Dear Nick Palmer,
As another year passes and we begin to look forward to a fresh one I thought it would be a good time to write to you and tell you how I see the world and how I, as a young student, would like to see it changed. The following is not a comprehensive list of all of the problems that we face and neither is it offering any fully researched solutions but I believe that it is my right and indeed my duty to tell my democratically elected representative how I feel about politics, about Britain and about the world in which we live.
Let us start with politics. Britain is a democracy and a relatively successful one at that. We live in a country where every man and woman over 18 who is a resident can vote and this is a blessing. We also live in a country where a 16 year old can join the armed forces, get married, have sex and pay tax but they cannot vote. I believe that it is time that we trust younger people to vote. After all surely we all believe there should be ‘no taxation without representation’. Should anyone have to give money to a government who they had no say in electing. I do not think so. Young people, even at university, feel totally and utterly detached from the political process and I believe that along with educating people in their political rights we should allow them to access the process they learn about from an earlier age. The low turnout in elections (see graph below) in Britain is shameful and a good way to address this problem would be to get people more involved from an early age. Furthermore I believe that the age limit to be an elected representative should also be lowered.
Voter Turnout in British General Elections
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/turnout.htm
Voter turnout in 2007 Scottish Parliament elections
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/education/resources/learningResources/election.htm
A way of further increasing voter turnout would be to implement a system of proportional representation across all elections in the United Kingdom. People do not feel represented, especially- as is my experience- in the student community. Proportional representation has its downsides (extremist parties) but as believers in democracy must we not agree that it is better to have intelligent debate about different ideas rather than push minority views out altogether? Personally I believe that a hole has been left in the British political spectrum by Labours shift to the right and I also believe that proportional representation may give those voters who feel only apathy a chance to be represented.
Devolution was a very positive move by our government and it is time that they follow up on their promises to make important constitutional change. I do not believe in monarchy and I shall leave this rather uncomfortable issue aside (lest we realise that we do not in fact live in a constitutional democracy). More urgent is the failed reform of the House of Lords. I support the full removal of hereditary peers and the abolition of peerages altogether to allow for a democratically elected second chamber (as all other developed democracies have as far as I know). Having an elected second chamber would strengthen and enliven the voting process and, importantly, give people a chance to show disapproval of a current government more regularly. I believe it is a shame on our nation that there seems to be a lack of trust by those in power to allow all of our representatives to be accountable to the people. Britain as part of the ‘war on terror’ has been quick to criticise other countries lack of democracy but we are stained by an archaic second chamber that simply does not represent the demographics of the country. It has been 96 years since the Parliament Act (1911) committed our government to elect "a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis" and I believe that 2011 is the year that we must set for an elected Lords to take control, 100 years after the Parliament Act. ‘[The] House of Commons and the Government have now firmly committed themselves to an 80% to 100% elected second chamber. The Commons voted for this in March.’ 63% of the public support reform while just 26% disapprove- the time has come for our government to follow up on their promises and make the change.
A pressing issue on the domestic front is the curtailment of civil liberties by our government since they were elected in 1997. In ten years over 3000 new criminal offences have been created . The creation of laws is not in itself a bad thing, it is what a government is for but when laws begin to infringe on our basic civil liberties I believe we must stand up and take action. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (sections 132-7) bans unplanned protest on Parliament Square and contradicts article 12 of the Human Rights Act. Gordon Brown has commissioned a report, which I have read, and he must now act on this and get this terrible piece of legislation changed.
The introduction of ID cards will not help this country protect its citizens and I oppose the introduction completely. In all, the Identity Cards Act 2006 provides for 49 items of data pertaining only to you to be stored on the register, and all of this will have to be handed over when you go for your compulsory ID session. According to the BBC ‘Identity cards could cost £18bn over 10 years, triple the government's estimate.’ It is unacceptable for our government to spend billions of pounds on Identity Cards when we still have people waiting hours at casualty, teachers being underpaid and one in ten British children are living in severe poverty. Identity cards would not have stopped the bombings in London, they didn’t stop the Madrid bombings, they are an infringement of our basic right to privacy and they are a waste of desperately needed taxpayers money.
Terrorism is certainly a threat to be taken seriously but the extension of detention of suspects is disproportionate and a serious threat to our right to being ‘innocent unless proven guilty’. An extension beyond 28 days is unnecessary and worrying. Let us not forget that these are people like you or me who are locked up without charge because there is not enough evidence to convict them, this is simply wrong. Not only is this law ‘wrong’ but it is dreadfully misjudged as well. If we want to let the terrorists think they are winning we are playing into their hands, if we want to set an example to them we are failing, if we want to be forced into the removal of liberty for all because we are scared then we should extend the limit- if not I urge you to vote against it.
The link between a ‘terrorist threat’ to the United Kingdom and our foreign policy is too often ignored by those in power and it is time for politicians, especially those who supported the war on Iraq to realise that the reason we are all now at risk is partly because of the actions of our government in international affairs and defence. It is clear and has been widely reported that our actions in the Middle East, and especially in Iraq have boosted terrorist support worldwide and indeed in our own country. At least 80 000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq and according to some sources this number can be multiplied by 6 times. Is it any wonder that there is an element of resentment against us when we have killed thousands in a foreign country that we waged an illegal war upon? We must never allow ourselves to go to war without good reason and UN backing again because the results would absolutely disastrous. For this reason I support a diplomatic and peaceful end to the Iran nuclear crisis and hope that all politicians urge our own and the American government to refrain from taking military action in the area ever again.
Our position on the Iran situation is hypocritical beyond belief. We are asking a government to refrain from developing nuclear power and nuclear weapons, both of which we continue to have in our own country. I do not believe that we have the right or the need to possess nuclear weapons and I believe that our possession of them is illegal under the non-proliferation treaty. We have no right to deny others nuclear weapons when we have them ourselves and it is no excuse to say we need them as a ‘deterrent’. Plenty of western nations do not have nuclear weapons and enjoy peace. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, New Zealand and more have no nukes and are certainly under no more threat than us, in fact, not surprisingly, they are under less of a threat. We must now take action on nuclear weapons and ensure every country in the world is nuclear free as soon as possible. Could we not spend some of the possible £100 billion on taking early action on climate change as suggested in the Stern Report or could we not build more hospitals, employ more teachers or possibly increase our aid spending to the long ago promised 0.7% to try and bring peace and prosperity to everyone in the world?
A major reason that people begin to feel disconnected with politics is the feeling that there is a greater power than them, which they cannot control. For the British public this ‘greater power’ is the USA. Although the list of times Britain has bowed to American pressure is long there is one particular issue that haunts me. Why do we continue to stay silent about Guantanamo Bay? It is illegal and immoral and must be shut down and yet where is the public criticism from our leaders that we would hear if people were being locked up in say Burma. There is none and it is time we tell America openly and publicly that Guantanamo Bay detention centre must be shut down. The British public would be proud of a government who stood up to America when they were doing something wrong and this is one issue that it is urgent that we act upon.
