Thoughts on Liberalism and Religion

Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has recently claimed that liberals who are not tolerant of religious views are illiberal and that liberalism had “eaten itself”.  He went on to say (a little bizarrely) that liberalism is only liberal as long as it is grounded in Christianity – the opinion piece on The Guardian can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/liberalism-eaten-itself-british-religious-liberty-christianity-tim-farron

In truth, the Guardian opinion piece is an edited version of a longer speech he gave to a Christian think-tank called Theos and removes much of the context, but nonetheless I found myself disagreeing with him over some of the main points even within the context of the entire speech.  Especially the claims that liberalism has “eaten itself” (which he convolutedly explains but I take to mean that liberalism has triumphed in becoming the dominant ideology but in its success has abandoned its founding principle - freedom of religion – so its success is meaningless).

I’ll set out my stall: I'm a liberal and I’m also an atheist. I believe, that broadly across the world, religion does more harm than good and freedom from religion is fast becoming more desirable than freedom of religion.  Shortly after Tim Farron was elected leader of the party in 2015 (and after I voted for him) I challenged him on his views on gay sex.

I’m glad I voted for him he was an outstanding leader.

I enjoyed reading his full speech and I really admire the strength of devotion he has to his faith. Sometimes, I wish I could have the unwavering trust and hope of the religious believer but I am just not wired that way.  I keep an open mind and I’m cautiously optimistic; but I’m critical, I demand evidence, and I try to see the world as it is not how I’d like it to be.

It was thought provoking to read Tim’s vehement discussion of what faith means to him, but it is something that is completely alien to me.  His claims about Christianity representing the truth may be his reality, but I find it baffling and not at all convincing.  He spoke a little about atheism and secularism and I could write hundreds of words of analysis disagreeing with him.

But despite this, I think that our own personal ideas of liberalism are almost identical: freedom, equality, rule of law. 

The difference is that Tim’s liberalism originates from his devotion to Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ; mine comes from the belief that individuals are sovereign and should be empowered to be the best they can be, and to lift others up too. Maybe my concept of liberalism is rooted in secularism, I’ve never really thought about it like that before – it’s simply how I’ve come to see world.

Religious faith is an issue where we can agree to disagree.  But for Tim to now call out liberalism itself, at a time when it is under threat from some real bad guys around the world, sounds like sour grapes.

Many of Tim’s assessments of liberalism are correct: it fosters debate so can mean giving and taking criticism and sometimes offence; but, Tim – this applies to your beliefs and world views as well. 

Challenging Tim Farron’s (or any other religious individual) position with regards to gay sex doesn’t mean you’re intolerant or illiberal, it means you’re participating in a debate in a democracy; and if religious doctrines come under attack then that’s part and parcel with living in a liberal democracy – no beliefs or ideas are protected.  

Ultimately, there’s a missing link in Farron’s analysis of the state of liberalism and faith: times change - religion is on the way out.  More than half the UK identifies as being non-religious and there are several western democracies where religion is on course to become extinct.  Liberalism is an old ideology, it’s important to take into account the context in which it exists, and that context is different now from the time of the nonconformist evangelical Christians Tim claims founded British liberalism.  It is one thing to extemporise on the state of Christianity and liberalism to an audience at an event hosted by a Christian think-tank, but the reality in broader society is very different.  

Liberalism's religious history does not mean it has a religious present, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee it a religious future.  In my opinion, liberalism hasn’t changed and it hasn’t become any less tolerant; rather the context in which it now exists is increasingly less religious which has resulted in Tim’s dilemma.  Tim Farron was challenged on his views on gay sex not out of intolerance but because a nonreligious society can’t comprehend such a devout commitment to religious doctrine – especially when it could be so easily interpreted (and as it ended up being spun by the media) as a liberal leader who wasn’t actually very liberal.  Of course, as in any debate (especially with social media), there are those who will be intolerant or nasty, but you can’t conclude from these individuals that the entire ideology of liberalism has lost its way.

More broadly, Farron’s dilemma is a screenshot of a 21^st century ideological collision: the remnants of a religious and conservative country facing the new reality of non-religion and the growing call for secularisation that will surely follow. The result is religious people feeling victimised because their beliefs no longer command authority or enjoy the obscene privilege they once had in British life - especially that of thinking they have an infallible claim to morality and understanding the human condition.

In its moderate forms religious belief gives fulfilment to so many people.  However, religion is routinely used as weapon to crush vulnerable or minority groups, historically in this country, and also in the present day in countries around the world. 

