Slut Walks. Nothing like inspiring a "marmite" response.
As Rosamund Urwin puts it in today's Evening Standard, do women, "in the name of protecting rape victims... attempt to turn a sexual slur into a badge of honour", really fully consider the implications of what they are doing?
As I commented previously, it seems rather like sticking a plaster on a broken leg. Calling women sluts will not change the perjorative implications of the word, and will simply fuel "full frontal feminism"; that exploits sex as a consumer asset and denies repression where it so clearly exists.
So what should feminists do instead?
Here are several walks I'd like to see;
Dyke Walk
Where women can claim back the right to have short hair, not wear makeup, wear trousers and flats and generally not flaunt their so-called-assets and not be called a dyke
Single and Happy Walk
Where women can shake off the Bridget Jones sydrome that has spread through generations like a wildfire out of control, contributing to more patronising and defaming remarks based on stereotypes.
Child-free walk
where women are not persecuted for having no maternal desire whatsoever, where they can avoid the pitying patronising looks and comments of "you'll change"; because they have seen through fallacies of motherhood and biological destiny
PMT Bitch Walk
Where women line up to prevent PMT and Hormones becoming synonymous with the repressive term "hysterical";, convoluted out of all sense to imply all women are effectively mentally unsound therefore nothing a man does is a problem, it's all them.
Got any more?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Showing posts with label protests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protests. Show all posts
7 May 2011
The Slut Walk : Some Thoughts
The Slut Walk has bounced into the world of the internet as the latest outrage at perceptions of guilty victims in rape cases.
The premise that women are "asking for it" is once again being challenged by a rising youth population in America, a genuine civil liberty protest movement challenging ubiquitous concepts around rape and responsibility.
I do not like the name. But the principle is sound.
The name is intending to present an interesting reverse psychology message in marketing, with banners proclaiming "I'm a slut, don't assault me" which, I imagine, are intended to continue allowing women to dress as they wish without the perjorative associations of becoming deserving victims.
The principle of the march is founded in these misconceptions around rape and sexual assault, but it seems to avoid one of the main issues in this misconception. That the female body is available for display and should be treated as an asset in the social exchange.
It is a reactionary movement that responds to one issue in a myriad of misconceptions and capitalistic understanding of female eroticism, and perhaps these challenges could take a lot from also seeking to prevent such exploitation of women in the first place, therefore challenging the status quo that women are objects for desire and assault.
The premise that women are "asking for it" is once again being challenged by a rising youth population in America, a genuine civil liberty protest movement challenging ubiquitous concepts around rape and responsibility.
I do not like the name. But the principle is sound.
The name is intending to present an interesting reverse psychology message in marketing, with banners proclaiming "I'm a slut, don't assault me" which, I imagine, are intended to continue allowing women to dress as they wish without the perjorative associations of becoming deserving victims.
The principle of the march is founded in these misconceptions around rape and sexual assault, but it seems to avoid one of the main issues in this misconception. That the female body is available for display and should be treated as an asset in the social exchange.
It is a reactionary movement that responds to one issue in a myriad of misconceptions and capitalistic understanding of female eroticism, and perhaps these challenges could take a lot from also seeking to prevent such exploitation of women in the first place, therefore challenging the status quo that women are objects for desire and assault.
27 Apr 2011
Let's Aggrandise Hype Over Protests at Royal Wedding
Protestors at the Royal Wedding?
Really? Or just an interesting ploy to further cast #ukuncut as baddies to the middle classes?
Afterall, they attacked Fortnum and Mason with no regard for the tradition and esteem of the store.
What the majority of people forget, however, is that UKuncut are anti tax evasion, whether legal or not.
They could seek to protest about the cost of the Royal Wedding, but it is not a core objective of a body of people who object to tax evasion through disrupting the business of that organisation.
Terrorists, right wing extremists and others are far more likely candidates, as The Daily Mail and Express are so keen to scaremonger.
Or perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised when nothing occurs.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Really? Or just an interesting ploy to further cast #ukuncut as baddies to the middle classes?
Afterall, they attacked Fortnum and Mason with no regard for the tradition and esteem of the store.
What the majority of people forget, however, is that UKuncut are anti tax evasion, whether legal or not.
