and regardless of the technicalities around it, this will discourage working-class students from education, it will put those who do decide to complete degree courses into more debt which even if they never earn enough to repay it will affect them adversely in a psychological way, and in the long run the social divide will be widened even further. Perhaps if our society was more equal I might feel differently about it - but then again, perhaps not. I became an activist in 2010 when tuition fees were raised because I felt that enough was enough and that free education should be available for all. I still believe that. In that way, arguments about the grants are a mere technicality.
The demonstration today had a lower turn-out than expected, but I can honestly say that I have rarely seen such collective enthusiasm from those who have turned out. I'm sure those attending will agree with me that there was a really exciting and positive atmosphere today. There were possibly thirty seconds or so when I was concerned that things may get confrontational, but generally the police behaved very well. It is always the police who determine whether or not a demo will get violent, but today they let us chant, they allowed us to come and go, they grudgingly allowed us to remain on the bridge for quite a long time before we moved to Parliament Square and disbanded.
Unfortunately the debate today did not go the way we had hoped. Labour's challenge was voted down, albeit by the very narrow margin of 306 to 292. It's disappointing, but no more than I expected. As always, I do not expect this to be the end of the fight. The revolution continues, both for this issue specifically and against the general ideological inequality which is ever-present in this country and worldwide. I recommend this article by Emma Yeomans in London Student (the same reporter who interviewed me for a similar article last week) for other opinions on this campaign. It features an excellent interview with my friend and colleague Aaron Parr.
I'd like to thank everyone who was there today - we had a blast and hopefully our presence may have changed something. Definitely willing and passionate about sticking at it, continuing our campaign. After all, to take inspiration from a chant, the resolution is revolution, right?
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Open letter to Will Quince MP
The is the email that I have just sent to my MP, Will Quince (Conservative) concerning bombing Syria. You can also write to your local MP before tomorrow's vote. Click this link and go from there.
Dear Will Quince MP,
Dear Will Quince MP,
My name is George Harold Millman, and I'm an actor, student, blogger and political activist based in Colchester.
As you no doubt are aware, tomorrow (or from your point of view, probably today, given the time that I am writing this) is the vote on Syrian air strikes. I don't know exactly what your views on this matter are, but I would like to ask that you vote against the strikes, for the following reasons. I feel that for want of a better term, we have an 'all guns blazing' (or in this case, all planes bombing') approach when it comes to managing international relations in the Middle East. This approach has not been helpful in the past. I was only nine when the Iraq war started, and I vividly recall being taken to demonstrations calling for peace, and my parents explaining to me, in age-appropriate terms, the consequences were the war to go ahead. I'm now in my early twenties and as I have matured, I have been able to see the damage that the decisions taken by Blair and Bush twelve years ago has caused. The poverty and devastation suffered by civilians in Iraq has become even more grave than it was in the days of Saddam Hussein. I can see very little that has actually been achieved out there, and it would appear that these decisions were made more to prove that the Western world is doing something than because anyone actually thought it would help matters. I feel that the same can be said with regards to Afghanistan and Libya, and I am deeply concerned that Syria will be next on the list.
I cannot see what bombing Syria will achieve. What I can see is the levels of devastation it will cause. We are frequently told that we need to close our borders to immigrants; I personally disagree with this notion, but regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter, bombing Syria will only make matters worse. Civilians there will continue to flee for their lives to countries such as the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe - France has already closed its borders (unsurprising, given recent circumstances, but I still consider it a major blow as I think that this is what ISIS hoped to achieve). Any air strikes in Syria will not help to bring about democracy, and would undermine the UK's position as a diplomat helping to bring about a stronger political settlement. I highly doubt that it will cause any harm to ISIS, because I actually believe that ISIS expects us to bomb Syria, thereby justifying its own twisted agenda against the West. I do not think that it would put the UK into a position where we are less likely to be victims of terrorist attacks; in actual fact, most terrorist attacks have come from individuals who come from the country in which they take place. The instigators of 7/7, for example, were from Leeds. The BBC reports that the main perpetrators in Paris came from either France or Belgium. Prior to 9/11, terrorist attacks were not even considered to be synonymous with the Islamic State.