After reading the most recent IPCC report (which I will not quote but am sure you are aware of) I am convinced that the time has come for us to act swiftly on climate change. I applaud the action of the government in pledging an emissions cut but I cannot fail to see hypocrisy in their words. Our government seems committed to airport and road expansion and has failed to provide cheap and reliable public transport. Building a new runway at Heathrow is just one move that seems to fully contradict our government’s positive rhetoric on climate change. I believe that our government should take fast and decisive action on climate change that includes a massive taxation increase on domestic flights, a gradual and progressive increase in tax for international flights, a fully funded and subsidised public transport network from local buses to long distance coaches and internationally linked rail and coach services. I am sure you agree that action needs to be taken but all I ask is this: please make sure that our promises are kept and we take the positive action that is desperately needed.
The final and possibly most urgent issue that I would like to discuss is the vast inequality that we face in the world. Inequality exists at all levels, between the North and South of Britain, between developed nations and developing nations, between men and women and in almost all areas of society. Please can we not forget that a child still dies of poverty in Africa every 5 seconds, that women around the world still lack power and representation and that 1 in 3 has suffered sexual abuse of some kind, the gap between rich and poor in Britain is widening and that politicians have the power to change all this but never seem to do enough. The changes that are needed are too many to detail at this stage but may I make a few suggestions.
· Let’s meet our Aid target of 0.7% quickly.
· Let’s make trade truly fair and stop forcing developing nations to liberalise their markets
· Lets make drugs available to everyone, at an affordable price, not just the rich by internationalising drugs companies.
· Let’s meet our promise to provide access to AIDS treatment for all by 2010, we are way behind.
· Let’s make the IMF and World Bank and WTO representative of the world.
· Let’s support women’s rights all over the globe.
· Let’s get every child in education, no matter where they are born.
· Let’s redistribute money where it is needed, from the rich to the poor.
· Let’s imagine a world where the ‘accident of birth’ does not dictate the rest of your life.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, it is greatly appreciated. I have detailed my opinions and do not expect you to agree to all the solutions that I offer but I urge you to do what is right this year and make the world a fairer and better place for the many, not just the few. I want to live in a country where I can say I am proud of those who represent me because they try to do what is right, because they stand up for what they believe and most importantly because they listen to those who they represent.
Many Thanks
Matthew Butcher
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
The 'Buck off 'campaign
Students at Nottingham University were shocked a few weeks ago when their café in the main library on campus suddenly started serving Starbucks coffee. In a move that has upset a large part of the student body the university decided to change coffee supplier without any sort of student consultation and now the students are up in arms.
For the last two weeks students have manned an ‘anti-Starbucks’ stall outside the Hallward Library where the Starbucks coffee is being served (at nearly double its pre-Starbucks price). The movement against the corporatisation of our educational facilities has been swift; nearly 700 people have joined the Facebook group against Starbucks (34 have joined a Starbucks supporting group), hundreds of people have signed the petition and loads of cups of tea and coffee have been sold to students who don’t want to pay £1.45 for a coffee. All proceeds from the stall are going to the Crocus Café.
Why does Starbucks upset us so much?
Firstly (and possibly most significantly) the opening of the Starbucks has upset so many because of the lack of consultation and the huge increase in price overnight. Students want cheap, good quality coffee and they want to have a say.
Starbucks have an appalling list of environmental and social offences that they have committed over the years: Only 6% of Starbucks’ coffee is fairtrade (Coffee growers receive little more than 0.50p for a pound of coffee, which is then sold for £80.). Starbucks have a terrible workers rights record and has been recorded as sacking workers for unionising and not allowing their American barrista’s full healthcare or holiday benefits.
Finally Starbucks is an ugly, aggressive and irresponsible corporation. They bring a soulless and bland brand to every place on earth that they think they will make money, they break local business and shatter community meeting places and can only be stopped by communities (like our student one) standing up to they and telling them to ‘buck off’.
The students of Nottingham University do not want a company on their campus who have no scruples with opening up in Guantanamo Bay!
A meeting with the head of Estates at the University has confirmed that we are in a trial period and with another planned outlet on the Jubilee campus the time has come for us to make our voices heard and make sure Starbucks fail their trial.
Students plan to remain outside the library daily for as long as it takes.
To be continued…
For more information check out http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5375004252
And students JOIN THE GROUP.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
A proverb of sorts..
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The UN Declaration on Human Rights
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The other men in orange suits
We all know about those famous pictures of foreign looking men in orange suits suffering under brutal oppressors and we all know that what happens in Guantanamo Bay is wrong. Let us now turn our attention to some other men in orange bodywear, those brave monks in Myanmar (Burma) who have taken to the streets to demand that the poor of their nation have fuel that they can afford.
Burma's political situation is a true scar on the face of our world. We must look back into the last decade to see a sure sign of the desperation of the Burmese people. It was in 1990 that the first democratic elections for 30 years and the last took place. Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of the democracit party took a sweeping majority and was stopped from taking power by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Only two years previous to this over 2000 democracy demonstrators had been massacred by the very same organisation.
Could the massacre of 1988 be about to happen again?
For the last 10 days monks have been joined by civilians protesting against their tyrannical government and the situation is getting worse and worse. At least 11 civilians are dead- their crime? Asking for the people to have a voice. They have been murdered by the very same government who have kept Aung San Suu Kyi locked in her house for the best part of 17 years under the 1975 State Protection Act1. 20 000 people on the streets of Burma is a monumentally brave in a country who refuse to allow free speech and who have tried their very best to stop the world knowing about the terrible human rights violations they commit. The governent lock up political activists and journalists as a matter of course.
And now...
Full combat troops have taken to the streets. They have shot people. State TV is threatening those who join the legitimate protest.2 According to Al-Jazeera 'Rallies were also dispersed with teargas, baton charges and warning shots.' The situation is already dire and threatens to get worse. And what can we do?
'International members around the world have begun a series of demonstrations outside Myanmar’s embassies and high profile public locations calling for the Myanmar authorities not to respond with violence and to respect the human right to peaceful protest. A demonstration was held today in London, and further demonstrations have been held in Washington, Switzerland and the Netherlands. This will be followed by events in Nepal, Belgium, the Philippines and Spain. Further events will be announced shortly.'
'When injustice becomes law, resitance becomes duty'
1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7016608.stm
2) The Guardian London
Burma's political situation is a true scar on the face of our world. We must look back into the last decade to see a sure sign of the desperation of the Burmese people. It was in 1990 that the first democratic elections for 30 years and the last took place. Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of the democracit party took a sweeping majority and was stopped from taking power by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Only two years previous to this over 2000 democracy demonstrators had been massacred by the very same organisation.
Could the massacre of 1988 be about to happen again?
For the last 10 days monks have been joined by civilians protesting against their tyrannical government and the situation is getting worse and worse. At least 11 civilians are dead- their crime? Asking for the people to have a voice. They have been murdered by the very same government who have kept Aung San Suu Kyi locked in her house for the best part of 17 years under the 1975 State Protection Act1. 20 000 people on the streets of Burma is a monumentally brave in a country who refuse to allow free speech and who have tried their very best to stop the world knowing about the terrible human rights violations they commit. The governent lock up political activists and journalists as a matter of course.
And now...
Full combat troops have taken to the streets. They have shot people. State TV is threatening those who join the legitimate protest.2 According to Al-Jazeera 'Rallies were also dispersed with teargas, baton charges and warning shots.' The situation is already dire and threatens to get worse. And what can we do?
- Tell our MPs, our leaders that the situation in Burma is unnaceptable and that UN action is urgently needed.
- Get on the streets. And keep checking the Amnesty website.