Tim goes on to argue that this country doesn’t have shared values, but I think a better phrase is that this country doesn’t have a shared ideology.  Peace, tolerance, individuality, respect for life – these values, irrespective of faith, are shared by the majority of people in the UK: it’s our collective psyche that liberal Britain has bestowed upon us.

Liberalism will continue to be liberal even as religion declines.  And if you’re an atheist like me, you would argue that non-religion creates an even better foundation for liberal values as people are free from dogma, conformism, and can think as individuals.

Liberalism hasn’t “eaten itself”.  It’s all part of the ongoing cycle of agreeing to disagree, of living to let live.  There’s no need for liberals to take aim at each other; we’re wasting shots while far-right authoritarianism is left to thrive so contently.

Do We Idolise Corbyn too Much?

Jeremy Corbyn stunned the critics and the pundits (and pretty much everyone) in the election in June and denied the Tories a majority in Westminster.  The danger of Tory hubris was spelled out to Theresa May (as it was to David Cameron before her) as she squandered her 20 point lead in the polls and with it her half-functioning government.  It was an election result of limitations: not bad enough for the Tories to lose; not good enough for Labour to win.  But what’s clear is that Corbyn has secured his place as Labour leader and is beginning to set the agenda.  

His success has largely been put down to the support of young people.  According to voting data analysis by YouGov, the overwhelming majority of young people voted Labour in June.  66% of 18-19 year olds (first time voters), 62% of people aged 20-24, and 63% of people aged 25-29 all voted Labour.  Voter turnout for those aged 18-19 was 57% which was an increase - though still nothing compared to an 84% turnout for people over the age of 70, 19% of whom voted Labour.

There are ironies to Corbyn’s success amongst young people.  He is an old-fashioned socialist who has appealed to a young generation born and bred in neoliberal Britain - but maybe this is why he has done well.

For the first time in a long time, young people in this country feel like they have something to believe in: they voted for Corbyn because he gave them something to vote for.  What exactly, is difficult to define.  An ardent supporter would say ‘hope’.  A disinterested voter might simply say an alternative to the Tories.

Tuition fees seems to have been assigned as the defining issue for young voters: Corbyn hates tuition fees; young people love that.  This generalisation may or may not be true, but Labour certainly did unexpectedly well in some university cities such as Canterbury which has a student population of over 40,000.  Corbyn lured the students in by promising to immediately abolish tuition fees if elected.   

But an old mantra rings out: if it sounds too good to be true - then it probably is. Not long after the election it looked as though the shine was starting to come off with some in the Labour shadow cabinet back-tracking on this promise. 

Another irony in Corbyn’s success with the younger generation is Brexit.  We have given a resounding thumbs down to that idea, yet a thumbs up to Corbyn who cannot be described as pro-European.  His referendum campaign was seen as lacklustre: in the run up to the vote he gave the EU an uninspiring 7/10 and nearly half of Labour voters didn’t even know what the party’s position was.  Even now, Labour’s position on some Brexit issues such as membership of the single market is unclear.

Nonetheless people aged 18-30 were unfazed.  As the election came to its climax it was dominated by domestic issues and, after the Tories disastrous ‘dementia tax’, Labour had closed the gap.  Although this begs the question: is Corbyn a competent and popular PM in waiting, or is he just a means of punishing the Tories after seven years of austerity and Brexit backstabbing?

Corbyn is a survivor, that cannot be denied.  In two years he has fought and survived two leadership contests, two rounds of local elections, the EU referendum, a by-election defeat, as well as the election in June; many in his party have stabbed him in the front; the right-wing press have run a hate campaign against him.  And still he stands tall.  He is made of strong stuff and many people of all ages admire that.  He certainly comes across as having honesty and integrity. 

There is a humane quality about him that shines in comparison to the May-bot.  We see the pictures of him at his allotment and we think of our Grandpa: humble and homely. 

So if the young want to idolise Corbyn, let them.  The up and coming generation has been excluded and punished by a vacuous and cynical political elite whose legacy is leaving us worse off than our parents.  We’ll take the promises of a politician who seems to have honest goodwill, who seems to genuinely care – we have little else.

It is, however, essential that we are vigilant.  Corbyn is, after all, a politician and we must make sure he delivers what he promises; we must avoid blind faith because he says what we want to hear.  And most importantly, young peoples’ involvement in politics must be bigger than one man.  A sustained engagement in democracy from the new generation will be the thing to create real change.

