You can now join the debate, right here, right now at:
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Friday, 4 May 2012
034- Opinion: Choosing not to choose
I am intrigued and equally saddened by the level of rejection meted out by a trickle of electors, around the chance to install directly elected mayors in various major English cities.
It is widely observed and loathed in political circles, that Great Britain- and especially, England- is unhealthily centralised. There is little scope for local decision-making to emanate from anywhere except Whitehall. Thus by definition, local government in effect is nothing more than a low-level outpost for the national administration.
In my eyes, the options were the following:
Through a combination of mistrust, misunderstanding and disinterest, the majority of cities have opted for Option A: the status quo. That works for the current councils, since their little kingdoms remain intact, and individual councillors can keep alive their hope of being promoted within the ranks of their parties.
Fortunately, the people of Doncaster are wise to this, and have opted to maintain their controversial English Democrats mayor Peter Davies' position, amid opposition from the Labour party cartel, which dominates Doncaster's council and has launched numerous votes of no confidence against him. Disruptive though it may be, I feel it is the essence which is required to breath real direction in local politics. Of course, turnout remains low across the board, but at the very least, it's one route of opening the possibility of not being lead by the usual suspects.
So, for everyone else, except London, Bristol, London, Salford and Doncaster, we can expect more of the same knee-jerk voting behaviour in response to national political events and the continued sense of disinterest in local political issues.
When someone approaches me next, and complains about local facilities yet doesn't vote, I will simply turn around and say that this is what they asked for. They had the choice to choose a leader. Instead, they chose (through either abstention or voting 'no') to allow politicians to continue choosing. The most contact they will get from their leader is a pamphlet, with their cheesy grin emblazoned on the front, pushed through their doors whenever the leader is due for re-election. The leader will only care for what members of their own party want them to do. They will continue to be solely accountable to their political party.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
-chokobo-
It is widely observed and loathed in political circles, that Great Britain- and especially, England- is unhealthily centralised. There is little scope for local decision-making to emanate from anywhere except Whitehall. Thus by definition, local government in effect is nothing more than a low-level outpost for the national administration.
To add insult to injury, the prevailing structure of our local government- a reflection of the national model- is one which favours leadership being determined by those within the political realm, than those without.
Make no mistake about it; being a Tory voter in a Labour heartland, may seem a waste of time in and of itself, but consider that this worthlessness does not change, even if an administration does end up being Conservative-lead, since your vote counts for nowhere beyond your locality.
Our system prefers a tyranny of the majority model, which means that when a sufficient number of surrounding voters, pushes a candidate beyond a certain threshold, all other votes become meaningless. This is both a shortcoming of the first past the post system, and also our political framework.
Make no mistake about it; being a Tory voter in a Labour heartland, may seem a waste of time in and of itself, but consider that this worthlessness does not change, even if an administration does end up being Conservative-lead, since your vote counts for nowhere beyond your locality.
Our system prefers a tyranny of the majority model, which means that when a sufficient number of surrounding voters, pushes a candidate beyond a certain threshold, all other votes become meaningless. This is both a shortcoming of the first past the post system, and also our political framework.
The mayoral referenda held on Thursday 3rd May 2012, were an opportunity to break through this tyrannical model, and allow people to finally have direct influence over who leads them. It was also an opportunity for such leaders, to consult with the Prime Minister in future, lobbying more directly for local needs at national level. Admittedly, it was also the route by which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could reasonably conceive of breaking into northern English Labour council strongholds.
However, at no point were any of these positions made clear. Much like the AV referendum of 2011, this year's proposal was preceded by a combination of latent misinformation or quite simply, no information whatsoever.
In my eyes, the options were the following:
Option A
The status quo. Your council, who you already feel you pay far too much money toward, in relation to the services you receive, decide for themselves who is to lead them. The leader is typically one of three representatives of a small ward, which you are unlikely to have ever visited. This leader makes a poor job of being a ward representative, since they are often more concerned with being a leader than a representative. They're bound up in meetings with potential investors and their millions, rather than with 65 year old Mrs. Smith from up the road, who would like to know why she doesn't feel safe walking in her own neighbourhood, for her weekly bridge game in the local social club. The most contact you get from a leader is a pamphlet, with their cheesy grin emblazoned on the front, pushed through your door whenever they are due for re-election. The leader only really cares for what members of their own party want them to do. They are solely accountable to their political party.
Option B
A better way. Your council, who you already feel you pay far too much money toward, in relation to the services you receive, are made to consider giving you an option to decide who leads them. The leader would be one person, who heads the administration of your entire council area. Though the leader wouldn't necessarily be assigned to a particular neighbourhood, they are however, obliged to conduct themselves in your public interest, since it is you who has placed the leader in their position. This leader could potentially be free to operate outside of the expectations of particular political parties, who often have their interests held primarily with the London elites. Even if they do form part of a political party, it may not necessarily be the same one which dominates your local assembly. They would be tasked with unifying policy from across your city's wards, freeing your local councillor to actually focus on your particular needs. You would finally have a choice in who your leader is, and they would be obliged to keep you informed of what they are doing for you and your city. They would be accountable to you.
Through a combination of mistrust, misunderstanding and disinterest, the majority of cities have opted for Option A: the status quo. That works for the current councils, since their little kingdoms remain intact, and individual councillors can keep alive their hope of being promoted within the ranks of their parties.
 |
| Turnout: 30% |
Fortunately, the people of Doncaster are wise to this, and have opted to maintain their controversial English Democrats mayor Peter Davies' position, amid opposition from the Labour party cartel, which dominates Doncaster's council and has launched numerous votes of no confidence against him. Disruptive though it may be, I feel it is the essence which is required to breath real direction in local politics. Of course, turnout remains low across the board, but at the very least, it's one route of opening the possibility of not being lead by the usual suspects.
So, for everyone else, except London, Bristol, London, Salford and Doncaster, we can expect more of the same knee-jerk voting behaviour in response to national political events and the continued sense of disinterest in local political issues.
When someone approaches me next, and complains about local facilities yet doesn't vote, I will simply turn around and say that this is what they asked for. They had the choice to choose a leader. Instead, they chose (through either abstention or voting 'no') to allow politicians to continue choosing. The most contact they will get from their leader is a pamphlet, with their cheesy grin emblazoned on the front, pushed through their doors whenever the leader is due for re-election. The leader will only care for what members of their own party want them to do. They will continue to be solely accountable to their political party.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
-chokobo-
Monday, 2 April 2012
033 - Government and People: The Line in the Sand
The social response towards proposals to widen government access to personal communications will speak volumes about our position as a free nation.
This has been a busy week for the office of David Cameron. After the budget which left some reeling over a 50p tax cut and Osborne's misreading of demographics concerning a suspected 'granny tax', plus an embarrassing Cornish pasty humiliation during which the coalition majority seemed further out of touch; Cameron claiming to have last purchased a pasty from an establishment no longer in operation whilst his Chancellor admitting he could not remember when his last sampling of the product was, the situation was looking poor.