'International members around the world have begun a series of demonstrations outside Myanmar’s embassies and high profile public locations calling for the Myanmar authorities not to respond with violence and to respect the human right to peaceful protest. A demonstration was held today in London, and further demonstrations have been held in Washington, Switzerland and the Netherlands. This will be followed by events in Nepal, Belgium, the Philippines and Spain. Further events will be announced shortly.'
'When injustice becomes law, resitance becomes duty'
1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7016608.stm
2) The Guardian London
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
The Aborigines and Australia.
Aboriginals have inhabited Australia for between 40-60 000 years. On that scale, as Bill Bryson estimated 'the period of European occupation of Australia represents about 0.3% of the total'. The start of the problems that we see today can be traced back to the first landing of the white man way back in 1788.
It's a bit of a mess down under at the moment, and it has been for quite some time. The problem, some would say, is the Aboriginals-the Abo's or others would say it's the whites. The situation in Australia now is critical- Aboriginals are segregated from the rest of society not only culturally but socio-economically. The disparity between black and white, in terms of living conditions and quality of life, is shocking to say the least. The life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian is 17 years lower than his white counterpart (men are not expected to reach 60). 1
Indigenous Australians are 11 times more likely to be in Jail than a white person, 20 times more aborigines are abused as
children than white people.2 The problem is their for all to see.
Historically the blame for the problems can certainly be laid upon 'the white man'. When the Europeans first set foot in Australia, where the Aborigines had been already for up to 60 000 years, they wiped out half of the indigenous population with imported disease. Between 1788 and 1900 the aboriginal population was cut by 90% through disease, direct violence and land violation. Aborigenes were slaughtered by the hundreds up until the 1930s, they were used as slaves, beaten and abused.3 The number of Aborigines intentionally killed by whites is thought to be around 20 000.4 Is it any wonder that Aboriginals feel mistreated and are resentful towards the more affluent, better educated, longer living white people that live right next door to them?
There is no easy solution and there have been steps in the right direction. Aborigenes can no longer be killed without the law being brought against the murderer (in 1805 it was deemed legal to punish aborigenes as 'one saw fit' for any crime- essentially legalizing genocide)5. The next positive step to be taken was to begin to consider Aborigines as human-something that didn't happen until the 60s (Aboriginals were not counted on the 1963 census). Aboriginal children are no longer taken away from their parents at an early age and given to white people to adopt. Until 1969 aboriginal children did not belong to their parents but instead to the state, which meant they could be removed from their parents perfectly lawfully. It is believed that between 1/10 and 1/3 aboriginal children before 1963 were taken from their parents and givent to a white family- they are known as
the 'Lost Generation'. This has had serious effects on the population in later life:
"Almost half of the Aboriginal people who died in custody and were investigated by the Black Deaths Royal Commission, had been removed from their families as children..." Kirsten Garrett, Background Briefing, Sunday, 11 February 1996
For all the progress that has been made there is still so far to go. Aboriginals and whites both need to be progressive in their thoughts. The white people must formally apologise (through the government, which is all white) and the Australian people must cut racism out of their society. It is important that Aboriginals are given financial assistance to work themselves out of poverty- their children should be helped with extra schooling and their land rights should be thoughtfully considered and wherever possible provided for. It is down to every mother and father in Australia to teach their children whether black or white, that the colour of someones skin is not important. We must understand the hardships that aboriginals have been through and help them break their socio-econonomic downward spiral. At the same time Aboriginals have a part to play. They must accept that it was not this generation of white Australians who beat and killed them, that laws have changed and attitudes will follow. Aboriginals must react positively to the repression that they have faced and the community as a whole must try its hardest to stamp out alcoholism and child abuse. It is no longer an option for Aboriginals to complain about how things have changed and their land has been taken- they must take a forward step and embrace multiculturalism. Racism must be obliterated in both the white and black communities.
1 and 2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today
3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
4,5) 'Down Under'- Bill Bryson
Further Reading
White Australia Policy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_Policy
Aboriginal History:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians
General Indigenous Info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
Aboriginal Smoking article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6932787.stm
Child Abuse/Alcohol ban:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6229708.stm
Alcohol abuse:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6353693.stm
Jail/Justice:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22291927-5006789,00.html
It's a bit of a mess down under at the moment, and it has been for quite some time. The problem, some would say, is the Aboriginals-the Abo's or others would say it's the whites. The situation in Australia now is critical- Aboriginals are segregated from the rest of society not only culturally but socio-economically. The disparity between black and white, in terms of living conditions and quality of life, is shocking to say the least. The life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian is 17 years lower than his white counterpart (men are not expected to reach 60). 1
Indigenous Australians are 11 times more likely to be in Jail than a white person, 20 times more aborigines are abused as
children than white people.2 The problem is their for all to see.Historically the blame for the problems can certainly be laid upon 'the white man'. When the Europeans first set foot in Australia, where the Aborigines had been already for up to 60 000 years, they wiped out half of the indigenous population with imported disease. Between 1788 and 1900 the aboriginal population was cut by 90% through disease, direct violence and land violation. Aborigenes were slaughtered by the hundreds up until the 1930s, they were used as slaves, beaten and abused.3 The number of Aborigines intentionally killed by whites is thought to be around 20 000.4 Is it any wonder that Aboriginals feel mistreated and are resentful towards the more affluent, better educated, longer living white people that live right next door to them?
There is no easy solution and there have been steps in the right direction. Aborigenes can no longer be killed without the law being brought against the murderer (in 1805 it was deemed legal to punish aborigenes as 'one saw fit' for any crime- essentially legalizing genocide)5. The next positive step to be taken was to begin to consider Aborigines as human-something that didn't happen until the 60s (Aboriginals were not counted on the 1963 census). Aboriginal children are no longer taken away from their parents at an early age and given to white people to adopt. Until 1969 aboriginal children did not belong to their parents but instead to the state, which meant they could be removed from their parents perfectly lawfully. It is believed that between 1/10 and 1/3 aboriginal children before 1963 were taken from their parents and givent to a white family- they are known as
the 'Lost Generation'. This has had serious effects on the population in later life:"Almost half of the Aboriginal people who died in custody and were investigated by the Black Deaths Royal Commission, had been removed from their families as children..." Kirsten Garrett, Background Briefing, Sunday, 11 February 1996
For all the progress that has been made there is still so far to go. Aboriginals and whites both need to be progressive in their thoughts. The white people must formally apologise (through the government, which is all white) and the Australian people must cut racism out of their society. It is important that Aboriginals are given financial assistance to work themselves out of poverty- their children should be helped with extra schooling and their land rights should be thoughtfully considered and wherever possible provided for. It is down to every mother and father in Australia to teach their children whether black or white, that the colour of someones skin is not important. We must understand the hardships that aboriginals have been through and help them break their socio-econonomic downward spiral. At the same time Aboriginals have a part to play. They must accept that it was not this generation of white Australians who beat and killed them, that laws have changed and attitudes will follow. Aboriginals must react positively to the repression that they have faced and the community as a whole must try its hardest to stamp out alcoholism and child abuse. It is no longer an option for Aboriginals to complain about how things have changed and their land has been taken- they must take a forward step and embrace multiculturalism. Racism must be obliterated in both the white and black communities.
Not every white person is a racist and not every aboriginal is a drunk. Australians (white and black) must push for a peace and, while remembering the past, move on together.