They could seek to protest about the cost of the Royal Wedding, but it is not a core objective of a body of people who object to tax evasion through disrupting the business of that organisation.
Terrorists, right wing extremists and others are far more likely candidates, as The Daily Mail and Express are so keen to scaremonger.
Or perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised when nothing occurs.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
27 Mar 2011
Puppet Show Protests
The protests went as anticipated. The majority of people, many of whom will be redundant in 4 days, marched calmly through London surrounded by Union Officials, Police Officers and press.
The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the "majority were peaceful" line.
However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] {scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.
I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.
The Hype
Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role.
In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour.
Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.
In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.
With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.
And twas ever thus
While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there's a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum and Mason.
With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend.
Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;
But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.
Risks of Anonimoty
Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.
While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside.
There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.
They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.
I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.
But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.
If they are serious about challenging society's norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.
However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;
Disobedience is an interesting word.
–noun
"lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression"
There is something of an irony in this.
UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.
To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.
Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university.
So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?
Trafalgur Square
Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.
Some party if it resulted in kettling.
Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.
And the point of it all
Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.
Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.
But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?
Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.
The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the "majority were peaceful" line.
However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] {scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.
I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.
The Hype
Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role.
In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour.
Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.
In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.
With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.
And twas ever thus
While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there's a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum and Mason.
With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend.
Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;
"For too long now she has been allowed to spread her vile and one side biased views of the protest and the whole events around them...[to satisfy] her own feeling of self importance"
But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.
Risks of Anonimoty
Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.
While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside.
There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.
They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.
I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.
But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.
If they are serious about challenging society's norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.
However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;
"Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message"
Disobedience is an interesting word.
–noun
"lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression"
There is something of an irony in this.
UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.
To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.
Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university.
So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?
Trafalgur Square
Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.
Some party if it resulted in kettling.
Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.
And the point of it all
Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.
Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.
But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?
Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.
26 Mar 2011
Why I'm Not Attending #March26March
This has been pulled from a previous article
Yesterday I saw a number of Tweets referring to #March26March as Britain's Tarhir Square.
I was going to attend, on the basis I am a redundant NHS worker who disagrees with the white paper.
But these comments, and my previous reflection on escalating protests above, made me consider the wisdom of doing so.
I *hope* that the March today is as much of a washout as the protests of all 100 people at the Lib Dem Spring Conference.
However, the repeated texts, emails and letters from Unions imply there is a level of hype and (hopefully) organisation that will ensure it is well attended. I just hope no one sets themselves on fire.
[Since the Arab League uprisings] There has been a subtle shifting in the nuance of the term "protest".
The word is defined as
1. To express strong objection.
2. To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.
However, the colloquial interpretation has shifted.
When students protested, older (and wiser) people compared them to those who protested over human rights in the 1960's. Pejoratively.
Now we see the true levels of protest in the Middle East, in this so called domino effect, as a ripple of democracy spreads and people challenge their autocratic leaders.
The changing of a word's meaning is frightening, and can create a pattern of emulation. Words take on new meanings in dialect, but those words then inspire actions, motivate and inspire people to embrace and utilise the new meanings of the words. If protest no longer means civil, if protest now means challenging oppression, what does that mean for protest in countries without oppression on such a grand scale?
Setting Up Custom and Practice
The person who set themselves on fire in Tunisia established the same act to commence the Egyptian revolution, and then in Libya, and Yemen and a handful more. While it is not a rule, it is logical to preclude all demonstrations with self harm to establish a point. Harm to myself is less important, is less severe, than a democracy for the nation.
By such a grandiose stance, there is an established baseline for any protest to be considered "seriously" in the future.
Now the TUC protests in March, what is the likely outcome?
We have already seen an escalation of activity by students and by #ukuncut; and an escalation of police tactics in response. A spate of arrests and civil cases.
What precedent does this set for UK protests in 2011? Especially with the Middle East providing a structure to follow.
Yesterday I saw a number of Tweets referring to #March26March as Britain's Tarhir Square.
I was going to attend, on the basis I am a redundant NHS worker who disagrees with the white paper.
But these comments, and my previous reflection on escalating protests above, made me consider the wisdom of doing so.
I *hope* that the March today is as much of a washout as the protests of all 100 people at the Lib Dem Spring Conference.
