April 15, 2013

Is Britain’s attitude towards its extradition detainees fundamentally racist?

Guantanamo Bay

A Guantanamo Bay prisoner currently on hunger strike has penned his experiences from the controversial ‘facility’ this week in the New York Times, claiming instances of torture through force feeding and deliberate neglect. Alongside Yemeni Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel, there is growing concern for the last British resident Shaker Aamer, also amongst the hunger strikers, who was supposed to have returned to the UK in 2007 and yet is still currently being held in Camp Delta. So what is it that makes the UK turn a blind eye to torture allegations when it comes to dealing with the US?

There are clear inconsistencies within the implementation of the UK-US extradition treaty, as the Bush administration even conceded that it had no evidence against Aamer and he was cleared for release with the other British detainees. And despite the UK attempting to change the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as it stands, it does not allow for prisoners to be extradited if there is any possibility for torture, as is the situation with radical cleric Abu Hamza being deported to Jordan.

According to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The European Human Rights Court emphasised the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in “absolute terms … irrespective of a victim’s conduct” (Chahal v. The United Kingdom, 1996). This also meant that states cannot deport or extradite individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state. Despite legislation being put in place to support the plight of detainees, there seems to be an overall gap in the actual enactment, allowing some to supersede, and others to fall through the system.

Shaker Aamer with his children

Shaker Aamer with his children.

As said by Aamer’s lawyers, he was one of fifteen detainees who lodged a torture claim in the High Court in London where it is alleged that MI5 and MI6 agents were present when he was badly beaten by CIA officers in Afghanistan in 2002. Amnesty International director Kate Allen said: “Given the time involved, the lengthy spells in solitary confinement and the torture allegedly used against him, Shaker Aamer’s plight has been one of the worst of all the detainees held at Guantanamo.”

The father of four was captured in December 2001 by the US, which claimed he was fighting with the Taliban, and moved to Guantanamo the following year. He is thought to have spent most of his time in solitary confinement, in a cell 6ft by 8ft, with 24-hour exposure to light, and a succession of hunger strikes has left him weighing half his original 17st.

In September 2006, Aamer’s attorneys filed a 16-page motion alleging that he had been held in solitary confinement for 360 days at the time of filing, and was tortured by beatings, exposure to temperature extremes, and sleep deprivation, which together caused him to suffer to the point of becoming mentally unbalanced. A motion was filed to enforce the Geneva Conventions in which the US is a part of, on his behalf.  So why has the UK taken a rather blasé stance in terms of Aamer, and yet others in the US penal firing line have been excused?

Gary McKinnon freed

The obvious contradiction can be seen through the case of hacker Gary McKinnon. The Scottish systems administrator was accused in 2002 of perpetrating the “biggest military computer hack of all time,” after allegedly hacking into 97 American military computers at the Pentagon and NASA between 2001 and 2002. McKinnon, who has a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, remained at liberty without restriction for three years until June 2005.

After the UK enacted the Extradition Act 2003 – which implemented the 2003 extradition treaty with the US wherein the United States did not need to provide contestable evidence – McKinnon faced possible extradition, in which he expressed fears that he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay. But instead of taking the ‘threat to national security approach’ as with the other detainees, Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons in October last year that the extradition had been blocked, saying that: “Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”

While McKinnon’s Asperger’s Syndrome was used as a reason to block his extradition, Briton Syed Talha Ahsan had no such avail. The 33-year-old was detained without trial in the UK for six years before being extradited to the US in October 2012, although he also has Asperger’s Syndrome. Formerly from Tooting in London, Ahsan was accused of “conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists”, “providing material support to terrorists” and “conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons”.

In an article in the New Statesman earlier this year, Kings College London’s Ian Patel contends that Ahsan’s supposed participation in an Islamic media website (that at the time of his arrest had been offline for four years and operated out of Connecticut) was behind the reason of his detainment. According to his lawyer, Gareth Peirce:

“Before his Asperger syndrome had been diagnosed in June 2009, a psychiatrist had predicted a high risk of serious depression leading to suicide if the third applicant were to be extradited and placed in solitary confinement for a long period. [Ahsan] also submitted a statement prepared by an American criminologist, detailing the heightened difficulties experienced by those with Asperger syndrome in federal prisons and the absence of proper facilities within the Bureau of Prisons to treat the condition.”

Ahsan was subsequently been put in a “super-maximum security” prison in Connecticut, in which prisoners are in open-ended isolation for 24 hours a day and, in certain cells, denied natural light. The United Nations itself has said: “Indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement, in excess of fifteen days, should also be subject to an absolute prohibition,” noting that scientific studies have established that some lasting mental damage is caused after a few days of social isolation. The Ahsan – McKinnon case only highlights the fact that “all are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

The Home Secretary was praised by the Prime Minister at a Conservative Party conference for successfully securing the extradition of radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, along with “four others”, to the US. She purported that while the offences of McKinnon and of Ahsan have similarities in that they were both internet-based, Ahsan’s crimes, according to the US extradition request, were in support of terrorism and could have led to deaths.

But similar to Shaker Aamer’s case, there has been no concrete evidence of Ahsan’s alleged activities linking to terrorism. It is all based on an assumption that underlines the fundamental attitude towards those who seem ‘less British than others’. And whether guilty or not, British residents have the right to a trial in their own country. It’s a wonder if anyone is actually safe from extradition when people’s nationalities and rights are put into question because of their cultural and religious beliefs. And what’s more, it raises the issue on whether Britain really is a ‘liberal democracy’.

You can support the campaigns here:

Posted by on April 15, 2013 in politics and tagged , , , , , .

Leave a Comment

April 11, 2013

Thatcher and the Philpott children: The double-standards of speaking ill of the dead

Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady

Margaret Thatcher’s death this week received a stern warning from politicians that celebrating it would be “wrong and in bad taste”. The 87-year-old former Prime Minister was a ‘divisive leader’ to say the least, playing a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War; denouncing Nelson Mandela and his ANC as “terrorists”; destroying trade unions; while others argue she repaired Britain’s broken international reputation. Unsurprisingly, a widespread backlash has since ensued from both political figures and the voting public. Yet within two weeks, there has been a rather stark contradiction from the same notables issuing these ‘bad taste’ warnings.

