The trial of the Colston Four

This week, the Colston Four - Jake Skuse, Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford and Sage Willoughby, the four people who pulled down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston from Bristol City Centre in June 2020 - were found not guilty of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court. The defence successfully argued that the presence of the statue was in itself a greater crime than the action of pulling it down.

There have been some quite angry reactions from media executives such as Kelvin Mackenzie and some MPs (mostly Tories) such as Robert Jenrick, who argue that the decision undermines the rule of law. In this excellent article, Graeme Hayes, Brian Doherty and Steven Cammmiss explain using legal terms why this ruling does not in fact undermine the rule of law - they explain it better than I can so I highly recommend reading it to anyone unsure, but essentially it explains why there were many legal reasons to acquit the defendants, particularly because the trials of protesters work a little differently from ordinary criminal trials, as the burden on the defendant is generally not to prove that what they are accused of did not happen, but that under the circumstances it was intended to prevent a far greater crime. There's more detail in the article, but ultimately this was demonstrated successfully in court.

The greater crime the defendants argued they were preventing was the continuing presence of a monument that was greatly offensive to the citizens of Bristol, that had been petitioned several times to the council to remove legally, to no effect. I've never written about the removal of that statue before, but I can say firmly that I am fundamentally in favour of its removal. I grew up very close to where that statue was, and I still live nearby today. I've walked past it hundreds of times, and I now regularly walk past the plinth where it was. It is not missed at all, either by myself or by others.

Since this statue came down, the subject has been discussed in the media frequently, and I actually think has been a great opportunity for education. It's only been in the last couple of years that I've realised that most people outside of Bristol hadn't heard of Edward Colston prior to the removal of his statue - because if you grow up in Bristol, his name is unavoidable. Pretty much everything in Bristol is named after Colston (or at least, was until a couple of years ago) - I can think of three different schools, a major music venue, student accommodation and many more, that bore his name. This is because the trade that Colston brought Bristol made this city rich.

I really love being from Bristol - it's an incredible vibrant city, with a real can-do attitude and a creative buzz to it, and most importantly it's very multi-ethnic. As a white male Bristolian, I've always been aware that not only am I a person of considerable privilege, but also that I'm a beneficiary of a city that got rich off the back of the slave trade. I don't think there's much point feeling guilty for that, but I like to think that as a city we've moved on from that and are now welcoming to people descended from nations that England has previously invaded and colonised. There's probably a lot further we could go with regards to that, but I feel that the removal of this statue is very much a step in the right direction. I've heard it stated quite a lot that the removal of the statue erases history - a statement that I'm tempted to respond to with a sarcastic 'That's why nobody knows who Hitler was' (a retort I borrowed from Philomena Cunk). But in all seriousness, how does it erase history? Nobody is pretending that history didn't happen. If anything, the opposite is happening - it's to create more awareness of exactly how we got rich, and saying that even though we might benefit from the wealth that history brought us, we are now making the decision to distance ourselves from the means. Making that decision actually makes it more possible for Bristol's economic value to be shared equally - until 2015, taxpayers were still reimbursing former slave-owning families for their loss of slaves. And with Edward Colston's name more widely known now than it was before, it is more possible to have a national conversation and a more broad understanding of history.

In relation to the frequently raised (and quite tedious) question of 'Does this mean we can remove any statue that people don't like then?', the answer from me is actually yes. If a statue is generally disapproved of by the ordinary people living nearby, I feel that they have every right to remove it. Ordinary people make up communities, and they should decide whether or not a statue represents the values of their community. For me personally, I don't like statues at all. I don't believe that any human being, whether living now, in the past or yet to be born, deserves that almost God-like level of accolade, and I'd theoretically be in favour of the removal of every statue in the world. But in reality, it shouldn't be my decision each time - it should be the decision of the people who live wherever it is. I was fortunate enough to get to see the statue of activist Jen Reid for the single day it replaced the Colston statue, but although I thought it was an insult for the council to take it down so quickly when they dragged their heels over Colston for more than three decades, I prefer the plinth with nothing. An empty plinth is a reminder of what happened there - how a statue was erected that was utterly hated by the city, how the authorities refused to remove it despite widespread pressure to, and how an act of civil disobedience ended it and made a strong statement about what our city stands for. To me, what is important now is the remembrance of that, particularly at a time when the Government is trying to make it harder to protest. Protest is a human right, and when successful is very often sanitised by history, the grassroots element watered down and forgotten over time, to morally separate it from any subsequent issues that may be campaigned about in the future. We cannot allow this to happen - this was an act of civil disobedience, and must be remembered as such.

I'm actually quite glad that the campaigns to legally remove Colston's statue were unsuccessful. If they'd worked, the local council would have been able to claim credit for it. In this case, there is no credit to be taken by anyone except the people who were actually there removing it. It's a classic case of ordinary people taking matters into their own hands, something that I think we could all do a bit more of. We all share this world and much of the time, delegating responsibility to politicians only results in half-baked platitudes and little else. As long as you aren't hurting anyone and you know there's good reason for what you're doing, there's often a lot of value to just cracking on with something. Here in my home city, where there used to be a statue emphasising our history of slavery and colonialism, there is now an empty plinth emphasising our collective desire to improve ourselves and right past wrongs - a desire that is organic and has not been fed to us by anyone at the top. I think that's something that we should all be bloody proud of.