_______________________________________________

This article originally appeared in The Strathclyde Telegraph: https://strathclydetelegraph.com/2017/11/18/do-we-idolise-corbyn-too-much/ 

Rejoice for Australia! But Referendums on Social Issues Must Not be the New Normal

The majority of Australians have backed equal marriage in a postal vote survey: 61.5% of Aussies endorsed the rights of LGBT+ citizens. It is now over to the Australian parliament to implement the will of the people.

LGBT+ Aussies and allies rejoice after a deserved victory. But it is sad that this referendum had to happen at all.

I realise that to most, holding the referendum was just sensible politics and a civilised means to settle a debate in a democracy. But this vote really was petty: someone’s private relationship is neither a political or democratic concern. It’s not something to be deliberated on by the masses; you’re dealing with people’s profound personal identities and relationships – things that are fundamental to their lives.  Someone’s basic right to exist as themselves in society is not another ‘issue of the day’.

It is completely mad that an anonymous same-sex couple living somewhere in Australia who want to get married had to consult the entire voting population of the country.

With referendums on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, the mass electorate are being given the power to decide how much freedom individuals from minority groups can enjoy; essentially granting them permission to be equal citizens. Imagine a heterosexual relationship where the two individuals wanted to commit to each other for the long-term, but first they needed the approval of the majority of voters. 

Nonetheless it’s understandable why Australia’s referendum took place; it’s the principle of it that’s frustrating. The referendum was held to help ensure the law passes through Australia’s parliament as, if successful, all politicians would feel obliged to respect the will of the people. 

However few people will really appreciate that it was a dangerous game to play.

It seems as though the only way the vote could have worked out positively for Australia’s LGBT+ community is with an overwhelming vote in favour of same-sex marriage.  A close vote in favour would have resulted in a victory, but it would then be set in stone that a near majority of the electorate are not in favour of the happiness and fulfilment of LGBT+ individuals.  The campaign and debate can be kept as constructive as possible but inevitably it will mobilise bigots and homophobes – these people should not be given any pretext to spout their bile.  It also gives odious religious groups one last-ditch attempt to be relevant in the 21^st century; sensible people will tolerate their ramblings only out of politeness. 

The LGBT+ community used the vote as a means of empowerment and to display strength and hope, encouraging all allies to join in their campaign.  But the referendum will have the effect of making some LGBT+ individuals feel self-conscious, even unsafe.  It will be hard for some people in the broader public to actually contemplate the damage a no vote could have done to individuals and the community.

Try to imagine what it would feel like to have your own country democratically reject you.

Past the fray and the vitriol and the debates, most social issues boil down to an old mantra: live and let live.  It’s a shame that people can’t collectively understand this and opt for careless and divisive referendums. All arguments against same-sex marriage eventually whittle down to prejudice or irrelevance.  We have to now accept that there can be no debate that every individual is equal and entitled to a life of peace, freedom, and individuality.  By legalising same-sex marriage without a referendum, governments have the opportunity to lead by example and set an agenda of tolerance.

Now, the world will be watching Ireland as it debates the issue of abortion ahead of a referendum in 2018 asking the people if they think it should be legalised. Necessary for progressive change, perhaps; but my heart is with the women who take up the cause and have to fight for their most basic rights. In many respects more contentious than equal marriage, this debate will be fraught with difficulty. Private and personal lives will be scrutinised and debated in a cruel public and political arena - it should never have come to this.

_________________________________________

This article originally appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice: https://www.libdemvoice.org/rejoice-for-australia-but-referendums-on-social-issues-must-not-be-the-new-normal-55893.html

Review: Oxjam

Oxjam Rocks Glasgow and Raises Thousands 

Oxjam rolled into Glasgow on Saturday the 14th of October - and when I saw the red and pink Oxjam banners illuminating the bars and buildings of Sauchiehall Street I knew this would be an extraordinary night out in Glasgow.

Oxjam is a music and arts festival that brings together local talent to perform in venues across the city to raise money for Oxfam’s life-saving work.  The event started in 2006 and this year there were 38 Oxjam festivals across the UK.

After 12 years Oxjam is the biggest grassroots music festival in the UK.

Well Happy Workshop

Glasgow’s festival took place over 8 much-loved venues in the city centre and each offered something unique.  Getting into the mood right from the start in The Griffin bar was the Well Happy Workshop with their session of Laughter Yoga.  This was very much an interactive event with strangers encouraged to exchange jokes, high-five, meet and greet in a series of exercises designed to encourage laughter.  The group explained the method behind the madness: laughter releases endorphins and in turn leads to improved wellbeing.  Laughter Yoga brought strangers together in typical Glaswegian style; and another performance due later in the evening with a few tipsy Scots would have been utter hilarity! 