Both Chancellor George Osborne and the current Prime Minister David Cameron were thought to have been ‘exploiting’ the deaths of six children killed in a house fire in Derby, by their parents Mick and Mairead Philpott. Within hours of the guilty verdict being read, Mr Osborne questioned why the taxpayer should pay for benefit “lifestyles” such as those of the child killer. Instead of deeming the remark “in bad taste”, Mr Cameron backed the Chancellor’s comments, insisting that the case did raise “wider questions” about the welfare system and saying society had to consider what “signals” benefits sent.

The Prime Minister said: “I think what George Osborne said was absolutely right. He said that Mr Philpott was the one to blame for his crimes and he should be held responsible. But what the Chancellor went on to say is that we should ask some wider questions about our welfare system, how much it costs and the signals it sends. And we do want to make clear that welfare is there to help people who work hard and should not be there as a sort of life choice. I think that is entirely legitimate.”

So why is it right to make political capital from the deaths of six children, but condemn remarks against an ambiguous political public figure? Guardian columnist and associate editor Seumas Milne was immediately put on the ‘naughty list’ by blogger Steve Hynd, along with a host of other notable leftists for expressing their views in the aftermath of Thatcher’s death. Milne referred to his 2012 article about the Iron Lady, in which he described her as “the most socially destructive British politician of our times”, while the Conservatives denounced the Liberal Democrats for not suspending their Leicester City Council election campaign after her death.

Hunger strikes in Northern IrelandConservative deputy county council leader Byron Rhodes said: “It’s sad and disrespectful. She was the greatest Prime Minister of our lifetime and she changed the face of British politics.” Even the usually politically-inclined BBC coverage was accused of being “disrespectful” by Tory politicians. The news channel aired a live interview with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, who said “working-class communities in Ireland were devastated by Thatcherism…her draconian policies prolonged the war here, she is most famously remembered for the 1980s hunger strikes.”

Many critics spoke out against the interview, describing the decision to air his words as “disrespectful” given the IRA attempted to kill Lady Thatcher. Tory MP Ben Wallace said: “I think it’s disrespectful to give such a significant amount of coverage to a man who belongs to an organisation which tried to murder her.” There seems to be a timescale in terms of the Thatcher debate in which certain opinions are permitted to be expressed while other ‘negative’ comments are deemed impertinent.

Yet was there any sensitivity shown towards the Philpott case? Within two hours of Mick Philpott being handed down a life sentence for the manslaughter of his six children, the Chancellor said: “It’s right we ask questions as a Government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like [Philpott’s]. It does need to be handled.”

Philpott children

A Daily Mail article following the comments said that Mick Philpott “embodies everything that is wrong with the welfare state” and described how he allegedly treated his children as “cash cows” to generate a £60,000 a year income from benefits. The article emblazoned with a photograph of Philpott and the six young victims, hones in on the Philpotts’ desire for a “bigger house”. While there is no justification for Philpott’s behaviour, there is a time and a place to “cash-in” on the affair for political gain.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls subsequently launched a scathing attack on what he called the “cynical, nasty and divisive” way Mr Osborne linked the Philpott case with the broader issue of state benefits. Mr Balls said the “desperate” Chancellor had offended millions of hard-working people and was playing politics with a tragic case for his own political gain.

The double-standards seem to reflect the type of person targeted. Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. For instance, the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez: “To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance.” No one used the grounds that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family or the rest of the Philpott family to mourn in peace unlike Thatcher.

As the Guardian’s civil liberties columnist Glenn Greenwald writes about the “misapplied death etiquette”: “There’s something distinctively creepy – in a Roman sort of way – about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death… If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history.”

Therefore, it’s a question over who is worth grieving – according to political needs. The bottom line is that the Conservatives still hold up Thatcher as their trailblazer; as Mr Cameron expressed “Thatcher made Britain great again”, while Chavez and Philpott are just instruments of the ‘terrible welfare state’ or ‘evils of Communism’.

Posted by on April 11, 2013 in politics and tagged , , , .

6 Comments

March 17, 2013

Iraq War about ‘nuclear orientalism’ and not ‘weapons of mass destruction’

Image

“Britain is going to war with Iraq”- I still remember sitting in a school assembly when those words were uttered. Even after a decade, both the United States and Britain are still lingering in the Middle East. Have they really ‘emancipated’ the people from the reins of a dictator, or did the West just expel themselves of a threat to their insecurity? Was it really ever about weapons of mass destruction, extracting oil or promoting democracy? The war symbolises how the structure of global politics dominates in favour of a Eurocentric approach, a crusade of neo-liberal and realist ideologies and consequently the prejudiced undertones of the ‘West versus Other’ mentality.

It was one of the first questions I began to ask – why is Iraq seen as a threat when nuclear weapons exist in the West? According to leading academic Hugh Gusterson, there has long been a widespread perception among Western defence intellectuals, politicians, and nuclear pundits that, while we can currently live with the nuclear weapons of the five official nuclear nations (the US, UK, France, China and Russia), “the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Third World, especially the Islamic world, would be enormously dangerous.”

Gusterson notes that this observation is a form of “Nuclear Orientalism” or outright “Nuclear Racism” in which those with shared Western cultural identities and ideologies group together, creating oppositions such as “civilised” vs. “barbarian”; “West” vs. “Other”; and “modern” vs. “backwards”. As soon as we see these terms, because of mainstream discourse and media, we immediately associate this positioning ‘as a matter of fact’ to non-Western countries. What ‘nuclear defence weapons’ are to the West, ‘weapons of mass destruction’ are to the East.

But what is missing from the mainstream, is the point that the language used is discriminatory from the outset. The West has determined what states are considered to be ‘sovereign’ or ‘real’ and which are considered ‘quasi-states’ i.e. ‘not-formally-seen as sovereign’ states. Even Germany, with one of the most advanced economies in Europe has long-been considered only ‘semi-sovereign’, principally because of the Second World War. So it’s hardly a surprise that a Middle Eastern country such as Iraq would be seen as a ‘rogue-state’ alongside many of the Arab nations, “too immature” to play with nuclear weapons.