However this came coupled with the cash-for access scandal where former Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas claimed that £250k was the going rate for dinner with the PM - a faux pas which lead to his resignation later the same day, and No 10 after some deliberation and an early refusal, publishing the details of such meetings - alongside a woman left hospitalised in a critical condition with 40% burns over an ill thought out and unnecessarily inflammatory game of politics and poor advice regarding potential - and ultimately abandoned - union strikes by fuel drivers.
It would be understandable then after one of the most bizarre weeks in recent politics, to expect Mr Cameron and his team to have chosen to spend the weekend in a quiet retreat in order to soothe their wearied nerves, and try to regain control.
Instead, the Home Office has announced that new legislation likely to be announced in a forthcoming royal speech next month would allow intelligence officers to monitor otherwise private communications. The government has claimed though that it would like to push the policy through 'as soon as parliamentary process allows', in similar vein to the Digital Economy Act 2010.
Whilst the intelligence agency involved - GCHQ - would not be able without warrant to access the content of such communication, they would be able to identify individuals or groups and keep record of who one was in contact with, when, and for how long.
The logic behind such policy would be that further measures of control over communication serves a 'protective' purpose - and I use the word 'protective' entirely loosely and with great disdain -. The policy also follows on from wider moves on the online world, including attempts to force ISPs to either contact customers illegally downloading files or sharing copyrighted material online, or cut them off from web access altogether.
The 'method of control' through presumed cohesion and informant monitoring has been trailed before, for instance in February 2010 Labour mooted rewarding citizens who informed on people committing benefit fraud with some of the money saved as a result. Divisive and invasive, or an example of wider observation for the greater benefit of society? Judges also warned of 'big brother society' impacts of allowing the police to monitor suspects via GPS without advanced approval. As former UK information commissioner Richard Thomas pointed out at the time; ID cards are another prime example of a system which when poorly constructed or implemented, can have significant impact on perceived mistrust and monitoring..
The justification for communication monitoring would be that such added insight for the relevant authorities would allow for an opportunity for crime prevention and early interrogation, for instance regarding potential terrorism threats, prevention of illegal activity, or early reaction to other disorderly conduct as witnessed in the English Riots of last year, a topic upon which we wrote extensively. Indeed at the time, Realpolitik postulated over the true implications of David Cameron's 'zero-tolerance' rhetoric, and what this may mean for the future of our freedoms as a society.
For instance, during this speech he pledged to support the 'zero tolerance' approach, a policing system associated with the United States, whereby even minor offences may be prosecuted severely in order to send out a clear message to the masses regarding tolerance of illicit behaviour. With regards to the current legislation, this draws a dark series of suggestions.
Let us remember however, that this policy is by no means David Cameron's invention. Indeed as referenced in the video above, a similar tracking policy was originally mooted by the Labour government but dropped in 2009.
As one may expect, such news has been seized upon by Big Brother watchdogs and general public, likening the intrusive impact of the policy to various literary publications, and displaying a strong backlash. Indeed, the mere suggestion of the looming legality of such a government system has a distinct Orwellian vibe. The Daily Mail has reported the concept has 'undermining privacy by stealth,' and an e-petition has been set up to force debate over the policy's abolition. Former Conservative leadership candidate David Davis has also condemned the plans.
Indeed further comparisons while not entirely like with like, demonstrate the intrusive nature of the legislation. Opening or tampering with physical mail if not the addressee for instance is prohibited under the Postal Services Act 2000.
A clear comparison must therefore be made with online communications in order to fully establish a reliable and valid model for operating in this domain with respect for privacy. It should also be ensured that no arbitrary measures are used to ascertain which communications are malicious. For instance, volume of communication may be entirely benign, as time of day, as individuals involved.
The details of this policy are somewhat disconcerting, particularly when it comes at a time when political and media attention is somewhat elsewhere. For instance, the suggestion that authorities require a warrant to access content of communications is appropriate and a necessity in such policy. However under what circumstances would such warrant be granted? As we have already witnessed, situations involving warrant for arrest and detention without trial - and with limited or even no conclusive evidence - have plagued governments even recently.
However in order to balance this article with a sense of perspective, have we also ourselves to blame for a culture of ubiquitous observation? For instance, given the ease with which people post personal information so freely to social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, or agree to terms and conditions with various e-mailing clients - often without reading the finer details - are we not already subscribing to an 'open-door' society?
Advocates would go further, suggesting that those with nothing to hide should not be concerned. After all, a warrant will be required - if GCHQ suspects a worrying pattern of communication - before any action regarding content can begin. Furthermore, the sheer volume of information available through each individual's everyday communication would make it impossible to monitor it all. However in contrast, what will determine what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' while not sinister at present, must be protected from any future degree of corruption.
The social response to this measure though will be an indicator of our stance as a democracy. That this policy is so readily justified as a measure of observation for our own protection, a play on fear of the consequences were such policies not implemented, is potentially a defining moment. It is a sorry state when the oppressed are successfully portrayed as criminal, while the oppressors a beacon of 'right' and 'justice'.
To grant such powers under the premise of 'protection' undermines the detailed and sophisticated nature of the policy at hand.
However, it is an even sorrier state when the former accepts their subservience so willingly, and ignorantly. That we would gladly remain under such a false impression of freedom and protection is the core of the issue that this policy must highlight. A largely implicit, yet constant psychological device using explicit means of divide and rule and 'us versus them' for the purpose of persuasion, thus ensuring the reliable and perpetual adherence of the masses.
Our acceptance of our 'need for protection' from the higher echelons, and our deference thereto is whilst a commonality of organised society, none the less deplorable. That we should so wantonly offer up our freedoms, and so willingly sacrifice our liberties and forthwith any perceived line in the sand under the assumption that it be for the greater good is an affront to the democratic freedom of expression we so freely claim to promote.
The sad reality of this policy remains. Whilst the public may not like the idea of this policy, they will likely defer to its requirements, accepting as ever that only those at the helm of the ship may control its direction. But is this the right move forward?
Join the debate.
- Realpolitk -
This has been a busy week for the office of David Cameron. After the budget which left some reeling over a 50p tax cut and Osborne's misreading of demographics concerning a suspected 'granny tax', plus an embarrassing Cornish pasty humiliation during which the coalition majority seemed further out of touch; Cameron claiming to have last purchased a pasty from an establishment no longer in operation whilst his Chancellor admitting he could not remember when his last sampling of the product was, the situation was looking poor.
However this came coupled with the cash-for access scandal where former Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas claimed that £250k was the going rate for dinner with the PM - a faux pas which lead to his resignation later the same day, and No 10 after some deliberation and an early refusal, publishing the details of such meetings - alongside a woman left hospitalised in a critical condition with 40% burns over an ill thought out and unnecessarily inflammatory game of politics and poor advice regarding potential - and ultimately abandoned - union strikes by fuel drivers.
It would be understandable then after one of the most bizarre weeks in recent politics, to expect Mr Cameron and his team to have chosen to spend the weekend in a quiet retreat in order to soothe their wearied nerves, and try to regain control.
Instead, the Home Office has announced that new legislation likely to be announced in a forthcoming royal speech next month would allow intelligence officers to monitor otherwise private communications. The government has claimed though that it would like to push the policy through 'as soon as parliamentary process allows', in similar vein to the Digital Economy Act 2010.