My political stance is that I will not join any political party as I wish all of my views to remain independent and not swayed by the views of the majority. I will not deny that in recent years I have found it very difficult to find any sympathy with the Conservative Party generally. However, I realise that it does contain some very good eggs - I am hopeful that you will prove to be one of them. This is not about party politics, this is about standing up against those misguided people at the top and voting the right way. I understand that David Cameron is already facing disagreement from around 20% of the Conservative Party - I implore you to be a part of that. At the vote, please take heed of what I have said, stand up and vote against bombing Syria. I will be extremely appreciative if you do.
Thanks for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
George Harold Millman
Saturday, 14 November 2015
Let us take a moment...
'Oh my God. HORRIFIED and TERRIFIED by what's happening in Paris. Any person involved in this terrorism who claims to represent Islam is a LIAR. Islam is a religion of PEACE. Muslim people are a BEAUTIFUL people of peace. These acts are an outrage against ALL people, Muslims included. Allah IS great and is MERCIFUL. These murderers do NOT represent Allah. They represent no one but Satan.'
In light of recent events, I knew that I had to write about it, but there are so many elements to this that I'm not entirely sure where to start, what angle to take or where exactly I'm going to go with it. In fact, at the time of writing this first paragraph I have not yet given this blog a title, because I think my mind will be a lot clearer once my thoughts are down.
I suppose I should start by saying that I am absolutely, without any question of a doubt, thinking of anyone who has lost a loved one in France or in any other part of the world recently. I have a couple of friends in France myself - thankfully, all are fine - and I honestly cannot imagine the worry that must have inhabited so many people's minds over the last couple of days. I think that these events have emotionally affected everyone who has heard about them, whether they had any sort of personal involvement or not.
I think a lot of people who know me will (whether they would appreciate this or not) expect me to write this blog in the angle of pointing out the many other terrorist attacks that do not get this level of coverage, such as in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and any other country in the world. I will quite truthfully hold my hands up and say that this is how I normally respond to this kind of occurrence and the reactions that it provokes from the media. On this occasion, however, I would say that this is only partially true. Whilst I do absolutely believe that it is disgraceful that the world seems to believe that this is tragic in Paris and normal in other countries, I would not say the reaction to the events in Paris is in any way extreme. I would say more that the reactions to terrorist attacks normally is unnecessarily low-key, rather than reactions to specific situations being extravagant.
For me personally, I feel that senseless acts of violence are senseless acts of violence, and are not indicative of any sort of wider problem in our society. I am of course entirely disturbed by the question of what causes a person to commit a suicide bombing or a mass shooting, but I am almost as disturbed by the way in which casual news consumers in the West react to something like this. Very quickly, I start to see new stories in my Facebook news feed: 'Islam is an evil evil cancer', 'Deport all terrorists' and most unpleasant of all, 'Let's close all our borders'. The fact that anyone would use the deaths of innocent people to bolster their own twisted political agenda is so disrespectful that it makes me feel physically sick. There is of course the argument that most of these people don't realise how disrespectful this is, but if anything I think that makes it even worse. There is a deliberate attempt to mislead people into scapegoating a minority group (in this case Muslims), even though anyone with any sense is aware that these people do not represent Islam in the slightest. I was going to give a lot of information on this blog about how they don't represent Islam, but frankly I actually can't be bothered. I feel like I spend half my life explaining this to people, and right now I'm just too angry to feel any motivation to change anyone's mindset. All of the information is out there, if you actually want to find out anything (and feel free to ask me for any material on the subject if you wish, I will happily oblige). If you don't, just remember that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and if Islam was actually a terrorist organisation, the rest of the world would probably be dead by now.
I now know a lot more about this blog than I did when I started (and I have named it now). I had expected this to be a lot more informative than it has turned out to be. I suppose in that way you could argue that it isn't exactly one of my better blogs. There are other elements to this to discuss, and I may well write a more cohesive blog tomorrow or in the next few days to go into detail about them, but I feel that right now is not the time. On my Facebook profile, I generated quite a lot of controversy a couple of days ago for explaining that I don't wear poppies or actively contribute to the silence on Remembrance Day. I'm not going to go into detail about the reasons for that now, but it ultimately boils down to the fact that I think that reflection should be done in one's own time, on one's own terms and in a way that breeds positive action to prevent the things one is reflecting on from happening again. So for the moment, I would like to invite all of my readers to take a moment with me, in one's own time, to reflect on anyone who has been hurt in any way by any form of senseless violence, whether in France or any other part of the world, whether in a medium commonly described as terrorism or not. And then let us wake up to a world that we are ready to make better, not by espousing hate or prejudice, not by alienating sections of the community, but by realising that we are all human beings and ultimately share a common goal of peace and love.