Subsequently when Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2009, helped to sell the war to the public, even Hadley said he was wrong in citing Saddam Hussein’s alleged stock of weapons of mass destruction as a reason for the invasion. He stands by the judgment, however, that Saddam was a threat to the US and the region. So this isn’t about the fact that Iraq had nuclear weapons as such- it’s about ‘the wrong people’ having nuclear weapons.

In Western discourse, the passionate or instinctual has been identified with women and implicitly contrasted with male human rationality. Third World nations are also portrayed as children, and the US as a parental figure ensuring “good behaviour”. In a 1987 New York Times editorial on Pakistan’s nuclear programme, it speaks of the US “scoldings” of Pakistan and that “US demands for good Pakistani behavior from now on“.

As Hadley wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2010: “[The Iraqi people] endured great brutality under Saddam, suffered enormous hardship after the invasion, joined forces with us to liberate themselves from al Qaeda terrorism […] But even Iraqis admit that they could not have succeeded without the United States.” This only goes to highlight the Western attitude, in which they see themselves as “saving” populations – in the same vein as European NGOs and formerly Christian missionaries, spreading the word of Western ideology.

Image

We will keep seeing iconic images, such as the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, the victory signs made by Iraqi civilians and the “success” of the Iraq war. But are Iraqis really living in ‘ebony and ivory’ with US and UK troops? The National Public Radio quotes that so far, about 4,400 US troops, of which 136 have been killed in action; while the BBC writes that 179 British service personnel, and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, have been killed. The Iraqi people are portrayed to be “ungrateful” to the West for ‘liberating’ them, despite the catastrophic number of Iraqi deaths.

In the language of realist defence intellectuals, better still the current CIA director John Brennan –  civilian deaths are merely seen as “collateral damage”, whilst the security of a state by its armed forces against the Other is by far the most important factor of international politics.

At his confirmation hearing to become CIA director, Brennan was questioned on why drone strikes were being used. He insisted that targeted killing programs were used only as “a last resort to save lives when is there is no other alternative.” What this only goes to show is that Western lives are worth “saving” at the expense of non-Westerns – a slightly worrying notion that the leading political discourse, in which global politics uses as a foundation and claims to be ‘rational’ and objective, is evidently prejudiced.

Edward Said, the literary virtuoso behind “Orientalism” identified the fear of a Muslim holy war as one of the cornerstones of orientalist ideology, which was labelled as the “Islamic bomb”. Unsurprisingly, Iran is next on the “kill list”. So why does the West invade a country in the name of “saving” it, and in the same breath label the peoples “backwards” and a “threat?” It surely isn’t in the Iraqi interest, but rather safeguarding the neo-liberal identity.

Iraq continues to experience violence on a daily basis even with Western ‘humanitarian intervention’ and the death of Saddam Hussein. So it’s barely a measure to go by. By framing political dynamics in non-Western contexts in comparison to models of European state formation only seems to continue dominance of Western powers within the state system, and what we are left with is a smokescreen of a valiant knight in shining armour protecting the damsel in distress.

Posted by on March 17, 2013 in Global Issues and tagged , , , , .

Leave a Comment

March 16, 2013

We wouldn’t need Comic Relief if we gave back African resources to Africa

Image

There is nothing more heartrending than watching the desperate plight of African children for Comic Relief every year. Raising more than £800 million in 25 years is a commendable effort, but it alludes to an important issue. Why is the African condition not improving and are we looking at the wrong actors for the cause of this?

According to an article published by The Citizen, statements made in March 2012 at the Times Africa CEO Summit by former EU trade commissioner Lord Peter Mandelson suggested that European humanitarian organisations were involved in a conspiracy to keep Africa in the throes of poverty. Lord Mandelson said that European charities opposed his attempts to re-negotiate trade agreements that would benefit Africa with more commercial opportunities: “When I tried to re-negotiate EU’s trade rules […] who were the people trying to silence me? [...]It was the European NGOs!”.

The former Cabinet minister accused Western charities of “trapping Africa in continued poverty” by hampering trade talks with the EU that could have delivered development and economic growth adding that it was “biggest discovery of my life”.

However, European NGOs are hardly the only culprits involved in keeping Africa in a permanent state of dependency and poverty. African states are seen to bear the brunt of political dysfunction, primarily because of two financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, well-known for imposing conditions that cripples the African continent.

Image

These institutions seem to prescribe unrealistic and unpopular measures to qualify for loans in which conditions include measures to privatise natural resources and allowing unlimited access to foreign companies, designed to keep Africa eternally poor or dependent on the West. It’s ironic that the two monetary institutions were first formed by 44 nations at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 with the original goal of creating a stable framework for the post-war global economy.

Now, the IMF and World Bank are largely controlled and owned by the development nations such as the US, Germany, UK, Japan, amongst others. As academic Michael Hodd writes in “Africa, the IMF and the World Bank”, the US controls 17 to 18% of the voting right at the IMF. When an 85% majority is required for a decision, the US effectively has veto power at the IMF. In addition, the World Bank is 51% funded by the US treasury.

Under a plane devised mechanism, the World Bank and the IMF loan money in return for the structural adjustment of their economies. This means that economic direction of each country would be planned, monitored, and controlled in Washington. Even as Africa faces the worst health crisis in human history, these institutions insist that debt repayments take priority over spending on the fight against poverty and HIV/AIDS. Nana K. Poku, Professor of African Studies at Bradford University, writes that African countries continue to spend up to five times more on debt servicing than on health care for their populations. So despite all of this ‘guidance’ from the West, it’s rather clear that the poverty-stricken conditions of Africa isn’t about to change, otherwise it would have done so decades before.

Consequently when Lord Mandelson and former Prime Minister Tony Blair argued at the Times conference that the solution to Africa’s problem is effective governance and foreign direct investments, it seems the current arrangement is part of the problem in why Africa remains one of the poorest places in the world.