A little over town was something different.  The basement of iCafe on Sauchiehall Street was an acoustic sanctuary of guitars with hand-crafted lyrics, as well as poetry and spoken word and some comedy too.  A selection Glasgow’s up and coming singers performed their music drawing on contemporary and retro influences, often in a busking style that is so famous in this city.  The spoken word poets brought a blend of the serious and the stupid, and always the Scottish slant for the home crowd.

Mandulu and Hephzibah

I caught up with one singing duo, Mandulu and Hephzibah, made up of Sabrina Mandulu and Erin Hephzibah (both 19 and from Pollock).  The girls have known each other since school and have always been involved in arts and performing, in 2016 they became a duo with their own material and set lists that have taken them to places like New York.  They reflected on their performance: “We both enjoyed our performance, and hopefully our audience did too. We got great responses and support from them and the staff so it was a very relaxed and enjoyable day. We both would like the opportunity to work with Oxfam and other charities in the future”.

The band has an exciting few months ahead: “On the 20th of October we will be supporting Paolo Nutini at the Paisley Abbey as part of the Spree Festival in Paisley, something we are overjoyed about.”

The Ronains

Speaking to the bands and listening to the spoken word artists inspired from Glasgow’s art scene, you realise Oxjam’s very unique offer: bands and artists get a platform in Glasgow and the punters get a memorable and diverse Saturday night out; all the while, as the music dies down and the revellers sing-on home, Oxfam is a little closer to ending world poverty for good - local music, global impact.

With Oxjam being all about showcasing Glasgow’s musical and artistic talent, the Art School was a fitting venue for the main stage in the evening.  One band playing were The Ronains who describe themselves as a “filthy mix of classic rock, glam and grunge” – and they wowed the Art School crowd with this indie mix.  They were followed by bands Static Union, The Belafonte, and Ocevns jamming well into the night and gave performances worthy of the biggest venues in Glasgow.

I could only just scratch the surface of Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover because there was so much going on – and with the Oxjam wristband party-goers had access to all of it and every venue. Manager Lindsey McGhie spoke to me afterwards about the night which raised just under £3,500: “Oxjam Glasgow was a huge success again due to hard work of the volunteers, musicians, venues, sound & light companies and local businesses.  And, yet again, the people of Glasgow turned out to support our cause in their hundreds.  Thank you!”

Check out Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover Facebook page for more info, photos and videos: https://www.facebook.com/OxjamGlasgowTakeover/

_______________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared on the Oxfam Scotland website: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/scotland/blog/2017/10/oxjamreview

Discovering Conference

On the 11^th of November, the Scottish Liberal Democrat autumn conference was held for another year in Dunfermline. It’s fitting our conference returns to this historic Scottish town as Scotland has always been a liberal country at heart: Braveheart, after all, was about freedom, more than nationalism.

This was my first party conference and I was immediately struck by how homely and welcoming the event was. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are a close-knit party – one advantage of being small in number (in comparison to other parties) – where old friends are reunited and strangers are simply undiscovered new friends.

The agenda was packed and diverse. One of the highlights included hearing from the WASPI women. They told us their personal experiences when they unexpectedly discovered they would not get their state pension when they thought they would after the age was raised to 65 to align with mens’. Many women are now struggling and having to take up part-time jobs or take out loans to get by until they can receive their pension. The conference rightfully voted for measures to put justice for the WASPI women on the Lib Dem agenda.

Willie Rennie, Jo Swinson, Alistair Carmichael, Christine Jardine and Alex-Cole Hamilton invigorated party members with articulate, powerful speeches – all of us returned to our constituencies with a renewed sense of purpose and belief in Liberal Democrat values.

The Scottish Young Liberals had three motions passed: introducing civil education in schools, increasing the involvement of young people in public service, and introducing gender neutral school uniforms in every school.

As a Young Liberal myself, it was exciting to see the future of our party, both its membership and its vision, be strongly represented; as well as being endorsed so positively by all party members.

I decided to step up in the debate about introducing civil education in schools by speaking on the main stage to strongly support the motion, as well as putting forward the idea that media literacy should also be taught as part of a curriculum of civil education.

My colleague from the East Renfrewshire Lib Dems told me I was the first person from the local party to speak at a conference in about 40 years.

