Why is it that at every turn we are lectured these days? For some things I can understand it. Climate change, for example, has to be raised into consciousness as soon as possible, the genocide in Darfur or the apartheid occupation in Palestine – they need to be lectured on. Indeed, as university students we have signed up to and paid for lectures. It is not that kind of lecture I am protesting about. It’s those god-aweful pretentious lectures that we get, usually in the media.
For instance Dr Gillian Mckeith and her program on TV about how to loose weight. Far from recommended that they eat a balanced diet with everything in moderation and increased exercise – she makes them eat what look to be vile concoctions and severely chastises these poor people should they slip up and even look at a chocolate bar!
Another example was a programme I watched recently featuring Hugh Fernley Whittingstall. He was trying to get across in the programme that microwave meals are not the way forward. All very noble and in my view correct, but he seems to think that the only alternative is organic, Fairtrade, locally produced, slaughtered by your own hand food. This coming from someone who was trying to argue that ready meals are more expensive than buying fresh and cooking yourself. From a student perspective this is ridiculous! Much as I would love to buy all Fairtrade, organic, locally produced etc., (and I do where I can) I cannot afford to!
So I am here to tell you all that it is ok if you eat a chocolate bar or drink a pint. And it is ok if you buy one or two ready meals (although I find it more fun and satisfying cooking from scratch). It’s a case of moderation!
Of course this de-sensationalising of situations can go the other way. At every turn there are people telling me over and over that by turning off my bedroom light or turning my washing machine down to 30 degrees instead of 60 or buying a car that runs on hydrogen when going under 0.1 miles per hour will save the planet from climate catastrophe. I know they are only trying to raise awareness and get everyone involved but with the 7 years we have left until the ‘tipping point’ is reached we need actions more akin to not flying, not driving, not using tumble driers than closing the curtains.
I know that some people will find this or indeed me, an avid member of Eco-Uni, Tent State, Palestine Solidarity etc a pretentious lecturer but I need to vent my frustration at these all or nothing people who are either talking sensationalist rubbish or are not being sensational enough (in my view). It drives me barmy when these people go beyond the necessary and emotionally blackmail you into jumping off the cliff rather than just walking along the Cliffside path because they tell you it’s the only way to see the view. Or telling you that buying the postcard is just as good as seeing that view.
Maybe I’m just particularly disillusioned with the media but I firmly believe and recommend to you that you take what you see with a pinch of salt and a large amount of common sense, rather than taking it all to heart. But for now all I have to those people is “I may be at university but you can stop lecturing me.”
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Trident - the perspective from inside a police cell
"The base goes - we go" is the simple message I have to the policemen after they arrested me at 7 this morning for breach of the peace. More specifically for superglueing my hands to someone else's hands inside a plastic tube and then lying down in the road outside the north gate of Faslane nuclear naval base in Scotland to stop the workers getting in for shift change.
A little extreme some may say. Good times I say. Especially when a group of at least 50 students can co-ordinate themselves to blockade 5 locations simultaneously at 6.30am.
To me it is a clear and simple choice when it comes to Trident - No Thank You! I realise it is supposed to act as a deterrent and as protection against 'rogue states' etc etc. But to me there is just no reason good enough for them to be there because:
1) The renewal of Trident (just the renewal) is currently set to cost £25 billion money that could be spend on things like
- Providing 120,000 newly qualified nurses every year for the next ten years.
- Providing 60,000 newly-qualified teachers every year for the next twenty years.
- Providing 100,000 extra firefighters every year for the next ten years.
- Protecting 900 million acres of rainforest.
- Abolishing top-up fees for those at uni!
- Getting rid of a chunk of world debt/poverty
etc etc
2) If you have ever been to the Faslane or Couplort base you will know how much of a concrete and barbed wire monstrosity it is, especially in a setting as beautiful as the shores of Loch Long and Gareloch.
3) The man power, technology, time and money it takes to police and protect not just the bases but the surrounding area and the convoy that brings up new nuclear warheads from Burghfield is extortionate.
4) Having nukes creates massive distrust between us and other countries - particularly when the nuclear submarines haves names such as HMS Vengance,
5) We, as the voters and citizens of this country have no power or say over what the instructions are from the PM to the naval commander (when each new PM comes into power they write a letter on how to react in the event of a nuclear attack which is then sealed and given to the commander to open without anyone else seeing). Not very democratic I say.
6) Far from being a deterrent some may argue that a stockpile of nuclear warheads is more of a target.
Ok so I can;t think of anymore right now and in all honesty staring at the baby pink walls and blood red floor (calming colours I'm told) of my cell having eaten something that was supposed to pass for veg curry is not that conducive to the formation of a cogent argument. In all fairness they've been pretty good to us. We all joked and laughed while we were waiting to be processed (still heavily restrained of course - there are sum suspiciously finger-shaped bruises appearing), I am in a cell with 2 other offender from our group and they have fed and watered us as well as can be expected for "criminals".