However, the repeated texts, emails and letters from Unions imply there is a level of hype and (hopefully) organisation that will ensure it is well attended. I just hope no one sets themselves on fire.
19 Mar 2011
Considering Consequences of No Fly Zone in Libya
If one more person mentions Nostradamus to me...
Today we see the initiation of air strikes on Libya.
And my exploration of pacifism continues.
My reluctance to approve of the action taken against Gaddafi is not driven by approval of his actions, but by my own lateral interpretation of the Middle East Uprisings.
As Cameron says, "now is the time for action". But such action has consequences, and if there is something we are very bad at in the 21st century, it is realisation of those consequences.
If we set a precedent, by bombing Libya, do we then justify the invasion and desecration of Syrria, Palestine and Isreal, Yemen, Nubia, etc etc?
Where do we draw a line between dictators, civil uprising and massacre and where the UK and the UN should and should not be involved?
I have yet to hear a jet fly over the UK. But I have a sense of forboding Nostradamus would appreciate, as more and more dominos fall in this sequence of plutorcracy and demolition.
Resolutions
Someone responded to my anaogy of a child in a playground by suggesting the teacher should restrain the larger child.
However, bombing the shit out of Libya is simply smacking one child over another, as I understand it.
Better to spray a hose on them all, destract from the violence. Because tackling violence with violence can never lead to resolution.
I would be inclined to suggest the UN should first be attempting to talk with Gaddafi, to discuss with the rebels, to seek peaceful resolution. Instead, we are ganging up and attacking.
Does anyone in government seriously consider that this behaviour will end in a peaceful and democratic resolution? That if we drop enough bombs, Gaddafi will simply hold up his metaphorical white flag and surrender, then suggest tea and cakes while we all discuss how to move forward for the good of the country?
If this happens, I will quite happily applaud the extreme force being used by the UN.
However, i would suggest that the actions of the UN will result in more deaths, more slaughter, loss of civilisation and peace will only be restored once Gaddafi is under arrest or dead. Alongside the charnel house Libya is likely to become in the process.
And then?
What then?
Do we pop along and drop a few bombs on the Hamas, or on Yemen?
Today we see the initiation of air strikes on Libya.
And my exploration of pacifism continues.
My reluctance to approve of the action taken against Gaddafi is not driven by approval of his actions, but by my own lateral interpretation of the Middle East Uprisings.
As Cameron says, "now is the time for action". But such action has consequences, and if there is something we are very bad at in the 21st century, it is realisation of those consequences.
If we set a precedent, by bombing Libya, do we then justify the invasion and desecration of Syrria, Palestine and Isreal, Yemen, Nubia, etc etc?
Where do we draw a line between dictators, civil uprising and massacre and where the UK and the UN should and should not be involved?
I have yet to hear a jet fly over the UK. But I have a sense of forboding Nostradamus would appreciate, as more and more dominos fall in this sequence of plutorcracy and demolition.
Resolutions
Someone responded to my anaogy of a child in a playground by suggesting the teacher should restrain the larger child.
However, bombing the shit out of Libya is simply smacking one child over another, as I understand it.
Better to spray a hose on them all, destract from the violence. Because tackling violence with violence can never lead to resolution.
I would be inclined to suggest the UN should first be attempting to talk with Gaddafi, to discuss with the rebels, to seek peaceful resolution. Instead, we are ganging up and attacking.
Does anyone in government seriously consider that this behaviour will end in a peaceful and democratic resolution? That if we drop enough bombs, Gaddafi will simply hold up his metaphorical white flag and surrender, then suggest tea and cakes while we all discuss how to move forward for the good of the country?
If this happens, I will quite happily applaud the extreme force being used by the UN.
However, i would suggest that the actions of the UN will result in more deaths, more slaughter, loss of civilisation and peace will only be restored once Gaddafi is under arrest or dead. Alongside the charnel house Libya is likely to become in the process.
And then?
What then?
Do we pop along and drop a few bombs on the Hamas, or on Yemen?
14 Mar 2011
Conspiracy and Pacifism: Libya
I was appalled to read in The Evening Standard tonight about potential lobbying by the British Government to allow the EU to provide Libyan Residents with weapons.