I started this with a quote from Sinead O'Connor. Out of all the quotes that I have read about this, I chose hers for two reasons. One is that Sinead sums it up amazingly, as she of course always does. The second is that she is a Catholic priest, and still understands about Islam. This is the attitude I think we could all do with adopting a little bit more just now - the attitude of celebrating one another and learning, regardless or whether or not we consider ourselves to be within the same individual group. And much as I love Sinead, I'm going to finish on a Katrina and the Waves song. Enjoy!
Peace and love x
Sinead O'Connor
In light of recent events, I knew that I had to write about it, but there are so many elements to this that I'm not entirely sure where to start, what angle to take or where exactly I'm going to go with it. In fact, at the time of writing this first paragraph I have not yet given this blog a title, because I think my mind will be a lot clearer once my thoughts are down.
I suppose I should start by saying that I am absolutely, without any question of a doubt, thinking of anyone who has lost a loved one in France or in any other part of the world recently. I have a couple of friends in France myself - thankfully, all are fine - and I honestly cannot imagine the worry that must have inhabited so many people's minds over the last couple of days. I think that these events have emotionally affected everyone who has heard about them, whether they had any sort of personal involvement or not.
I think a lot of people who know me will (whether they would appreciate this or not) expect me to write this blog in the angle of pointing out the many other terrorist attacks that do not get this level of coverage, such as in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and any other country in the world. I will quite truthfully hold my hands up and say that this is how I normally respond to this kind of occurrence and the reactions that it provokes from the media. On this occasion, however, I would say that this is only partially true. Whilst I do absolutely believe that it is disgraceful that the world seems to believe that this is tragic in Paris and normal in other countries, I would not say the reaction to the events in Paris is in any way extreme. I would say more that the reactions to terrorist attacks normally is unnecessarily low-key, rather than reactions to specific situations being extravagant.
For me personally, I feel that senseless acts of violence are senseless acts of violence, and are not indicative of any sort of wider problem in our society. I am of course entirely disturbed by the question of what causes a person to commit a suicide bombing or a mass shooting, but I am almost as disturbed by the way in which casual news consumers in the West react to something like this. Very quickly, I start to see new stories in my Facebook news feed: 'Islam is an evil evil cancer', 'Deport all terrorists' and most unpleasant of all, 'Let's close all our borders'. The fact that anyone would use the deaths of innocent people to bolster their own twisted political agenda is so disrespectful that it makes me feel physically sick. There is of course the argument that most of these people don't realise how disrespectful this is, but if anything I think that makes it even worse. There is a deliberate attempt to mislead people into scapegoating a minority group (in this case Muslims), even though anyone with any sense is aware that these people do not represent Islam in the slightest. I was going to give a lot of information on this blog about how they don't represent Islam, but frankly I actually can't be bothered. I feel like I spend half my life explaining this to people, and right now I'm just too angry to feel any motivation to change anyone's mindset. All of the information is out there, if you actually want to find out anything (and feel free to ask me for any material on the subject if you wish, I will happily oblige). If you don't, just remember that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and if Islam was actually a terrorist organisation, the rest of the world would probably be dead by now.
I now know a lot more about this blog than I did when I started (and I have named it now). I had expected this to be a lot more informative than it has turned out to be. I suppose in that way you could argue that it isn't exactly one of my better blogs. There are other elements to this to discuss, and I may well write a more cohesive blog tomorrow or in the next few days to go into detail about them, but I feel that right now is not the time. On my Facebook profile, I generated quite a lot of controversy a couple of days ago for explaining that I don't wear poppies or actively contribute to the silence on Remembrance Day. I'm not going to go into detail about the reasons for that now, but it ultimately boils down to the fact that I think that reflection should be done in one's own time, on one's own terms and in a way that breeds positive action to prevent the things one is reflecting on from happening again. So for the moment, I would like to invite all of my readers to take a moment with me, in one's own time, to reflect on anyone who has been hurt in any way by any form of senseless violence, whether in France or any other part of the world, whether in a medium commonly described as terrorism or not. And then let us wake up to a world that we are ready to make better, not by espousing hate or prejudice, not by alienating sections of the community, but by realising that we are all human beings and ultimately share a common goal of peace and love.