Renowned author of the Shock Doctrine Naomi Klein wrote: “Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest place on earth, is also its most profitable investment destination. It offers, according to the World Bank’s 2003 Global Development Finance report, “the highest returns on foreign direct investment of any region in the world.” Africa is poor because its investors and its creditors are so unspeakably rich.”

It’s hardly any surprise that proponents of the anti- Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) move between Africa and the West, including Tanzania’s retired president Benjamin Mkapa, contended that the West still want to hold Africa hostage to trade and investments. At the same summit, the former president said African economies could not be fully opened up to the West without responding benefits to level the playing field.

Mkapa argued that Africa will not emancipate itself from poverty and chains of colonialism until it chooses to reconsider its position in the world today through regional integration towards a United States of Africa.

This privatisation goes hand-in-hand with trade liberalisation, as well as neo-liberal ideals. Neo-liberals argue that, the fundamental factor responsible for the economic crisis in Africa is the excessive state regulation of the economies of African countries, which among other things distorts the process of economic development and leads to inefficiency in the allocation of resources.

ImageThey maintain that the problem can only be overcome through the peripheralisation of the state and the ascendancy of market forces in Africa’s political economy. In this light, neo-liberal countries have decided to impose their neo-liberal ideas on African countries.

Neo-liberals call for good governance, democratisation and human right. Through this, they tend to present themselves as friends of civil society while presenting the state as the enemy. The emphasis on liberal democracy and state sponsored democratisation has only resulted in the installation in power of the corrupt and decadent element that contributed greatly to the development crisis in the first place. Not to mention, the allocation of resources has played directly into Western hands.

And that is exactly what this situation entails. Neo-colonialism has mutated into a financial-based hegemony in which distinctive cultural orientations and foreign policy pressures prevail over other cultural groupings such as in Africa.

So while charities continue to raise money every year to save the plight of millions by attempting to provide vital vaccinations and crucial treatment, the only way Africa can be ‘saved’ is by handing African resources back to Africa, and making the governments involved pay the price for inducing this crisis.

Posted by on March 16, 2013 in Global Issues, politics and tagged , , , , , .

4 Comments

March 8, 2013

Women should be acknowledged everyday and not just once a year

International Women's Day

I don’t want to be the patronising malcontent that spoils the fun on a day such as International Women’s Day (IWD), in which women across the world celebrate various facets of what makes a woman just that – a woman. There is never any harm in all the pomp and glory that comes around on the 8th March every year, but it is important to note that celebrating respect, appreciation, achievements and love towards women should be exercised every single day.

It’s a bit like hailing the fact that some newspapers such as the Guardian or The Daily Telegraph have a ‘Women’s Section’. And while it is important to raise these issues, it’s rather depressing that women have been casted under the ‘Life & Style’ category, as if we have chosen to be one because it is a la mode.

Award-winning columnist Suzanne Moore has written a rather cynical article in the same vein marking the ‘special day’, in which she rightly asserts that “Somehow it all feels rather patronising”. The lists, the interactives, the images, tend to brush over all the hard work that women put in 364 days in the year just to walk one more step towards equality. And then in one fell swoop, the media and governmental hogs take credit for taking notice of women.

IWD in some cases has been deemed as a form of ‘Mother’s Day’ or ‘Valentine’s Day for the matriarchy’ with even condescending greeting cards for the occasion; in which many take notice of the fact that woman ‘feel unappreciated’ and just ‘wants some attention.’ It has been depoliticised into a cliché, when its origins are rooted from a strike in New York by garment workers which led to the setting up of the first trade union in America.

Meanwhile, the statistics that appear on the 8th March, only goes to prove that for the rest of the year, not only are women missing from the picture, they are also far from being equal – they are underpaid, underprivileged and unacknowledged.

Take for example, 13,500 people – 80% of them women – reported domestic violence to charity Citizens Advice last year; 140 million girls will become child brides by 2020 at current rates; and a survey of women in work, ranks Britain 18th of 27 countries on job security and pay - far from an egalitarian utopia. These figures only seem to get front page coverage on IWD, while for the rest of the year; it is a mere footnote, hidden in the back pages.

And after wading through all the flag-waving and harmonious chanting, what’s even more depressing is that women who have been campaigning tirelessly are nowhere to be seen on these high-flying power-lists, or these glorified images. And by the day after, when all the Twitter hashtags have disappeared and it is no longer news or social media-worthy, the people who only celebrate equality on IWD would have all scattered in various directions, and the movement would once again be ejected to the Lifestyle pile.

So for all those wimms who have been putting women at the forefront and making a difference to all out there every single day, here is a personal thank you.

Find organisations/ outlets to support here:

(The list is endless, so apologies for missing out your organisation.)

Posted by on March 8, 2013 in Gender and tagged , , , , .

1 Comment

March 4, 2013

It’s hard to ‘keep calm’ when you’re being sold sexism

Image

This weekend saw a spate of online indignation at internet retailer Amazon and US company Solid Gold Bomb after the T-shirt business ‘inadvertently’ sold tops with offensive slogans including ‘Keep Calm And Rape A Lot.’

After hundreds of #NotBuyingIt tweets in less than 24 hours after they went on sale, the T-shirts have since been removed.

The company has since apologised claiming it was a computer error: Slogans had been “automatically generated using a scripted computer process running against hundreds of thousands of dictionary words”, they said on their website.

The clothing line also included messages like “Keep calm and hit her” and “Keep calm and knife her”. These statements show a worrying trend of sexism and general lack of corporate social responsibility, a trend that has been going on under our noses and right in front of us simultaneously for quite some time.

In the latest statement by founder Michael Fowler, he ironically called on the nation to halt the tirade of violent verbal abuse he has subsequently received following this matter. “Turn the hate off and get off the bandwagon,” said Fowler. The same could be said of the company towards women.

Even British politicians voiced their outrage at the “Keep Calm” logo.

Former Labour Party deputy leader Lord Prescott, the MP who was urged to step down in 2006 for being labelled “sexist” said: “First Amazon avoids paying UK tax. Now they’re make money from domestic violence.”

“These are ridiculous, mindless products for anybody to attempt to sell. It is absurd to say they were manufactured in error,” said Conservative Party MP Caroline Dinenage, according to The Daily Mail.