"It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you."
1 and 2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today
3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
4,5) 'Down Under'- Bill Bryson
Further Reading
White Australia Policy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_Policy
Aboriginal History:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians
General Indigenous Info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
Aboriginal Smoking article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6932787.stm
Child Abuse/Alcohol ban:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6229708.stm
Alcohol abuse:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6353693.stm
Jail/Justice:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22291927-5006789,00.html
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Festival
I have been in Edinburgh for nearly a week this summer and it has been fantastic. I have seen about 15 shows from comedy to musical to improvisation to breakfast with Bach and honestly I have enjoyed everything I have seen. Some shows certainly stand o
ut; 'Tony Blair-The Musical' was highly entertaining, 'One Night the Musical' was breathtaking (it was improvised on the spot), Loung Ung at the book festival was inspirational, the list really does go on.
ut; 'Tony Blair-The Musical' was highly entertaining, 'One Night the Musical' was breathtaking (it was improvised on the spot), Loung Ung at the book festival was inspirational, the list really does go on. Today I saw something that really moved me.
The play was called '40 Feathered Winks' and was by The Paper Birds Theatre Company:
Here is a quick synopsis from thestage.co.uk:
"A man and woman meet at a conference, flirt, and eventually end up in bed, only to face the awkwardness and embarrassment of parting the next morning. A couple engrossed in their separate books in bed manage to have sex without losing their places. A woman sits by the hospital bed of her comatose sister, reading from a Spanish dictionary just to make her voice heard, while enough filters into the patient’s consciousness to produce Spanish-flavoured nightmares. A new mother battles the horrors of sleepless nights and postpartum depression. "
After I left the theatre today i had to hold myself from running back in and telling the actors just how great i thought they were, luckily I resisted and my dignity is somewhat intact. I have decided to write them a letter(email):
Dear The Paper Bird,
Today I was fortunate enough to go and see your production of '40 feathered winks' and I was truly moved. It is not often that I have to keep my mum company because she can't stop crying or, in fact, that I have to fight to keep myself from flooding a theatre with my tears.
The Edinburgh festival is truly a fantastic showcase of talent and everything I have seen has been of a very high standard but today your show blew the others away. I have read some reviews of the play by The Guardian and The Scotsman, i can only presume they saw a different play to that which I saw. The very idea of the performance was inspired. To set a play about the part of our lives which plays never cover is both original and insightful. You managed to write a piece to which everyone can relate.
I am no critic and can really say no more than this. In the scene involving a mother's postnatal depression and rejection of her baby, everytime she screamed I felt my stomach tighten, the hairs on my neck stand up and my eyes fill with tears. It was truly moving. The acting was superb, the movement was sensual and, at times, comic and it was truly a piece that I couldn't keep my eyes off.
Thank you
.....................................................
.....................................................
So why do I put this on my blog? Because art is so important. Art helps us create ideas, inspire people and deal with problems- social and personal. I recommend the Edinburgh festival to all and I hope that any artists out there never stop doing what they do because society needs you just like we need the doctor or the farmers, we need you.
Heathrow
To all of those who went to Heathrow this week; thank you. The time has now come for us to take direct action against airport and road expansion because our government will not listen to reason. A third runway at Heathrow airport simply cannot be constructed if we, as a nation, are going to be taking climate change seriously.
Over the coming years the battle at the airports will become more and more important but we must remember that a) it is not the passengers we should be disrupting but instead the airport authorities and airline offices and b) that people must be encouraged to make the right decision about flying and that educating people about alternatives and their carbon footprint will, in the long run, be more useful then simply stopping them from flying.
We will not be intimidated by the police or the government over this one. Airport expansion must be stopped.
Over the coming years the battle at the airports will become more and more important but we must remember that a) it is not the passengers we should be disrupting but instead the airport authorities and airline offices and b) that people must be encouraged to make the right decision about flying and that educating people about alternatives and their carbon footprint will, in the long run, be more useful then simply stopping them from flying.
We will not be intimidated by the police or the government over this one. Airport expansion must be stopped.
'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
'She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle'
We live in a world full of division. The rich are divided from the poor. The Black are divided from the White. The Christians are divided from the Muslims and the theists are divided from the athiests.
"Girls are constantly exposed to images of very thin women, a body shape that is not normal or healthy, and strive to obtain this shape, which in most cases is not attainable." Dr Jones. University of Toronto.
'In the world as a whole, women compromise 51% of the population, do 66% of the work, recieve 10% of the income and own less than 1% of the property'
1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6904434.stm
It has been a good few decades now since the women's liberation movement was in full swing and yet, without doubt, women are still divided from men. Women still earn less than men. Women still do most of the housework. Women are still expected to do most of the child rearing. Women are still socially excluded from men's activities. I don't think that the feminist movement is dead yet and I believe it still has some way to go in both the developed and less developed worlds.
In Europe "Women still earn 15% less than men on average, compared with 17% in 1995, despite being better educated"1. Europe could be said to be the most socially liberal area of the world and yet in six Eu
ropean countries (including Brtiain) women still earn 20% less than men. The problem of women lacking education has been well and truly adressed (60% of university graduates in Europe are women) but a glass celing seems to have lingered in our male dominated societies. In Europe only 19.6%2 of parliamentarians are women. A lot has been done since Germain Greer wrote the Female Eunuch and Betty Friedan wrote the Feminine Mystique but many of the problems they discussed still stain our society today. It is a myth that feminism has done all it can in the developed world. I believe that men and women in Europe and the rest of the developed world need to stand together to demand equal rights for women but that is not all.
ropean countries (including Brtiain) women still earn 20% less than men. The problem of women lacking education has been well and truly adressed (60% of university graduates in Europe are women) but a glass celing seems to have lingered in our male dominated societies. In Europe only 19.6%2 of parliamentarians are women. A lot has been done since Germain Greer wrote the Female Eunuch and Betty Friedan wrote the Feminine Mystique but many of the problems they discussed still stain our society today. It is a myth that feminism has done all it can in the developed world. I believe that men and women in Europe and the rest of the developed world need to stand together to demand equal rights for women but that is not all. Germaine Greer talked of the social condition inflicted upon young women and girls from an early age, she talked about the sexual submission of women, she talked about the lack of freedom allowed to women and yet we see the same problems today.
Girls are still told that they must look beautiful to be accepted. Mums still fuss over their daughters appearance more than their sons, they still overprotect their daughters and don't allow them from having the same ambitions as their male counterparts. A promiscuous male is still admired by his peers but his female counterpart is still rejected, called a slag and often left friendless. Girls still suffer accutely from eating disorders3, weight related depression and are constantly being bombarded with ways to improve themselves or, more accurately, how they look to others. Why is it that women (and more and more men) pay thousands to have their bodies changed surgically?
From a personal perspective: I have never met a girl who doesn't worry about her weight. It scares me how often girls think about how they look rather than who they are and it scares me more that men (including, though i hate to admit it, myself) still often judge a girl on their looks first and everything else after. Men are bombarded with the message that a 'fit', 'buff' or 'hot' girlfriend is better than a clever, funny or sporty one.