The ever-present war in the media at the moment is constant chipping at the well being of civilisation. The 24 hour news culture of western society is presenting all conflicts in the Middle East as battles of democracy, adopting a polarised understanding of conflict. This is, I am sure, intended to make it palatable for the general public, but also translates into a sensationalist and hyperreal interpretation of a conflict of which we, in reality, know very little about.
I am not defending dictators, I am simply stating that media representation of war is very different from the reality and history that has led to the current situations.
And handing out weapons is not a solution.
If there are children fighting in the play ground, does the teacher say "punch each other til one of you wins"?
Of course not. The teacher separates the fighters, discusses independently and then mediates, attempting to form an objective and external presence that will allow a resolution to be reached.
At the moment, Britain is behaving like the school kids jeering the fight from the sidelines. And jumping in to assist whomever they support.
I genuinely do not believe that arms resolve anything. It is pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.
Media Manipulation
The Hyperreal is a fascinating topic and we are seeing it employed this year in a form of persuasion that I haven't observed before.
One observation of Vietnam was the way in which every moment was potentially televised, and as a result the public grew in unease and eventually demonstration against the atrocities. Here the media was constructed and worked against the people.
However, the opposite is happening with Libya.
We are being shown furious clips, disjointed hand camera work and reporting messages from Twitter. This all contributes to a perception of extreme terror and helplessness. Shown on 24hr news, the public is inevitably persuaded that these clips are the truth, and therefore all contrary accounts must be incorrect or lunacy.
Again, I am not justifying genocide or slaughter, but do we have all of the facts presented to us?
Or are the public being hand fed an interpretation of conflict that endears them to justifying invasion, committing ground troops and other, spectacular heroic gestures?
Iraq and the Great Comparison
The acrimonious disputes over Iraq waged in Britain for a long time. The general concept is that the archetypal left were, and are, anti the invasion, for they were informed that the motivation was weapons of mass destruction, and persuaded it was really oil.
The ongoing Hague hearings will have no significant outcome, no more than an internal review, but they dredge up the bitterness at every turn, the significant lack of evidence of WMDs.
So, with my marketing head on, how would I want to persuade Britain that war with a country that had the single largest oil export market was both justified and necessary?
Well, as it was the "left" I would need to convince, I would have to appeal to a sense of justice, democracy and fairness. A persuader of great need, that the left can empathise with and justify.
And a consistent, relentless media campaign that puts across a tangible message of good and evil, like some obscure role-play game, would be the perfect tool.
Dear reader, I am not assuming this is an enormous conspiracy theory. I am very much aware that there is real conflict in operation. However, I do not believe in coincidence, horoscopes or fate. I do believe in opportunism, risk taking and gambling as methods of human manipulation.
And what I see appears to be an opportune manipulation when the moment arose. A gamble, yes, but many gambles pay off. Especially if you coordinate it well enough.
And, to provide some element of persuasion for those of you who think I am a crackpot, please ask yourselves why we are not demanding a no-fly zone on Bahraim. Or The Ivory Coast. Or Somalia. Or, indeed, any other country where there is dramatic and life threatening civil war, dictators, raw battles for life and death and many, many pleas of democracy.
The ever-present war in the media at the moment is constant chipping at the well being of civilisation. The 24 hour news culture of western society is presenting all conflicts in the Middle East as battles of democracy, adopting a polarised understanding of conflict. This is, I am sure, intended to make it palatable for the general public, but also translates into a sensationalist and hyperreal interpretation of a conflict of which we, in reality, know very little about.
I am not defending dictators, I am simply stating that media representation of war is very different from the reality and history that has led to the current situations.
And handing out weapons is not a solution.
If there are children fighting in the play ground, does the teacher say "punch each other til one of you wins"?
Of course not. The teacher separates the fighters, discusses independently and then mediates, attempting to form an objective and external presence that will allow a resolution to be reached.
At the moment, Britain is behaving like the school kids jeering the fight from the sidelines. And jumping in to assist whomever they support.
I genuinely do not believe that arms resolve anything. It is pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.
Media Manipulation
The Hyperreal is a fascinating topic and we are seeing it employed this year in a form of persuasion that I haven't observed before.
