On Saturday, as with the previous week, many people marched through the streets of London again in an attempt to get David Cameron to resign. Once again, I intended to join them and didn't; I had an emergency at work (I run my own theatre company) which needed my immediate attention and unfortunately that had to take priority. So far, Cameron has obviously not resigned, but the pressure is on, and will continue to be on.
The thing that really concerns me is how little I have seen this demonstration reported in the media. Whilst last week received pretty lukewarm coverage within the mainstream media, the social media aspect was shared around quite a bit (including one rather iconic image of a pig piñata intended to represent our lovely PM). This week, however, I have seen virtually nothing, and this includes from my activism colleagues. The reasons for so little coverage on social media I cannot quite put my finger on - I'm still quite in the dark as to exactly how many people attended the protest compared to the previous week, though if anyone knows please do inform me and my readers.
As for the response from the mainstream media, that was sadly predictable. There was the odd report, but it was never front-page headlines, first item (or even third or fourth) on Radio 4. This is, quite clearly, the oldest trick in the book; when the media reports on something, it becomes a Thing with a capital T. This is fine when you're trying to frame someone like Cliff Richard, but when political activists are claiming the streets back, the state-controlled media wants it to be as low-key as possible. If it was out there, more people would become aware, more people would be inspired to keep it going - and when it's not reported on, it fizzles out.
This is why at this moment, it is as important as ever to keep this pressure on. Not only does the pressure force a reaction from the grand dignitaries, but it proves to the media that the people are passionate enough and committed enough to keep this going regardless of how much we are hindered. And it is working. Iain Duncan Smith is already out - admittedly more as a political move concerning the EU referendum than for the noble reasons he claims, but regardless it is a sign of things changing, of political structures giving way in the face of public pressure. We have continued strikes from junior doctors as a response to the frankly absurd contracts foisted upon them by Jeremy Hunt. The Government has been forced into U-turns on certain legislation, an example being the so-called 'granny flat' tax. The pressure is on, and it is working - not swiftly or securely (yet), but people are reacting to it.
I'm not sure what's happening this Saturday. I think there really needs to be another demonstration. According to social media, people are unsure because this Saturday is the London Marathon, but in my opinion this is precisely why the protest should happen. Much as I have the utmost respect for marathon-runners and would not like any sort of clash to happen between them and the protesters, I think here we have an opportunity to make a point about how important this cause is. When a valued event such as the London Marathon is disrupted because of people's anger about the general state of things, it sends a message stronger than any other that brutal and unfair regimes will not be tolerated. If the demonstration causes issues to something we all love, than that's just tough shit, because the wellbeing of each and every citizen of this country is a priority that outranks sporting events and other traditions, regardless of how many people appreciate them. No doubt the London Marathon will figure heavily in Sunday's newspapers; if its progress is hindered or halted by the demonstrations, this will also force the media to report on the demonstrations. (Admittedly, it will not report on them very favourably, but in this situation negative publicity is better than no publicity at all. It still gets the word out passionately.)
And whilst we're on the subject, I had an interesting conversation on social media today with someone who told me that I'd be better off focussing on the more troublesome options being lined up to replace Cameron. Let me be very clear, I have not forgotten the threats posed by George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson or any of David Cameron's other lackeys. I am not so naive as to think that just to get rid of David Cameron, things will magically be all right again. They won't, it will take years of hard work - it is now 26 years since Thatcher was deposed, and her legacy has still not been undone. However, I think it is fair to say that the resignation of David Cameron would very much harm the credibility of his cabinet and party generally. Just as Thatcher's successor John Major never did as much damage as her despite belonging to the same party, so too I feel that getting Cameron out would be a step in the right direction. Losing him would motivate people, just as losing Iain Duncan Smith did, despite having his own reasons for leaving. I'm also concerned about the impact for the EU referendum if we lost Cameron - much as I dislike him, he is a supporter of staying, and I worry that the campaign to Remain could be harmed without him. Regardless, the EU campaign is a completely separate issue, and one that people should judge on its merits and not on the personalities of the politicians involved. Perhaps I might do better politically to avoid attempting to depose Cameron until after the referendum, but then I am not a politician and I refuse to think tactically. Right now, I think that Cameron is the biggest and most concerning obstacle, and we may have an opportunity to force his resignation which might not come again until 2020. Whether that happens or whether it doesn't, we will deal with other problems when they come, but here, in this moment, in April 2016, I personally consider that to be the greater good.
If we're talking about who will replace Cameron though, some people may find this link to a Canary article interesting. I found it quite insightful about the whole situation, and actually gave me some optimism. Let's keep the revolution coming. If a demonstration is planned for this weekend, I will write about it. Hope so!