Whilst the intelligence agency involved - GCHQ - would not be able without warrant to access the content of such communication, they would be able to identify individuals or groups and keep record of who one was in contact with, when, and for how long.
The logic behind such policy would be that further measures of control over communication serves a 'protective' purpose - and I use the word 'protective' entirely loosely and with great disdain -. The policy also follows on from wider moves on the online world, including attempts to force ISPs to either contact customers illegally downloading files or sharing copyrighted material online, or cut them off from web access altogether.
The 'method of control' through presumed cohesion and informant monitoring has been trailed before, for instance in February 2010 Labour mooted rewarding citizens who informed on people committing benefit fraud with some of the money saved as a result. Divisive and invasive, or an example of wider observation for the greater benefit of society? Judges also warned of 'big brother society' impacts of allowing the police to monitor suspects via GPS without advanced approval. As former UK information commissioner Richard Thomas pointed out at the time; ID cards are another prime example of a system which when poorly constructed or implemented, can have significant impact on perceived mistrust and monitoring..
The justification for communication monitoring would be that such added insight for the relevant authorities would allow for an opportunity for crime prevention and early interrogation, for instance regarding potential terrorism threats, prevention of illegal activity, or early reaction to other disorderly conduct as witnessed in the English Riots of last year, a topic upon which we wrote extensively. Indeed at the time, Realpolitik postulated over the true implications of David Cameron's 'zero-tolerance' rhetoric, and what this may mean for the future of our freedoms as a society.
For instance, during this speech he pledged to support the 'zero tolerance' approach, a policing system associated with the United States, whereby even minor offences may be prosecuted severely in order to send out a clear message to the masses regarding tolerance of illicit behaviour. With regards to the current legislation, this draws a dark series of suggestions.
Let us remember however, that this policy is by no means David Cameron's invention. Indeed as referenced in the video above, a similar tracking policy was originally mooted by the Labour government but dropped in 2009.
As one may expect, such news has been seized upon by Big Brother watchdogs and general public, likening the intrusive impact of the policy to various literary publications, and displaying a strong backlash. Indeed, the mere suggestion of the looming legality of such a government system has a distinct Orwellian vibe. The Daily Mail has reported the concept has 'undermining privacy by stealth,' and an e-petition has been set up to force debate over the policy's abolition. Former Conservative leadership candidate David Davis has also condemned the plans.
Indeed further comparisons while not entirely like with like, demonstrate the intrusive nature of the legislation. Opening or tampering with physical mail if not the addressee for instance is prohibited under the Postal Services Act 2000.
A clear comparison must therefore be made with online communications in order to fully establish a reliable and valid model for operating in this domain with respect for privacy. It should also be ensured that no arbitrary measures are used to ascertain which communications are malicious. For instance, volume of communication may be entirely benign, as time of day, as individuals involved.
The details of this policy are somewhat disconcerting, particularly when it comes at a time when political and media attention is somewhat elsewhere. For instance, the suggestion that authorities require a warrant to access content of communications is appropriate and a necessity in such policy. However under what circumstances would such warrant be granted? As we have already witnessed, situations involving warrant for arrest and detention without trial - and with limited or even no conclusive evidence - have plagued governments even recently.
However in order to balance this article with a sense of perspective, have we also ourselves to blame for a culture of ubiquitous observation? For instance, given the ease with which people post personal information so freely to social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, or agree to terms and conditions with various e-mailing clients - often without reading the finer details - are we not already subscribing to an 'open-door' society?
Advocates would go further, suggesting that those with nothing to hide should not be concerned. After all, a warrant will be required - if GCHQ suspects a worrying pattern of communication - before any action regarding content can begin. Furthermore, the sheer volume of information available through each individual's everyday communication would make it impossible to monitor it all. However in contrast, what will determine what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' while not sinister at present, must be protected from any future degree of corruption.
The social response to this measure though will be an indicator of our stance as a democracy. That this policy is so readily justified as a measure of observation for our own protection, a play on fear of the consequences were such policies not implemented, is potentially a defining moment. It is a sorry state when the oppressed are successfully portrayed as criminal, while the oppressors a beacon of 'right' and 'justice'.
To grant such powers under the premise of 'protection' undermines the detailed and sophisticated nature of the policy at hand.
However, it is an even sorrier state when the former accepts their subservience so willingly, and ignorantly. That we would gladly remain under such a false impression of freedom and protection is the core of the issue that this policy must highlight. A largely implicit, yet constant psychological device using explicit means of divide and rule and 'us versus them' for the purpose of persuasion, thus ensuring the reliable and perpetual adherence of the masses.
Our acceptance of our 'need for protection' from the higher echelons, and our deference thereto is whilst a commonality of organised society, none the less deplorable. That we should so wantonly offer up our freedoms, and so willingly sacrifice our liberties and forthwith any perceived line in the sand under the assumption that it be for the greater good is an affront to the democratic freedom of expression we so freely claim to promote.
The sad reality of this policy remains. Whilst the public may not like the idea of this policy, they will likely defer to its requirements, accepting as ever that only those at the helm of the ship may control its direction. But is this the right move forward?
Join the debate.
- Realpolitk -
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
032- Party Funding Scandal: British Corruption
This week, Britain has been treated to yet another revelation of political corruption, from yet another Government of the Day.
It seems that whether red (Labour) or blue (Conservative), both parties harbour an ingrained wilful ignorance of the people, and will continue to do so unless the mechanics of our system are changed fundamentally.
The Conservatives were quick to defend themselves by pointing out the degree to which the Labour party are bankrolled by various Trade Unions in the country. But on quick observation, it is plain to see that the equivalent of around 90% of the funding from Trade Unions to Labour, is provided by 'individuals' to the Conservatives, which I believe highlights the grand disparity of wealth between individual supporters of the two main parties.
That's not to say that Labour haven't had their moments of attracting funding from wealthy lobbies. We all know about Lord (why oh why...) Peter Mandelson playing guest of honour for Russian Oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, aboard his yacht back in 2008. And much more prominently than this, back in 2001, the same man resigned for having seemingly fast tracked the citizenship applications of two Indian businessmen (Hinduja brothers), in the light of their funding of the Millenium Dome, who had originally had their applications rejected.
Some claim that Labour are controlled by the dictat of Trade Unions, but conversely, it can be argued that these groups are a sensible counterweight to the parliamentary system, after all, only groups can prevail in our system...unless of course, you have a large amount of influence (wealth, economic prowess...) at your disposal, in your capacity as an individual. This might then serve as a convenient catch-all description of many Conservative funders.
Perhaps, some generous funder is behind the latest cut of the top earners' tax rate?
The fact is, this is an endemic problem in the British political system, and policy amendments and well-timed soundbites are not enough to change what is an age-old habit.
What is needed here, is to take a look at the heart of British political life, and to make the fundamental change that will be required for everything else to follow.