And the shadow Culture Secretary Harriet Harman told The Independent that Amazon should give all profits from sales of the T-shirts to a women’s refuge as an apology.

“Domestic violence and sex offences are not something people should make money out of,” she added.

Amazon in this instance has been caught red-handed. However there are far more examples by the company that can be addressed.

Image

Just typing in the word ‘sexist’ in the Amazon search box, you can find a whole host of sexist products. For example, the “Get Back in the Kitchen” bumper sticker is a popular sell.Image

And there are plenty more T-shirts of which consumers have an array of options, not just limited to the “Keep Calm” series.

But it’s not the first time a company has used some form of sexism to sell a product and it needs to be called upon. Consumers have an array of options, and are not just limited to the “Keep Calm” series.

And on my quest while searching for sexist products, I was led straight to Zazzle – a godforsaken haven for women-hating imbeciles. One of the first T-shirt messages spotted on the website seemed to make the Solid Gold Bomb T-shirts look like compliments.

Image

Apparently “50,000 women battered and I’m still eating mine plain” is an attractive top to wear when you are outside along with a plethora of other benign messages.

Men’s Lifestyle online website “Ask Men” have even posted about the ‘sexist attire’ trend. According to the writers, JCPenney, and Forever 21 have “all weathered controversies recently”, but their products are only the latest in the long tradition of the sexist T-shirt.

Abercrombie was identified as the “biggest offender” in their T-shirt galley, but they added: ”And while we don’t endorse the messages on these shirts, we have to admit: Some of them are pretty funny.”

Image

In 2011, Topman came under pressure to explain why they compared women to dogs and a T-shirt featuring a checklist of excuses which bear an uncomfortable resemblance to those associated with domestic violence.

Topman responded: ”Whilst we would like to stress that these T-shirts were meant to be light-hearted and carried no serious meaning we have made the decision to remove these from the store and online as soon as possible.” It is worrying that such a product was made in the first place that deems a rather sinister T-shirt, a bit of ‘light-hearted’ fun.

Business Insider did a scoop in the same year about all the sexist T-shirts available, worryingly even children were made targets.

David and Goliath, a ‘leading apparel designer, manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer,’ according to their corporate website, is yet another novelty brand that seems to think the way into consumers’ pockets is by targeting certain audiences to make a sale.

ImageThe retailer sells anything from men’s and women’s T-shirts to children’s accessories, so it was rather disturbing to find ‘buttons’ that state: “My Other Ride is Your Mum”, and “Gold Digger – Like a Hooker but Smarter”.

Image

So we’ve clearly seen how apathetic businesses respond in terms of social responsibility. But if Amazon is anything to compare by, then internet retailer Play.com is not far behind. ‘Lusty Linda’ the animated talking pen holder, was one for the record books. According to the F-Word, Lusty Linda The Pen Holder had 10 different sayings including: “ooow (ouch)! Get out you, you dirty old man! What are you looking at? Help! Help! Oh ooh (excited).”

You can just picture the hideous misogynistic corporate co-worker ogling it on his desk, while essentially raping a toy.

In a world with a shifting social consciousness and women accounting for 85% of all consumer purchases, it is astounding that such blatant sexism still abounds in the marketplace.

There is a general consensus in the world of business that companies must engage in corporate social responsibility in giving back to their communities and their consumers. And as brands continue to become increasingly interactive with their consumers, we will expect that they become our role models for social change.

Now having seen the heated reaction against Amazon, perhaps a culture of “naming and shaming” may have to be induced as it seems only fair that other companies start showing that same level of responsibility to the wider cause.

Posted by on March 4, 2013 in Domestic Violence, Gender and tagged , , , , , .

Leave a Comment

March 3, 2013

Britain points their finger at India’s rape culture without addressing their own

ImageThere seems to be an aftershock from the Delhi gang-rape and subsequent death of the 23-year-old victim named ‘Damini’, the “lightning” strike that continues to shake the world. But is it that the incident is so horrifying, it makes us cringe at the thought of such an occurrence or does it essentially strike a chord with Britain’s prevalent rape culture?

Soon after the atrocity, a group of women vandalised a bar in Mumbai because it had continued to sell a cocktail called the ‘rapist’, despite India being amid a social and political upheaval after the death of ‘Damini’. But rape cultures have not been created in a vacuum. It has been nourished by traditional norms and attitudes, even condoned, trivialised and celebrated in popular culture and language both in the West and the East.

‘Rape’ jokes, analogies and casual talk are commonplace within all walks of life in British popular culture, from titillating lads’ mags to comic gags about incest and pornography. At the 2012 Edinburgh comedy festival, there were rape and domestic violence jokes flying left, right and centre. Writer and spectator Tanya Gold described an instance of a comic called Gerry K, who told a joke about watching a pimp fighting with two prostitutes. “I’m not having that,” he says, “So I joined in.” And then the reveal – “I punched her spark out.”

Renowned comic Jimmy Carr, of course, has several one-liners on the subject (“What do nine out of 10 people enjoy? Gang rape.”) Trivialising and normalising violence towards women only makes it more acceptable and easier to perpetuate inequality. Unfortunately, sexism does not appear on par with other forms of prejudices, and so it is still used excessively both in the UK and in India.

Another common culprit is lads’ mags. A group of men and women participating in a study at Middlesex University published in 2011 found it difficult to differentiate between statements given by convicted rapists and the way lads’ mags routinely describe women. Quotes were taken from The Rapist Files: Interviews With Convicted Rapists by Sussman & Bordwell and four titles: Zoo, Nuts, Loaded and FHM.

“Go and smash her on a park bench,” could appear to be the words of a convicted rapist. But in actual fact, the phrasing was chosen by former Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys in 2011, which was a direct quote from a mid-shelf publication. So it comes as no surprise that the results revealed overall, more of the men identified with the quotes by rapists, only changing their minds when the source of the quote was revealed.

Delhi Gang Rape protests

So after I attended the Delhi Gang Rape protests in London, I was hardly surprised to be confronted by women campaigning that “Rape is No Joke”. The campaigners write:

“One brave woman in the audience of a Daniel Tosh comedy gig heckled “rape jokes are never funny” after he had told several in a row. He responded by asking the audience: “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her?”

