politics

Standing Up For The BBC

The subject of my blog entry today is probably pretty obvious. I am a staunch supporter of the BBC, and naturally want to defend it when it comes under attack. Like the NHS, it is a world class organisation free at the point of use, which everyone has access to without fear of commercial influence or advertisement. It is normally unafraid to hold those in power to account, and I think we all need to stand up for it. The thing is, when you actually watch the Panorama edit of the footage which caused the current furore, there is no denying that it is misleading: it makes Trump seem to say – or at least imply – something which he did not.

On the other hand, I can’t help suspecting that there are more forces at play here. We all know that the political right do not like the Beeb. Not only does it run counter to the capitalist, commercial principles they so passionately believe in, it is also often unafraid to reveal truths they don’t like. Faced with an organisation unafraid to hold power to account, those in power often move to silence it. With essentially far right forces gaining more and more prominence, not only here in the UK but also in America and all over the world, is it any wonder that the most respected, objective news organisation in the world is coming under attack? Note too how Badenoch and the Tories have joined in the brazen chorus attacking the Beeb – those self-righteous arseholes have long wanted it out of their entitled way. Those on the right are obviously now seising on a mistake the BBC made a couple of years ago and using it to discredit the entire organisation. You only have to look at how this entire shitshow has been spurred on by the rancid spewings of the Torygraph to realise that.

This is all the more reason to stand up and defend it. We all know that the BBC isn’t perfect, but it is one of the best institutions we have. With it’s entire remit at steak, our mediascape risks becoming a commercialised, perverse, right-wing mess. If we want our journalism to remain first class and free from the influence of those who would use it to dictate their fucked up, reactionary, bigotry-soaked worldview to us, we have no choice but to now run to the BBC’s side.

Scum On Eltham High Street

I got angrier today than I remember being in a long, long time. It started well enough: after breakfast I decided I better get a bit more cash, so I set off for my building society up in Eltham. On my way there, though, I saw that a group of twits had set up a table and were campaigning for the Reform Party on Eltham High Street. Naturally this got my blood pumping instantly, so once I had my cash I returned. Now, I know how important it is to respect other people’s points of view, but as far as I am concerned what the people standing there today represented was nothing but the return of fascism, and it was therefore my duty to make my opposition known to them. The fact that they were selling poppies in order to appear patriotic, when the truth is they essentially represent everything which so many people died in both world wars fighting against, made me even more furious.

To simplify a long string of events, I basically spent the next two hours sitting on the opposite side of the road from the scumbags. There was nothing I could do to get them to move on, as much as I wanted to do so. London is an open, diverse, multicultural world city; the right-wing nationalist politics those imbeciles were forcing onto the public have no place here. To make matters even worse, at one point a guy with fairly severe disabilities using a powerchair joined them, the disgraces to human civilisation obviously having fooled him into siding with them in a perverse effort to appear open and tolerant.

In the end, of course, there was nothing I could do but roll on my way. As a literate, educated man I know what Reform are; I understand the politics they represent, and what will happen if we let them go uncontested. We cannot allow such idiots to drag us back into some nationalist, draconian, reactionary age. Encountering their unenlightened minions on Eltham High Street earlier today was a sickening sight. If it happens again I certainly won’t ignore them.

Confederate Flags In Kidbrooke

I just came across something which I frankly found rather unsettling. It had been quite a successful morning up to that point: I bent my specs on my way to bed last night, so I popped to my optician in Charlton to get them sorted. That went well, so, glasses once again sitting straight on my face, I decided to come back home for another cup of coffee. Taking a different slightly more convoluted route back, I was heading through a housing estate near Kidbrooke when I saw a bungalow with the Confederate flag flying outside. To be honest I was astonished: I’m not sure if people realise what that flag means, but as far as I’m concerned it is a symbol of slavery, racism and oppression. It was a disgusting, despicable sight, and to see it here in London makes it even worse.

Needless to say, I came to a halt outside the bungalow. There was an old man sat there in his garden, so naturally I began to make my feelings known to him. He obviously didn’t understand, and said something about being a rebel. That frankly sickened me even further: the flag he was flying was not a marker of courage or rebelliousness, but the will to oppress and enslave; it is a symbol of support for the idea that one ‘race’ has the right to dominate another. It was ultimately tantamount to flying the nazi swastika*, and to see it here in London really was perverse.