For you see, in spite of the fact that neither Lord Mandelson of Labour nor Peter Cruddas of the Conservatives were elected by the British electorate, yet have the power to influence policy, our media and by extension the repeating public, will spin the tail of inherently corrupt politicians, calling for less of them and by extension distancing their actions from the public, out of convenience. Convenience of not having to deal with the smut of politics and (some) politicians, but also, the convenience for those within the administration, for only having to deal with the electorate every five years.
The core of this habitude, to be frank, lies within the heart of the British constitution: the blame starts with our Monarchy.
It is the one piece of the mechanic of our system, which is never considered, beyond superficial amendments to primogeniture, as if that is enough to justify the presence of an unelected entity at the heart of our so-called democracy.
This corruption which we occasionally note from our elected representatives, happens on a daily basis with our Monarchy, yet we have been brainwashed into never questioning it, as if it is somehow above politics, in spite of being the glue which holds the corrupt and partisan practises together.
I dispair that our country is being readied to celebrate yet another 60 years of corruption, unaccountability and deference. (Otherwise called the 'Diamond Jubilee.')
The prime examples are Prince Andrew with his practices of associating with undesirable people or receiving money, which in turn compromises (the albeit grand myth) of his political neutrality. Or his relative Prince Charles, and his overstepping of political convention- a codified constitution's sickly relative- by interfering with the democratic process in favour of his own interests, which are often wrongly portrayed as in the national interest by certain media outlets.
The above links, demonstrate the extent to which even the assumed apolitical core of our system, is clearly riddled with vested interests, and is the lead example of corruption and unaccountability that the rest of the system follows.
An article from the ResPublica's blog, claims that "Monarchy protects the people from parliament." When you consider that the Queen granted Peter Mandelson a peerage in spite of his corruption, it makes you wander where her interests lie. Naturally, how could she oppose practices of which her family are the bastions?
If we are to emancipate our politicians from this cycle of malpractice; if we are to have the British people take a hold of their own political system, then the basis must be the dissolution of the monarchy, and the establishment of a democratic heart, upheld by a codified constitution and Sovereignty vested in all of the British people, rather than an unelected, unaccountable few.
The British people pine after transparency, control and a system which listens to them. This will not be achieved if we continue to criticise politicians without seeking the source. Our elected MPs are merely the buffer zone between the people and the unaccountable core.
Our executive (The Cabinet), which is conflated with the legislature, and which holds the original autocratic power of the Monarchy, wields too much power in the face of a despairing British public. So long as they wield this power, they will not consider a more transparent way.
We must strive for a real democracy for the British people, and that can only be achieved if each and every one of us, starts to take steps to ask for the end of our monarchy, and the beginning of a real British democracy. We must ask the British republican question.
When we remove the heart of the problem, everything else will follow.
-chokobo-
It seems that whether red (Labour) or blue (Conservative), both parties harbour an ingrained wilful ignorance of the people, and will continue to do so unless the mechanics of our system are changed fundamentally.
The Conservatives were quick to defend themselves by pointing out the degree to which the Labour party are bankrolled by various Trade Unions in the country. But on quick observation, it is plain to see that the equivalent of around 90% of the funding from Trade Unions to Labour, is provided by 'individuals' to the Conservatives, which I believe highlights the grand disparity of wealth between individual supporters of the two main parties.
 |
| Source: BBC News |
That's not to say that Labour haven't had their moments of attracting funding from wealthy lobbies. We all know about Lord (why oh why...) Peter Mandelson playing guest of honour for Russian Oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, aboard his yacht back in 2008. And much more prominently than this, back in 2001, the same man resigned for having seemingly fast tracked the citizenship applications of two Indian businessmen (Hinduja brothers), in the light of their funding of the Millenium Dome, who had originally had their applications rejected.
Some claim that Labour are controlled by the dictat of Trade Unions, but conversely, it can be argued that these groups are a sensible counterweight to the parliamentary system, after all, only groups can prevail in our system...unless of course, you have a large amount of influence (wealth, economic prowess...) at your disposal, in your capacity as an individual. This might then serve as a convenient catch-all description of many Conservative funders.
Perhaps, some generous funder is behind the latest cut of the top earners' tax rate?
The fact is, this is an endemic problem in the British political system, and policy amendments and well-timed soundbites are not enough to change what is an age-old habit.
What is needed here, is to take a look at the heart of British political life, and to make the fundamental change that will be required for everything else to follow.
For you see, in spite of the fact that neither Lord Mandelson of Labour nor Peter Cruddas of the Conservatives were elected by the British electorate, yet have the power to influence policy, our media and by extension the repeating public, will spin the tail of inherently corrupt politicians, calling for less of them and by extension distancing their actions from the public, out of convenience. Convenience of not having to deal with the smut of politics and (some) politicians, but also, the convenience for those within the administration, for only having to deal with the electorate every five years.
The core of this habitude, to be frank, lies within the heart of the British constitution: the blame starts with our Monarchy.
It is the one piece of the mechanic of our system, which is never considered, beyond superficial amendments to primogeniture, as if that is enough to justify the presence of an unelected entity at the heart of our so-called democracy.
This corruption which we occasionally note from our elected representatives, happens on a daily basis with our Monarchy, yet we have been brainwashed into never questioning it, as if it is somehow above politics, in spite of being the glue which holds the corrupt and partisan practises together.
I dispair that our country is being readied to celebrate yet another 60 years of corruption, unaccountability and deference. (Otherwise called the 'Diamond Jubilee.')
The prime examples are Prince Andrew with his practices of associating with undesirable people or receiving money, which in turn compromises (the albeit grand myth) of his political neutrality. Or his relative Prince Charles, and his overstepping of political convention- a codified constitution's sickly relative- by interfering with the democratic process in favour of his own interests, which are often wrongly portrayed as in the national interest by certain media outlets.
The above links, demonstrate the extent to which even the assumed apolitical core of our system, is clearly riddled with vested interests, and is the lead example of corruption and unaccountability that the rest of the system follows.
An article from the ResPublica's blog, claims that "Monarchy protects the people from parliament." When you consider that the Queen granted Peter Mandelson a peerage in spite of his corruption, it makes you wander where her interests lie. Naturally, how could she oppose practices of which her family are the bastions?
If we are to emancipate our politicians from this cycle of malpractice; if we are to have the British people take a hold of their own political system, then the basis must be the dissolution of the monarchy, and the establishment of a democratic heart, upheld by a codified constitution and Sovereignty vested in all of the British people, rather than an unelected, unaccountable few.
The British people pine after transparency, control and a system which listens to them. This will not be achieved if we continue to criticise politicians without seeking the source. Our elected MPs are merely the buffer zone between the people and the unaccountable core.
Our executive (The Cabinet), which is conflated with the legislature, and which holds the original autocratic power of the Monarchy, wields too much power in the face of a despairing British public. So long as they wield this power, they will not consider a more transparent way.
We must strive for a real democracy for the British people, and that can only be achieved if each and every one of us, starts to take steps to ask for the end of our monarchy, and the beginning of a real British democracy. We must ask the British republican question.
When we remove the heart of the problem, everything else will follow.
-chokobo-
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
031: Is jury service really 'stuck in the dark ages'?