"Girls are constantly exposed to images of very thin women, a body shape that is not normal or healthy, and strive to obtain this shape, which in most cases is not attainable." Dr Jones. University of Toronto.In the developed world we face the same problems that Germain Greer faced. It is not that women don't have the rights, in general they do. It is the aftermath of centuries of patriarchical oppression that still needs to be revised. Women have the power and possibility to make the 'final leap' to equality and men must also play their part. The country I live in is not right until women truly enjoy the same privileges as men, until pay is fair and until all women (and men) can be loved and love themselves for who they are and not what they look like.
I wish I knew exactly what to do, but I don't. Maybe my best chance is to have kids. ha!
The world at large is far behind the West in terms of female emancipation and I think it is time that 'Women of the world Unite' and stand up to patriarchy, to female circumsision, to the death penalty for adultory and to the compulsory wearing of Hijab. No one anywhere should have laws dictating the type of clothes they should wear. The world should not rest until those 80% of female prisoners in Pakistan,who have been convicted of 'Fornication',4are released. Women all over the world and men next to them must say 'NO' to unjust laws and patriarchical society.
I would like to leave you with a final piece of infomation, provided by the United Nations:
'In the world as a whole, women compromise 51% of the population, do 66% of the work, recieve 10% of the income and own less than 1% of the property'
1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6904434.stm
3) http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/e/eating_disorders/stats-country.htm
4) The Economist, May 19th 2007.
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Daily Mail- Insightful as always
Glanced at this by chance on the net. Reckon the Author might be a bit of a cock but it's nice to hear a differing opinion once in a while...I think.
"Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...
At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.
The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiancÈ to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.
That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.
Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.
Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.
One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.
Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.
No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.
Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.
Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.
Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.
Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.
But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?
It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.
A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.
Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.(course they do mate, afterall they can't work things out themselves-ahhhh)
They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.
I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.
While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.
I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.
I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.
I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.
My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.
Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.
They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.
This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.
In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.
But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.
They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.
The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.
Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.
Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.
Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.
A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.(Painful?)
My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.
Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.
I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. (yes it sounds like it-this is my least favourite bit) I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.
I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.
When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.
Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.
We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.
Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place."
"Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...
At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.
The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiancÈ to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.
That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.
Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.
Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.
One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.
Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.
No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.
Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.
Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.
Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.
Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.
But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?
It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.
A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.
Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.(course they do mate, afterall they can't work things out themselves-ahhhh)
They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.
I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.
While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.
I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.
I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.
I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.
My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.
Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.
They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.
This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.
In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.
But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.
They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.
The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.
Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.
Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.
Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.
A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.(Painful?)
My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.
Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.
I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. (yes it sounds like it-this is my least favourite bit) I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.
I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.
When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.
Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.
We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.
Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place."
A Message for you...
It's Madness:
I never thought I'd miss you
Half as much as I do
And I never thought I'd feel this way
The way I feelAbout you
As soon as I wake upEvery night, every day
I know that it's you I needTo take the blues away
How can it be that we can
Say so much without words?
Bless you and bless me
Bless the beesAnd the birds
I've got to be near youEvery night, every day
I couldn't be happyAny other way
As soon as I wake upEvery night, every day
I know that it's you I needTo take the blues away
It must be love, love, love
It must be love, love, love
Nothing more, nothing less
Love is the best
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Vegetarianism and me
Vegetarianism
Vegetarian: a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc. (Dictionary.com)
I am a vegetarian. Well to some extent. I don't eat meat or fish but I do eggs and dairy both of which I am slowly trying to faze out of my diet.
It might be the question I am asked most. Why are you vegetarian?
Maybe it is because I just like to be different?
Maybe it is because I just love cute little fluffy animals? Like Cod?
Or maybe there are many reasons to be vegetarian and I just couldn't resist:
Let's clear something up straight away. Being a vegetarian is easy, especially in Britain. It is rare to be in a position, out or in, where there is nothing to eat without meat in it. Nearly all restaurants- even steak hous
es and kebab shops provide something for the 5% (over 3million)1 of Britons who choose not to eat meat. Supermarkets and even local grocers stock wide varieties of meat substitutes and alternatives. It is true that, being a vegetarian, you won't have the same texture and taste as meat provides but you will have plenty of other choices.
Another myth that must be disparaged is that being a vegetarian is unhealthy. It truly doesn’t have to be. Meat eaters often announce that vegetarians do not have enough Protein or Vitamins but, with a bit of care, vegetarians and Vegans can have a perfectly healthy diet.
‘Vegetarian diets typically have sufficient protein intake as long as a variety of plants sources are available and consumed -- it is rare for vegetarians in developed countries to have insufficient protein intake' 2
Vegans in particular have to watch carefully what they eat. A deficiency of vitamin B12 is common although this very rarely manfiests itself into a noticeable health problem. As Vegetarianism becomes more mainstream we are learning more and more about how and what to eat in order to have a blanced diet. Being a vegetarian can actually help you live long by as much as ‘an extra 1-1/2 to 2 years'3. The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer”
With care vegetarianism and even veganism is a healthy way of life.
‘We feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals, and almost all of those calories go into simply keeping the animals alive, not making them grow. Only a small fraction of the calories consumed by farmed animals are actually converted into the meat that people eat.'4 The meat production industry is inneficient and environmentally damaging and in a world where it is our duty to try and live a sustainable lifestyle vegetarianism is a good place to start.
‘Animal agriculture is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases — responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents... By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2.'5 Climate change, caused in a big way by a rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, is one of the biggest challenges ever to face humankind and by being vegetarian we can all do our bit in the fight to save the planet. This is the reason I am a vegetarian, above all others.
‘Nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food'6
Let us not forget animal cruelty. Humans have an amazing thing; the abilty to be rational and to think for themselve. We have the abilty to think ‘I CAN live without hurting another creature so I WILL live without hurting another creauture.’ Those who say vegetarianism is not natural must also believe that are ability to rationalize and be humans is unnatural. I do not believe this.
‘The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past are now distant memories. On today's factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy windowless sheds, wire cages, gestation crates, and other confinement systems. These animals will never raise their families, root in the soil, build nests, or do anything that is natural to them. They won't even feel the sun on their backs or breathe fresh air until the day they are loaded onto trucks bound for slaughter.'7
Meat and Egg production are a cruel business. No matter how humanely an animal is killed we must not dismiss the fact that they have been locked up for their whole life, often in small cages and fed drugs so they grow to our specifications. To me, this is not natural. If we are to eat eggs, as I do, they must be free range by law, simple as that. Write to your MP and ask them.
The reasons for being a vegetarian are clear for all to see (and there are more). I urge everyone to at least try it. For one day a week, for a week or a month and see how you do and what you can cook. Get a free recipe of the net (see below) and just give it a shot. You’ll feel better afterwards.
1) http://www.vegsoc.org/members/history/150hist.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
4) http://goveg.com/environment.asp
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
6) http://goveg.com/environment.asp
7) http://goveg.com/factoryfarming.asp
Vegetarian websites:
http://www.goveg.com/
http://www.vegsoc.org/
http://www.vegcooking.com/
Vegetarian: a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc. (Dictionary.com)
I am a vegetarian. Well to some extent. I don't eat meat or fish but I do eggs and dairy both of which I am slowly trying to faze out of my diet.
It might be the question I am asked most. Why are you vegetarian?
Maybe it is because I just like to be different?
Maybe it is because I just love cute little fluffy animals? Like Cod?