I wanted to explain this to the guy but couldn’t be arsed, so I just trundled on. He would not have understood anyway, obviously being one of the growing number of people becoming increasingly political, outspoken and reactionary, yet lacking any real understanding of what they are saying. The sight of such a flag so close to home really was sickening though. I just wish the fool flying it so proudly understood what it represents.

*I make that allusion including all the hideous undertones that flying such a flag in an area decimated by the Luftwaffe eighty years ago would have.

We Should Be Very Worried Indeed

By rights, Nigel Farage should have lost every shred of credibility he ever had due to the unquestionable disaster that is Brexit; he should be a national laughing stock. Yet, an hour or so ago in Nationwide, I caught sight of him on the TV there, appearing on a stage in Birmingham, speaking to an audience like some great showman or statesman. As usual I found the very sight utterly repugnant: how anyone can be stupid enough to even listen to – let alone believe – the shyte that disgrace to human civilisation is beyond me. Yet the fact remains, there he was, the members of his party fawning over him like some great hero, Reform gaining more and more traction in the polls.

This is a trend I think we should all be very worried about indeed. I’m sure most people reading this will be aware of the resurgence in nationalism taking place across the country, with flags appearing on lamp posts and red crosses being painted on mini-roundabouts. It’s a symptom of a far bigger problem: a feeling of socioeconomic disenfranchisement felt by many people across the country, which Farage seems to be tapping into. He has reduced matters down to an ‘us and them’ paradigm, where ‘British people’ must square off against ‘foreigners’ or ‘asylum seekers’. In doing so, he has distorted an issue caused directly as a result of Brexit to suit his own sickeningly cynical purposes, presenting himself as some kind of saviour of the downtrodden. Where he should be an object of universal contempt for robbing us of our rights as members of the EU, Farage has managed to blame migrants for the problems he himself caused, essentially setting one group of people against the other and then positioning himself as a kind of saviour figure. The bastard doesn’t seem to care how much anger, hatred or fear he whips up in doing so, as long as he can bask in the adulation of these misguided fools.

The problem is, that anger now seems to be fast reaching boiling point. Communities are bitterly divided; thugs rampage the streets raising flags; tribalism is becoming almost visceral. Meanwhile their leader parades himself on TV, basking in misguided adulation. We have been here before, and we know what happened.

Canary Wharf Turmoil

The Isle of Dogs is quite an interesting area of London, and one steeped in history. I find the fact that, forty years or so ago, that area was just a wasteland of dying, crumbling old docks, but is now an area that can’t help but remind you of Manhattan or even Dubai, fascinates me. I sometimes like going over there, just to check out what is new. I hadn’t been there for a while though, so yesterday morning I trundled across to Lewisham before getting the DLR up to Island Gardens. I assumed I’d then have a nice leisurely roll up through the peninsula, checking out the docks and skyscrapers, before perhaps popping into The Grapes.

Oh, how wrong I was! It had started reasonably well, and I had almost made it to the impressive indoor shopping arcade, when all of a sudden I began to spot flags bearing the red cross of St. George flying from lamp posts. I then began to hear shouting. Naturally this aroused my curiosity, so I followed the noise to see what all the commotion was about.

You may have heard on the national news about all the anti-migrant protests going on outside various hotels around the country. I, however, had forgotten that one of them was taking place at Canary Wharf, and I had trundled straight into the middle of it. Naturally, my political side instantly kicked in: overcoming my almost uncontainable urge to ram straight into the line of anti-migrant numbsculls, I crossed the road and went to join the far larger, louder contingent of pro-migrant counterprotesters.

Not that I want to resort to stereotyping or generalisation, but the contrast between the two groups of people could barely have been more distinct: whereas those opposed to the idea that we should welcome those coming here were a collection of a dozen scrawny flag-waving white men occasionally shouting incoherent xenophobic slogans, on the other side of the road were a group of at least forty men and women of all kinds of ethnicities and nationalities. The latter group was well organised with a public address system, through which various people were giving speeches. One I heard was about the importance of immigration to learning support, and how immigrants are vital in helping students with special needs to learn – something I couldn’t help feeling extremely touched by.