Juror Joanne Fraill has recently conducted an interview with the Manchester Evening News regarding her recent imprisonment for contacting a defendant on Facebook. Fraill was sentenced in June to 8 months by a judge at the High Court in London for her contact with Jamie Sewart and also admitted to conducting an internet search on Ms Sewart's boyfriend Gary Knox, who was a co-defendant in the case during which time the jury had still been deliberating.
Realpolitik looks at the Fraill case, and questions whether jury service in its current form is an appropriate paradigm with which our judiciary should operate.
While Fraill's intentions may have been innocent in contacting the defendant Sewart after a ruling upon her had been made, her actions resulted in the partial collapse of a still-running drugs trial. Surely regulations behind contacting other individuals involved in such cases are explained at the onset of proceedings? Therefore if so, we can assume that this woman would have been aware that her actions in contacting Sewart, while harmless in intention, were prohibited.
In this sense her claims that jury service is "stuck in the dark ages" are not the issue, as regardless of whether she personally agreed to the rules or not she had been expected by the courts to abide by them during her service. Are her comments therefore a case of 'sour grapes' by a woman who had broken key rules and had been caught out - indeed she mentions that while others had done similar actions she had been used as an example - or does this case shed light on the issue of jury service in its present form as a means of trial and conviction?
While I am not entirely convinced that an imprisonment of 8 months is an adequate response to her actions, it is difficult to ascertain the significance of her actions and their effects on the collapse of the trial without knowing the details behind the case itself.
Optional vs Mandatory
Fraill has also commented suggesting that jury-service should no longer be mandatory, and that opt-out systems should be made available. Here we reach a difficult divide. Whilst it is understandable that the ability to opt out may be logistically prohibitive in that any number of jurors refusing to participate would unnecessarily delay proceedings, does forcing an individual to accept and attend jury service ensure the full co-operation and engagement with their role, something a truly fair and democratic judiciary system requires? Perhaps therefore an 'opt-in' system here would be more appropriate. Indeed an e-petition on madatory jury duty has been created in an attempt to spark government debate such a cause.
On the other hand, we can argue that allowing an 'opt-in' system would result in a significant decrease in the number of people eligible to be called up for jury duty, to the extent that people may be repeatedly called for service. This may over an extended period result in the total number of juries used unrepresentative of the country's population. Therefore the notion that the jury is assembled from 'a collection of your peers' becomes void. When locality and a fair radius within which potential jurors may be expected to travel to reach the court is factored into the equation, then this would further reduce the list of people from which a jury may be collated. In this sense, it makes more sense for jury duty to remain mandatory.
The Jury Itself
However there are wider issues regarding trial by jury. Trial by jury was abolished in India in 1960 - shortly followed by Pakistan - on the basis that jurors are too susceptible to media and public influence and that therefore a truly objective decision was not humanly possible. Psychological research into the susceptibility of eyewitness testimony sheds light on the fallible nature of human memory.
In the Stephen Lawrence trial resolved this morning when sentence is given, 18 years will have passed between events and decision. While DNA evidence remains useful - acknowledging accusations of cross-contamination - any eye witness reports may be highly susceptible to manipulation and distortion either by leading questioning, or the effects of time.
The following video illustrates these aforementioned issues. Whilst this is not an actual scientific experimentm it nevertheless demonstrates the fragile and malleable nature of human memory and the impact that such deficiencies may have on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, evidence which the jury may find significant when debating a decision and drawing their conclusions.
Furthermore there are issues regarding the assumption that all jurors fully understand the statistical or scientific data upon which a prosecution or defense may lay their case. One example is the CSI Effect, whereby the exaggerated portrayal of significance or explanatory power of certain types of evidence leads to jurors either requiring more of these types of evidence to form a decision, or placing more weight during deliberation on these types of evidence in comparison to circumstantial evidence, than is perhaps deserved.
Misinterpretation of statistical evidence has previously led to wrongful conviction, suggesting that issues such as the CSI Effect hold some significance. One example as documented in a paper by Margaret Williams on Roy Meadows' interpretation of conditional probability demonstrates that the misinterpretation of statistical evidence may potentially hold dire consequences for those in defense. Meadows had previously proposed the condition Munchausen's syndrome by proxy which claimed a pattern of behaviour in which care-givers may deliberately exaggerate, fabricate and/or induce physical, psychological, behavioural, and/or mental health problems in others. There is debate as to whether MSbP can be classed as a mental illness.
Over 200 women in the UK in the last two decades have been convicted of either murder or mistreatment of 1 or 2 of their infants who died without known cause in sudden infant death syndrome, or what is commonly referred to as 'cot death'. Meadows claimed that about 1/8400 children would die of cot death in any given year, and that this reduces to 1/1600 for two children, and 1/73m for three children. These figures have been criticised as they assume each occurrence of fatality is independent of the other, when in fact cot-death rates appear higher in families with genetic susceptibility - withheld from original defences -, where one carer is a smoker, and among babies sleeping face down. Meadows' key error was to assume the independence of each event, and his failure to recognise that in the case of cot deaths that the target is moved by selecting a family with two such fatalities for investigation.
It was due to Meadows' initial reports and the resulting misinterpretation of statistics by the jury that Sally Clark was imprisoned for the murder of her two sons in 1999, a conviction which was later overturned in 2003 by the Court of Appeal. Clark was later found dead as a result of acute alcohol intoxification in 2007, which her family claimed was due to her inability to cope with the false conviction, though coroners countered that no evidence pointed to intended suicide.
Conclusion
This raises key questions over the use of jury in criminal conviction, and would add weight to Fraill's comments that jury service and the way the courts operate currently are both outdated methods. Firstly, if indeed the jury is such a fallable paradigm, then perhaps the questions regarding 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' are academic? This begs the question of a suitable replacement, and in any democratic society even minor change should, in my opinion, be put to referendum and vote. - Sadly our poor voter turnout percentages for even general elections would likely prohibit any such movement. - On the other hand, is a court without the presence of a jury of peers really an appropriate solution in a democratic society? If not then we are faced with a difficult compromise, one which may lead as a by-product to further repetition of cases such as Joanne Fraill.
- Realpolitik -
Realpolitik looks at the Fraill case, and questions whether jury service in its current form is an appropriate paradigm with which our judiciary should operate.
Fraill's comments in the M.E.N.
Source: Manchester Evening News, January 3 2012
While Fraill's intentions may have been innocent in contacting the defendant Sewart after a ruling upon her had been made, her actions resulted in the partial collapse of a still-running drugs trial. Surely regulations behind contacting other individuals involved in such cases are explained at the onset of proceedings? Therefore if so, we can assume that this woman would have been aware that her actions in contacting Sewart, while harmless in intention, were prohibited.
In this sense her claims that jury service is "stuck in the dark ages" are not the issue, as regardless of whether she personally agreed to the rules or not she had been expected by the courts to abide by them during her service. Are her comments therefore a case of 'sour grapes' by a woman who had broken key rules and had been caught out - indeed she mentions that while others had done similar actions she had been used as an example - or does this case shed light on the issue of jury service in its present form as a means of trial and conviction?