We’re not laughing. And neither are the 80,000 women who are raped every year in the UK alone.”

Rape culture in the West gives the impression that is harmless, titillating entertainment, while India’s customs is considered social and deeply political. The shift onto the political has helped to showcase the topic as a matter of urgency, allowing the UK to distance itself from its own imperfections around inequality by demonising Indian society.

However, India is not far behind the UK and the US in terms of creating a western rape culture, becoming the third largest user of pornography in the world according to the Hindu Times. The vast country even has its own cultural language to describe the endemic sexual harassment of women and sexual aggression – Eve teasing. This kind of harassment, often described in India as innocent play, is almost routine.

The archaic term comes from the Old Testament, describing harassment as “teasing,” and manifesting as touching, groping, staring, slapping, flashing and even pornographic material. And yet such degrading behaviour has been linked to romanticised Bollywood films.

A hero teases a heroine as part of the wooing process and invariably, the latter succumbs to his ‘masculine’ charms. However, Indian men seem to be re-enacting their own lewd versions of the films. As many as 90% of women have reported instances of Eve teasing, according to a study by Srividya Ramasubramanian on the Portrayals of Sexual Violence in Popular Hindi Films.

The author wrote: “The findings suggest that moderate sexual violence is depicted as fun, enjoyable, and a normal expression of romantic love […] severe sexual violence was portrayed as criminal and serious, whereas moderate sexual violence was treated as fun and romantic.”

And no doubt, Indian governance and politics plays a substantial role in disenfranchising women from the offset. In 2002, Law Professor Upendra Baxi said that the political system created a rape culture, preventing women from being able to report sexual violence along with other crimes, and concluded that it set the stage for violence against women to be a “perfect crime”.

By creating a foundation that trivialises rape, both Western and Eastern societies have set an example that it is perfectly acceptable for women to be sexually harassed. Without changing societal attitudes and transforming fundamental practices, the rape culture will continue to transcend boundaries, legitimising violence against women.

Posted by on March 3, 2013 in Gender and tagged , , , .

Leave a Comment

March 24, 2012

‘Prince John Tax’: Stealing from the Elderly to Feed the Super-Rich

They may have toiled for decades, but pensioners are still paying for the mistakes of latter governments. That certainly was the case this week following the Budget announcement, in which Chancellor George Osborne sought to raid £3 billion out of pensioners’ pockets. The “granny tax” has turned out to be just another farce to serve high-earners, cutting the 50p top rate for Britain’s wealthiest earners.

The government has put a spin on the whole ‘pensioners will be better off’ slant by stating a move towards a simplified single personal allowance. By freezing existing Age Related Allowances (ARAs) from 6 April 2013 until they align with personal allowances, and withdrawing ARAs from new pensioners; almost 360,000 people could lose £285 per year. A little contradictory to their ‘better off’ angle, especially as the richest 1% (earning more than £150,000), are having their taxes cut.

No doubt, young people are also receiving the short end of the straw. But while we may feel that work invades the majority of our lives now; improvements in technology, with easier-to-use computers now on most people’s desks, have meant that we are working on at a less frenetic pace than back in 1995.

Dr Burchell, a senior lecturer in the sociology department of Cambridge University, has with European colleagues been surveying workers every five years. The long-running study found that in 1990, British workers on the verge of retiring now spent 37% of their day working intensively. This increased substantially in 1995 to 49%, as the great majority of offices started to adopt computers on a widespread scale. However, in 2000 the figure fell to 45%. In the latest update, covering 2005, the figure has fallen again to 40%.

The Office for National statistics also dispels the myth that we are working longer hours now, as earlier this year; the average hours worked per week was 31.7, while in 1995 the number of hours worked by the average full-time worker was 38.5 hours a week. So is it really fair to ask those who spent the last four decades working intensively in technologically disadvantaged workplaces, to then foot the bill for the rich and privileged?

The Treasury acknowledged that some 4.5 million pensioners will lose out as a result of a decision to phase out ARAs, however to add insult to injury, businesses will also profit from the Budget as another 1% cut has been made in the rate of corporation tax.

The ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’ has also said that by 2014, the tax rate will drop further to 22%, despite pensioners earning a lower income of £10,500 to £24,000 unfairly losing allowances. Pensioners with an income of more than £30,000 (a mere 10%) will not be affected at all because they would not have received the extra allowance.

Saga director-general Ros Altman said on Twitter that pensioners have already been hit by high inflation and low interest rates giving them little return on their savings. Ms Altman wrote: “Older people already faced stealth taxes: Low interest rates, higher inflation, Quantitative Easing on annuities/income drawdown hit their income.

“The message of this Budget is – don’t bother to save for the future and if you’re too old to work anymore, you don’t count.”

The Institute of Fiscal Studies have also confirmed that people turning 65 next year will lose up to £323 with little forewarning. Labour’s shadow Chancellor Ed Balls reacted to the report stating: “It’s now even clearer that this was a Budget that asked millions to pay more so millionaires could pay less.”

And for the younger generations with longer lifespans, the Chancellor has introduced an automatic review to make sure retirement keeps with the pace of mortality. A 21 year old, emerging this summer from university will need to keep that steam up until they are 75, while a 2012 baby may see the prospect of retirement only 80 years later in 2092.

Next on the coalition government agenda: how to pilfer from the poor and public services. Oh wait, they already are.

Posted by on March 24, 2012 in Austerity Measures, politics and tagged , , , , .

3 Comments

March 21, 2012

National Health, Wealth and Political Stealth: Privatisation through the ‘Back Door’

This week, I actually had to look up the term ‘Liberal’ and ‘Democrat’ again in the dictionary. The Party may be advocating free trade, but they certainly are going against individual liberties and social political reforms with the introduction of the NHS reform bill. The Health and Social Care Bill is making its way through parliamentary legislation, as Labour failed this week in derailing the coalition’s final plans to privatise Britain’s healthcare system.

It’s important to understand the journey that the National Health Service has taken since its inception on July 5th 1948, in order to truly grapple with post-war British mentality. The ethos and the pattern of the NHS had much in common with the newly-nationalised state industries, railways, steel and the utilities after the Second World War.