Naturally I started to mingle with the group, talking to various people. One man I spoke to even bought me a cup of coffee and helped me drink it; I still feel rather guilty that I didn’t get his contact details or offer to pay for it. In stark contrast to the clearly quite uneducated nationalists opposite, they were a diverse group of well informed, articulate people, extremely passionate about a vast array of things. It was obvious that they were there because they didn’t want the country or it’s politics to be represented by the tragically misguided hate-spewers opposite. They, like me, want the country to be open, tolerant and welcoming; not one which turns it’s back on people coming here in search of refuge, or a dystopia where anyone who isn’t white, straight or able-bodied enough is openly persecuted.

I must have got there towards the end of the event, because within an hour or so it began to break up. People began heading through the shopping mall towards the bus stop, still shouting periodically as they went. I must say, though, that if anything at this points the contrast between the two groups became even more clear: one was patient and orderly, the other increasingly antagonistic and vitriolic. As the two sets of people at last mingled together at the bus stop, I was fascinated by the distinction. It was even apparent in the very vocabulary they used, leading me to wonder whether this fracturing of society boils down to education. Again, I don’t want to stoop to stereotype, but whereas those in favouring of welcoming migrants and refugees were obviously well informed and many if not most probably had degrees, I strongly suspect those opposed were more likely to have been dismissed by the education system: they were far less articulate, misusing words. Yet they were also far angrier and more vitriolic, to thee extent that one or two even frightened me. They were clearly a group of extremely frustrated, angry men, forgotten by the twenty-first century metropolis around them, misdirecting their frustrations onto those they misguidedly perceive as incomers coming here to take what they think should be theirs. Such people deserve our compassion and pity more than anything. Interestingly, though, I found one exception in a guy talking into a camera, using fairly sophisticated language and ideas, about how ‘the right’ were being misrepresented as a bunch of thugs, and how their beliefs are actually rooted in some sort of valid logical argument. Naturally I was interested and tried to talk to him, but was unable to catch his attention. Arrogantly, perhaps, part of me longed to talk sense into him and correct him; yet I was also interested in finding out a bit more about where he was coming from politically.

My reflections were, however, altogether dashed at the very end of the event: as people were getting onto various busses, I heard one scrawny, bald, thuggish man from the nationalist group cry loudly in a thick East London accent “Don’t lick any windows!” I was naturally instantly offended; it was as hurtful to me as a racial slur, and I reported it to a group of nearby police officers. The fact that such language is being used today is frankly sickening, and to be honest tells us all we need to know about the thugs so opposed to welcoming immigrants. People can try all they like to give it a veneer of respectability, I can try to justify it as socioeducational disenfranchisement or whatever until the cows come home; at the end of the day it boils down to tribalism, xenophobia, and all the gut reactions humanity should be ashamed of.

After that, there was nothing for me to do but make my way home. So much for my nice, quiet trundle.

Avatar, Then and Now

Dom suggested we watch Avatar last night. Believe it or not, I don’t think I had ever seen it before – I think it had crept under my radar somehow. Now that I have though, I think James Cameron’s 2009 film is certainly worth saying something about, especially in the light of all that has happened since it was released. At it’s heart, Avatar is a narrative of imperialism, especially American imperialism: it is a story about humans colonising another planet to exploit it for it’s resources, and in doing so decimating the homes of the indigenous people. Obviously, this could be taken as an allegory for the invasion of Iraq being invaded for oil, the colonisation of North America, or many other real-life situations. Yet what I was most struck by, watching the film last night, wasn’t so much the combination of live action or CGI the film was famous for; nor the weird intellectual issues rising from having humans control these avatars, seemingly entering into a completely different CGI space which was nonetheless supposed to be the same planet. What I was struck by was the sheer brashness with which the colonisers were acting: they seemed to think they had a god-given right to the planet’s resources, that the natives were inherently inferior to them and were just getting in their way.

Of course, as you would expect from a Hollywood blockbuster, the ending of the film has the native people’s all joining together and showing the invaders what for; but that is only a great deal of semi-covert imperial justification. Indeed, the central love story of the film has a disabled human in his able-bodied avatar fall in love with one of the native people, whose community he has infiltrated. Even leaving aside the fairly sickening anti-disabled, ‘able-bodied is better’ nonsense, at the end of the day humans had no right to be exploiting the planet in the first place, so having the two characters fall in love, like some saccharin romantic justification for the entire premise of the film was just nauseating. No amount of romance can make imperialism right; such love stories are simply attempts to distract us from the fact that one group of people is invading another in order to exploit their country’s resources. The fact that the guy is shown to switch sides in the end and ‘become a native’, does nothing to change that.