While I am not entirely convinced that an imprisonment of 8 months is an adequate response to her actions, it is difficult to ascertain the significance of her actions and their effects on the collapse of the trial without knowing the details behind the case itself.
Optional vs Mandatory
Fraill has also commented suggesting that jury-service should no longer be mandatory, and that opt-out systems should be made available. Here we reach a difficult divide. Whilst it is understandable that the ability to opt out may be logistically prohibitive in that any number of jurors refusing to participate would unnecessarily delay proceedings, does forcing an individual to accept and attend jury service ensure the full co-operation and engagement with their role, something a truly fair and democratic judiciary system requires? Perhaps therefore an 'opt-in' system here would be more appropriate. Indeed an e-petition on madatory jury duty has been created in an attempt to spark government debate such a cause.
On the other hand, we can argue that allowing an 'opt-in' system would result in a significant decrease in the number of people eligible to be called up for jury duty, to the extent that people may be repeatedly called for service. This may over an extended period result in the total number of juries used unrepresentative of the country's population. Therefore the notion that the jury is assembled from 'a collection of your peers' becomes void. When locality and a fair radius within which potential jurors may be expected to travel to reach the court is factored into the equation, then this would further reduce the list of people from which a jury may be collated. In this sense, it makes more sense for jury duty to remain mandatory.
The Jury Itself
However there are wider issues regarding trial by jury. Trial by jury was abolished in India in 1960 - shortly followed by Pakistan - on the basis that jurors are too susceptible to media and public influence and that therefore a truly objective decision was not humanly possible. Psychological research into the susceptibility of eyewitness testimony sheds light on the fallible nature of human memory.
In the Stephen Lawrence trial resolved this morning when sentence is given, 18 years will have passed between events and decision. While DNA evidence remains useful - acknowledging accusations of cross-contamination - any eye witness reports may be highly susceptible to manipulation and distortion either by leading questioning, or the effects of time.
The following video illustrates these aforementioned issues. Whilst this is not an actual scientific experimentm it nevertheless demonstrates the fragile and malleable nature of human memory and the impact that such deficiencies may have on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, evidence which the jury may find significant when debating a decision and drawing their conclusions.
Furthermore there are issues regarding the assumption that all jurors fully understand the statistical or scientific data upon which a prosecution or defense may lay their case. One example is the CSI Effect, whereby the exaggerated portrayal of significance or explanatory power of certain types of evidence leads to jurors either requiring more of these types of evidence to form a decision, or placing more weight during deliberation on these types of evidence in comparison to circumstantial evidence, than is perhaps deserved.
Misinterpretation of statistical evidence has previously led to wrongful conviction, suggesting that issues such as the CSI Effect hold some significance. One example as documented in a paper by Margaret Williams on Roy Meadows' interpretation of conditional probability demonstrates that the misinterpretation of statistical evidence may potentially hold dire consequences for those in defense. Meadows had previously proposed the condition Munchausen's syndrome by proxy which claimed a pattern of behaviour in which care-givers may deliberately exaggerate, fabricate and/or induce physical, psychological, behavioural, and/or mental health problems in others. There is debate as to whether MSbP can be classed as a mental illness.
Over 200 women in the UK in the last two decades have been convicted of either murder or mistreatment of 1 or 2 of their infants who died without known cause in sudden infant death syndrome, or what is commonly referred to as 'cot death'. Meadows claimed that about 1/8400 children would die of cot death in any given year, and that this reduces to 1/1600 for two children, and 1/73m for three children. These figures have been criticised as they assume each occurrence of fatality is independent of the other, when in fact cot-death rates appear higher in families with genetic susceptibility - withheld from original defences -, where one carer is a smoker, and among babies sleeping face down. Meadows' key error was to assume the independence of each event, and his failure to recognise that in the case of cot deaths that the target is moved by selecting a family with two such fatalities for investigation.
It was due to Meadows' initial reports and the resulting misinterpretation of statistics by the jury that Sally Clark was imprisoned for the murder of her two sons in 1999, a conviction which was later overturned in 2003 by the Court of Appeal. Clark was later found dead as a result of acute alcohol intoxification in 2007, which her family claimed was due to her inability to cope with the false conviction, though coroners countered that no evidence pointed to intended suicide.
Conclusion
This raises key questions over the use of jury in criminal conviction, and would add weight to Fraill's comments that jury service and the way the courts operate currently are both outdated methods. Firstly, if indeed the jury is such a fallable paradigm, then perhaps the questions regarding 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' are academic? This begs the question of a suitable replacement, and in any democratic society even minor change should, in my opinion, be put to referendum and vote. - Sadly our poor voter turnout percentages for even general elections would likely prohibit any such movement. - On the other hand, is a court without the presence of a jury of peers really an appropriate solution in a democratic society? If not then we are faced with a difficult compromise, one which may lead as a by-product to further repetition of cases such as Joanne Fraill.
What are your thoughts? Join the debate.
- Realpolitik -
Friday, 23 December 2011
030 - Is 'coloured' offensive?
This stems from an old article we recently stumbled across on the BBC website, where Tory MP for Harwich and North Essex Bernard Jenkin found himself in hot water after using the term 'coloured' in a radio interview.
Naturally this provoked some considerable reaction, as Labour MP Dawn Butler labelled his comments as "patronising and derogatory". Realpolitik asks however whether 'coloured' is offensive, or whether we are drawing needless boundaries in language to create an unnecessary failsafe.
As with many of these contentious topics, the source of any potential offense should lie in the context in which such comments are made, rather than the label or term itself. For instance, to label an individual as 'coloured' may not necessarily intend a degree of offense, while other terms which may usually be perceived as 'less likely to offend' may be used in a more insulting tone.
Toyin Agbetu, founder of Ligali, an African-British human rights organisation claimed at the time about the term 'coloured' that:
Perhaps another motivating factor behind the use of such terms in language is found in the change of language itself. It is perhaps, that any perceived ignorance lies in a lack of awareness of the present rather than the past or historical context to which Mr Agbetu refers. It may be the case as with a great volume of language, that such terms while perceived as socially acceptable in past decades are now regarded as either taboo, or socially unacceptable.
This suggests that there is no ignorance of the meaning or historical significance of the word as such, rather a lack of awareness of the re-interpretation of a word in a later society. This - it must be noted - is not to condone the use of the word nor discredit it, rather to add another perspective on the situation. It must be clear, that the evolution of language must be recognised especially by politicians when making comment on society, yet to jump to the conclusion that such comments were made to segregate or offend is somewhat blind given the apparent lack of context in which such comments were made. Ignorant tirades such as those examined in our previous article 'My Tram Experience' where context is clear are another matter.
Another contentious angle, would be to suggest that sweeping umbrella terms such as 'coloured' should be made taboo, or socially unacceptable to avoid any such insult or accidental misinterpretation. Whilst one I'm sure can easily appreciate why people affected by such labels may not wish for their identity or cultural significance to be obscured and underwhelmed or undervalued by mass-terms, is the answer really to increase our labelling?
