Syria: What's Right is Never Easy

Yesterday MP’s in the House of Commons voted to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria in an attempt to target and degrade the so-called Islamic State (Daesh).  Overall 397 MP’s were in favour and 223 were against.    

Last night it seemed as though every social media user had assumed the role of foreign secretary.  Everybody has their own opinion as to the best way to deal with the situation in Syria and Iraq (albeit some people are more informed than others). Many people took to Twitter and Facebook to express their immediate emotional response of how “fucking disgusted” and “ashamed” they were  that the UK was going to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria.  Many people, with their display pictures coloured in the French flag, expressed profound outrage that seemingly “thousands of innocent people” were now going to be killed. 

But unfortunately (perhaps controversially) I take a different view.

I’m proud of my country.

I’m proud that the UK has decided, by a democratic process – a debate lasting 10 hours in the House of Commons – to stand up for what it believes to be right: freedom, human rights, democracy, justice; the right to live and to love in peace and harmony without fear or coercion; the right to individualism; the right to express one’s views whether religious, secular, political, or even what you think of Brussels sprouts!

I don’t have the vocabulary to describe how atrocious the so-called Islamic State is.  They are the antithesis to civilisation and human progress; truly, “medieval monsters” as the PM said.  You’ve seen the news stories of the beheadings, of the Paris attacks - but that’s only the beginning.  If you don’t follow the news particularly closely you might have missed some grim details.  I think it’s reasonable to say that you should be in possession of the facts, and then acknowledge the complexity of the situation, before you jump to the conclusion that UK airstrikes in Syria is the wrong thing to do. 

In 2014, Islamic State fighters stormed Northern Iraq, then moved into Syria, and declared it a caliphate: “a state governed in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph” (BBC News).  In March this year, the Red Cross estimated that up to 10 million people were living within this area that Daesh claimed to be a caliphate.  If you don’t fall within what IS deem to be their interpretation of Islamic law, then you’re either taxed, forced to convert to Islam, or you’re killed.

This has resulted in massacres of the Iraqi and Syrian people.  For example, when one Iraqi town was reclaimed from IS, mass graves were found: graves containing the bodies of women who were deemed too old to be sold as sex slaves and were therefore murdered.  Gay men have also been thrown to their deaths from tall buildings because, under Islamic State law, homosexuality is a sin.

At this point you accuse me, and others who want to oppose this evil, of scaremongering.  But the facts speak for themselves.  No sensible person would deliberately scaremonger to start a military campaign, but what the so called Islamic State are doing in Iraq and Syria, what they did in Paris, what they could do in a UK city, is terrifying to think about.  It is true, you cannot destroy an ideology; however you can destroy the terrorists who use it to commit heinous crimes.

It is too simplistic an approach to say that you oppose military intervention in Syria because innocent people might be killed. Innocent people are dying right now in the so-called Islamic State.  They’re being gunned down in sporadic attacks, or being executed in a public display to disseminate fear - all because of their religion, nationality, sexuality, or because Daesh soldiers just don’t like the look of them.  UK airstrikes will not solve the problem – there is no quick-fix solution to this – but it will degrade them to the point where they can be destroyed by ground forces.  Many claim that airstrikes can’t discriminate between terrorists and civilians and this is true.  Airstrikes have to be used accurately and with the right intelligence: Britain has demonstrated from the recent airstrikes carried out in Iraq that it is capable of this.  The airstrikes are strategic; planes are not dropping bombs on random parts of Syria.  The airstrike carried out immediately after the vote took place targeted Daesh’s oil supply – cut off their funding and their power diminishes.  Some experts believe that 70% of IS troops are fighting for Daesh because they were forced to do so or because they felt like they had no choice – this is not a legitimate military force.  With effective airstrikes supporting moderate opposition forces fighting on the ground, Daesh will eventually crumble.    

It is not easy to accept that Western airstrikes will result in civilian casualties in Syria – this is the reality of war.  It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but the long term goal of defeating Daesh has to be weighed up against the short term potential civilian casualties - this was the struggle for MP’s in the House of Commons yesterday.  It’s important that these extremists are stopped not just for our own safety, but to liberate the potentially millions of people that suffer under the IS regime.  If there is a better option than airstrikes it wasn’t put forward by any opposition.  I think we would be responsible for the deaths of more innocent Syrians if we sat and did nothing when we had the opportunity to act. 