Obviously, Avatar has clear parallels with stories about Pocahontas and early American colonists falling in love with Native Americans. On this level, Avatar can be read as an allegory for the European colonisation of North America. Thus, no matter how much James Cameron may have attempted to depict the invading humans as brazen, arrogant and ignorant, the fact remains the film does not question their right to be there, even depicting a love story between members of the two communities. Although it is mentioned somewhere in the film that the invaders had to be there because Earth was dying, such justification seems half-hearted at best. It is very telling that the text does not end with the colonising forces all realising the error of their ways and going back to Earth or finding another planet to live on. While most are shown to return to Earth, some – the ‘good ones’ – were allowed to remain, the implication being that the creators of the film thought the invaders had an overarching right to be there, in spite of all the destruction and suffering they are shown to inflict.

Hence, at it’s heart and as much as it’s director might try to deny it, Avatar essentially justifies imperialism. In it we can clearly read the American ‘we come first’ mindset, which was an integral part of their culture in 2009 and is even more evident now. Obviously in it we can read a justification of the invasion of Iraq, but we can now also make out far more about what has happened since then, about the American mindset, it’s urge to dominate, and it’s unwavering, unquestionable attitude that it’s needs come first. If Avatar is a story about one group of people dominating, bullying and exploiting another, it is now more relevant than ever.

Not The Protest I Expected

I just got back from another trip to Westminster, and I think it’s fair to say that I’m absolutely furious. I went up there again today, this time to check out the protests about the assisted dying bill. To be honest I don’t have that strong an opinion on the issue as I can see both sides of the argument, but by and large I share the fear that it could lead to vulnerable and disabled people being pressured into ending their lives.

I got to Parliament Square to find it slightly quieter than I had been expecting: this event obviously wasn’t as big as the last one I had been to up there. It took me a while to find the protest, slightly along the road from the Houses of Parliament. When I did, though, I was almost instantly appalled. I had been expecting to find plenty of my fellow disabled people, but instead the action was peopled by able-bodied religious nutcases! There were speeches being made about how this act would go against the will of god, the commandments and everything. While disabled people and our rights were mentioned once or twice, the emphasis seemed to be on religion, particularly Christianity. To begin with I could just about tolerate it, but when the lady speaking invited everyone to pray I had had enough.

Political protests are, by their very definition, political; and religion has no place whatsoever in politics. These people were close imposing their religious views on quite a critical issue, and essentially using it to promote their anachronistic belief system. You don’t need to believe in any gods to be concerned about what might arise from this change in the law, and that, sooner or later vulnerable people may start feeling pressured into opting to end their lives when they otherwise might not. That would strike anyone with a grain of human decency as problematic. Yet the people there were trying to make it seem like an entirely religious issue, and that they were acting on behalf of their god.

I have written many entries on here about what I think about religion: it is a harmful, dangerous anachronism which humanity needs to outgrow. Thus to find these people there, usurping the issue at hand for their idiotic belief system, really pissed me off. Fortunately the event was drawing to a clear by the time I got there, but it really pissed me off to see it being hijacked like that. This is quite a sensitive political issue: it needs to be dealt with rationally and thoughtfully, not by people who derive their entire worldview from a set of bronze age fairytales.

Kier Starmer Rapes Chipmunks

I was watching the breakfast news as usual earlier, when a quite unsettling item caught my attention, particularly as a blogger. According to the beeb, “The wife of a Conservative councillor who was jailed after she posted an online rant about migrants is due to have her appeal against the sentence heard on Thursday. [ie today]” Lucy Connolly had been jailed for 28 days after apparently tweeting that she thought a hotel housing asylum seekers should be burned down. If you ask me, of course, twenty-eight days in jail is nowhere near enough punishment for such a vile, disgusting xenophobe: being married to a Tory councillor, she obviously thought she had a right to voice such reactionary, inflammatory tosh with impunity. I find such arrogance sickening of course, and my gut reaction was that she had no right whatsoever to complain.