Or maybe there are many reasons to be vegetarian and I just couldn't resist:
Let's clear something up straight away. Being a vegetarian is easy, especially in Britain. It is rare to be in a position, out or in, where there is nothing to eat without meat in it. Nearly all restaurants- even steak hous
es and kebab shops provide something for the 5% (over 3million)1 of Britons who choose not to eat meat. Supermarkets and even local grocers stock wide varieties of meat substitutes and alternatives. It is true that, being a vegetarian, you won't have the same texture and taste as meat provides but you will have plenty of other choices.Another myth that must be disparaged is that being a vegetarian is unhealthy. It truly doesn’t have to be. Meat eaters often announce that vegetarians do not have enough Protein or Vitamins but, with a bit of care, vegetarians and Vegans can have a perfectly healthy diet.
‘Vegetarian diets typically have sufficient protein intake as long as a variety of plants sources are available and consumed -- it is rare for vegetarians in developed countries to have insufficient protein intake' 2
Vegans in particular have to watch carefully what they eat. A deficiency of vitamin B12 is common although this very rarely manfiests itself into a noticeable health problem. As Vegetarianism becomes more mainstream we are learning more and more about how and what to eat in order to have a blanced diet. Being a vegetarian can actually help you live long by as much as ‘an extra 1-1/2 to 2 years'3. The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer”
With care vegetarianism and even veganism is a healthy way of life.
‘We feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals, and almost all of those calories go into simply keeping the animals alive, not making them grow. Only a small fraction of the calories consumed by farmed animals are actually converted into the meat that people eat.'4 The meat production industry is inneficient and environmentally damaging and in a world where it is our duty to try and live a sustainable lifestyle vegetarianism is a good place to start.
‘Animal agriculture is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases — responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents... By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2.'5 Climate change, caused in a big way by a rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, is one of the biggest challenges ever to face humankind and by being vegetarian we can all do our bit in the fight to save the planet. This is the reason I am a vegetarian, above all others.
‘Nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food'6
Let us not forget animal cruelty. Humans have an amazing thing; the abilty to be rational and to think for themselve. We have the abilty to think ‘I CAN live without hurting another creature so I WILL live without hurting another creauture.’ Those who say vegetarianism is not natural must also believe that are ability to rationalize and be humans is unnatural. I do not believe this.
‘The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past are now distant memories. On today's factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy windowless sheds, wire cages, gestation crates, and other confinement systems. These animals will never raise their families, root in the soil, build nests, or do anything that is natural to them. They won't even feel the sun on their backs or breathe fresh air until the day they are loaded onto trucks bound for slaughter.'7
Meat and Egg production are a cruel business. No matter how humanely an animal is killed we must not dismiss the fact that they have been locked up for their whole life, often in small cages and fed drugs so they grow to our specifications. To me, this is not natural. If we are to eat eggs, as I do, they must be free range by law, simple as that. Write to your MP and ask them.
The reasons for being a vegetarian are clear for all to see (and there are more). I urge everyone to at least try it. For one day a week, for a week or a month and see how you do and what you can cook. Get a free recipe of the net (see below) and just give it a shot. You’ll feel better afterwards.
1) http://www.vegsoc.org/members/history/150hist.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
4) http://goveg.com/environment.asp
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
6) http://goveg.com/environment.asp
7) http://goveg.com/factoryfarming.asp
Vegetarian websites:
http://www.goveg.com/
http://www.vegsoc.org/
http://www.vegcooking.com/
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Fantastic News in the SOCPA camapaign
This article, which appeared in The Guardian, seems to suggest that SOCPA (mentioned in my first post) is going to be repealed by our Prime Minister. This is fantastic news for those campaigners who have spent many an hour chaallenging the law in creative ways."In August 2005 it became illegal to demonstrate in parliament and the surrounding environs without first gaining permission from the police, six days in advance. On June 24 2007 Maya Evans, the first person to be convicted of the criminal offence of "participating in an unauthorised demonstration" (for the heinous act of reading out the names of the Iraqi and British war dead at the Cenotaph), sent a text to friends and supporters: "Brown promises to allow peaceful protest around parliament". Less than two years after its arrival onto the statute books and the law looked like it is to be scrapped.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Socpa) was introduced by David Blunkett to get rid of Brian Haw, the peace campaigner from Parliament Square. As you might expect of a piece of legislation that was bought in specifically to target one man, the end results were spiteful and farcical in equal measure. The police decided that one person with a banner counted as a demonstration; in fact, one person with a badge was deemed to be a demonstration. A friend of mine was threatened with arrest while having a picnic on Parliament Square as she had the word "peace" iced onto her cakes, this was deemed to be an "unauthorised demonstration". I had to get permission from the police specifically to wear a red nose, on Red Nose Day in Parliament Square, just in case it was mistaken for an illegal protest that could have led to my arrest. The implementation of the law became so absurd that a group of breast-feeding mums had to apply for permission to gather in Parliament Square to feed their children, as this was seen as a political protest that had to be controlled by the law.
To many this law, which would have us get permission to wear a badge or a T-shirt within a 1km radius of parliament, became the epitome of New Labour's control-freak tendencies. Socpa typified the Kafkaesque reach of a government determined to make the citizen more accountable to the state than the state was accountable to the citizen.
Some opposed the law by refusing to cooperate with it, like Maya, and held demonstrations without permission, like the Sack Parliament demo, calling for MPs to resign. Other less brave souls, like myself, decided to take on the law by organising mass lone demonstrations, where individuals applied for lone protests but en mass, swamping the police with paperwork. Each month people would arrive demanding everything from "an end to aggression in Palestine" to "free chocolate for the unemployed".
In the process I became the Guinness World Record holder for "most political demonstrations in 24 hours" - I have a framed certificate - and in April this year we applied for 2,500 individual demonstrations around the Socpa zone in the space of a week, giving the police about three years' worth of work in seven days.That Brown wants to scrap this law is good news. Though, frankly, it was an obvious and easy choice for him. The law is unpopular and there are few who will defend it. The GLA voted to recommend its abolition. Lady Sue Miller was pushing a private members' bill in the Lords to repeal it. Police officers sent me private emails saying: "we don't need this [law] and it makes us look stupid." I have even been in discussion with some folk within parliament about how they might organise their own illegal protest and force the police to arrest the very people the law was introduced to protect.
By repealing an unpopular law Brown not only appears to be listening to the British people, but emphasises the differences between himself and Blair, a vital task if he is to win back Middle England's trust, fractured by Iraq, loans for peerages and Blair's liberty grabbing tendencies. It also gives him a bit more room to promote ID cards, while rebutting the charges of being illiberal.
However, the devil is in the detail and while his comments are welcome I suspect that Brown is likely to keep parts of Socpa that make protest on various military bases (like the US spy base at Menwith Hill or RAF Fairford) illegal. Under trespass laws Quakers and peaceniks protesting on these bases would break the law if they refused to leave the property, under Socpa they can be arrested just for being on the property. It also remains unclear if he will repeal the law directly or tinker with it.
But while we might have to wait to find out exactly what kind of victory we have won, it is none the less a victory. And it has been a victory for protesters, for people who read names out at the Cenotaph, for people who pitched tents in Parliament Square and for people who waved banners at the mass lone demonstrations. This is a victory for the people who stood with hand-scrawled signs demanding "End the war in Iraq!", for those who made banners demanding the government ban Robbie Williams and for demonstrators who stood with papier mache boots demanding "Bigger shoe sizes for women!", it is a peculiarly British victory."