Seemingly the only other option that has been put forward by those who oppose airstrikes (if they put forward any at all) was a “political process”.  This is what Jeremy Corbyn said should be used to stop IS when asked by Andrew Marr if he was against bombing Syria under any circumstances.  What does a “political process” actually mean? It seems to imply that Daesh are politicians, diplomats, negotiators: rational men who will come round a table and reach a compromise with the West.  But they’re not reasonable, nor should we want to seek a political settlement with them.  They’re barbarians.  I assume a political solution pertains to the Assad government and the moderate opposition, but this civil war cannot be dealt with when Daesh have claimed much of Syria as an Islamic State. 

One argument has been suggested to oppose airstrikes that I think is irrelevant.  Many claim that airstrikes are a waste of money when there is a lack of funding for public services such as the NHS.  How the government budgets is an entirely different debate that is battled out time and time again in parliament.  If you don’t agree with something the government is doing then of course you’ll think it’s a waste of money.  This economic argument only detracts from the real problem of what to do about Daesh.  If you don’t support airstrikes because you think it’s a waste of money, then by that logic the country should have no armed forces at all because defending ourselves and fighting for what’s right isn’t worth spending any money on.  Pacifist arguments are idealised: imagine all the people (Lennon)... Key word being imagine, it's sadly not the reality.   

If you oppose military action in Syria because you think it could make Britain a target for terrorists then Daesh have already won.  It would be wrong not take action against the terrorists out of fear of how they might retaliate.  Britain, alongside the Western coalition, is stronger than fear, evil, and terrorism.  The threat to Britain was already imminent before the parliament voted to extend airstrikes into Syria.  This is where we now have to put our trust in the police and counter terrorism forces that work to protect us. 

One of the legitimate concerns for not backing airstrikes in Syria is the absence of an exit strategy after the bombing stops.  Almost everyone acknowledges that some sort of ground force will be needed; but where will this come from?  The government is saying that there is a 70,000 strong force to defeat Daesh on the ground after airstrikes have disabled them.  The number is accurate, but this force does not exist as a cohesive unit.  The government is assuming (possibly hoping) that the 70,000 are moderate and will want to work together to defeat Daesh once and for all in Iraq and Syria.  The consequence if this assumption proves to be incorrect is that David Cameron might find he spoke too soon when he ruled out "boots on the ground".  The international coalition conducting airstrikes might be able to cut the head of the snake, but their ground troops could be needed to kill the body.  Then once Daesh is defeated, there’s still the pre-existing problem of the civil war in Syria.

The debate seemed to me to present a lose-lose situation: to oppose is to be a “terrorist sympathiser” (in the words of the PM which were met with justified criticism), but to support is to murder innocent people.  Despite what claims both sides made about public opinion being on their side, most reasonable, thoughtful people are struck by this ambivalence.  Evidently some of the concerns about tackling Daesh and their ‘Islamic State’ with airstrikes in Syria are very real.  But I don’t think this should make us idle; I don’t think it should make us a bystander to flagrant atrocities that are being committed by these extremists.  Complacency quickly becomes complicity.  Our friends have called for help and it is right that we are answering.         

How to Troll a Middle Eastern Magazine

This notification was recently emailed to journalism students at Strathclyde University.  I think there's a few things misguided here...  I interpreted the notice as satirical so I responded accordingly.

Hi my name is Gemma Emmerson and I am deputy editor of a magazine and website called Perfect Fit. We have an exciting opportunity for journalism students to get their work published and start to build up their portfolio.

I am looking for articles that are suitable for the modern Middle Eastern male aged 18-40 who likes to eat healthily, work out, look good and spend money! Perfect Fit is published in Kuwait but the website www.perfectfitmagazine.com is available worldwide, and it is online content that I am looking for.