I started this with a quote from Sinead O'Connor. Out of all the quotes that I have read about this, I chose hers for two reasons. One is that Sinead sums it up amazingly, as she of course always does. The second is that she is a Catholic priest, and still understands about Islam. This is the attitude I think we could all do with adopting a little bit more just now - the attitude of celebrating one another and learning, regardless or whether or not we consider ourselves to be within the same individual group. And much as I love Sinead, I'm going to finish on a Katrina and the Waves song. Enjoy!
Peace and love x
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Criminalising peaceful protest
There have been many instances in recent times when I have felt that peaceful protest is being cracked down upon, both here in the UK and internationally. This is obviously something that threatens those in command, which is precisely why we must stand up for these rights no matter what is thrown at us. I'm going to focus on two things that have struck me about the subject this week.
Firstly, I read a report posted by an acquaintance on a Facebook page supporting solidarity for Palestine (complete article here) concerning the convictions of a group of Palestine solidarity activists for publicly encouraging people to boycott Israeli products. The actions took place around five years ago, and from what I can tell, essentially involved the campaigners congregating around supermarkets and educating the public about exactly what these products are funding and how to recognise them. The activists were initially acquitted, but were eventually sentenced under an old law prescribing up to a year in prison and large fines for anyone who 'provokes discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group of people by reason of their origin or their membership or non-membership in a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion'. This sentence is even harsher than what would be given in Israel, which at least restricts itself to fines, and not jail.
This form of action is no more than that in which I myself have participated in the UK. Fortunately I have never been arrested or charged for it (although I was kicked to the ground by a police officer once). Personally, I absolutely cannot understand how the boycott of items supplied by a nation which commits international war crimes against civilians can be considered under the umbrella of 'discrimination'. I feel that were this Iraq or Syria, no one would bat an eyelid. At what point does something stop being fact or opinion, and become discrimination? I would argue that it is at the point where an individual or a group is victimised for something which causes no one harm. In the numerous anti-Israel demonstrations that I have attended, I have rarely heard anything said against people who come from Israel itself; merely against the brutality that Israel has inflicted upon the people of Palestine.
One cannot prevent people from issuing warnings about where the profits from certain items ends up; if we do that, we start crossing even further into territory whereby the people are controlled by the powers that be. I have not written much about Israel and Palestine in the last year, simply because I have not come across very much new material to write about. I still do what I can; I continue to boycott all produce from Nestlé, Starbucks, Hewlett-Packard and any other brand which I know to support Israel, and anything that I know to come from Israel itself, and I encourage others to do the same. The reason why this form of action is targeted by those who benefit from cruel regimes is because it works. This right must never be given up.
Well done to all my friends and acquaintances who were at the #grantsnotdebts London demonstration yesterday. As people may or may not have seen (given the low numbers of news sources who reported it even in a negative light) it has the perception of being quite violent. Unfortunately, I had to pass on this one, but I know from personal experience that when political demonstrations are put across in this way, it is often a vast exaggeration. Therefore, I contacted an acquaintance who was at the demonstration to get some more accurate information.
This is what my acquaintance said:
'The demo yesterday wasn't violent at all, literally all that happened was flares thrown and some stink bombs. Police presence was entirely unprecedented and they got so hands-on. They essentially stopped the demo. Most people were kettled, and a lot of us were running from cops for a long time. Other than that though, it was a wonderful demo! Fantastic turn out and brilliant solidarity/atmosphere/enthusiasm. Some amazing chants as well. When we got near any parliamentary buildings the police came down hard, and some people started chanting "fuck the pigs, but not like that'.
Now of course this is the experience of one person and so cannot be said to be reflective, but having attended many such events only for the news media to put across that my side behaved appallingly violently, I have no trouble believing that there is a great deal of truth in that. An official statement of the events from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) can be found here. I admire the fact that no one is giving up on this. There is a big part of me that wishes that I had been there, but it appears that the next event is on November 17th. I believe I will be able to attend that one! I shall write more about it nearer the time.