Former Labour politician, Aneurin Bevan had created a command structure for the NHS, a ‘welfare state’ ideology and the idea that the system would be heavily dominated by those providing the services. Mr Bevan written in “In Place of Fear” (1952): “The collective principle asserts that [...] no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.”

According to Medicine and the Community published in the British Medical Journal, author Sir George Godber said that what the NHS had done for society was change the way in which people could obtain and pay for care. They ceased to pay for medical attention when they needed it, and paid instead, as taxpayers, collectively. The NHS improved accessibility and distributed what there was more fairly. It made rational development possible, for the hierarchical system of command and control enabled the examination of issues such as equity.

The Times pointed out that the ‘masses had joined the middle classes.’ Doctors had become social servants in a much fuller sense. It was now difficult for them to stand aside from their patients’ social difficulties or to work in isolation from the social services. The Ministry of Health, having worked for the establishment of the NHS, now became passive.

The original structure of the NHS in England and Wales had three aspects, known as the tripartite system consisted of hospital services, primary care including general practitioners and community services run by local authorities. The service was an extension of the centralised state-run ‘Emergency Medical Service’ (EMS).

The government had grasped the reality of the situation: thousands of people ailing from conflict meant that half of Britain’s workforce was out of commission, and in turn the economy had no labour force to continue growth in the country. Before the nationalised health system, patients were generally required to pay for their health care.

So what does the Health and Social Care Bill 2010 – 2012 entail for UK citizens now? Well, for a start, groups of local GPs and other clinicians will plan and buy most of the health care for the people in their area, known as ‘commissioning.’ It will be Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) that will be in charge of budgets for their area.

The new arrangements will be very different and mean that GP groups are in charge. And strategic health authorities will be abolished by April 2013 and primary care trusts (PCTs) will formally hand over their commissioning responsibilities to GPs by April 2013. All NHS hospital trusts will become foundation trusts, in which NHS hospitals that are run as independent, public benefit corporations, and controlled locally.

Essentially, the government’s move will lead to the abolition of all 10 strategic health authorities and the 152 management bodies/ primary care trusts. The new structure will be held accountable by an independent NHS board which would be free from political interference, the government said. Meanwhile, responsibility for public health will be passed to local authorities. Hospitals are to be moved out of the NHS to create a “vibrant” industry of social enterprises under the proposals.

And that’s the key issue. The repercussions of changing healthcare into another ‘industry,’ is that the NHS will no longer be a national service, but a local business, with the quality of care being at jeopardy as it runs as another entrepreneurial venture. The ‘welfare state’ ideology has been demolished into a capitalist dream and the only welfare considered will be private patients with insurance companies lining their pockets.

It reminded me of a moment in Michael Moore’s acclaimed 2007 documentary ‘SiCKO,’ based on the American healthcare system. The film compares the for-profit, non-universal US system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba. Mr Moore entered a UK hospital and was astonished to find that patients had no-out-of-pocket expenses. While according to the film, fifty million Americans are uninsured and the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud. And it seems like the UK are heading in the same direction.

Yesterday, an emergency debate was held at the House of Lords which showed the Liberal Democrats ousting individual freedom for free market economics. Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Burnham said that one of the “best health services in the world” and the “Labour party’s finest achievement” was being dismantled. He opened a debate over whether the Government should publish the Risk Register, an internal document on the risks associated with the health reforms.

Mr Burnham argued for transparency in the system, a key factor to a nationalised public service. However, political stealth officially made its way into parliament, as the Commons voted 328 to 246, majority 82, against Labour’s attempt to derail the Health and Social Care Bill. But then it won’t really be a state-run ‘public’ service anymore, (which the Liberal Democrats fail to admit) and so no one will be held accountable for the imminent crash.

Colin Leys, an honorary professor at Goldsmiths University of London and author of ‘The Plot Against the NHS’ wrote an article last September, highlighting ‘the end of the NHS as we know it.’ Mr Leys reiterated that the cost of market-based healthcare was more expensive to implement, than the current system. He said:

“From making and monitoring multiple and complex contracts, to advertising, billing, auditing, legal disputes, multimillion pound executive salaries, dividends and fraud – [it] will soon consume 20% or more of the health budget, as they do in the US.”

And now the only difference between the US system and the coalition government’s reforms is that they continue to work under the guise of a social democracy. But the government are heading towards an epic collapse, verging on Tony Blair’s ‘Iraq,’ and it’s unlikely they will ever recover.

Posted by on March 21, 2012 in Austerity Measures, Legislation, politics and tagged , , , , .

4 Comments

March 17, 2012

Mixing Archaic Religion with 21st Century Politics

Britain is a veritable hotpot of cultures, with Christians, agnostics, atheists or even Jedis taking its share of the census. But why is it that despite religion’s unwillingness to conform to modernity, 21st century politics is still bending to the will of an antiquated tradition? It’s a disaster waiting to backfire.

Earlier this week, Tony Nicklinson, a long-term sufferer of locked-in syndrome won his case to go to the High Court, in order to lawfully end his life at the hands of medical professionals. It was a mini success for those advocating civil liberties, but a major setback for religious establishments, with the Church’s moral compass spinning uncontrollably. ‘Pro-life’ alliance Care Not Killing has said that the current law was “clear and right,” claiming that Mr Nicklinson’s case is an “assault on the Murder Act 1965.”

However, what Care Not Killing conveniently forgets to state is the fact that Mr Nicklinson does not have a choice in terms of wanting to have an assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. “Mercy killing” as it is widely known, refers to the active termination of another’s life to end some form of incurable suffering to which that person is subjected to, with informed consent.

Although both are forms are illegal in England and Wales, in the case of assisted suicide proceedings can only be taken by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions which will only be given where it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

As a result of this where a person clearly wishes to commit suicide, but requires assistance to do so, it may be less likely that the DPP will prosecute a person providing such assistance. However, the 1961 Suicide Act makes it an offence to encourage or assist a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales, and a person could face up to 14 years in prison in doing so. Hence, it isn’t as straightforward as asking for permission to end a person’s life.