Monday, 18 April 2016
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Lack of student support on campus
I was going to write about the Panama papers today, but I've had to postpone that until my next blog in favour of an individual case that I came across on social media today. Whilst the Panama papers and David Cameron's association with offshore funds is of course of major importance, something lesser-known struck a personal chord with me and is relevant to a campaign I've been sitting on and quietly talking to a couple of people about for a while.
I was reading an article today concerning a student at London School of Economics who suffers from mental illness having been evicted from their lodgings. This was published on Beaver Online, the web edition of the college's newspaper, the Beaver (the full article is here, and I highly recommend it). Essentially, the unnamed student's studies were interrupted due to hospital admissions, and LSE has seen fit to evict them from Halls as a result. LSE apparently considered that for one reason or other its facilities would not cater to this individual, and it would not be able to give the support they required. This is despite the NHS recommending that the student stays in Halls, and the fact that having been evicted the student would be homeless, which needless to say would not be beneficial for their mental health.
I'm not going to re-write the article, but it is linked above for anyone who would like to read about the case in more detail. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it is sadly so consistent with things that I have both heard about and with my own personal experience. When it comes to pastoral care and social support on campus, many universities would appear to be strangely lacking. I cannot really give any clear examples of this other than the one linked as much of my evidence is anecdotal. From what I have heard though, it would seem that Universities put their own business needs ahead of everything else. Some do a better job than others of coming across as though student welfare is important to them, but for the most part it doesn't seem to be. For a few months now I have been talking to people I have worked with about launching some kind of campaign to tackle this problem. Uni life is such a fundamental part of making up who we are - I myself certainly never anticipated how much going into higher education would change me emotionally. It can be a time when one finds great strength in themselves, and it can also be where one's most concerning vulnerabilities come out more than ever before. In this instance, students need to have someone in authority with their best interests at heart, and I am very concerned that this is not happening. In this case, quite clearly, the extenuating circumstances for the student's absence was not considered to be important by the University. How many more students have suffered in a similar way?
I have my own experiences of feeling as though support for my mental and emotional wellbeing could be a lot better. I used to live in a flat of six, and in my first term at University, following arguments with a flatmate, I found myself in a state of almost total isolation from everyone I lived with. I would get home, go to my room and not come out again for six hours or so until everyone had gone to bed, before I would come out and heat myself some food, which I'd eat in my room. Occasionally those of my flatmates who I hadn't fallen out with would come to check that I was okay - I may not have seen them for several weeks, despite living together. The people involved were on my course, which meant that I felt unable to socialise with anyone and I became extremely depressed as a result. Looking back now, I cannot believe I ever let things get to such a ridiculous situation, but sometimes when living in a new environment it is possible to find yourself doing things you never thought you'd do. I never thought I'd be isolated for such a long time - at the beginning, I just tried to stay out of someone's way for a couple of days until things had calmed down, but frankly I had reckoned without how useless everyone in charge would turn out to be. I had been led to believe that what we called a 'Residents' Support Network' would help to arbitrate the situation, but save for talking to us and finding out what was going on, they did virtually nothing. Ultimately, the situation just burned itself out - the people involved moved out of my flat, and I was left to deal with things on my own. I'm proud of how I got through it, but having been locked in a room for two months impacted on my mental health for quite a long time, and I can't help feeling like if someone with some degree of authority had bothered to get properly involved, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
Obviously my own situation is entirely different from that faced by the student in this case - I was fortunately never at risk of being homeless, nor did I ever get to a point that I needed to be admitted to hospital. I feel that in the end though, it comes down to the same fact about Universities (save for a few individuals) being reluctant to get involved to help any student with any situation that might be slightly unusual. I don't know if this is because these days Universities are considered more as businesses than as educational establishments, but even if we are looking at it in that way it makes no difference. Customer satisfaction should be a key part of any business' list of priorities, and this should be especially the case if one's clientele consists mainly of young people starting to get a grasp on the real world. The one part of the article that really made me smile sympathetically was when the LSESU Welfare Officer said that all of the people she had communicated with had referred her to one another. This was exactly my experience as well - no one seemed to know whose responsibility it was to help me. My residents' assistant told me to speak to my course leaders, who in turn told me to go back to the people running Halls. I don't know why it is so disorganised, but I feel strongly that this has to stop.
When I finish University, I intend to run some sort of campaign to promote a better understanding of student security on campus. I haven't thought hugely far ahead with this yet, but I'm hoping that some of the people I have worked with on campaigns in the past will be willing to help me - some of them I've already spoken to, and anyone else who is willing and passionate about this cause, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, if anyone else has had the experience of being overlooked unfairly at University, I strongly encourage them to come forward about it. This seems to be a consistent issue that not enough people talk about, and I hope to shine a light on it!
In other news, I just came across an interesting Facebook event. People are gathering outside Downing Street this weekend to demand David Cameron's resignation in light of recent revelations. I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to go, but I may do. If I do, I'll write about it. Hope to see you there!