I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2015 after the general election (inspired by Nick Clegg’s dignified and passionate resignation speech as party leader) and I was expecting simply to receive some emails updating me on the party’s work. Just over two years later I have campaigned for local candidates, been interviewed for a comms job in Holyrood with the Scottish Lib Dems, I’ve been a council candidate in May, and recently I spoke at my first party conference in Dunfermline.

I never imagined how involving and inclusive the party would be.

Before joining the Liberal Democrats, I always thought that politics was something that other people did; since joining I have realised that politics is for anyone that chooses to take part. I had the opportunity at conference to stand up and be heard – it was one of the most empowering moments of my life.

___________________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice: https://www.libdemvoice.org/discovering-conference-55847.html

Here's to the Election Losers

I ran in a hopeless seat in the recent council elections, lost spectacularly, and we’re all the better for it

Democracy only works because we have losers – so many losers. So many beautiful and inspiring losers who know they have no chance but stand in elections anyway because they want to fight for what they believe in, to have their voice heard, and because they know there’s a (possibly tiny) group who feel the same way and need a champion.

Between the local and general elections in the space of just over a month, thousands of ordinary men and women will stand for a party or as an independent, and lose spectacularly. As I did.

My return in the council election was meagre, but the experience was humbling and fascinating. Every party has constituencies where they don’t have a look in (especially in a General Election with first past the post) but nonetheless the local party prepares candidates, drafts leaflets and press releases, and maybe braves the doorsteps - all in the spirit of democracy.

They do their best but prepare for the worst because democracy isn’t really about who wins. Democracy is about representation and democracy is about choice, whether that’s choosing who we elect to represent us in parliaments, assemblies, councils; or being a representative on the ballot paper so people actually have a choice in the first place.

I discovered that people understand this.

I was nervous about heading out on the campaign trail because I knew that politics was contentious, but when I spoke to people the most common response was "good for you". 

I was pleasantly bemused: some told me they weren’t going to vote for me but thanked me for the leaflet and promised to have a read; others told me they were glad to see a young person getting involved; everyone seemed to appreciate being able to talk to a candidate.

Whether they intended to vote for me or not, people liked the idea of someone from their community putting themselves forward to represent them.

I even got to attend the count. Although it sounds like a dinner time quiz show, being a contestant at 'The Count' was democracy in action. Seeing the votes pouring out the black boxes, being sorted for scanning, watching them appear on the computer screens and the amazement at seeing (occasionally) my name with a 1 or even a 2 – incredible to think that strangers put their trust in me.

There was an atmosphere of friendly competition, well-wishing and handshakes. Party politics is vitriolic but it doesn’t have to be. If we promote a positive political climate more people will participate and discover more about their values, communities, and themselves.

We need them. The countries that only have political winners are not democracies.

Isn’t it odd to think about the people who stand against the prominent politicians – Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, cabinet ministers – who all probably have safe seats, but they don’t go uncontested; indeed, Lord Buckethead is running against May at the upcoming General Election, and I wish him well. 

You see the videos and the photos of these politicians in the sports hall, making their acceptance speeches, with their 25,000 majority, and the other candidates staring at the ground. It takes guts to put yourself forward, especially if you know it’s hopeless.

So here’s to them - the losers!

The losers fill the void between the political establishment and the people because they remind us that most politicians are just ordinary folk as well, our neighbours in the community; though the political elite would do well to remember this.

The losers remind us where politics (at least should) begin and end: with people.

_______________________________

This article originally appeared in Common Space: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11103/chris-park-here-s-election-losers 

Editor in Mischief

Let’s first take a moment to offer our congratulations to the Right Honourable George Osborne, MP for Tatton, for securing a sixth job in such a competitive market where many struggle to get a foothold and often find them themselves in low-skilled, under-payed jobs.  He’s had a hard time of it!

In May, Osborne will become the editor of The Evening Standard – a London newspaper with a circulation of nearly 1m and a readership of nearly double that.  Adding to his bursting resume which also includes a stint at a US fund management firm where he rakes in £650,000 p.a. for four days work a month.

You can’t help but feel Britain’s meritocracy has gone to the dogs when the City elite - the Ye Olde English Oxbridge grads born into rural affluence - continually monopolise the highest offices of public life.  In fact, we’ve been told he only applied for the job when friends contacted him to ask for advice with their own applications – I suspect these friendships are no longer blossoming!

I realise this post risks turning into a cynical pseudo-Marxist analysis, but the whole thing just stinks.  It’s the exact opposite of what we’re taught (at least in state schools) that getting a job, especially one as prestigious as the position of editor, is based on merit, skills, experience, etc.  I have my Journalism 1a class from first year of uni - quite literally making me more qualified to do this job than Osborne.