It is a shame though - being here I miss the last 2 days of the Students Against Trident (Strident) summer camp - a series of workshops on anything from the NHS to Palestine to renewable energy to how to incorporate circus into blockading. It has been amazing to be able to camp in the woods eating lush home-cooked food right opposite the beach, the lock and rolling hills. I have learnt so much over the past few says - how to play various samba instruments, how to consensus decision make in a group of 120 and what happens when you get arrested. Moreover I've made some amazing friends from universities all over the country.
Ok so my allocated paper is running out and my "West Dunbartonshire community Safety Partnership" pencil is wearing down and I want to get back to banging samba rhythms on the walls with my feet in time with the inmates in the 3 cells next to ours (full of more of us rebellious students). Later people.
A little extreme some may say. Good times I say. Especially when a group of at least 50 students can co-ordinate themselves to blockade 5 locations simultaneously at 6.30am.
To me it is a clear and simple choice when it comes to Trident - No Thank You! I realise it is supposed to act as a deterrent and as protection against 'rogue states' etc etc. But to me there is just no reason good enough for them to be there because:
1) The renewal of Trident (just the renewal) is currently set to cost £25 billion money that could be spend on things like
- Providing 120,000 newly qualified nurses every year for the next ten years.
- Providing 60,000 newly-qualified teachers every year for the next twenty years.
- Providing 100,000 extra firefighters every year for the next ten years.
- Protecting 900 million acres of rainforest.
- Abolishing top-up fees for those at uni!
- Getting rid of a chunk of world debt/poverty
etc etc
2) If you have ever been to the Faslane or Couplort base you will know how much of a concrete and barbed wire monstrosity it is, especially in a setting as beautiful as the shores of Loch Long and Gareloch.
3) The man power, technology, time and money it takes to police and protect not just the bases but the surrounding area and the convoy that brings up new nuclear warheads from Burghfield is extortionate.
4) Having nukes creates massive distrust between us and other countries - particularly when the nuclear submarines haves names such as HMS Vengance,
5) We, as the voters and citizens of this country have no power or say over what the instructions are from the PM to the naval commander (when each new PM comes into power they write a letter on how to react in the event of a nuclear attack which is then sealed and given to the commander to open without anyone else seeing). Not very democratic I say.
6) Far from being a deterrent some may argue that a stockpile of nuclear warheads is more of a target.
Ok so I can;t think of anymore right now and in all honesty staring at the baby pink walls and blood red floor (calming colours I'm told) of my cell having eaten something that was supposed to pass for veg curry is not that conducive to the formation of a cogent argument. In all fairness they've been pretty good to us. We all joked and laughed while we were waiting to be processed (still heavily restrained of course - there are sum suspiciously finger-shaped bruises appearing), I am in a cell with 2 other offender from our group and they have fed and watered us as well as can be expected for "criminals".
It is a shame though - being here I miss the last 2 days of the Students Against Trident (Strident) summer camp - a series of workshops on anything from the NHS to Palestine to renewable energy to how to incorporate circus into blockading. It has been amazing to be able to camp in the woods eating lush home-cooked food right opposite the beach, the lock and rolling hills. I have learnt so much over the past few says - how to play various samba instruments, how to consensus decision make in a group of 120 and what happens when you get arrested. Moreover I've made some amazing friends from universities all over the country.
Ok so my allocated paper is running out and my "West Dunbartonshire community Safety Partnership" pencil is wearing down and I want to get back to banging samba rhythms on the walls with my feet in time with the inmates in the 3 cells next to ours (full of more of us rebellious students). Later people.
Terrorism (that old story again)
I am writing this after attending an international relations seminar. For 9am on a Friday morning I think our class had an excellent debate, and for that I would like to thank them for the inspiration for this…
So this week’s topic was terrorism. Anyone who would ask what that is would usually receive an answer of “where have you been for the past 5 years?” Well first of all I would like to clear up a point – terrorism has been around in one form or another for centuries. In fact one text reports the first ever act of terrorism as occurring in the first century BCE when members of the Jewish population stabbed Romans to death in broad daylight in the middle of Jerusalem, causing such fear that there was eventually mass rebellion[1]. There is a key word in there – fear. Our lecturer defined terrorism as
“the use of violence to cause a political effect, by creating fear among a civilian population.”[2]
Well that brings me on to my first major point; if you take that definition literally, then does it not describe all wars? I mean I’m sure that if the Iraqi civilian population was given that definition then it would call us, the US and all the other countries involved in the invasion as terrorists. Because have we not used violence to cause a political effect? And have we not created fear amongst a civilian population?
So who is a terrorist? Some may argue that it was the people that blew up the World Trade centres in 2001, or the people that attacked the London underground in July 2005 (to use two recent examples). But the truth is that from 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005 there were 895 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000.[3] Are they all terrorists? Or are some of them actually innocent bystanders caught up in it, like Jean Charles de Menezes was? (Don’t get me wrong I realise there is always going to be errors, and I know there was pressure on the police to do something, and they would have been criticised to a similar extent had they been passive in everything), I know it was following orders etc etc).