Mark Thomas, The Guardian: June 26th.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Dear Mr Brown
Dear Prime Minister Brown,
Firstly can I congratulate you on becoming the new British prime minister, I hope that the job is everything that you expect of it. I believe that you have come into power at a crucial time for British and International politics and I urge you to make the very best of your premiership by focussing on some crucial issues that we, the global citizens, require our governments assistance with.
Climate change has to be the one single issue that should shape every decision you make while in your position. We all already know the threat and how little time we have to address it. As you know, if we do not cut our carbon emissions quickly we will be essentially digging our own graves and the graves of many of the poorest people in our fragile earth. Britain must make a stand both domestically and internationally and we must play a leading role in securing a sustainable future for generations to come. If the world heats up by the expected maximum increase (6 degrees centigrade) we will be in the most dire situation that our species has faced and it will be too late.
Domestically we must ban flights within Britain. Provide subsidised public transdport. Raise tax on fuel and/or road tax. Our Airport and road expansion projects should be curbed. Environmentally friendly local food should be supported. Non-energy saving lightbulbs should be banned. Plastic bags should be taxed. All of these ideas will work. It is time to start a carbon rationing scheme applied to every person in our country and every business. Oil and Coal must be exchanged for modern efficient renewable energy. Your priority must be to educate every Briton about how they must cut their carbon footrprint and quickly enforce this with law. We need to act on this now.
Internationally I think it is time to stand up to the USA and tell them that they must cut their insane overuse of Carbon and push towards sustainability. They are acting far too slow. Environmental improvement should be linked to development all round the world and expertise should be lent if needs be. An international binding agreement on carbon emissions should apply to each and every single country. Poorer nations who rely on export should be helped financially so as to deal with a movement toward locally produced goods. We need a concolodated international effort to make a change. You know the statistics, Stern made it clear what the price will be if we fail to make a move soon. The future of our planet is very much in your hands.
Tony Blair left behind a rather dissapointing legacy. For all the good things he did right he did too many wrong. Please keep focussing on affordable homes, on Education and please do not privatise the National Health Service. We want a health service run not for profit but for people and we can still say we are proud of what we have. Do not take away that right from us. Furthermore I want to see a minimum wage increase on a yearly basis and a guarantee from you that immigrant workers will be afforded the same rights and wages as native ones. Too many young people in Britain earn barely enough to live on and this is unnaceptable. Please keep museums and art galleries free and if possible make more of them free.
Tony Balir did however leave a stain on Britain because of some of his terrible mistakes. Iraq was one and was a disaster. It sickens me to think that my country played a part in a war where 600 000 Iraqis have died and the country is now in a state of civil war. Guarantee the British people you will never again enter into a war for money and oil based on blatant lies. Never again dismiss the voices of millions on the streets, it would be at your own peril. A wat with Iran will not be tolerated.
When will Britain address the Issue of Israel having Nuclear Weopans- this is unacceptable. When will we see that we have no right to nuclear weopans ourselves. It is time to end our old fashioned hypocricy and join the majority of the world in the relative safety of having a nuclear free country. Let us be world leaders, rather than followers of the United States of America. We only distance ourselves from the world, especially the Muslim nations by keeping our nuclear arsenal.
The final and perhaps most immediately urgent issue that we must address is poverty and Aids in Africa. It is unacceptable that a child dies every 3 seconds from poverty- the Western world should not be able to sleep at night. I know you want to make a change. Let us firstly meet our UN Development goal of giving 0.7% of our GNP to international development. Let us stop trying to privatise the economies of Africa. Let us help African farmers financially by supplying them with the tools they require to provide for themselves, their families and their nations- that is their right.
Mr Brown there is more to do than the above and so little time. Please make your Prime Ministership one that will be remembered for all the right reasons.
Yours Sincerely
Someone who cares
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
2)http://www.stoplutonairport.org/
3)http://www.one.org/issues
4) http://www.cnduk.org/
Firstly can I congratulate you on becoming the new British prime minister, I hope that the job is everything that you expect of it. I believe that you have come into power at a crucial time for British and International politics and I urge you to make the very best of your premiership by focussing on some crucial issues that we, the global citizens, require our governments assistance with.
Climate change has to be the one single issue that should shape every decision you make while in your position. We all already know the threat and how little time we have to address it. As you know, if we do not cut our carbon emissions quickly we will be essentially digging our own graves and the graves of many of the poorest people in our fragile earth. Britain must make a stand both domestically and internationally and we must play a leading role in securing a sustainable future for generations to come. If the world heats up by the expected maximum increase (6 degrees centigrade) we will be in the most dire situation that our species has faced and it will be too late.
Domestically we must ban flights within Britain. Provide subsidised public transdport. Raise tax on fuel and/or road tax. Our Airport and road expansion projects should be curbed. Environmentally friendly local food should be supported. Non-energy saving lightbulbs should be banned. Plastic bags should be taxed. All of these ideas will work. It is time to start a carbon rationing scheme applied to every person in our country and every business. Oil and Coal must be exchanged for modern efficient renewable energy. Your priority must be to educate every Briton about how they must cut their carbon footrprint and quickly enforce this with law. We need to act on this now.
Internationally I think it is time to stand up to the USA and tell them that they must cut their insane overuse of Carbon and push towards sustainability. They are acting far too slow. Environmental improvement should be linked to development all round the world and expertise should be lent if needs be. An international binding agreement on carbon emissions should apply to each and every single country. Poorer nations who rely on export should be helped financially so as to deal with a movement toward locally produced goods. We need a concolodated international effort to make a change. You know the statistics, Stern made it clear what the price will be if we fail to make a move soon. The future of our planet is very much in your hands.
Tony Blair left behind a rather dissapointing legacy. For all the good things he did right he did too many wrong. Please keep focussing on affordable homes, on Education and please do not privatise the National Health Service. We want a health service run not for profit but for people and we can still say we are proud of what we have. Do not take away that right from us. Furthermore I want to see a minimum wage increase on a yearly basis and a guarantee from you that immigrant workers will be afforded the same rights and wages as native ones. Too many young people in Britain earn barely enough to live on and this is unnaceptable. Please keep museums and art galleries free and if possible make more of them free.
Tony Balir did however leave a stain on Britain because of some of his terrible mistakes. Iraq was one and was a disaster. It sickens me to think that my country played a part in a war where 600 000 Iraqis have died and the country is now in a state of civil war. Guarantee the British people you will never again enter into a war for money and oil based on blatant lies. Never again dismiss the voices of millions on the streets, it would be at your own peril. A wat with Iran will not be tolerated.
When will Britain address the Issue of Israel having Nuclear Weopans- this is unacceptable. When will we see that we have no right to nuclear weopans ourselves. It is time to end our old fashioned hypocricy and join the majority of the world in the relative safety of having a nuclear free country. Let us be world leaders, rather than followers of the United States of America. We only distance ourselves from the world, especially the Muslim nations by keeping our nuclear arsenal.
The final and perhaps most immediately urgent issue that we must address is poverty and Aids in Africa. It is unacceptable that a child dies every 3 seconds from poverty- the Western world should not be able to sleep at night. I know you want to make a change. Let us firstly meet our UN Development goal of giving 0.7% of our GNP to international development. Let us stop trying to privatise the economies of Africa. Let us help African farmers financially by supplying them with the tools they require to provide for themselves, their families and their nations- that is their right.