For instance, to be more specific than just 'white' or 'coloured', Mr Agbetu seems to suggest that the cure is in the detail. While 'British Asian', 'Afro-Caribbean' and 'Black African' - which are still I admit generalised terms - lend a hand to separating those who may otherwise have been labelled 'coloured', they also risk camping and cliquing individuals by pigeon holing and dividing into categories and subsets. However is further division in terminology the answer to resolving division of society?
Indeed in the United States where the history of Jim Crow laws creates a social frowning upon the word 'coloured', use of the terms 'coloured' or 'person of colour' may show its hand to resolving the argument, as it is generally used in a collective sense to positively amalgamate different cultures who may have shared similar experiences in society. Here 'colour' is used in a positive sense to collect and gather rather than as a tool of insult and derision.
Again, context as mentioned before is key, but it is saddening to think we could spend time arguing over segregation in society to only seek to resolve this with further labelling and division. While multiculturalism may not be something that can be easily thrust upon a person and forced, it should be allowed to become more of a natural progression rather than a series of legislative or social boundary-making. In this sense, Mr Jenkin may have been wrong to use the term 'coloured', but it is debate over the topic rather than contempt and labelling that will drive us forward.
What are your thoughts? Join the debate.
- Realpolitik -
Bernard Jenkin: Context is key to understanding the offensive nature of 'coloured'.
Source: BBC Website (bbc.co.uk/news).
Source: BBC Website (bbc.co.uk/news).
Naturally this provoked some considerable reaction, as Labour MP Dawn Butler labelled his comments as "patronising and derogatory". Realpolitik asks however whether 'coloured' is offensive, or whether we are drawing needless boundaries in language to create an unnecessary failsafe.
As with many of these contentious topics, the source of any potential offense should lie in the context in which such comments are made, rather than the label or term itself. For instance, to label an individual as 'coloured' may not necessarily intend a degree of offense, while other terms which may usually be perceived as 'less likely to offend' may be used in a more insulting tone.
Toyin Agbetu, founder of Ligali, an African-British human rights organisation claimed at the time about the term 'coloured' that:
"Those who still use the term tend to be from older generations... ...if they knew the history of the word, perhaps they would think again."This is somewhat contentious, as if anything logic would dictate that life experience alone - whether direct or indirect - would perhaps make one more acutely aware of the historical context from which such comments derive.
Perhaps another motivating factor behind the use of such terms in language is found in the change of language itself. It is perhaps, that any perceived ignorance lies in a lack of awareness of the present rather than the past or historical context to which Mr Agbetu refers. It may be the case as with a great volume of language, that such terms while perceived as socially acceptable in past decades are now regarded as either taboo, or socially unacceptable.
This suggests that there is no ignorance of the meaning or historical significance of the word as such, rather a lack of awareness of the re-interpretation of a word in a later society. This - it must be noted - is not to condone the use of the word nor discredit it, rather to add another perspective on the situation. It must be clear, that the evolution of language must be recognised especially by politicians when making comment on society, yet to jump to the conclusion that such comments were made to segregate or offend is somewhat blind given the apparent lack of context in which such comments were made. Ignorant tirades such as those examined in our previous article 'My Tram Experience' where context is clear are another matter.
Another contentious angle, would be to suggest that sweeping umbrella terms such as 'coloured' should be made taboo, or socially unacceptable to avoid any such insult or accidental misinterpretation. Whilst one I'm sure can easily appreciate why people affected by such labels may not wish for their identity or cultural significance to be obscured and underwhelmed or undervalued by mass-terms, is the answer really to increase our labelling?
For instance, to be more specific than just 'white' or 'coloured', Mr Agbetu seems to suggest that the cure is in the detail. While 'British Asian', 'Afro-Caribbean' and 'Black African' - which are still I admit generalised terms - lend a hand to separating those who may otherwise have been labelled 'coloured', they also risk camping and cliquing individuals by pigeon holing and dividing into categories and subsets. However is further division in terminology the answer to resolving division of society?
Indeed in the United States where the history of Jim Crow laws creates a social frowning upon the word 'coloured', use of the terms 'coloured' or 'person of colour' may show its hand to resolving the argument, as it is generally used in a collective sense to positively amalgamate different cultures who may have shared similar experiences in society. Here 'colour' is used in a positive sense to collect and gather rather than as a tool of insult and derision.
Again, context as mentioned before is key, but it is saddening to think we could spend time arguing over segregation in society to only seek to resolve this with further labelling and division. While multiculturalism may not be something that can be easily thrust upon a person and forced, it should be allowed to become more of a natural progression rather than a series of legislative or social boundary-making. In this sense, Mr Jenkin may have been wrong to use the term 'coloured', but it is debate over the topic rather than contempt and labelling that will drive us forward.
What are your thoughts? Join the debate.
- Realpolitik -
Monday, 28 November 2011
029- My Tram Experience
It has been a while since we have posted onto Realpolitik, but the following event has finally jolted us into writing again.
Thinking on a tangent, I wonder which aspect of this video the The Sun and the Conservative Party consider a symptom of Broken Britain? If you have followed their dialogue over the last five years at least, once their rage about the sexual exploits, drugs consumption and social failings of inner-city teenagers had subsided, talk often moved onto repeated calls for "frank" and "honest" discussions about the effects of mass immigration. What they seem ready to gloss over though, are the vile outbursts from people such as this woman. Some people like to suggest that non-white members of society purposely disenfranchise themselves from others. This of course, is an odious and simplistic suggestion which does nothing to address a social phenomenon which is more a question of exclusion rather than isolation. This behaviour has developed from historical social contexts which prevail into the present day, a topic which will be discussed in the near future. (1)
Let me make it clear; I am all for "frank" and "honest" discussions about migration. What I am not all for is the type of behaviour demonstrated in the video. I find it somewhat incomprehensible that on a superficial level, Britons seem to be incapable of talking about something as natural and ultimately innocuous as the (free) movement of people, without either frothing at the mouth or spinning a tale about the dangers of the darkie. Social commentators and laypeople alike, need to realise that before they begin to blame arbitrary social and economic problems on the presence of non-Whites, they should first look at their own circumstances.
I think it's safe to say that tabloid journalists are employed, and the more they write about topics which tap into the inner-most insecurities of their audiences, the more money they will continue to make. I also think it is a fairly reasonable assumption to make that the majority of people who may choose to purchase one of these newspapers, also possess a degree of disposable income. I realise with the former case, that income could be the result of either employment or welfare, but the point is, it may be safe to assume they are not financially destitute. In the light of this, why then, are these people complaining about other people earning money? Why are they complaining about them having houses? Why are they complaining about them going about their daily business, in as anonymous a fashion as humanly possible?
So the following Youtube video by user ladyk89 is growing rapidly in viewer numbers, and is now one of the top-trends on Twitter today: #MyTramExperience, in which we are all treated to a cheap and foul-mouthed tirade from a Bigoted Briton.
Cheap is the correct valuation of her diatribe, against all of the so-called ethnic minorities aboard a tram car in Croydon, Greater London. Cheap, is also the correct term to describe the intellectual value of the types of British tabloids who have served as the catalyst for this type of outburst in the post-9th September 2011 world we now inhabit. (I'm looking at you publishers of The Sun, The Daily Mail and the Daily Express for starters.)