One observation of Vietnam was the way in which every moment was potentially televised, and as a result the public grew in unease and eventually demonstration against the atrocities. Here the media was constructed and worked against the people.
However, the opposite is happening with Libya.
We are being shown furious clips, disjointed hand camera work and reporting messages from Twitter. This all contributes to a perception of extreme terror and helplessness. Shown on 24hr news, the public is inevitably persuaded that these clips are the truth, and therefore all contrary accounts must be incorrect or lunacy.
Again, I am not justifying genocide or slaughter, but do we have all of the facts presented to us?
Or are the public being hand fed an interpretation of conflict that endears them to justifying invasion, committing ground troops and other, spectacular heroic gestures?
Iraq and the Great Comparison
The acrimonious disputes over Iraq waged in Britain for a long time. The general concept is that the archetypal left were, and are, anti the invasion, for they were informed that the motivation was weapons of mass destruction, and persuaded it was really oil.
The ongoing Hague hearings will have no significant outcome, no more than an internal review, but they dredge up the bitterness at every turn, the significant lack of evidence of WMDs.
So, with my marketing head on, how would I want to persuade Britain that war with a country that had the single largest oil export market was both justified and necessary?
Well, as it was the "left" I would need to convince, I would have to appeal to a sense of justice, democracy and fairness. A persuader of great need, that the left can empathise with and justify.
And a consistent, relentless media campaign that puts across a tangible message of good and evil, like some obscure role-play game, would be the perfect tool.
Dear reader, I am not assuming this is an enormous conspiracy theory. I am very much aware that there is real conflict in operation. However, I do not believe in coincidence, horoscopes or fate. I do believe in opportunism, risk taking and gambling as methods of human manipulation.
And what I see appears to be an opportune manipulation when the moment arose. A gamble, yes, but many gambles pay off. Especially if you coordinate it well enough.
And, to provide some element of persuasion for those of you who think I am a crackpot, please ask yourselves why we are not demanding a no-fly zone on Bahraim. Or The Ivory Coast. Or Somalia. Or, indeed, any other country where there is dramatic and life threatening civil war, dictators, raw battles for life and death and many, many pleas of democracy.
11 Feb 2011
Apparent Victories Are Simply Short Changing the Public
I am fascinated by the Coercive techniques we are seeing used by the Tory-led coalition government.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
6 Feb 2011
Egypt and Euphemisms for Western Invasion
One can hardly avoid the uprising in Egypt in the last week.
However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.
Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.
However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.
Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.
Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.
Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.
I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.
Liberalism v Democracy
To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.
I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.
But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.
As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.
Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.
Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?
Euphemisms,
Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.
And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.
If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.
Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.
A Final Note
I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.
However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.
Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.
However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.
Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.
Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.
Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.
I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.
Liberalism v Democracy
To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.
I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.
But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.
As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.
Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.
Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?
Euphemisms,
Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.
And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.
If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.
Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.
A Final Note
I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.
7 Dec 2010
#UKUNCUT, Wikileaks, Robin Hood and New Politics
There is a lovely parallel between the #ukuncut phenomena and the #wikileaks ideologies in current affairs in the UK.
#UKUNCUT
While I will diplomatically abstain on commenting about #ukuncut's approach to student fees, I admired and vicariously supported their demonstration on Saturday against Top Shop boss and Government Advisor Philip Green.
For those who are new to the subject, students demonstrated against Top Shop venues across the country with the cries of "Where did all the money go? He sent it all to Monaco" amongst others.
The protest was about Philip Green's transfer of assets into his non-domicile wife's name and transfer of earnings to a tax haven.
I approve of an ideology which asserts that taxes should be fair and equal across all of society. That condones the approach that all members of society should bear the brunt of the deficit, no matter what they earn or what class they belong to.
If this approach were adopted by the current administration, the cost of the cuts would be spread more evenly across society in the UK and the cost per person would diminish.
This embraces utilitarianism that should be adopted in order to empower a productive and fair society.
Wikileaks
The Wikileaks and #cablegate saga has released torrents of support for democracy, accountability and fairness in society which gives credence to the better side of human nature.
With the developing phenomenon of modernity and our interaction with the world through the internet, we are all flaneurs of society through windows of technology.