My Facebook My Twitter

How to stay motivated when everything is against you

I'd like to start with an apology - to many, many people, whether they read my blog or not, but mostly to myself. Over this last year, I have not updated this blog even once. I have attended very few demonstrations. I've participated in political discussions on the Internet and increased my knowledge of things, but I think that's only the bare minimum we can do at the moment.

One of the hardest things about being a leftie activist is, as many of us will tell you, the constant draining of energy. Particularly in the current climate, it seems there is so much going on at any particular time that it's hard to know where to start in dealing with the problem. What should we deal with first - curbs on protest, the incompetent leader of the opposition or our own personal gripes? What if I don't have time to properly do my research? How will I have time with everything else going on in my life? And - the constant one - does it really make much difference what I write about?

These are the questions that are constantly swirling around in my brain. I've always been one to distract myself anyway, and particularly at the moment sometimes it's difficult to bring yourself to a point where you can focus on something tangible and positive. Then, if it goes a certain amount of time without doing anything, you feel guilty about that and that can cripple you from doing anything further.

It's super-important at the moment that we don't give in to these feelings, because I think since I started this blog in 2010 there has been more going on in the world that has needed my attention in 2021 than ever before. So, from a burnout veteran, here's a handy five-point guide to avoid it:

1. Force yourself to do something each day

It doesn't matter if it's not exactly what you wanted to do - talk to a stranger, write a blog even if it's not a very good one, write to your MP, read an informative piece of work or a political allegory... actually I think the most productive things that have happened to me over this last year have been Zoom chats with friends who have given me ideas and inspiration. Actually, as much as doing something productive can feel like a chore, once you're doing it it's actually quite cleansing to the soul and helps you feel in top of things, so it's worth finding something worthwhile with which to occupy your time.

2. Be kind to yourself

My problem is that I take some time out, feel guilty about it, don't deal with those guilty feelings, feel more guilty, time passes, things spiral and I still haven't achieved what I was going to. That's fine. If you don't feel up to being as active as normal, it's fine to allow yourself some chill-out time... as long as that chill-out time is used productively. There's a difference between chilling out in a way that's actually going to get your brain together, and chill-out time that's decadent and destructive. Different activities work for different people, so do what works for you. If you've messed up, don't waste valuable time blaming yourself, just crack on with whatever will help.

3. Remember that it doesn't matter whether people know you're doing something

This is an important one. I'm all for telling everyone what you're doing and bringing people on board -  but at the same time, it's not about showing off. If your time is spent helping one single person with something they're struggling with, you're contributing to society. You know what your limit is, no one else does. This is why in large part my apology is actually to myself, because my duty is to myself first. I can't help others unless I myself am able to mentally function, and mental function involves using the noggin.

4. Have go-to sources of information

Sometimes it can be really hard to do in-depth research on something important. But as long as you've got a couple of blogs that you regularly come back to (ones that are updated a bit more than mine, hehe) you'll at least be kept up-to-date about some things. If you're on social media, make sure you comment on things that interest you, and then the algorithms will keep showing you things from that same source. That said, try to make your sources of information a little varied so as not to be fed too much of an echo chamber, and always remember to fact-check.

5. Remember to accept what you cannot change, and change what you cannot accept

This is obviously not my own line, but I've never come across anything more accurate in the world of social change. You are ultimately only one person with a limited amount of power - but having said that, it's odds on that that power is limited at a much higher point than you give yourself credit for.

This is not the most complicated blog I've ever written, but it is an honest one. 2021 was quite a tough year for those of us who are trying to change the world positively, so let's make 2022 an improvement!

My Facebook My Twitter

No, Keir, we do not all have the right to self-determination

'Why do we not care to acknowledge them? The cattle, the body count. We still don't like to admit the war was even partly our fault because so many of our people died. A photograph on every mantlepiece. And all this mourning has veiled the truth. It's not so much lest we forget, as lest we remember. Because you should realise the Cenotaph and the Last Post and all that stuff is concerned, there's no better way of forgetting something than by commemorating it.'

Alan Bennett, The History Boys




The current Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, is under fire again for undermining attempts at standing up to racism.

Since becoming the leader of the Labour Party in April, Starmer has found himself under fire for this quite a few times. He has referred to the Black Lives Matter protests as a 'moment', equated brutal police officers in Israel with Jews in general and used the release of a report into anti-Semitism to wage a cynical war against socialism. But in the last couple of days, this has increased with two utter public relations car crashes.

The first comes from an appearance on Nick Ferrari's LBC radio show (though given Ferrari's political persuasion, what exactly Starmer was doing on his programme in the first place is anyone's guess). You can listen to the full recording here, but I shall type up what was said as well.

A caller using the name Gemma (though apparently this is not her real name - more on that in a moment) phoned in and said this, in defence of booing footballers who take the knee for Black Lives Matter:

'If anything, the racial inequality is now against the indigenous people of Britain. We are set to become a minority by 2066. Taking the knee, bringing the political sphere into the football arena... we just have to look across to the Middle East. Israel has a state law that they are the only people in that country to have self-determination. Well, why can't I, as a white British female, have that same right?'