Whilst it would of course be truly ignorant of me to insinuate that xenophobia finds its roots in the the inception of the War on Terror, there is no doubt in my mind that there has been a a more marked focus on the presence of non-Whites in British/Western society ever since that fateful day. Discourse since that point in time surrounding human migration, has mainly focused on the so-called 'threat from within' from those with origins from without.
The female antagonist must surely be psychologically disturbed. Evidently, the short video clips gives us no cues as to why she decided it would be appropriate for her outburst to start on a crowded tram- in the south of the most ethnically diverse metropolis in the United Kingdom, if not the world- but no rational human being would flout public decorum in such a manner.*
 |
| UNHELPFUL: The Sun and its headlines designed to whip up public ire against immigrants, with myths of overcrowding. |
Let me make it clear; I am all for "frank" and "honest" discussions about migration. What I am not all for is the type of behaviour demonstrated in the video. I find it somewhat incomprehensible that on a superficial level, Britons seem to be incapable of talking about something as natural and ultimately innocuous as the (free) movement of people, without either frothing at the mouth or spinning a tale about the dangers of the darkie. Social commentators and laypeople alike, need to realise that before they begin to blame arbitrary social and economic problems on the presence of non-Whites, they should first look at their own circumstances.
I think it's safe to say that tabloid journalists are employed, and the more they write about topics which tap into the inner-most insecurities of their audiences, the more money they will continue to make. I also think it is a fairly reasonable assumption to make that the majority of people who may choose to purchase one of these newspapers, also possess a degree of disposable income. I realise with the former case, that income could be the result of either employment or welfare, but the point is, it may be safe to assume they are not financially destitute. In the light of this, why then, are these people complaining about other people earning money? Why are they complaining about them having houses? Why are they complaining about them going about their daily business, in as anonymous a fashion as humanly possible?
 |
| UNHELPFUL: The Daily Mail and it's usual scaremongering surrounding the presence of "outsiders" |
It is this type of behaviour -this aggravating commentary which dishes out limited and insular perceptions of the British nation- which is the catalyst for the type of outburst that the above woman exhibited, or the behaviour of the likes of the EDL.
The only slant that I can offer against the target of the tirade in the video, is that although she challenged the antagonist, she adopted a lowly position when explaining the reason why she was in the country. When that woman gained the right to work, the only person she ought to feel compelled to answer to are the authorities. It is a widely banded about myth that immigrants (solely) take on the jobs that people born in Britain turn their noses up to. A job is a job at the end of the day, and the female challenger ought to have more pride in her employed status, rather than feigning subservience in order to pacify a bigot.
At the end of it all, I still find myself pitying those who harbour racist (political) sensibilities. Not so much because of the perennial hatred for other human beings, and the amount of energy they must expend in doing so, but more because of their consistent inability to express their point of view in a generally palatable manner.
As a proud and staunch advocate democratic society, I believe that every opinion has the right to be heard. What parliament and society must strive for, are more opportunities to establish a level platform for genuine and profound discussion; to air the dirty laundry. Because the longer we continue to gloss over the cracks of a society of which certain elements are desperate to be heard- no matter how extreme their views- these random, gratuitously violent outbursts will only increase in frequency.
There can be no platform given to violent political and social expression of any form, for this is the antithesis of democracy.
In closing, I stand by my assertion that the vile woman in this video is deranged. There is nothing about her outburst which evokes the sense of her being a reasonable individual. Negative discourse on human migration has its place in our society and I wish that the current government of the day had adopted a more intellectual approach than making a sweeping declaration that multiculturalism had failed. (Both Cameron's and Merkel's commentaries on this issue, seem to me to be a case of European social protectionism, in the face of economic uncertainty for the masses, but this is a topic for another day.(2) It is that type of narrow-minded expressionism, which feeds the irrationality of violent xenophobes throughout society.
When the female aggressor is handed a suitable punishment by the law courts, a useful next step would be to educate her on the appropriate method of expressing one's opinion in society. Additionally, provision to ensure her child does not spiral down the same path of hatred would go a long way to improving his future prospects. I am already sorry that that poor child will one day have to witness the video of his mother demonstrating the worst aspects of British society.
Realpolitik will be making a special emphasis on posting entries surrounding national identity, migration and demographics in the hope of doing our bit to foster constructive, democratic debate surrounding the essence of the British (nation-)state, and to allow a platform for people to express their views.
We welcome you to continue the debate, as we enter into a new phase of posting on Realpolitik.
-Realpolitik-
Further reading:
The only slant that I can offer against the target of the tirade in the video, is that although she challenged the antagonist, she adopted a lowly position when explaining the reason why she was in the country. When that woman gained the right to work, the only person she ought to feel compelled to answer to are the authorities. It is a widely banded about myth that immigrants (solely) take on the jobs that people born in Britain turn their noses up to. A job is a job at the end of the day, and the female challenger ought to have more pride in her employed status, rather than feigning subservience in order to pacify a bigot.
At the end of it all, I still find myself pitying those who harbour racist (political) sensibilities. Not so much because of the perennial hatred for other human beings, and the amount of energy they must expend in doing so, but more because of their consistent inability to express their point of view in a generally palatable manner.
As a proud and staunch advocate democratic society, I believe that every opinion has the right to be heard. What parliament and society must strive for, are more opportunities to establish a level platform for genuine and profound discussion; to air the dirty laundry. Because the longer we continue to gloss over the cracks of a society of which certain elements are desperate to be heard- no matter how extreme their views- these random, gratuitously violent outbursts will only increase in frequency.
There can be no platform given to violent political and social expression of any form, for this is the antithesis of democracy.
In closing, I stand by my assertion that the vile woman in this video is deranged. There is nothing about her outburst which evokes the sense of her being a reasonable individual. Negative discourse on human migration has its place in our society and I wish that the current government of the day had adopted a more intellectual approach than making a sweeping declaration that multiculturalism had failed. (Both Cameron's and Merkel's commentaries on this issue, seem to me to be a case of European social protectionism, in the face of economic uncertainty for the masses, but this is a topic for another day.(2) It is that type of narrow-minded expressionism, which feeds the irrationality of violent xenophobes throughout society.
When the female aggressor is handed a suitable punishment by the law courts, a useful next step would be to educate her on the appropriate method of expressing one's opinion in society. Additionally, provision to ensure her child does not spiral down the same path of hatred would go a long way to improving his future prospects. I am already sorry that that poor child will one day have to witness the video of his mother demonstrating the worst aspects of British society.
Realpolitik will be making a special emphasis on posting entries surrounding national identity, migration and demographics in the hope of doing our bit to foster constructive, democratic debate surrounding the essence of the British (nation-)state, and to allow a platform for people to express their views.
We welcome you to continue the debate, as we enter into a new phase of posting on Realpolitik.
-Realpolitik-
 |
| *As per this comment from the original uploader of the video, the female antagonist may well have been psychologically challenged, as according to this, she had allegedly been abusing the tram passengers for 20 minutes. |
Further reading:
- Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Nationalism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#WhaNat
- Wikipedia: Nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)