We both belong to and contribute to the cogs of the country, with Twitterati, websites like Demotix and Red Pepper and the growing penchant for internet led revolutions which can bring down an X Factor single success and by the same measure, may have a significant affect on politics and society as we know it.
We should be embracing this mini-revolution, that cites fairness, greatest good for all and openness and accountability at every level. But instead, members of the public are seeing the arrest of Assange, the potential attempt to "cover-up" further but without any justification.
We will, of course, eat humble pie if Assange is found guilty of the crimes in Sweden.
Robin Hood
All of this echoes romantic and noble premises of Robin Hood.
The fictitious character who challenged authority to embrace and demand equality.
But while Robin Hood paid no taxes; we are seeing a rising group of people who appreciate the necessity of taxes, and the benefits that they entitle us to.
People in Britain are proud of their National Health Service, they see merit in education to different levels and they value the collection of their rubbish.
But they resent the inequality across society, they condemn those who are granted unfair opportunity on the basis of class, money and clever accountants.
New Politics
However, none of these ideas are remotely new. As Robin Hood demonstrates.
Fairness and equality in society has been a common thread for the end of 20th Century and has continued in to this century with aplomb.
What is different is the accountability.
Robin Hood could not hold his country's administration to account.
Wikileaks and Julian Assange have provided one conduit for accountability that ought to be truly empowering.
But Wikileaks is one small chunk in a potential infinity of information, resources and power on the internet. This all forms part of a new wave of journalism, a new wave of consideration of social structures and ultimately a new wave of politics.
Students are already calling to withdraw Clegg as a their MP, in a bitter irony to his statements in the Election Debates, where he called for honesty and integrity and power to the people.
However, these people should not be blinded by waves of spin. There are dishonest and misrepresented ministers in every party.
The key is demand accountability. To demand recall. To demand transparency and openness and to ensure that people listen.
And if the key to this is a vicarious "hash-tag" or super-gluing yourself to a shop window, then take it.
Think of the lengths Emiline Pankhurst and fellow suffragettes went through, having their teeth removed and being force fed when they went on hunger strike. If the public want something badly enough, they should suffer and sacrifice for it, if that is what it takes.
And it is my genuine belief that honesty, integrity, accountability and fairness are what we as British People should be demanding, and take the appropriate (naturally non-harming to others) route to achieve it.
Note: Perhaps this empowerment will be supported if we succeed in the AV Referndum next year.
#UKUNCUT
While I will diplomatically abstain on commenting about #ukuncut's approach to student fees, I admired and vicariously supported their demonstration on Saturday against Top Shop boss and Government Advisor Philip Green.
For those who are new to the subject, students demonstrated against Top Shop venues across the country with the cries of "Where did all the money go? He sent it all to Monaco" amongst others.
The protest was about Philip Green's transfer of assets into his non-domicile wife's name and transfer of earnings to a tax haven.
I approve of an ideology which asserts that taxes should be fair and equal across all of society. That condones the approach that all members of society should bear the brunt of the deficit, no matter what they earn or what class they belong to.
If this approach were adopted by the current administration, the cost of the cuts would be spread more evenly across society in the UK and the cost per person would diminish.
This embraces utilitarianism that should be adopted in order to empower a productive and fair society.
Wikileaks
The Wikileaks and #cablegate saga has released torrents of support for democracy, accountability and fairness in society which gives credence to the better side of human nature.
With the developing phenomenon of modernity and our interaction with the world through the internet, we are all flaneurs of society through windows of technology.
We both belong to and contribute to the cogs of the country, with Twitterati, websites like Demotix and Red Pepper and the growing penchant for internet led revolutions which can bring down an X Factor single success and by the same measure, may have a significant affect on politics and society as we know it.
We should be embracing this mini-revolution, that cites fairness, greatest good for all and openness and accountability at every level. But instead, members of the public are seeing the arrest of Assange, the potential attempt to "cover-up" further but without any justification.
We will, of course, eat humble pie if Assange is found guilty of the crimes in Sweden.
Robin Hood
All of this echoes romantic and noble premises of Robin Hood.
The fictitious character who challenged authority to embrace and demand equality.
But while Robin Hood paid no taxes; we are seeing a rising group of people who appreciate the necessity of taxes, and the benefits that they entitle us to.