I was reading an article today concerning a student at London School of Economics who suffers from mental illness having been evicted from their lodgings. This was published on Beaver Online, the web edition of the college's newspaper, the Beaver (the full article is here, and I highly recommend it). Essentially, the unnamed student's studies were interrupted due to hospital admissions, and LSE has seen fit to evict them from Halls as a result. LSE apparently considered that for one reason or other its facilities would not cater to this individual, and it would not be able to give the support they required. This is despite the NHS recommending that the student stays in Halls, and the fact that having been evicted the student would be homeless, which needless to say would not be beneficial for their mental health.
I'm not going to re-write the article, but it is linked above for anyone who would like to read about the case in more detail. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it is sadly so consistent with things that I have both heard about and with my own personal experience. When it comes to pastoral care and social support on campus, many universities would appear to be strangely lacking. I cannot really give any clear examples of this other than the one linked as much of my evidence is anecdotal. From what I have heard though, it would seem that Universities put their own business needs ahead of everything else. Some do a better job than others of coming across as though student welfare is important to them, but for the most part it doesn't seem to be. For a few months now I have been talking to people I have worked with about launching some kind of campaign to tackle this problem. Uni life is such a fundamental part of making up who we are - I myself certainly never anticipated how much going into higher education would change me emotionally. It can be a time when one finds great strength in themselves, and it can also be where one's most concerning vulnerabilities come out more than ever before. In this instance, students need to have someone in authority with their best interests at heart, and I am very concerned that this is not happening. In this case, quite clearly, the extenuating circumstances for the student's absence was not considered to be important by the University. How many more students have suffered in a similar way?
I have my own experiences of feeling as though support for my mental and emotional wellbeing could be a lot better. I used to live in a flat of six, and in my first term at University, following arguments with a flatmate, I found myself in a state of almost total isolation from everyone I lived with. I would get home, go to my room and not come out again for six hours or so until everyone had gone to bed, before I would come out and heat myself some food, which I'd eat in my room. Occasionally those of my flatmates who I hadn't fallen out with would come to check that I was okay - I may not have seen them for several weeks, despite living together. The people involved were on my course, which meant that I felt unable to socialise with anyone and I became extremely depressed as a result. Looking back now, I cannot believe I ever let things get to such a ridiculous situation, but sometimes when living in a new environment it is possible to find yourself doing things you never thought you'd do. I never thought I'd be isolated for such a long time - at the beginning, I just tried to stay out of someone's way for a couple of days until things had calmed down, but frankly I had reckoned without how useless everyone in charge would turn out to be. I had been led to believe that what we called a 'Residents' Support Network' would help to arbitrate the situation, but save for talking to us and finding out what was going on, they did virtually nothing. Ultimately, the situation just burned itself out - the people involved moved out of my flat, and I was left to deal with things on my own. I'm proud of how I got through it, but having been locked in a room for two months impacted on my mental health for quite a long time, and I can't help feeling like if someone with some degree of authority had bothered to get properly involved, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
Obviously my own situation is entirely different from that faced by the student in this case - I was fortunately never at risk of being homeless, nor did I ever get to a point that I needed to be admitted to hospital. I feel that in the end though, it comes down to the same fact about Universities (save for a few individuals) being reluctant to get involved to help any student with any situation that might be slightly unusual. I don't know if this is because these days Universities are considered more as businesses than as educational establishments, but even if we are looking at it in that way it makes no difference. Customer satisfaction should be a key part of any business' list of priorities, and this should be especially the case if one's clientele consists mainly of young people starting to get a grasp on the real world. The one part of the article that really made me smile sympathetically was when the LSESU Welfare Officer said that all of the people she had communicated with had referred her to one another. This was exactly my experience as well - no one seemed to know whose responsibility it was to help me. My residents' assistant told me to speak to my course leaders, who in turn told me to go back to the people running Halls. I don't know why it is so disorganised, but I feel strongly that this has to stop.
When I finish University, I intend to run some sort of campaign to promote a better understanding of student security on campus. I haven't thought hugely far ahead with this yet, but I'm hoping that some of the people I have worked with on campaigns in the past will be willing to help me - some of them I've already spoken to, and anyone else who is willing and passionate about this cause, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, if anyone else has had the experience of being overlooked unfairly at University, I strongly encourage them to come forward about it. This seems to be a consistent issue that not enough people talk about, and I hope to shine a light on it!
In other news, I just came across an interesting Facebook event. People are gathering outside Downing Street this weekend to demand David Cameron's resignation in light of recent revelations. I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to go, but I may do. If I do, I'll write about it. Hope to see you there!