Starmer responded with:

'Gemma, we all have those rights. This is about recognising some injustice that has gone on for a very, very long time, and I think people were genuinely moved this year and want to make sure that that injustice is dealt with. People will look at it in different ways, but I think the vast majority of people do want a more equal society.'

The bits I've underlined are not typos, they are the parts of Starmer's response that I consider the very worst (as opposed to the rest of it, which is simply stating the bleeding obvious in as diluted a way as possible).

Tom Clark at Another Angry Voice reports that Gemma's real name is Jody Swingler, and that she's an extreme-right activist living in Ibiza. Which is an interesting development, and important to note, because I do not believe that her views actually speak for the British public. I mention that purely for the sake of noting this tactic of pretending to be normal members of the public that the far right has started using, because I actually don't consider Swingler or her ilk to be worth my time or energy fighting. What is more important though, is the weakness of Keir Starmer's response.

The Nation State law in Israel, which came in in 2018, is profoundly racist and has been criticised strongly by human rights groups across the globe. The law seeks to ensure that certain people who live in that region are considered more worthy of fair treatment, the right to speak their own language and basic humanity than others. In this response, Starmer implied that not only does the UK currently have an equivalent law (which is not true) but also that such a law would be desirable here!

I'm a white British male, and we are not destined to become an ethnic minority by 2066. I have fact-checked this claim; there is only one person who has ever made it, and even then I'm not sure exactly where he's got this data from. But more importantly, even if we were becoming a minority, what is actually wrong with that? I grew up in quite a diverse area, and in a few of my school classes there were more black or Asian people than white people. I don't remember being especially bothered by this, or indeed particularly noticing it. As a matter of fact, it has actually led me to subconsciously associate diversity with security - one reason I struggled in the few years I lived in a small town in Essex is that I don't like being in a room filled only with white people. I find that groups like that tend to be quite narrow-minded, and to lack the difference in experience and knowledge that a more diverse group brings. And surely we should all share experience and knowledge with each other? Isn't that the point of being alive?

Starmer's next mistake was the line 'People will look at it in different ways'. That is obvious because that always happens, but there's an implication there that all of the different ways to look at it are legitimate. They are not. This woman's ideas stem solely from racism, pure and simple. Starmer knows this as it's painfully obvious, and he should have called it out. There was no criticism from him, there was an attempt to make out that we rightly have a law like Israel's (which we don't, and it would be wrong if we did) and it really went very badly for him as he ended up kowtowing to a Nazi-esque troll.

Another fairly disturbing development for Starmer is this troublesome piece, about how Labour shadow frontbencher Bill Esterson (who has Jewish ancestry) was reprimanded after commenting on Twitter that Boris Johnson was 'leading us to a dangerous place' that he implied was reminiscent of Nazi Germany. This was described by Conservative chair Amanda Milling as 'shocking' and 'an outrageous insult'.

This is indicative of a very serious problem in our society - the idea that absolutely nothing can be compared to Nazi Germany unless it literally embodies the very worst parts of it. The quote at the top of the page is from The History Boys - a film my partner and I watched the other night and which I intensely disliked, although that one line was quite a good one (it refers to WWI instead of WWII, but it applies just as much). Because we do not take the time to remember, not really. What we remember is a selective interpretation of history, one in which we weren't complicit and one that does not equip us with the tools to prevent it happening again. From the way we talk about the Holocaust, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the gas chambers at Auschwitz sprang up overnight. Of course, it didn't happen like that. It never happens like that. What actually happened, over the course of the 1930s, was a very slow erosion of the rights of Jewish people, and with it public attitudes - so that by the time the Holocaust came about, all the groundwork had been laid for it not to be a significant imaginative leap.

I remain hopeful that we'll never see an abuse of human rights as great as that again, and I believe it's absolutely possible (and indeed an imperative) to stop things if they ever look like they might be going that way. But there are some things in our society that are reminiscent of how the Holocaust started (our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, for instance) and by talking about Nazi Germany as if nothing can ever be compared to it, we are ignoring the way that these things start. It is commonly said that if you put a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperature very slowly, the frog will not notice the increase in temperature until it is too late to prevent itself being boiled alive. Apparently there's some scepticism about whether this is true, but the metaphor certainly works for human beings. If we allow things to slowly progress, by the time (God forbid) it ever reaches that point, we'll be beyond the stage of objecting to it. It is done this way deliberately, and it's a very common way of shutting down progress to say that it's somehow offensive to the victims of the previous thing to talk about preventing it happening again. The same cynical technique is used to shut down debate on gun laws in the USA - whenever there's a school shooting, we're told that it's insulting to the families to exploit their grief for political opportunity, and that we should wait for a more appropriate time to have that conversation. But there never is an appropriate time, is there? Because if there isn't another one for a while it won't be a major concern anymore, and when there is one the same argument is thrown back over and over again. And this is how so many innocent people, many of them children, many of them ethnic minorities, have been murdered in the USA without anything being done to stop it.