People in Britain are proud of their National Health Service, they see merit in education to different levels and they value the collection of their rubbish.
But they resent the inequality across society, they condemn those who are granted unfair opportunity on the basis of class, money and clever accountants.
New Politics
However, none of these ideas are remotely new. As Robin Hood demonstrates.
Fairness and equality in society has been a common thread for the end of 20th Century and has continued in to this century with aplomb.
What is different is the accountability.
Robin Hood could not hold his country's administration to account.
Wikileaks and Julian Assange have provided one conduit for accountability that ought to be truly empowering.
But Wikileaks is one small chunk in a potential infinity of information, resources and power on the internet. This all forms part of a new wave of journalism, a new wave of consideration of social structures and ultimately a new wave of politics.
Students are already calling to withdraw Clegg as a their MP, in a bitter irony to his statements in the Election Debates, where he called for honesty and integrity and power to the people.
However, these people should not be blinded by waves of spin. There are dishonest and misrepresented ministers in every party.
The key is demand accountability. To demand recall. To demand transparency and openness and to ensure that people listen.
And if the key to this is a vicarious "hash-tag" or super-gluing yourself to a shop window, then take it.
Think of the lengths Emiline Pankhurst and fellow suffragettes went through, having their teeth removed and being force fed when they went on hunger strike. If the public want something badly enough, they should suffer and sacrifice for it, if that is what it takes.
And it is my genuine belief that honesty, integrity, accountability and fairness are what we as British People should be demanding, and take the appropriate (naturally non-harming to others) route to achieve it.
Note: Perhaps this empowerment will be supported if we succeed in the AV Referndum next year.
19 Nov 2009
The Gradual Erosion Of Public Rights
Another little "Internet virus" story that has come to my attention is the allegedly at the new Digital Economy Bill .
I found the comments underneath very interesting. people were questioning why on earth the government would take away the power of MPs in this way. But if the matter is that they would not be taking away the powers of MPs by implementing this bill, but in fact only take away the rights of the public to scrutinise the powers of government.
It is something that they implemented in the Tory party in 1992 to do with refugees and asylum. the Home Secretary now has the power to legislate on how we treat asylum seekers and refugees without consulting publicly elected members. This means that the government can quite happily electronically tag anyone seeking asylum who enters the UK, take and retain their DNA for life, provide them with less than 60% of income support to live on and deny them the opportunity to work or integrate with society until their asylum claim has been assessed.
This is a completely abysmal state of affairs for a democratic oligarchy.
The proposed bill to prevent pirating movies and music is also atrocious.
How can we have a country that called itself democratic and yet it regularly allows politicians to remove scrutiny from the public and instils bodies that are essentially government whip to review their behaviour under the ludicrous name "quango"? people talk about the removal of freedom of speech in a loose an inappropriate way in this country. Indeed, defining it is extremely difficult.
However it seems that reporting this is inconceivable to local papers and people are not encouraged to question will challenge the decision in any way shape or form.
I found the comments underneath very interesting. people were questioning why on earth the government would take away the power of MPs in this way. But if the matter is that they would not be taking away the powers of MPs by implementing this bill, but in fact only take away the rights of the public to scrutinise the powers of government.
It is something that they implemented in the Tory party in 1992 to do with refugees and asylum. the Home Secretary now has the power to legislate on how we treat asylum seekers and refugees without consulting publicly elected members. This means that the government can quite happily electronically tag anyone seeking asylum who enters the UK, take and retain their DNA for life, provide them with less than 60% of income support to live on and deny them the opportunity to work or integrate with society until their asylum claim has been assessed.
This is a completely abysmal state of affairs for a democratic oligarchy.
The proposed bill to prevent pirating movies and music is also atrocious.
How can we have a country that called itself democratic and yet it regularly allows politicians to remove scrutiny from the public and instils bodies that are essentially government whip to review their behaviour under the ludicrous name "quango"? people talk about the removal of freedom of speech in a loose an inappropriate way in this country. Indeed, defining it is extremely difficult.
However it seems that reporting this is inconceivable to local papers and people are not encouraged to question will challenge the decision in any way shape or form.
22 Jun 2009
Protesters' depserate attempt to gain newsworthy coverage
The Telegraph ruins political careers.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