The obvious problem is, that raises all kinds of issues about the freedom of speech. I naturally believe that anyone should have the right to say whatever they want, online or off, no matter how disgusting or abhorrent other people may find it. Here on my blog, I’m sure I have written things plenty of people may disagree with over the years – does that mean I should go to jail? What would happen if one day I wrote an entry accusing Kier Starmer of raping chipmunks – does that constitute defamation? Thus as vile as any sensible, intelligent person will find what this woman tweeted, her right to voice her opinions must take priority. The moment we start censoring people, the moment we start putting people in jail just for voicing their opinions online, we all loose something extremely valuable.

Of course I am torn by this: I cannot deny that a large part of me thinks that what this repugnant woman tweeted has no place in modern public discourse. We see it more and more: such barely literate morons think it’s cool or trailblazing to go against the politically correct grain, resulting in a slide further and further to the reactionary right. It seems to be becoming fashionable to discriminate, belittle and bully, as people try to imitate so-called online ‘influencers’ like Andrew Tale. People are also feeling more and more pressure to attract attention online, resulting in ever more wild, distasteful things being spouted in an effort to stand out and get noticed. No doubt such factors were what was behind this woman’s vile tweet: I’m not sure she deserved punishing for them or not, but the fact that she has been clearly sets an unsettling precident.

Baddiel, Race and The Other

I think I have mentioned before that, if you ask me, the concept of race, as in a biological subcategory of humanity, is intellectually moot. While there are obviously differences between communities such as skin colour, we are all one species which can interbreed without a problem. No group of people is inherently superior to any other: the notion that people from Europe are innately superior to people from subsaharan Africa, for example, is the very definition of racism. I think we can all agree that such thinking needs to be outgrown if we are ever to achieve true equality. Surely we are all one glorious global species, with no subdivisions to divide or break apart that whole.

Does it not strike anyone as odd, then, that people who identified as Jewish seem to go out of their way to cling to such notions? On the face of it, they look like any other white European person; yet they seem to want to emphasise their Jewishness, as if they want to set themselves apart. I was watching an interview with David Baddiel earlier, and he said that, although he was an atheist, he somehow still saw himself as Jewish as if it wasn’t just a religion but some kind of sub-category of humanity. We know that, historically, clinging to such divisions between communities has brought about the most horrific of crimes, so what good does such thinking serve?

I honestly don’t understand it. Baddiel was saying that he felt some kind of inherent link to other Jewish people, in spite of his atheism. He seems to think this gives him a link to the suffering other Jewish people have endured historically, a notion which I find rather problematic.

I have come across such thinking once or twice elsewhere recently, for example with Irish people claiming to have somehow inherited the trauma inflicted upon their grandparents and great grandparents by the British. Surely the experience of such hardship cannot be inherited, and maintaining that it can be just allows old wounds to remain open.

It seems to me that the only reason anyone would seek to do this is to justify their own political agitation. That is to say, there seems to be a desire in many people these days to be seen as a member of an oppressed group, so they go to whatever lengths they can to become a member of such a group. It is no longer politically fashionable to be seen as white, straight and able bodied, as that is to hold too much privilege.

I think this is probably why David Baddiel went out of his way to emphasise his Jewish ancestry, even though he says he does not believe in Judaism. Where this becomes slightly problematic or complex, of course, is culture: Obviously, cultural diversity is to be maintained and cherished. Baddiel has as much right to celebrate his cultural Jewish ancestry as I have to celebrate my Greek Cypriot cultural ancestry: I eat galombrama and paglava, and my mum and dad used to sing greek nursery rhymes to me. But having Cypriot grandparents does not somehow set me apart from other people; nor does it give me the right to claim to share in the suffering other Cypriots went through historically. More to the point, Baddiel claims membership of the Jewish community even though he as an atheist does not participate in it’s (religious) rituals or traditions. How can anyone claim to be a member of a community or group while rejecting it’s very core component? This analogy may be a tad flippant, but is that not like someone claiming to be a member of the Star Trek fan community without ever watching an episode of Star Trek?

Of course, as a disabled person I often say that I feel a bond with other disabled people, to the extent that I feel we are a community. However, that commonality is born of shared experiences such as broken lifts, inaccessible public buildings and going through segregated education. It is a community of necessity and shared struggle, rather than one of culture or inheritance. I do not think that being physically disabled gives me the right to claim to share the brutal hardships which disabled people have endured historically.