But again, in the case of Bill Esterson, Keir Starmer swiftly responds that he shouldn't have said it, and that MPs should refrain from using Twitter. Keir, this would have been an amazing opportunity to stand by your colleague and show the world exactly how bad this Government is. The thing that angers me the most about all of this is that we hear consistently about how much racism, particularly anti-Semitism, there historically has been in the Labour Party, and how Starmer is apparently standing up to it. He is not. All I can see is an attempt to extend the right-wing status quo for as long as possible, disguised as an attempt to fight racism. If Keir Starmer was serious about this, he would have actually enacted the recommendations of the EHRC report, rather than cynically interfering in an independent board's decisions and turning what should have been a time for reflection into another tedious war between different wings of the party. He would not have sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey for re-tweeting an article criticising Israeli police forces. He would not be expelling pro-Palestine Jews left, right and centre. He would not have dismissed Black Lives Matter as a 'moment'. He would have disciplined Lisa Nandy for describing anti-Semitism as 'a form of racism that punches up, rather than down'. He would have disciplined Rachel Reeves for honouring the incredibly anti-Semitic Nancy Astor on Twitter. But all of these instances relate to who in Parliament are his political allies, rather than what they are actually meant to have said.

Sadly, we seem to have a Leader of the Opposition that will do anything to avoid rocking the boat, including standing against his own MPs when they speak the truth. And this man hopes to become Prime Minister one day? Give me a break.

My Facebook My Twitter

You scumbag, you maggot, we love Diane Abbott

 A bit unusual for me to write a whole blog just to promote a song, but I had to make an exception for this!

If you've never heard of the singer Grace Petrie, you simply must check out her music. There are many incredible political musicians out there, but this one is pretty special. I've loved her music since 2013 when I heard her on BBC Radio 4's Now Show performing her song 'All In This Together', in which she claimed to have 'tried to write a song about her favourite MP, but couldn't narrow it down'. That song is really out of date now, but I still listen to it regularly! I've seen Grace perform live and she is an exceptionally enjoyable performer.

Every year we have a tedious discussion about whether the line 'you scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot' in Fairytale of New York is appropriate given its frequent use as a homophobic slur. I touched upon my view about this in this blog that I wrote last week, but I shall reiterate my viewpoint on it one more time. My view is that I have absolutely no objection to the word 'faggot' being in this song in the context in which it is used - that of the Irish version, meaning 'lazy person'. As someone in a same-sex relationship, my view is that the more we use terms like this to mean other things besides the homophobic meaning, the less effective it becomes as a homophobic slur. I believe that making words taboo only increases the ability of bigots to discriminate - we need to focus predominantly on intention, because words have no meaning by themselves. Also, I find it quite offensive that US slang is considered more important in the English-speaking world than Irish slang is.

However, irrespective of my personal view on censoring the line, I just love Grace Petrie's new cover, in which this line is now 'You scumbag, you maggot, we love Diane Abbott'. In addition to Grace's beautiful singing voice, the boldness of this line is important to stand up to an extremely insidious media narrative about this politician. Of all left-wing politicians, she is by far the one with the worst reputation - thoroughly undeserved, because Diane Abbott is an amazing human being. Occasionally she gets flustered on television, and when that happens it's talked about for weeks in an attempt to persuade the British public that she's incompetent - which sadly is often successful. But if anyone takes the time to actually take the time to read what she does via reliable sources (the link above will take you to her TheyWorkForYou page) you will see what an incredibly hard worker she is, how intelligent she is and how much she strives to improve quality of life for the least fortunate. Just as a personal anecdote, an acquaintance of mine told me a while back that in a struggle regarding the immigration status of their spouse, and said that of all the MPs they'd met, Diane Abbott was the only one who they really felt cared personally about what they were going through (which incidentally, I think is so important - when we talk about politicians, so often we focus on big global things and never consider the work that MPs do on individual cases. And I often think that's the most important thing - no matter what other flaws a politician may have, if they work hard on an individual case, something that isn't going to affect their electoral chances, that is more proof than any other that their heart is in the right place.)

In 2020, when the Labour Party is becoming increasingly right-wing, MPs like Diane Abbott are needed more than ever. I could talk about Diane Abbott until the cows come home, but the best thing you could read is this article by food writer Jack Monroe, which was originally posted on Twitter shortly before the 2017 election. Read it. Now.

You back? Okay, back to the song.

Now, I want this song to get to Christmas number one. I highly doubt that I can achieve this because my blog readership is TINY - but I thought, why not try? The worst that can happen is that I'll have at least got a few more people to buy it, which would help the artist. But more than that - if radio stations have started to say that they won't play the original (I personally disagree, but it's their right) why not give them an alternative that glorifies one of the best politicians we have? Someone who is almost never in the media unless it's something negative? As Boris Johnson destroys more and more of what we have, so many of us are fed up with the fact that our lives don't mean anything to politicians. So why not take the time to spend £1 (only if we can afford it, of course) to appreciate a politician for whom our lives actually do mean something, and help one of the most talented political artists around, and listen to a beautiful cover of everyone's favourite Christmas song, all at the same time?

Happy Christmas, everybody. I can see a better time when all our dreams come true.

My Facebook My Twitter

The suspension of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

 Any leftist in the UK following the situation within the Labour Party at the moment will be aware of the fact that there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding an alleged anti-Semitism crisis on the part of Labour members. Not being either Jewish nor a Labour member, it is certainly not within my capacity to comment on the accuracy of this, and I shall not do so. Suffice to say that as a believer in justice, I believe that all complaints of racism must be taken seriously and investigated to the full extent of the law (or at least, to the full extent of whichever anti-discrimination procedures are relevant at the time).