We do not pay for online articles however if I like one of your articles enough and I want it to go in the magazine then I will pay for the contribution. This is the second year we have contacted unis for student contributions. Last year, a student named Danyal Khan got in touch with me and after many free contributions (his work ethic and quality of writing really impressed him) I offered him regular paid work to supply us with sports news for the website; you can see all of his articles online. As a journalism student though, the opportunity to get your work published online is  great incentive; I consider ALL WORK and the more you write, the more we publish; there is no limit to the amount of articles I can put onto the website. A few house rules…

Culturally, this is a masculine, men only magazine. Alcohol is illegal in Kuwait so please no ‘hangover workouts’ or anything like that. Homosexuality is also forbidden (not our personal view of course) but it means we cannot have any ‘gay guy’s gym guide’. Also please no female references, Kuwait is one of the most liberal of the Middle Eastern countries but gyms are still separated by gender so no ‘boyfriend/girlfriend training sessions’, or ‘what she says vs. what she means’ features and definitely no sex tips!

Finally, if you are writing training/workout guides (this is the biggest section of the magazine) please remember that in Kuwait it can often be over 40-degrees outside. There will be no ‘getting off the bus a stop earlier’ or outdoor bootcamps, it is simply too hot. Kuwaitis go to the gym or the mall to shop, eat and watch movies and that’s it! Nearly everything is done indoors where it is cool. As I mentioned before, the main pursuit in the gym is heavy weights so anything to do with that is very welcomed - body building clothes/supplements/eat to gain etc, although we are starting to diversify our training content to include CrossFit, calisthenics, MMA and similar pursuits.

In terms of what we are expecting for the website - keep it short and snappy. Articles of around 250 words are perfect. You don’t need to do weeks of research or lengthy interviews or vox pops, a good place to start is to google ‘weight loss research 2015’ and look at stories that you can rewrite, for example ‘EXERCISE DOESN’T WORK’ New research from a study in Australia shows that exercise is useless and eating biscuits is the only sure-fire way to get ripped, or ‘KUWAIT OVERTAKES USA IN OBESITY’ or ’20 BANANAS A DAY CURES MALE BALDNESS’ etc. Also Kuwaitis love American culture and movie stars, so ’10 MOVES TO GET JACKED LIKE JACKMAN’ to ‘THOR-THE CHRIS HEMSWORTH WORKOUT’ ’10 FAVOURITE CELEBRITY VACATIONS’ or ‘JAY-Z’s WATCHES’, you get the idea?

The sections we split stories into are:
WARM UP

TRAIN

FUEL

LIVE (features)

STYLE

COOL DOWNYou don’t have to tell us which section you think your story will go into, we will do that, it’s just to give you a guide.We are expecting quite a fast turnaround with website articles, links will also be posted on Facebook and Twitter so this is a really good opportunity to practice fast research and copywriting - particularly if you’re interested in magazine journalism - the faster you can churn out a sharp, snappy page of copy the better your chances of working on a magazine. We are aiming for at least one fresh article a day on the website but my ultimate goal is three. As you get into the habit of turning out a quick 250 words article, it’ll be almost robotic, it is a really good writing exercise!You can visit the website at www.perfectfitmagazine.com or see the online versions of the magazine at www.issuu.com I hope to hear from you soon! Gemma

Dear Ms Emmerson,

My name is Christopher Park and I am a fourth year english student at the University of Strathclyde.  I received a notification of your exciting opportunity to submit for Perfect Fit magazine in Kuwait - and I read it with much gusto!  Therefore I have a few ideas I would like to pitch – if you would be so kind to read on. 

The prohibition laws on alcohol are extremely unfortunate, not like the UK at all; indeed, I wonder how any person from a liberal democracy could possibly find any shared interest or value and pen it for this magazine - ! But, as they say in the Middle East: when life gives you lemons, make vodka lemonade.  So to turn those frowns around I think an article entitled “How ‘ae ‘ave a Cheeky Wee Bevy oan the Sly” would be helpful in bridging those trivial cultural differences!

Also, you pointed out weight lifting as a specific area of interest for Kuwaiti men: “How to Bench Like a Jihadist” would be a more comical piece.

Now, I know you said “please no female references”, but given the Kuwaiti fetish for all things American, I was thinking we could basically just plaster the magazine with that photo of Lady Gaga that makes her look like she has a penis?

And finally, “How to Run Away from your Homosexuality”, would be an advice column for the… running aficionado.  I think you’ll have to decide what section that goes in. 