I don’t totally discredit Osborne’s competency for this role.  I’m sure he’ll be useful when it comes to the broad strategic direction of the paper and its finances, and I understand there’s different routes into jobs.

But my understanding of the position of editor (maybe this is now old-fashioned) is a job rooted in the fundamentals of journalism – indeed the very highest position in a news outlet.  I would be curious to know if Osborne was familiar with the news writing formula; or if he knows the best sub-editing techniques; or if he knows the essence of a good feature article; or the basic legal dilemmas faced by journalists every day.  How he can call himself an editor without even a basic knowledge of journalism (never mind practical experience) seems hard to believe.  I imagine his role at the Evening Standard will be more ceremonial, giving a seal of approval, deciding the paper’s broad direction – a manager rather than an editor.

Maybe Osborne can find a way to adapt his competencies; but his decision to stay on as an MP is incredible.  Being a member of parliament is more than a full-time job - if you’re an MP who doesn’t understand this then you are a terrible MP.  To some extent, it can be appropriate for an MP to have another job; but George Osborne’s current CV is incredulous.  He is either arrogant to the point of disbelief or totally naïve about what being the editor of a paper with a circulation of 1m will involve: it can be a 100 hour week according to some editors.  His justification for taking the job because he can ‘edit the paper in the morning and vote in the afternoon’ is a naïve attempt to reconcile the impossible and will fail to satisfy a scrupulous, distrusting public.  Maybe he’s on a zero hours contract at The Evening Standard?  Nonetheless, BBC media editor Amol Rajan was the first to break the story and his analysis makes for insightful reading.

And finally, let’s have a superficial take: a prominent governing politician is now in charge of a media outlet whose role is to inform people of the facts and hold the powerful to account when appropriate.  The conflict of interests is astounding; and at a time when public trust in the press and politicians is at an all-time low.

Objectivity is in peril.  How will The Evening Standard cover negative stories about Osborne’s government? How will it cover the Labour London mayor?  What’s in the public interest, and what the people of London need to know about, is now decided by a governing politician whose political success relies on positive publicity - and this agenda is filling the pages of newspaper with a circulation of 1m.  Surely you can see the problem here.

Indeed, many have suggested he has taken the role as a platform for vengeance after Theresa May sacked him.  Others are already calling for Osborne to resign as an MP or for this new appointment to be investigated by parliament because it could breach ministerial code.

The upper echelons of Britain’s media and politics seem to unwittingly find new ways to feed populism like a fat pig.  The manufactured caricature by the right-wing press of educated, reasonably well-off voters concerned with the consequences of decisions based on transient and vacuous populism - the ‘liberal elite’ - has been effective in detracting from the true elite: George Osborne and his ilk.

Too Quick to Judge?

A Manchester judge, sentencing a rapist to six years in prison, has proved controversial when she said the “disinhibited behaviour” of women puts them at risk.  Judge Lindsey Kushner QC gave a measured plea for young women to protect themselves but was nonetheless accused of “victim blaming” by women’s charities, and one police commissioner said her comments could stop rape victims coming forward.  Radio station LBC conducted a poll on Twitter and found, after 1,242 votes, that 61% of people didn’t consider the judge’s comments to be victim-blaming.

Rape is such an uncomfortable topic.  It’s almost impossible to have any sort of opinion on it at all without causing controversy.  There are so many sex-related issues that are taboo in society which is possibly why people are so quick to place blame – talk about anything else apart from what actually happened.   

I feel it may anger some men that this post makes the assumption that all rapists are men and that all victims are women.  I am not ignorant, I know this is not always the case.  But the statistics show that in England and Wales every year 85,000 women are raped and 12,000 men are – this amounts to 11 every hour.

People who play the alcohol/appearance blame game when it comes to rape usually do it in good faith. It feels like an immediate defensive reaction to say women shouldn’t drink so much or be careful about what they wear to avoid unwanted attention – it’s the kind of things parents say because they worry.  Others will think it is more about common sense: when you’re drunk it makes you vulnerable.

The arguments about what women wear somehow contributing to them being raped or sexually assaulted are ludicrous.  This usually amounts to people having differing opinions about contemporary fashion, that’s it; you can’t seriously suggest women plan their outfits knowing it could lead to rape, or that they should start planning them to prevent it.  The idea that a man can be absolved from rape or sexual assault because a woman was dressed in a certain way that made his lust uncontrollable would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.  A woman could literally streak through any British city street, day or night, naked as the day she was born, and it wouldn’t give anyone any more right to lay a finger on her than if she had clothes on - and in either case it is always no right.