There has also been an awful lot of discussion on the suspension of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and seeing as I missed the chance to write about this at the time, at this stage I don't think anything that I write will add to the discussion in any productive way. I'm here to talk about something quite different, which is the suspension of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a senior official in the organisation Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a network for Jews within the Labour Party.

I have quite a lot of respect for JVL; it was formed in 2017, its motto is 'Always with the oppressed, never with the oppressor' and its aims include promoting freedom of expression and democracy, acknowledging Jewish involvement in the socialist and trade union movements and opposing racism across the world, standing up against anti-Semitism and against wrongs committed against Palestinians. I'm in support of all of these things, but above all it's tremendously important to have strong Jewish voices speaking out in support of Palestine. In 2014 I worked on the Palestine demonstrations, went on some marches in Bristol and London and learned a great deal about the situation in this part of the world. In particular, this powerful speech by the activist Barnaby Raine has stayed with me for the past six years, because he talked so passionately about how much his Jewish ancestry has caused him to stand against oppression, whomever is causing it. This is the sort of voice that we don't hear enough in the media, especially not from Jews - not because not many Jews hold these views (I have met many who do in my own life) but because it doesn't fit the right media narrative. More on that in a moment.

Today, the Jewish Chronicle reported that Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi has been suspended from the Labour Party for her conduct in a CLP meeting. The article goes on to discuss that her 'crime' was to express dismay at the weaponisation of Jewish opinions. You should read the article and her comments yourself rather than just taking my word for it, but to paraphrase, quite a bit of her commentary was to do with the fact that Jews are now being seen as a group for whom it is impossible to discuss things openly without offending them - a notion that is deeply anti-Semitic in itself.

This is Naomi talking about the experiences of anti-Semitism she has faced for being a Jew with left-wing opinions (link redirects to Twitter). Have a look at what she has to say, then come back.

Finished? Okay then.

Naomi says a lot in that video, far more eloquently than I could. But I think what she's getting at is an idea that left-wing politics by itself has started to be considered anti-Semitic. There are numerous examples of this, and nearly all of them are examples of anti-Semitism themselves. In 2019, John McTernan wrote in the Financial Times (there's a paywall) that "Rhetoric about the 1 per cent and economic inequality has the same underlying theme [as anti-Semitic tropes] — a small group of very rich people who cleverly manipulate others to defend their interests. So anti-capitalism masks and normalises anti-Semitism". As Tom Clark at Another Angry Voice points out, this line of argument relies on the notion that Jews are greedy and that the left criticise greed, therefore a leftist anti-capitalist is inherently anti-Semitic. I think anyone with a degree of common logic can see that this line of thinking contains a pretty negative and untrue stereotype about Jews by itself. Another instance is this clip of Lisa Nandy on Radio 4, claiming that 'anti-Semitism is a very particular form of racism. It's the sort of racism that punches up, not down'. Again, she makes an assumption that the victims of anti-Semitism are going to be more privileged than those perpetrating it - a tired trope about Jews that she should know better than to be spreading.

But very few people expressing these sorts of views in the Labour Party seem to find themselves subject to any kind of disciplinary action at all. Those who face disciplinary action are people like Naomi, a proud Jewish activist, when they point out that it's pretty disrespectful to extend opinions held by certain Jewish lobbyist groups to be inherent to the entirety of Judaism. It's got to a point where they aren't even trying to make it plausible anymore - general secretary David Evans (who isn't Jewish) has claimed that any motions of no-confidence against himself pose a threat to Jews, without any clarity as to precisely why him keeping his job is so vital in the fight against racism!

In the fight against racism, discussion is vital. By shutting down discussion, we are unable to come together to work out an effective solution. My concern is that however well-intentioned the initial concerns about fighting anti-Semitism may have been, it has now been hijacked by those with a vested interest in maintaining Labour's top-down, anti-democracy, anti-grassroots status quo - most of them probably not even Jewish. We can tell this because since the EHRC report came out in October, the party's most prominent discussions haven't even been about its Jewish members. It has been nearly all in relation to Jeremy Corbyn, whether or not what he said in response to that report was acceptable and whether people should be allowed to discuss it. This report was meant to be the start of making the party a safer place - and any desire to do that was immediately abandoned in favour of waging another tiresome war between the left and the right. This will not achieve any additional safety for Labour's Jewish members - all it will do is a) make anti-Semitism harder to define, therefore making it harder to deal with; and b) make Labour far less likely to win the next election.

We on the left, quite rightly, abhor racism. It is right to stand against it, in all its forms. Unfortunately, the far-right (which incidentally, is exceptionally racist) has realised this, and is using it to divide us. We must not allow this narrative to win. At every accusation, we must look at exactly what is being accused and ask ourselves - is this a fair accusation? Has the person's words/actions been misinterpreted, or do they actually pose a tangible threat? How reliable is the person making the accusation? Are people with the opposite political viewpoint receiving the same due process? It is essential that we do this, because otherwise the right's go-to strategy to shut down any attempt to improve our world will be to accuse anyone it deems a political threat of racism, however spurious an allegation this might be.

Sadly for the Jewish community, it has been weaponised against its will, and if we continue down this path of hindering rational debate, any concerns Jewish Labour members have about the anti-Semitism crisis continuing are likely to come true.