As with France's reaction to the Israel boycott, this is another example that stinks of an unnecessarily heavy-handed reaction to those people who are merely sticking up for what is right. I feel that this ought to be recognised for what it is. History teaches that people who involve themselves in social protest are the ones who generally tend to be remembered as heroes. The recognition comes, in hindsight possibly but it comes. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated and bullied into a place from which we cannot fight injustice. I certainly do not intend to be, anyway.
Firstly, I read a report posted by an acquaintance on a Facebook page supporting solidarity for Palestine (complete article here) concerning the convictions of a group of Palestine solidarity activists for publicly encouraging people to boycott Israeli products. The actions took place around five years ago, and from what I can tell, essentially involved the campaigners congregating around supermarkets and educating the public about exactly what these products are funding and how to recognise them. The activists were initially acquitted, but were eventually sentenced under an old law prescribing up to a year in prison and large fines for anyone who 'provokes discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group of people by reason of their origin or their membership or non-membership in a specific ethnic group, nation, race or religion'. This sentence is even harsher than what would be given in Israel, which at least restricts itself to fines, and not jail.
This form of action is no more than that in which I myself have participated in the UK. Fortunately I have never been arrested or charged for it (although I was kicked to the ground by a police officer once). Personally, I absolutely cannot understand how the boycott of items supplied by a nation which commits international war crimes against civilians can be considered under the umbrella of 'discrimination'. I feel that were this Iraq or Syria, no one would bat an eyelid. At what point does something stop being fact or opinion, and become discrimination? I would argue that it is at the point where an individual or a group is victimised for something which causes no one harm. In the numerous anti-Israel demonstrations that I have attended, I have rarely heard anything said against people who come from Israel itself; merely against the brutality that Israel has inflicted upon the people of Palestine.
One cannot prevent people from issuing warnings about where the profits from certain items ends up; if we do that, we start crossing even further into territory whereby the people are controlled by the powers that be. I have not written much about Israel and Palestine in the last year, simply because I have not come across very much new material to write about. I still do what I can; I continue to boycott all produce from Nestlé, Starbucks, Hewlett-Packard and any other brand which I know to support Israel, and anything that I know to come from Israel itself, and I encourage others to do the same. The reason why this form of action is targeted by those who benefit from cruel regimes is because it works. This right must never be given up.
Well done to all my friends and acquaintances who were at the #grantsnotdebts London demonstration yesterday. As people may or may not have seen (given the low numbers of news sources who reported it even in a negative light) it has the perception of being quite violent. Unfortunately, I had to pass on this one, but I know from personal experience that when political demonstrations are put across in this way, it is often a vast exaggeration. Therefore, I contacted an acquaintance who was at the demonstration to get some more accurate information.
This is what my acquaintance said:
'The demo yesterday wasn't violent at all, literally all that happened was flares thrown and some stink bombs. Police presence was entirely unprecedented and they got so hands-on. They essentially stopped the demo. Most people were kettled, and a lot of us were running from cops for a long time. Other than that though, it was a wonderful demo! Fantastic turn out and brilliant solidarity/atmosphere/enthusiasm. Some amazing chants as well. When we got near any parliamentary buildings the police came down hard, and some people started chanting "fuck the pigs, but not like that'.
Now of course this is the experience of one person and so cannot be said to be reflective, but having attended many such events only for the news media to put across that my side behaved appallingly violently, I have no trouble believing that there is a great deal of truth in that. An official statement of the events from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) can be found here. I admire the fact that no one is giving up on this. There is a big part of me that wishes that I had been there, but it appears that the next event is on November 17th. I believe I will be able to attend that one! I shall write more about it nearer the time.
As with France's reaction to the Israel boycott, this is another example that stinks of an unnecessarily heavy-handed reaction to those people who are merely sticking up for what is right. I feel that this ought to be recognised for what it is. History teaches that people who involve themselves in social protest are the ones who generally tend to be remembered as heroes. The recognition comes, in hindsight possibly but it comes. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated and bullied into a place from which we cannot fight injustice. I certainly do not intend to be, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)