The point about alcohol is more nuanced because excessive drinking isn’t safe and can lead to dangerous situations.  But there are far too many people who take the view that an extremely drunk girl being raped is an inevitability: often sounding like ‘rape is disgusting BUT…’.  Rape is disgusting.  There are no clauses. 

A wider problem is the imbalance that exists between the perception of drunk men and drunk women.  Images of drunk young men tearing up the streets in the early morning are now considered stereotypical, sometimes comedic; but a woman staggering the pavements or passed out in a doorway is utterly shameful and we are all very embarrassed for her.  Some people (idk like Daily Mail readers, old rich snobs…) don’t like women drinking not because it makes them vulnerable to rape, but because they just don’t like women drinking.  A drunk female is just too much anarchy for those with more traditional views on the role of women.  Britain has a precarious love affair with alcohol in general which has consequences for people of both genders.  

If women finally just gave up and restricted their outfits and social lives to what conservative mind-sets deemed appropriate you might be surprised to see that rape still happened.  This is because when someone is raped the person solely responsible is the rapist, and censoring outfits or moderating what women drink is not the solution because women’s clothes and alcohol consumption are not the problem.

What I think is important to remember is that being drunk is not in itself a crime; someone who wears clothes that some (depending entirely upon their own opinions and fashion ideas) might consider to be ‘inappropriate’ is not a criminal. 

Someone proved guilty of rape is always a criminal. 

I understand that to many, comments like Judge Kushner’s are just good advice.  But doesn’t it do more harm than good when alcohol or someone’s outfit is implicated as being partly responsible for their rape or sexual assault?  You might not necessarily be blaming the victim but you are spinning the narrative that the rapist is not solely responsible for the crime they chose to commit and subsequently passing some of the responsibility on to the victim.   People (generally) are not stupid: they don’t go out at night with the intention of being the victim of a horrendous crime.  Judges offering this kind of advice aimed specifically at women, no matter how well meaning, is not constructive in the effort to reduce this crime.  There is a real risk that if women are perceived to be at least partly responsible for being raped because of their drunkenness then people (mainly men) might not understand the seriousness of this crime; there is a real risk it could empower rapists. 

We seem to be ok with women living in fear: censoring their outfits, moderating what they drink, ensuring they’re never alone when out – it certainly concedes that rape is a problem; yet we also seem to be very unhappy about getting to the bottom of why rape really happens and what can be done about it. 

Whether you buy into the idea of victim-blaming or not I think one of its consequences is that rape is diminished to being a women’s fashion issue, or as a smaller problem part of Britain’s unhealthy alcohol culture.  The consequence is that rape victims won’t come forward and will end up living with mental torment.  When half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales alone each year the immediate questions are why is this happening and what can be done about it? Not what were they wearing and how drunk were they?

2016, That's All.

2016 has been unique.  So unique it has become an adjective: representing the shocking and the unexpected, often leaving us worried; sometimes leaving us fearful. Of course, depending on your general view of things, maybe 2016 has been the best year yet…  But it has found ways to keep us on our toes, I’ll give it that.

This past year has seen obvious political phenomena that has had massive implications resonating across the whole world.  But, more generally, this year has heralded a feeling of chaos and confusion as institutions and ideas that once seemed so safe, self-assured, and untouchable have collapsed before us.  The rise of anti-establishment decisiveness has been awe-inspiring if a little worrying.  Maybe it’s all just overhyped, or maybe it’s just the media playing tricks on us; whatever it is, the past 12 months have certainly left many with a feeling that this year has been a turning point.  There’s nowhere to go now but forward.

For me personally, 2016 couldn’t have come at a worst time.  Leaving university has thrown the structure of my life into disarray: I am now a personified version of the anxiety associated with this past year. 

At university, I was absorbed in genial campus life: a collected identity of learning and belonging, long drunken summers working, and the sanctuary of the library (that’s probably just me).   But this year it ended.  It happened slowly and then all at once.  After a long summer the bubble burst and the autumn rains cleansed me of relaxation (and money) and I realised that this would be tough.  I had expected the expected, but was still somehow left in shock when I realised my undergraduate moments were now memories.  What’s more, is that my future is about as predictable as… well, it’s about as easy to predict as this past year was. 