Mr Brown there is more to do than the above and so little time. Please make your Prime Ministership one that will be remembered for all the right reasons.
Yours Sincerely
Someone who cares
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
2)http://www.stoplutonairport.org/
3)http://www.one.org/issues
4) http://www.cnduk.org/
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Blogging
Just a short one.
I am currently in China.
Although i can write this blog I cannot view it or anyone elses blog or, at the moment, the BBC website.
Bit spooky really isn't it.
Got to go- though police might be on their way.....
I am currently in China.
Although i can write this blog I cannot view it or anyone elses blog or, at the moment, the BBC website.
Bit spooky really isn't it.
Got to go- though police might be on their way.....
Monday, June 11, 2007
The 2nd commander
Although we weren't gifted with the chance to vote on the next Prime Minister of Great Britain some of us (Labour Party members and union members) have been given a say as to the next Deputy Prime Minister. The job itself is decided on by the Prime Minister but the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party is decided by us (and the Prime Minister is fully expected to follow suit)
The candidates are strong or at least seem so at first inspection. Hilary Benn, Alan Johnson, Hazel Blears and Peter Hain are all household names of the Blair cabinet and from the start would probably have been favourites. Harriet Harman is a strong candidate although perhaps less well known but it is John Cruddas who is going to get my vote.
John (if i may be so rude) is the only candidate who seems to have any voting record which reflects a personal and thought out opinion rather than one created by the party. He bravely voted against Trident and Student top-up fees both of which i fully support him on. He is environmentally concerned albeit a nuclear power advocate and he seems to have a genuine interest in helping the poor as best he can. I admire him greatly for being a staunch BNP critic in his constituency Dagenham, where the BNP have a large amount of council power. I think a man of principle who is willing to stand up for what he believes is what the Labour Party and the country need.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The G8 In Germany
Once again the G8 has met up in some posh hotel in Europe and made decisions on our behalf. And the outscome? A watered down version of Kyoto to suit the interests of the Americans.
Well done to all those who have taken to the streets in Northern Germany (see below).
Well done to all those who have taken to the streets in Northern Germany (see below).
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Larkin about...
Life isn't all about politics. Life is sometimes about poetry.
This poem has a lot of meaning to me:
Side by side, their faces blurred,
The earl and countess lie in stone,
Their proper habits vaguely shown
As jointed armour, stiffened pleat,
And that faint hint of the absurd--
The little dogs under their feet.
Such plainess of the pre-baroque
Hardly involves the eye, until
It meets his left hand gauntlet, still
Clasped empty in the other; and
One sees, with sharp tender shock,
His hand withdrawn, holding her hand.
They would not think to lie so long.
Such faithfulness in effigy
Was just a detail friends could see:
A sculptor's sweet comissioned grace
Thrown off in helping to prolong
The Latin names around the base.
They would not guess how early in
Their supine stationary voyage
Their air would change to soundless damage,
Turn the old tenantry away;
How soon succeeding eyes begin
To look, not read. Rigidly they
Persisted, linked, through lengths and breadths
Of time. Snow fell, undated. Light
Each summer thronged the grass. A bright
Litter of birdcalls strewed the same
Bone-riddled ground. And up the paths
The endless altered people came,
Washing at their identity.
Now, helpless in the hollow of
An unarmorial age, a trough
Of smoke in slow suspended skeins
Above their scrap of history,
Only an attitude remains:
Time has transfigured them into
Untruth. The stone finality
They hardly meant has come to be
Their final blazon, and to prove
Our almost-instinct almost true:
What will survive of us is love.
-- Philip Larkin
My English teacher told us that this is one of Philip Larkin's most misunderstoof poems, but i couldn't remember why so i picked myself up a poetry book and had a look. I hope that you read the poem too and have some thoughts.
Philip Larkin was a man who appreciated irony, who was obsessed with death and whose poetry has had a great effect on me.
Arundel Tomb, despite what is commonly believed, is not a poem with 'the happy ending' that Larkin seems to be missing. The poem is one of falsehood and dishonesty, one which reflects on the passing of time and a void of love in our world, or at least in Larkin's. To me the poem reveals an insecurity that runs deep within us; that nothing actually survives of us, not love, not a memory, nothing.
The couple with their 'faces blurred' have become nothing but a part destroyed stone carving in a cathedral where people 'wash away' at their identity. The partners who lie together come from an age of stiffness, of tradition and lovelessness and could be seen as a sign of 'love' in a 'loveless age'. The reality of this poem is however not so rosy. The couple 'lie' side by side, a pun of course, as their very existence, dead together and holding hands is a falsehood- love has not survived but in fact their 'love' was a fallacy, a lie.
I have so much more to say, but too little time.
This poem has a lot of meaning to me:
Side by side, their faces blurred,
The earl and countess lie in stone,
Their proper habits vaguely shown
As jointed armour, stiffened pleat,
And that faint hint of the absurd--
The little dogs under their feet.
Such plainess of the pre-baroque
Hardly involves the eye, until
It meets his left hand gauntlet, still
Clasped empty in the other; and
One sees, with sharp tender shock,
His hand withdrawn, holding her hand.
They would not think to lie so long.
Such faithfulness in effigy
Was just a detail friends could see:
A sculptor's sweet comissioned grace
Thrown off in helping to prolong
The Latin names around the base.
They would not guess how early in
Their supine stationary voyage
Their air would change to soundless damage,
Turn the old tenantry away;
How soon succeeding eyes begin
To look, not read. Rigidly they
Persisted, linked, through lengths and breadths
Of time. Snow fell, undated. Light
Each summer thronged the grass. A bright
Litter of birdcalls strewed the same
Bone-riddled ground. And up the paths
The endless altered people came,
Washing at their identity.
Now, helpless in the hollow of
An unarmorial age, a trough
Of smoke in slow suspended skeins
Above their scrap of history,
Only an attitude remains:
Time has transfigured them into
Untruth. The stone finality
They hardly meant has come to be
Their final blazon, and to prove
Our almost-instinct almost true:
What will survive of us is love.
-- Philip Larkin
My English teacher told us that this is one of Philip Larkin's most misunderstoof poems, but i couldn't remember why so i picked myself up a poetry book and had a look. I hope that you read the poem too and have some thoughts.
Philip Larkin was a man who appreciated irony, who was obsessed with death and whose poetry has had a great effect on me.
Arundel Tomb, despite what is commonly believed, is not a poem with 'the happy ending' that Larkin seems to be missing. The poem is one of falsehood and dishonesty, one which reflects on the passing of time and a void of love in our world, or at least in Larkin's. To me the poem reveals an insecurity that runs deep within us; that nothing actually survives of us, not love, not a memory, nothing.
The couple with their 'faces blurred' have become nothing but a part destroyed stone carving in a cathedral where people 'wash away' at their identity. The partners who lie together come from an age of stiffness, of tradition and lovelessness and could be seen as a sign of 'love' in a 'loveless age'. The reality of this poem is however not so rosy. The couple 'lie' side by side, a pun of course, as their very existence, dead together and holding hands is a falsehood- love has not survived but in fact their 'love' was a fallacy, a lie.
I have so much more to say, but too little time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)