My Facebook My Twitter

The assumption of bigotry: Doctor Who, Fairytale of New York, neurodivergence onscreen

 I love Doctor Who, although I haven't got around to watching much of it recently. From the little I've seen of the recent series though, it hasn't looked great - and my partner has assured me that both the writing and acting is pretty poor under the current show runner.

Unless you live under a rock, you probably know that the current actor playing the Doctor, Jodie Whittaker, is the first woman to take on this role since the show started in 1963. I don't personally have much of a problem with the Doctor being played by a woman, I don't think it has to be a negative - however, there are two counterpoints to this. The first is that the casting isn't a particularly feminist victory - Doctor Who was always a forward-thinking and feminist show with some great examination of gender roles (I even co-present The Man Who Never Would, the pacifist feminist Doctor Who podcast). The second, slightly more relevant point, is that it's fine to disagree with me on this. There are plenty of quite legitimate reasons to object to a woman playing the Doctor - for example, in this article Karen Walsh argues that prior to Whittaker's tenure, the Doctor was the only male superhero to defeat his enemies with words and intellect rather than physical strength, and how in this way he was a challenge to the culture of male violence and rape. I don't fully agree with everything that Walsh says, but she makes many valid points and proves that as a feminist, you can object to a female Doctor. Even if you don't have a strong moral reason for your view, even if it's just that you've always viewed the character as being male and don't want it to change, I may not personally agree but I don't think that view makes someone sexist. If you were sexist, you wouldn't enjoy a programme like Doctor Who in the first place, which has always had a huge number of amazing female characters.

However, try to express a view like this in any context, and you are very likely to be accused of sexism, no matter how eloquently you explain the reasons for your conclusion. It even goes beyond discussions of the Doctor's gender - I'm in a Doctor Who fan group on Facebook, and ANY criticism of the current writing the show, even if it doesn't reference the Doctor's gender at all, is very frequently met with sexism allegations. This attitude has seeped into the actual show - as much as I have no personal gripe with a woman playing the Doctor, it should be presented as completely normal, not referenced at every opportunity. The Doctor's companion Graham, played by Bradley Walsh, is still frequently mistaken for the Doctor by other characters (including by Jack Harkness (John Barrowman), a hugely open-minded and gender-fluid sort of person for whom this reaction is totally out of character). The plot lines are constantly written with a mind to the idea that 'anyone could be the Doctor' - for instance, the most recent series featured a black female Doctor, played by Jo Martin, who was apparently a Doctor before the 1963 First Doctor. To me, this casting decision is actually pretty insulting to black people - it says that theoretically the Doctor could be black, but in reality never has been onscreen apart from in this one-off guest appearance. There's no progressive point making that statement. If you want a black Doctor, cast a black Doctor; don't try to retcon one into the backstory. But this kind of approach from the writers says something about what they're going for: they are so worried about being accused of sexism that they are trying to prove the show's progressiveness, which had always been there, to an extent that it actually goes around the opposite way and comes close to making the show quite offensive. It shouldn't need to do that - to be progressive, you don't need to be preachy about what you're doing, you just need to lead by example.

*

Every Christmas, there is considerable discussion about the lyrics to the popular Christmas song 'Fairytale of New York' based on the fact that it contains the line 'You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot'. There are calls for the word 'faggot' to be censored, and counter-calls from media controversialists calling the people asking for this 'lefty snowflakes'.

The first time I came across the word 'fag' being used towards someone in a homophobic way, it was in a novel I was reading online when I was about 14. My reaction as a British boy was 'Aha! So this story is set in England a while back, and the character is a public schoolboy who is a slave to the older boys'. That was what 'fag' meant, wasn't it? As I continued reading, I came to recognise that it was actually a derogatory term for a gay man. When I later realised that it's a shortened form of 'faggot', I thought, 'LOL! That's a meatball. What a stupid insult.' My point being that the words 'fag' and 'faggot' both have numerous meanings throughout the English-speaking world. Neither of them are especially common as homophobic insults here in the UK, although they have slipped into the vocabulary through US TV shows. The most common usage of either of them in the UK is when someone says that they're 'going out for a fag', which means a cigarette.

In the context of the song 'Fairytale of New York', it refers to someone being lazy, which is an old Irish usage of the word. There's quite a strong viewpoint amongst many on the left that irrespective of what it meant originally, the fact that the word can cause homophobic offence is reason enough to censor it. There are arguments that the word can be triggering, that homophobic idiots love the excuse to say it and that people may just not understand what it means in context. I, though, struggle with this logic. Quite apart from the fact that I find it pretty insulting to suggest that the meaning of US slang is more important than the meaning of Irish slang, I do not understand why homophobic people should be allowed to determine the way in which language changes. To use a fair comparison, I have to choose a word that I've never heard used offensively, but whose make-up sounds as though it could cause offence. I choose the word 'twitcher', which is a non-insulting slang term for a birdwatcher. If I theoretically decided to shout 'TWITCHER!' at members of a marginalised group to bully them, would this taint the word forever? Would birdwatchers then have to stop using this term, even though they were using it first? I would say that in that instance, I'd have stolen a perfectly good word and hijacked it, and that the only way to stand against that would actually be to continue using it in other contexts. Truthfully, this is the most effective way to silence a bigot - to use their offensive terms frequently enough in other contexts that they sound ludicrous as an insult. I'm LGBTQ+, and vehemently anti-smoking; if someone called me a fag, I would say, 'Don't call me that, I don't like smoking.'