Does it not strike anyone else as very problematic indeed, then, that Baddiel would claim membership of a group based around a religion that he doesn’t believe in, and to share in cultural experiences which he could not possibly have any concept of? Is this not just yet another case of a straight, white, able bodied man desperately trying to other himself? Unfortunately in doing so he revives anachronistic notions about race, which in the long run can only do more harm than good.

People Still Don’t Understand Python

It looks like I have once again wandered into a quagmire, albeit an interesting one. Earlier on one of the Monty Python fan groups I keep an eye on, I came across a post essentially saying that comedians had a right to cause offence and it should have no taboos. I, of course, took umbrage at that, as it would mean people could justify discriminating against or offending whoever they wanted under the guise of comedy. That was manifestly not what Python was about: those guys wanted to expose the absurdities of British culture, among other things, not poke fun at or belittle those who could not fight back. As I think I’ve said here before, the fact that Monty Python is now increasingly being invoked as some sort of anti-woke, anti-PC bastion, and used to justify persecution and mockery, is to fundamentally misrepresent it.

However, one of the replies I got cited a film called Blazing Saddles. I had never seen it, so of course I looked it up. What I found was, at first glance, abhorrent: a trailer for some kind of 1970s western ‘comedy’, crammed with shockingly racist language. It looked appalling, so at that I went on my afternoon trundle. Coming back though, I naturally decided to dig a little deeper, and this time found something far more interesting. For example, this Guardian article from January argues that, far from being racist, Blazing Saddles is a satire on contemporary American culture. “Westerns were white American. Certainly, the earliest examples are propagandist. No other culture mythologises its own creation in such a cinematic way. One tried and tested western blueprint is the tale of the great white saviour bringing the savage land to heel. Blazing Saddles turns this formula on its head….What transpires is a torch shone on racist, sexist and bigoted attitudes which absolutely captures the mood and prejudice of the time. Those attitudes still exist.”

Thus, like Python, rather than defending bigotry, Blazing Saddles apparently reveals it’s idiocy. I obviously need to watch it before commenting on it further; yet the fact that it, like Monty Python, is now being invoked as a justification for discrimination still does not sit well with me. People now seem to think they can use whatever derogatory or discriminatory language they want under the guise of humour, and to speak against them is to just not get the joke. Not only does that completely misunderstand the nature of comedy, but it leads us down a very dark, dangerous rabbit hole in which persecution and bullying become acceptable. That is obviously not what the guys behind Python or any other great comedians wanted.

Yet perhaps what is most interesting is how such misunderstandings expose people’s underlying ignorance in a way they wouldn’t have intended. If Blazing Saddles was about shining a light on American racism, the way in which these people have so disgustingly misread it exposes them as the ignorant, barely literate racists they are.

When Patriotism Turns Dark

I just came across this especially interesting Girl Gone London video, in which she, a fairly young American woman who has lived in London for ten years, begins to outline the differences between nationalism and patriotism, and how the two differ depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. What she says strikes me as increasingly relevant: in the States, kids are forced to recite the Oath of Allegiance every morning; a blind love of country is almost demanded, and any form of national criticism is deeply scorned.

I replied that I was born in the UK, in cheshire, but now live in South-East London. I think it’s fair to say that I love my country: I love things like cricket, british comedy and quaint little pubs. However, I also adore London as a city, the tube, the theatres, and what happened here in 2012 etc. I love that it’s so multicultural, inviting, and that you can meet people from all over the world here. I’m staunchly opposed to Brexit as I think working with our neighbours is the only way we can solve our problems. I don’t think these positions are incompatible: you can love your country and desire global unity at the same time. The problem is, in america, the notion of loving your country seems to mean rejecting all others; the blind belief in american exceptionalism. Patriotism there seems to have a far darker, sinister aspect to it. Frankly, particularly since last year, American patriotism has become particularly dangerous.

Whereas my love for the UK does not exclude an enthusiasm to experience and explore other other places and cultures, American patriotism seems to be becoming increasingly dogmatic and cult-like. The idea that one’s own culture supersedes all others again recalls the darkest chapters in history. This video is worth watching because it illuminates how perverse American patriotism is becoming, and especially since last year I think it is a real cause for concern.