There will be no qualms with any of these ideas because, as you said yourself, Kuwait is a liberal utopia.  Moreover, I’ll make sure all the articles are short and snappy and are based on no credible modes of journalism.  As you eloquently suggested, the best way to practice journalism is to plagiarise online articles; rest assured, all of my ideas are completely unoriginal.

Unfortunately, given the superlative quality of my ideas, I demand payment.  This can be negotiated, of course, and I am willing to settle at one camel for the lot. 

I look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,
Christopher.     

   

The Awkward Liberal

Tim Farron, the newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, found himself in awkward situation last week when he refused to say that homosexual sex was not a sin. In an interview with Channel 4 News' Cathy Newman (video above) Farron was asked if he personally believed that homosexual sex was a sin and his response has seen many question his liberal values. After having abstained on voting on the third reading of the marriage bill in 2013, Farron was asked three times on what he personally thought of homosexuality but he never gave a direct response. Instead, what we got was a odd mish-mash of liberal criteria and Bible quotes.

Mr Farron responded to one question:

“To understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners, and perhaps the Bible phrase that I use most, particularly with my kids, but actually on myself, is that 'you don't pick out the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye when there is a plank in your own'... My understanding is that we are all sinners.”

This is an interesting quotation that I think deserves some contemplation. It was made with reference to homosexuality: are gays and lesbians blind in some way? Farron believes in the religious doctrine that we are all sinners, but it came across as if he believed that this is especially true with homosexuals – all men and women are born sinners but some have sinned more than others! I asked a Christian relative what this quote means exactly and they simply said “don't be a hypocrite”. I struggle to find Farron's logic: don't judge gay people because nobody's perfect? Unfortunately, we can only glean that Farron does believe that homosexuality is a sin, but he can't say it out loud because that wouldn't be politically correct. In other words: LGBT people deserve equality, but they'll always have that slight tarnish, that wee bit of sawdust in their eye; fear not, Farron won't judge openly, he's a good Christian – that's God's job.

The answer most of us were expecting to Newman's question was simply “No. Being homosexual is not a sin.” But it never came and now many of us are left questioning Farron's commitment to LGBT equality.

A lot of people have pointed out that Tim Farron is entitled to his opinion and that this is just journalists trying to fabricate news where a story doesn't exist. But now, many more journalists and news readers have questioned Farron and he still insists that his focus is liberalism, but he refuses to make his private views clear. Farron's inability to successfully support equality over his own religious beliefs causes a number of significant problems.

Most profoundly, is Britain's liberal movement being lead by someone who isn't actually very liberal? The problem isn't so much the opinion itself (although to consider homosexuality a 'sin' is very strange and regressive), but the fact that this view is likely held by a man who is the leader of a liberal party. Equality has always been championed by liberals so the prime duty of the leader of Britain's liberal party is to uphold and further these values. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, but if Tim Farron's belief is in fact that homosexuality is a sin then his legitimacy as a liberal leader begins to look questionable. It seems disingenuous to support LGBT equality in public, but to privately believe that gays and lesbians are sinners – you might expect this from career politicians of big parties but not the close knit fraternity of the Lib Dems.

Farron's potential viewpoint has reinvigorated a wider debate about religion and its relationship with politics. It seems as though his religious convictions are clouding his judgement and creating a prejudice when it comes to matters of sexual equality. Unfortunately, Farron's implication that we are all sinners, gay people especially, is the antithesis of liberal values. In a liberal democracy, somebody can only ever be judged in the eyes of the law; and the laws are made (or at least should be) to keep people safe, free, and equal.   In democratic countries, laws are founded on reason and rational thinking, not what the bible considers to be 'sinful'.     

I took to Twitter to clarify Farron's viewpoint but had little success. I was pleased that he replied to my comments but, like everyone else, I couldn't get a straight answer as to whether or not he thought homosexuality was sin. He told me that his view is that “theological discussions are for priests! For me, Love is Love. Simple as.” I then put it down to the crunch question: “but when asked if you thought gay sex was a sin why did you not just say 'no'?” Farron moved the discussion over to direct messaging to answer my question and told me he wouldn't say homosexual sex was not a sin “Because I would spend 5 years answering every question everyone has about the bible. That's not my job. I think Love is Love.” Farron said he supports LGBT equality, but never commented when I asked him if he would make a public statement saying homosexual sex/relationships was not a sin.