I'd also add that even if it were used in a homophobic context within the song, is that really so terrible? The song tells a story, and the character who sings that term is not meant to be likeable. I've heard the word as a homophobic insult on TV programmes that are shown before the watershed; if it was a song featuring a homophobe, would that necessarily be a bad thing? It doesn't mean that the person singing it would use the term in regular conversation.

Again, this is an instance where one is assumed to be a homophobic prat if they raise any objection to censoring the word 'faggot' in this song. I understand why they are; I really dislike Laurence Fox and his ilk, and I find it very uncomfortable to be expressing the same view as him. However, I think it is possible to legitimately hold the view that censoring in this case isn't very helpful without being either homophobic or a wind-up merchant. But the way people react to my view on this has taken me aback. A few years ago, I actually lost someone I'd thought was a close friend over this discussion, and I was astonished to find myself cut off over a conversation about words in a pop song.

*

The final example is one regarding a film being brought out by the musician Sia, which features an autistic character who is played by a non-autistic actor. This has prompted a huge backlash, and many angry online posts saying that 'autism is not a costume' and 'neurodivergent actors have to have chances to play these roles'. I had never heard of Sia prior to about a week ago, but having seen the way she has behaved over this issue, I certainly won't be supporting her or watching her film when it comes out. Stating that a neurodivergent person wouldn't be able to cope with the filming process and telling neurodivergent actors on social media that 'maybe you're just a bad actor' is not cool, and makes an assumption that neurodivergent people aren't able to do a decent job at acting. I do not support Sia in this.

But... I do not believe that neurodivergent characters necessarily must always be played by neurodivergent actors, for the complete opposite reason of thinking they can't cope or can't act. Quite the contrary - I believe that a neurodivergent actor is just as capable of stepping into a character's shoes as a neurotypical actor would be, and therefore should be given the same opportunities. In actual fact, this idea that 'neurodivergent character must = neurodivergent actor' is pretty harmful to neurodivergent actors. It degrades their skills, implies that they are only capable of playing roles exactly like them and given that there are fewer neurodivergent roles than there are neurotypical roles, poses a tangible threat to their careers. A few years ago there was a similar discussion going on about LGBTQ+ characters, and whether they should be played by LGBTQ+ actors. I'm an LGBTQ+ actor; I've played LGBTQ+ roles, I've played heterosexual roles, and I haven't found my own sexual orientation remotely relevant to either.

The most common counterpoint to this that is given back to me is that we don't live in a fair world, and that even though LGBTQ+ actors and neurodiverse actors are capable of playing parts different to them, in reality they are very rarely given them. This is true, and is a serious problem - but what I don't see is why the producers even need to know this information about someone auditioning. I've auditioned for many parts, and I don't tend to talk very much about my own personal life at auditions. I also audition many people for my own projects, and I don't ask these questions either - they aren't at all relevant to how well someone can play the role. Like everyone, I have unconscious biases - and therefore, the fairest way to prevent these biases from coming out is to deny myself any knowledge of anything that may provoke it.  Another counterpoint I get is 'But if you've been through it, you'll understand it and be able to play it better.' Firstly, I don't think this is always true; having this in common with a character doesn't mean you'll be remotely like them, your experiences really depend on where you are from and what sort of people you grew up with. But more importantly, on the occasions that this is true, it will surely be obvious when you're auditioning for a part? We don't think like this when casting any other types of roles. We don't think, 'For this film about a war veteran suffering from PTSD, we need an actor who is a war veteran who suffers from PTSD... where can we find one of them?' 

I'm not a big fan of celebrity culture. When I watch a film, I don't think I need to know anything about how the actor playing the main character lives when they're at home. Why does anyone need to know that if we don't know the actor personally? But this is again, a viewpoint that you cannot express without being accused of ableism. I'd argue that it's the opposite of ableism - it's asking for equal treatment and the avoidance of pigeonholing.

*

So there we are. Three different complex topics, three different controversial views, three different accusations - sexism, homophobia, ableism. Are any of these views sexist, homophobic or ableist? My opinion is that all of them have a strong case for standing up against sexism, homophobia and ableism (I don't actually fully agree with the Doctor Who one, but I can see why people do.)

My question is, why is it that we've got to such a point in society that the moment someone says anything controversial, we immediately assume that they're being offensive? I wouldn't feel qualified to go into detail about the precise reasons, but I think it's a combination of a few different things. As media has moved more online and onto social media, I feel that many news articles are perhaps slightly less analytical than perhaps they once were; there's more of an emphasis on manufacturing a sense of outrage, without exploring the reasons for it. The ideas have to be clear in a headline, so that someone scrolling can get the basic picture without bothering to read the whole thing - therefore, the sides are portrayed as far more black-and-white than they actually are (and all of the above subjects have additional elements making them even more complex that I didn't even bother to go into for this blog).