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Rest in peace
When I was 18, I decided to spend a full day not saying a word to anyone. It was the day after Troy Davis was killed, and somehow I felt bound to show my respects in some way. But somehow, just showing respect to one person was not enough. There were so many people killing and being killed that I felt completely bewildered, and those were just the ones the media found it necessary to report on. I spent a full day at sixth form reflecting on this, not saying a word to anyone. I think my teachers found it quite frustrating (sorry Danny if you're reading this!)
I'm not sure if I'd ever do that again. I feel that silences and reflections on death are only worthwhile if they are done for the right reasons - the sole intent being personal reflection. If they are done to show the world that you know how to care, or for political reasons, they are utterly worthless. It is for this reason that I normally refuse to wear poppies on Remembrance Day, take part in silences or adapt my profile picture on Facebook to display the colours of a certain country. It may make someone feel part of something in the moment, but it is generally disempowering and does nothing to change anything. The only part that may be productive is personal reflection, and this must be done when the mood takes you. This is generally not at the same time as anyone else.
I've felt like this again recently. It is in part because of what has happened in Brussels lately, but it is not limited to that. Gaza, Iraq, Syria, parts of the USA... the list goes on. This is not limited to terrorism within Western countries, or even to countries at war generally. This is my general bewilderment at world leaders not being able to sort things out in a way that does not result in people being frightened to leave their homes. I don't think I'm alone in sitting at home and feeling as though things are just hopeless sometimes, that maybe I just don't understand what society is all about.
This is not a particularly productive blog, I'll grant any reader that. It is not intended to make any political point at all, merely to express my own discomfort with the situation in which the nations of this world find themselves. It causes me a lot of anxiety. Perhaps this is the reason why there seems to be more depression and mental illness around these days than there once was - with the technology boom, news reaches people faster and the horrific state of the world is more evident to its citizens.
There is one point I'll make before I sign off though, which is that no matter how non-productive bewilderment can be, it is a thousand times more useful than the political point-scoring that is an inevitable consequence of tragedy. There is a reason that I've avoided blogging about Brussels up until now, and it is that it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to use it to continue his campaign of Islamophobia or that the reality TV contestant whose name I'm not even going to besmirch my blog with would hold anyone who said that Britain's borders should stay open as being personally responsible. A significant event can obviously be used as a benchmark for a policy change, but using one erroneously to promote one's own prejudice is something altogether different.
Depression and reflection can be used for productive purposes. One can take some time on that, remind oneself of one's own humanity and later use that to create a change. Sometimes there are no political points to make concerning multiple deaths, there are no policy changes to recommend or preachy claptrap to spout. Sometimes the only relevant words are 'rest in peace'.
And I shall try to write something a little more coherent next time.
I'm not sure if I'd ever do that again. I feel that silences and reflections on death are only worthwhile if they are done for the right reasons - the sole intent being personal reflection. If they are done to show the world that you know how to care, or for political reasons, they are utterly worthless. It is for this reason that I normally refuse to wear poppies on Remembrance Day, take part in silences or adapt my profile picture on Facebook to display the colours of a certain country. It may make someone feel part of something in the moment, but it is generally disempowering and does nothing to change anything. The only part that may be productive is personal reflection, and this must be done when the mood takes you. This is generally not at the same time as anyone else.
I've felt like this again recently. It is in part because of what has happened in Brussels lately, but it is not limited to that. Gaza, Iraq, Syria, parts of the USA... the list goes on. This is not limited to terrorism within Western countries, or even to countries at war generally. This is my general bewilderment at world leaders not being able to sort things out in a way that does not result in people being frightened to leave their homes. I don't think I'm alone in sitting at home and feeling as though things are just hopeless sometimes, that maybe I just don't understand what society is all about.
This is not a particularly productive blog, I'll grant any reader that. It is not intended to make any political point at all, merely to express my own discomfort with the situation in which the nations of this world find themselves. It causes me a lot of anxiety. Perhaps this is the reason why there seems to be more depression and mental illness around these days than there once was - with the technology boom, news reaches people faster and the horrific state of the world is more evident to its citizens.
There is one point I'll make before I sign off though, which is that no matter how non-productive bewilderment can be, it is a thousand times more useful than the political point-scoring that is an inevitable consequence of tragedy. There is a reason that I've avoided blogging about Brussels up until now, and it is that it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to use it to continue his campaign of Islamophobia or that the reality TV contestant whose name I'm not even going to besmirch my blog with would hold anyone who said that Britain's borders should stay open as being personally responsible. A significant event can obviously be used as a benchmark for a policy change, but using one erroneously to promote one's own prejudice is something altogether different.
Depression and reflection can be used for productive purposes. One can take some time on that, remind oneself of one's own humanity and later use that to create a change. Sometimes there are no political points to make concerning multiple deaths, there are no policy changes to recommend or preachy claptrap to spout. Sometimes the only relevant words are 'rest in peace'.
And I shall try to write something a little more coherent next time.
Thursday, 31 March 2016
They can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe?
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!
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!
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)