 Despite Farron's ambiguity, what is clear is that Tim Farron has landed himself in a PR mess. He might not want to spend the next 5 years being questioned abut the bible, but now he could spend the next 5 years being questioned about his liberal values. I think his plan seems to be to wait for this issue to blow over but I'm not convinced that it will. A recent survey in Scotland found that LGBT people overwhelmingly feel that they face prejudice and inequality in their everyday lives: 82% of respondents said they had experienced homophobic, biphobic or transphobic comments or attitudes. The intolerence that many think is gone still exists. Will the leader of the UK's Liberal party be ready to challenge prejudice and change attitudes if he himself believes that being homosexual is 'sinful'?

Putting the Environment on the Agenda

I don’t usually care for the messages of religious leaders, but last week Pope Francis actually had something sensible to say about the environment. It’s good to see a major figure of any kind championing the need for environmental sustainability. Among many proclamations in the 180 page document, Pope Francis said in his encyclical that we could be handing down to future generations a world of “debris, desolation and filth.”

Climate change can often seem morbid and unrealistic, only the stuff of Hollywood disaster movies. But rising temperatures and oceans, extreme weather events, the desolation of wildlife and eco systems, are all things that should be taken seriously as long term human impact on the planet. These are things that are laughed at and dismissed by deniers and politicians of the right, but people who deny that climate change is not happening at all are decades behind in the debate. It is happening. It is an insidious process that, although cannot be felt directly for most of us now, poses long term consequences for our planet. A vast and meticulous branch of research exists on climate science and it all points to the same conclusion: the planet is warming. The debates that exist now are whether this is a natural occurrence potentially caused by the sun; and, more importantly, what needs to be done about it.

But while climate change is a complicated and contested subject (even at times morbid), the idea of environmental sustainability is very simple and very sensible.

The planet we live on has a limited number of natural resources (coal, oil, gas, trees, fertile ground, rivers and lakes etc) for a finite number of people. It’s difficult to moderate our use of resources without drastically changing the way we live in the twenty first century. What we need to do is come up with new sources of energy, new farming techniques, and new ways of living to gradually wean ourselves off of unrenewable resources. This is a task for every human being and it will take creativity, innovation and experimentation to get there.

Renewable energy (usually in the form of solar panels, wind turbines and hydro power) has proved to be an effective way to produce power without diminishing natural resources or producing greenhouse gases. Renewable energy works if governments facilitate it. The UK is a world leader in this field and last year in Scotland nearly half of our electricity came from renewable sources, up from 20% in 2007. This has to continue. Renewable energy isn’t just to cut down greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s an investment in securing the energy for our future – coal, oil, gas will all run out eventually, how prepared are we for when it does?

Governments have an important role to play when it comes to creating a sustainable world to live in. But do you ever notice how world leaders often assemble, usually in the outer regions of rich countries, pose for a group photo, and claim to be engaged in ‘climate talks’? Government responses to environmental issues have been ceremonial: they make up targets around a dinner table that they know will never be met and call it a job well done; news headlines create the illusion of action and we sink further into complacency. Governments (those we elected to find solutions to these problems) are failing - what did you expect? There will always be a more important issue than environmental concern: when did a solid green policy ever win an election – when, even, was a truly meaningful green policy ever in a manifesto?

But maybe governments don’t have the answers. The world we live in belongs to the people and perhaps we are the ones to save it – part of the problem and so part of the solution. It seems apt that tackling climate change and creating a world that is sustainable should be a grass roots movement, as the Pope acknowledged: “while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals and groups can make a real difference.” People can do small things that collectively will make a big difference: recycling, encouraging wildlife in gardens, not wasting food or energy, finding greener ways to travel – it’s a happy coincidence that being greener often saves money.

The Pope has done well to highlight our precarious environment by putting it on the agenda with such a powerful message. People who fight for the natural world are not tree hugging lefties, or herbal-tea-drinking-vegan-hipsters. They're just concerned. Concerned about the kind of world that we will be handing down to our children. The environment and its wildlife don't have voices of their own, they cannot defend themselves against human consumption and destruction. It is up to us, as the dominant life form on this planet, to take responsibility for our home; and when we do we will see the benefits because “Nature never did betray the heart that loved her” (William Wordsworth).