As someone working in the creative industry, the last topic is quite a personal one to me, but the first two I'm not hugely bothered about - I've got my opinion, it doesn't matter that much to me what others think. But by talking about these quite small topics, it makes me realise how hostile we're becoming to alternative points of view on the left. It's why we struggle to achieve political success a lot of the time - the right is less moralistic than us, the right can let go of differences and pull together and be united whilst the considerably larger left is still fighting amongst itself. And there is no more obvious example than of Brexit. There are left-wing people who voted Remain, there are left-wing people who voted Leave; I voted Remain, but there were good reasons for voting for both, and our failure to discuss and accept our differing reasons for this has led to Brexit being orchestrated by a radically right-wing Government that will not benefit any of us.

We are meant to be on the same side - and truthfully, I think that the vast majority of the public would be on the same side if our points were clearer and less divisive. If we wish that to happen, we must stop accusing one another of things on spurious evidence and listen to what each other are actually saying.

My Facebook My Twitter

Let's change the world

'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has'

Attributed to Margaret Mead, Anthropologist



As this year draws towards its final month, I think most of us have this sinking feeling of 'I've done absolutely nothing this year'. There's an element of this at the close of every year - in January we feel really positive and plan out how this new year will be different, the year we make things work for us, the year it comes together - come December, it rarely has. This one is different though - the COVID pandemic has shaken up all of our lives so much that most of us cannot remember a year that has failed to go to plan so spectacularly. I myself remember last December, the one positive I could find in the election result was that I'd be shaken up so much that I'd be back out on the streets each weekend - something I'd been finding myself doing less and less. And of course, this hasn't happened.

It's not just COVID. Brexit happened at the end of January, and the fallout from that is just around the corner - as chaotic as it always was, conveniently forgotten in the confusion about the pandemic rules. Day by day, our rights are taken from us. Here in the UK we have a profoundly undemocratic system, with an opposition that doesn't seem remotely inclined to change it even if it were able to (and there is very little improvement on this even in other countries). In the middle of the year, we had the ever so refreshing Black Lives Matter protests - but I see little evidence that racism has gone down as a result. Our planet itself is on fire. And we have a society which is so tightly grasped within the iron fist of capitalism, it seems as if we'll never escape. It feels there is so much that we must be doing, and so little that we practically can do, that it weighs quite heavily on all of our mental health.

I'm as susceptible as anyone to this - truthfully, I'm extremely mentally unstable at the moment, more so than I ever have been before, I think. However, it's important to remember that those who profit most from the status quo have a vested interest in helplessness. When we feel helpless, we allow the status quo to continue, and this doesn't help anyone. And truthfully, we're very rarely as helpless as we think we are.

This year, all things considered, I've actually been very fortunate. My partner and I have created some amazing stories together, most importantly our gritty left-wing political TV drama series, which we're just about to produce the pilot episode of. I've made some good friends this year, read some wonderful books, learned some good things, silently processed some personal trauma, gone into hiding to protect people from COVID... and been there for people who are in need. All of these things have helped either myself or other people, which is the first step to creating social change. And right now, I actually feel quite empowered to do so.

If you're concerned that you aren't doing anything that you feel is worthwhile, I will tell you that firstly, you are most likely doing more than you believe you are. Secondly, ask yourself what you would like to be doing? What matters most to you in this world, and what can you do to change it? If you're really stuck, the first and most important thing you can do to realise where your skills are most needed is to talk to someone. It's so much easier to do this with a teammate - it's why most left-wing activists know each other. Send a message to a friend - find something you both think isn't right, and say to yourselves, 'What needs to be done to change it?' It doesn't have to be a huge global thing - even being there for someone who is unwell can help, because it creates a domino effect. (That said, if you are capable of doing huge global things, such as organising huge socially-distanced protests, by all means do so!)

For me, I've had a few ideas for projects I want to work on. Besides my TV drama (which focusses very much on the kind of dialogue I'm talking about) I want to do more to make our society more democratic. I've had some ideas about how to do so, which I'll try to outline in subsequent blogs; I feel that most people are relatively capable and fair-minded, and if we could all engage in a bit more constructive dialogue we can build some amazing things.

Human beings are exceptionally good at adapting to their own circumstances, but exceptionally bad at envisioning themselves out of whatever circumstances they happen to be in. If you wake up and you're feeling really well and organised, there is this feeling of 'if I can just keep up this good mood, my life is sorted!' And the same is the case when you're feeling down - 'I've realised that everything is going wrong, I might as well accept this now'. This occurs in politics as well. On the left, we felt terrible when the Conservatives won their super-majority in December last year - it literally felt like the end of the world. If Jeremy Corbyn had won, there'd be this euphoria that we'd won, and that all the cruelty and oppression is a thing of the past. And in truth, neither of these things are true. Things fluctuate, and always have done from the beginning of time. A big part of wisdom is the ability to recognise one's own ability to influence that.

Change is inevitable. All things change, and we should not try to keep them the same because that is fighting a losing battle. But what we do have an impact on is how things change. The truth is that there are a lot of people out there who will have you believe that you're just a pawn in this game called life. This is not true - whoever is reading this, you have already impacted the world hugely, even if it's just having caused someone to meet or inadvertently said something which gave somebody an idea. It's very difficult to see the impact we're having in perspective because we never know how the world would look if we weren't here - but the impact is there. As for what you do with your influence, that is up to you. But you should not underestimate your own potential to create social change. Everyone who has ever achieved anything has been told at some point that their struggle is fruitless - normally by those who seek to lose out from it.

So I'll leave you with this - what are you going to do to change the world?

My Facebook My Twitter