We definitely need a new phrase for this time of year other than ‘Happy New Year’; I think ‘good luck for the New Year’ has the right undertones.  2017 has begun with fireworks and gunshots – the sequel to a bittersweet year commences and the narrative continues.

But look, this hasn’t been a total disaster from start to finish.  It's been a fantastic year for sport, for one thing; and I'm sure other great things happened this year that I just can't think of off the top of my head - Game of Thrones season 6 was insane, simple pleasures.

For me, I achieved exactly what I wanted at university and felt, at least for a day, unstoppable.  I had a wonderful summer of reading and travelling and relaxing and drinking - generally doing the carefree things I wanted.  

Nonetheless I am pissed off when I think about how naïve 2016 has left me feeling.  So I’m going to make sure 2017 doesn’t catch me out.  I’m not making resolutions or promises, and I’m certainly not investing in hope or optimism; I will simply do my best to welcome in the New Year with an open mind. 

"I'm a Celeb's" Spidergate

I hadn’t watched any of I’m a Celebrity 2015 but I tuned in on Sunday night to see the final.  Ok, so two reality TV stars and an X-Factor reject made the final, great start.  But then the events of the final episode began to quickly descend when the notorious eating trial took a particularly inhumane turn.   The trial climaxed with Ferne McCann (girl from TOWIE, I know right?) having to eat a live water spider; not a small spider – a big one.

First thought: disgusting!  Second thought: ah, it’s a trick; she gets the star if she throws the spider into the bushes behind and it scampers to freedom.  Third thought: she just ate it – that was not only revolting but exceptionally callous. 

This is where I assume the role of ‘that guy’, because although only a trivial arachnid, somebody has to speak on behalf of spiders and defend their right to life because they can’t do it themselves. 

It isn’t just the fact that the contestant killed a living creature by eating it alive that is appalling, it is the way that it was presented.  It was the ceremony, the vainglory, the total ignorance (from the contestant but also the producers) that spiders are sentient beings; it was the disturbing way Ant and Dec could not control their laughter; and most of all it was the sickening ritual Ferne McCann was instructed to execute in order to eat the arachnid.  She was told to shake the glass to disorientate and disable the spider, it crawled up into a ball protect itself, then she necked it like a shot and choked on it like a Fresher.

Ant or Dec dubbed Ferne “a hero”, pundits on Twitter called her “a ledge”

It was unpleasant to watch.  There are more unpleasant things to be found on the news, of course, but it was nonetheless unsettling.  I think that people should recognise this to be flagrant animal cruelty, despite it ‘only being a spider’, for two reasons.

The most important one is what it reveals about our treatment of animals lower in the food chain than us.  I would argue that the consumption of a live spider in the name of entertainment demonstrates mankind’s contempt for anything inferior to ourselves that has no obvious purpose.  Certain animals have prestige (at least in the West) because we have domesticized and then sentimentalised them, such as cats and dogs; some have a symbolic purpose like the eagle or the whale.  But spiders fall short of our standards.  It was acceptable for a contestant to eat a living spider on I’m a Celebrity because they’re not important in our eyes; in fact they are disgusting and frightening and they overrun our homes.  Of course it is all a matter of perspective.  Spiders kill pests, they show you don’t have a damp problem in your home, and some people keep exotic spiders as pets.  They are one of the few creatures that has adapted to live in our modern, urbanised and domestic realms, and we coexist in near perfect harmony – and yet we despise them.

The other reason why this is act was so obnoxious is because it was intended to fall into the category of ‘entertainment’.  What were we meant to feel watching that living spider be tossed around in a glass, hunch up in fear, then be crunched to death in a women’s mouth?  Disgust, certainly; but was there a feeling that as an audience we were being entertained?  I think I understand why the producers did it: audiences are increasingly desensitised.  The boundary is pushed and pushed because what is considered shocking, outrageous, controversial – all the stuff that keeps us griped, keeps us talking, keeps us buying – proceeds before of us with every TV programme that is dependent on ratings.

I have probably exhausted all of the possible reasons why killing a spider is wrong – I have well and truly become ‘that guy’.  But isn’t ‘that guy’ sometimes a necessity? No? Ok, fine…

However, as much as you sneer at my spider-hugging, I’m not alone: OfCom received over 500 complaints for that episode and there was at least some Twitter outcry.  It will be up to the regulator to decide if they will launch an investigation or not, but I would think it unlikely.

Otherwise, I’m happy to be that guy who puts the spiders outside rather than splatting them with a newspaper – your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman, in other words.

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.