Yet, in Mr Nicklinson’s case, who is completely paralysed, suicide is not even a valid option, which limits his choices to voluntary euthanasia. Mr Nicklinson released a statement that summed up the issue eloquently: “I was given no choice as to whether or not I wanted to be saved […]What I object to is having my right to choose taken away from me after I had been saved.”

“Why should I be denied a right, the right to die of my own choosing, when able-bodied people have that right and only my disability prevents me from exercising that right? [...]It’s no longer acceptable for 21st century medicine to be governed by 20th century attitudes to death.”

No doubt, it raises a complex issue in terms of how far a person may go to help others. But in a ‘democratic’ world, it is a fundamental right to have choices, in spite of the pro-life alliance’s incongruous thoughts: “Even in a free democratic society there are limits to choice.” Unsurprisingly, the coalition includes: the Christian Medical Fellowship, Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

In 2008, 45-year-old MS sufferer Debbie Purdy invited the judicial system, to do what parliament has declined to do, which is to define the reasons under which euthanasia will be allowed, if not yet regulated. In this she was supported by a YouGov poll putting support for assisted euthanasia at 86% (in 2010, it was 87 %.) A poll for Dignity in Dying records 76% support, and a British Medical Association survey of doctors 56%. Again, the government took a backseat in the euthanasia debate.

And true to form, the (former) Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams confessed to the Telegraph that “every life in every imaginable situation is infinitely precious in the sight of God.” So this isn’t really about people suffering from terminal illnesses, having the choice to end life in dignity, it’s about the religious ‘moral’ obligation to a ‘God,’ and the fact it is considered a ‘sin.’

A shame really, as in 2007, Dr Williams said an oft-quoted passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin, specifically to those Conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality.

Let us reiterate, religion has taken a massive tumble in the polls according to YouGov, claiming that only 29% of people are practicing their faith in the UK. So why do the minority still have such a stronghold over the government?

Following Dr William’s speech about ‘sin’ in the Telegraph, he then drew parallels to the growth of abortion since it was introduced, with around 200,000 pregnancies a year now terminated in Britain. He said: “The default position on abortion has shifted quite clearly over the last 40 years and to seek a change in the default position on the sanctity of life would be a disaster.”

Controlling women’s bodies by means of religion has been part and parcel of the history of misogyny. Unfortunately, it is still very apparent in the US, and is now slowly creeping back into UK legislation. Whether it is on the topic of contraception or abortion, establishments have been bringing religious ideologies into women’s reproductive systems, regardless of scientific evidence proving otherwise.

Since the inauguration of the Conservative parliament in May 2010, sexual health reforms have been hit the hardest by the government. From strongly favouring cuts to the current 24-week upper time limit on abortion to the issuing of anti-choice group LIFE on the sexual health forum board over leading abortion provider, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) it seems the UK is backtracking after decades of progress.

In May 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron put forward a motion for the abortion time limit to be cut to 20 weeks and Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, to 22 weeks. However, due to widespread campaigning by both pro-choice advocates as well as thousands of disgruntled women, MPs voted 304 votes to 233 to retain the current abortion time limit of 24 weeks.

Louise Hutchins, Abortion Rights Campaign Coordinator said: “The Commons vote against anti-abortion amendments is a decisive win for women and the pro-choice movement. Despite a sensationalist and misleading campaign by the anti-abortion lobby, women’s voices, the wealth of medical evidence and the majority of the population have been listened to. This must now be the end of anti-abortion attacks on women’s crucial rights.”

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, a firm promoter of the anti-choice bill, backed by many religious lobbying groups was one of those responsible for the appointment of LIFE’s pregnancy counselling centres to sexual advisory health board. The pro-life service conveniently are unable to provide contraceptive services as well as testing for sexually transmitted infections, as they are not included on the Department of Health’s register of Pregnancy Advisory Bureau, not to mention, they violently oppose abortion. Do the government want women to return to backstreet abortions, essentially putting their own life at risk?

And if it isn’t religion dictating choices to live or die, to give birth or not to; it’s choosing who can be married under the eyes of the law. The government may have made some headway with enforcing civil partnerships, and current plans to legalise same-sex marriages, however, as Home Secretary Theresa May reiterated it has “nothing to do with telling the Church what to do” and that religious marriage would remain illegal. Although this is clearly no longer the case.

Now even the Bible has been lost in translation and muddled by interpretation, asserting that homosexuality may or may not be a ‘sin.’ Either way, the only thing that religion has done for its reputation is make sure people feel sufficiently oppressed and alienated from an old-fashioned mentality. It’s really no wonder that there are so few practicing any religion.

The Bishop of Leicester, The Right Reverend Tim Stevens has said that the “government has gone too far” in terms of civil marriage, according to an ITV News report. However, the point he raises is that of ‘procreation’, stating that same-sex marriages would be unable to fulfil the purpose of matrimony. But again, without taking 21st century technology and social politics into account; IVF treatments, sperm donors, surrogacy, pregnant men, and the collapse of the ‘nuclear’ family – marriage isn’t the same as what it used to be.

In a world where science and innovation is progressing at warp speed, why is politics continually held back by irrelevant, outdated cultural interpretations? Let’s not forget the hundreds of wars that have been fought thanks to that Molotov cocktail of religion and politics. In their Encyclopaedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document at least 123 wars involving religious conflict.

Even now, areas in Northern Ireland are affected by three decades of violence between the Roman Catholics and Protestant unionist community. The Serbian Orthodox Christian attacks on Muslims during the Bosnian war were elevated to the level of genocide. And currently small scale conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Muslim sects in Iraq, and even pacifistic Buddhists have been at the end of long-term battles in Thailand and Tibet.

Whether in the name of a crusade or jihad, the hypocrisy that stands can be summed up into one phrase: “Love thy neighbour,” but with a fifty-foot barbed wire fence between you and your fellow citizen. So why should one stay far away from the other? Because while religion is riddled with contradictions; politics acts upon it, making it a messy reality for those in society.

Posted by on March 17, 2012 in politics, Religion and tagged , , , , .

2 Comments