But we don’t hear about most of those ‘terrorists’. The media will always report on the big events, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing and so on because sensational news sells. But is this in itself a negative thing? By reporting on these events the media will inevitably look at the perpetrators, who they are and what they stand for. The idea behind terrorism is that a political cause is brought to light and that there will political change. Are the media, therefore, doing exactly what the terrorists wanted by spreading word of these causes? Are the media, in fact, terrorists of an indirect nature? In truth there is little sense in the relationship between say media coverage and the number of lives lost due to terrorism. If you consider that approx. 3000 lives were lost in 9/11[4] and there was media coverage for years after reaching all corners of the earth. But 3000 lives are lost on the American roads each week. Where is the mass media coverage of that? People aren’t scared of getting into their cars, but they’re scared of the underground or flying.
But its ok, we can take comfort in the global war on terror that Bush started and everyone flocked in to join up to (got to stay in his good books after all). We invaded Afghanistan to conquer Al Qaida. What do you imagine their response would be? An organisation with inferior military power will not go to war – that’s suicide. Instead they will commit acts of ‘terrorism’ to pressure for the withdrawal of troops. So in effect we have brought on more terrorism ourselves by using (what could be argued as terrorist) military tactics to destroy terrorism. Where is the sense in that? Or is the global war on terror simply a cover for other incentives to go to war? Martin Shaw (International Relations lecturer at Sussex) said in some ways terrorism “permitted wars against people who were not terrorists”. But that’s a whole different political kettle of fish and one I won’t go into here.
The main questions for me are: what is terrorism? Who are the ‘terrorists’? Has the global war on terror backfired in creating more terrorism? Should media be restricted in their coverage of attacks and finally who are we to judge, define and condemn those who are prepared to die for their beliefs and morals when it could be argued that they are a one-man-army?
[1] Course pack
[2] Martin Shaw talking in the “Terrorism and the War on Terror” lecture, 2/11/06
[3] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
So this week’s topic was terrorism. Anyone who would ask what that is would usually receive an answer of “where have you been for the past 5 years?” Well first of all I would like to clear up a point – terrorism has been around in one form or another for centuries. In fact one text reports the first ever act of terrorism as occurring in the first century BCE when members of the Jewish population stabbed Romans to death in broad daylight in the middle of Jerusalem, causing such fear that there was eventually mass rebellion[1]. There is a key word in there – fear. Our lecturer defined terrorism as
“the use of violence to cause a political effect, by creating fear among a civilian population.”[2]
Well that brings me on to my first major point; if you take that definition literally, then does it not describe all wars? I mean I’m sure that if the Iraqi civilian population was given that definition then it would call us, the US and all the other countries involved in the invasion as terrorists. Because have we not used violence to cause a political effect? And have we not created fear amongst a civilian population?
So who is a terrorist? Some may argue that it was the people that blew up the World Trade centres in 2001, or the people that attacked the London underground in July 2005 (to use two recent examples). But the truth is that from 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005 there were 895 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000.[3] Are they all terrorists? Or are some of them actually innocent bystanders caught up in it, like Jean Charles de Menezes was? (Don’t get me wrong I realise there is always going to be errors, and I know there was pressure on the police to do something, and they would have been criticised to a similar extent had they been passive in everything), I know it was following orders etc etc).
But we don’t hear about most of those ‘terrorists’. The media will always report on the big events, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing and so on because sensational news sells. But is this in itself a negative thing? By reporting on these events the media will inevitably look at the perpetrators, who they are and what they stand for. The idea behind terrorism is that a political cause is brought to light and that there will political change. Are the media, therefore, doing exactly what the terrorists wanted by spreading word of these causes? Are the media, in fact, terrorists of an indirect nature? In truth there is little sense in the relationship between say media coverage and the number of lives lost due to terrorism. If you consider that approx. 3000 lives were lost in 9/11[4] and there was media coverage for years after reaching all corners of the earth. But 3000 lives are lost on the American roads each week. Where is the mass media coverage of that? People aren’t scared of getting into their cars, but they’re scared of the underground or flying.
But its ok, we can take comfort in the global war on terror that Bush started and everyone flocked in to join up to (got to stay in his good books after all). We invaded Afghanistan to conquer Al Qaida. What do you imagine their response would be? An organisation with inferior military power will not go to war – that’s suicide. Instead they will commit acts of ‘terrorism’ to pressure for the withdrawal of troops. So in effect we have brought on more terrorism ourselves by using (what could be argued as terrorist) military tactics to destroy terrorism. Where is the sense in that? Or is the global war on terror simply a cover for other incentives to go to war? Martin Shaw (International Relations lecturer at Sussex) said in some ways terrorism “permitted wars against people who were not terrorists”. But that’s a whole different political kettle of fish and one I won’t go into here.
The main questions for me are: what is terrorism? Who are the ‘terrorists’? Has the global war on terror backfired in creating more terrorism? Should media be restricted in their coverage of attacks and finally who are we to judge, define and condemn those who are prepared to die for their beliefs and morals when it could be argued that they are a one-man-army?
[1] Course pack
[2] Martin Shaw talking in the “Terrorism and the War on Terror” lecture, 2/11/06
[3] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)