Saturday 11 December 2021
Winning the lottery
So last night I went to another gig. In many ways it was just another gig in my fairly long list of gigs. But it wasn't. It was another gig in my shorter list of gigs that have made me think. I was lucky to be at this gig with my friend Mike. This contributed to me thinking about the gig not just as another music experience, but as a celebration of life and the privilege of being able to enjoy it.
The band The Lottery Winners have a well documented reputation as an unlucky band. Cancelled record company contracts, pandemic effects on their record releases and touring etc have made them a band that could easily have given up before now.
Their latest album has just appeared at number 11 in the charts. It matters not whether such rankings mean anything to music lovers. What matters is what is means to the band and the followers they’ve collected over recent years.
I first saw them playing a Sofar Sounds gig in the 2022NQ basement bar in Manchester in 2013. It also had Hawker Reunion and Matthew Grey on the bill and they had and would play Acoustic Amnesty fundraiser gigs that I arranged. The Lottery Winners were therefore somehow connected in my head to the good, local, supportive element of the music scene.
The other gigs included them agreeing to play a People’s History Museum fundraiser curated by Sam Duckworth and headlined by Billy Bragg in 2015. They very kindly agreed to let Bragg use their backline equipment when it would have been easier to just load the van and piss off home. Another event that connected them with the good guys of music in my brain.
So we now arrive in 2021 with the band hitting that album chart thing. My mate Mike and I coincidentally arrive in Halifax to see them the day after this is achieved. On the way there, we’ve popped into Dukes bar on Mike’s always to be trusted recommendation. It’s a belter and, more importantly, it allows us to catch up and me to be reminded of Mike’s part in some of music’s good times – running a great small pub venue against the odds and putting on gigs including sometimes supporting performers when they were struggling financially as is sadly too often the case these days.
This positive reminiscing fuels us (with the beer and pub food!) towards the Piece Hall in Halifax for the gig. I didn’t know what to expect but the venue turns out to be the same Shangrila style marquee set up used in Manchester’s Food and Drink Festival years ago and it’s beautiful. This, coupled with the general brilliance of the Piece Hall courtyard it sits in, with the additions of Xmas décor all around and a sneaky pre gig fag break chat with Tom of the band as we wander in, leads us to the arrival of the band onstage for the gig itself.
The sound quality wasn’t the best, possibly because of the beautiful venue marquee’s structure, but it mattered not a jot. What mattered was the emotion of the gig. The band were understandably emotional because of the chart news, and the element of the crowd who knew their journey so far joined in with the emotion too. And rightly so. One key thing about The Lottery Winners is they collect supporters who bond with them. They’re all on the journey together. One of them I chatted to briefly at the bar was a great example. He seemed as pleased and emotional about the occasion as the band.
A music night with a mate and a gang of music people who deserve to celebrate the success so far of The Lottery Winners. They’ve had a small lottery win this week and anyone who supports the good guys in music will be hoping they win even bigger soon.
Sunday 27 March 2016
Learning from my sectarianism?
Learning from my sectarianism?
Two recent events in the city I’m from have made me think of comparisons between the sectarianism and bigotry I grew up with and today’s versions.
- The first was a senior Islamic imam praising a murderer of a politician who stood against strict blasphemy laws in Pakistan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123.
- The second was the murder of a muslim apparently by another who disagreed with his friendship towards Christians - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35898543.
I grew up in the sectarian bigoted divide of Glasgow. This was due to my family background and was made worse by the Roman Catholic faith based schools in Glasgow that resulted in the supposedly non-denominational schools I attended essentially being of the other (protestant) tribe. This was at a time when the sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland significantly affected our city due to the two-way migration between the two over many decades.
What did these experiences teach me about today’s versions of religious bigotries?
Protection by privilege
The loyalist side of the divide that I grew up in held the view that the way to prevent abuse by the republican side was to give themselves privilege or maintain those that already existed such as the Churches of England and Scotland being the established religious faiths of those countries. Today we hear politicians and others argue that we need to protect the “Christian nature” of the UK. This is essentially arguing for preservation of a way of life that supposedly existed decades ago despite the world naturally moving on. They fail to see, as my loyalist community also did, that the best approach to protect themselves (and everyone else) is a secular one. Secular does not mean atheist or anti-religion, it actually means a system of government, laws, schooling etc that treats everyone equally irrespective of their beliefs or lack of them.
Free speech including blasphemy laws
Both sides of my sectarian Glasgow divide united in favouring restrictions on free speech such as blasphemy laws. They liked the approach that limited discussion and debate of beliefs because in a weird way they were comfortable to perpetuate the sectarian divide that gave them purpose in life. Instead they should have seen that free speech (in a total sense that only restricts speech that incites violence) was the best protection of their views as others such as islamists would be coming along happily using restrictions on free speech to allow their sectarian world views space to grow.
I should be clear that by Islamism is meant the use of Islam in a political system that imposes its views on everyone irrespective of their own beliefs. Jihadism such as ISIS is the version of this that uses violence to achieve its aims.
Integration including Faith based schools
In a related way, sectarian groups are happy to avoid integration of different groups because it prevents or reduces the developments that come from a sharing of ideas and approaches between belief groups. In Glasgow, the Roman Catholic church argues that their faith based schools are needed to give their believers the choice to have their kids brought up in the faith both at school as well as at home. The lack of integration this engenders is obvious to anyone who looks.
Most people don’t look however because they experience the “faith based school lite” versions that are mainly divisive in terms of limiting equal opportunities (through selection of children from relatively wealthier families). These largely middle class, pleasant schools are however one side of the same coin that has tribal, divisive schools that allow islamist doctrine to be taught to impressionable kids.
A secular approach to education in my days in Glasgow would have helped reduce division and the same can be said of today’s versions that now include other faith groups.
Identity politics
As I grew up, it was common to hear all protestants being treated as loyalist bigots and all roman catholics as republican terrorists by the other tribe. Today’s versions of these generally involve right wingers treating all muslims as one group (and a dangerous terrorist one at that) or regressive left wingers treating everyone who criticises islam as racists (sic) or islamophobes.
On the subject of islamophobia, we seem to have started using a term which is, at best, misnamed and, at worst, extremely dangerous. Islam is a belief system (or number of them) and it’s not possible to have a phobia on a belief system. Rather you disagree with it and that is acceptable. It is possible, and too common, for people to be bigoted against muslims (ie the actual people rather than their beliefs). Surely this is anti-muslim bigotry or muslimphobia not islamphobia? The latter construct serves to stop any valid debate about beliefs as the far left shout islamophobe whenever anyone questions certain teachings of islam.
The repetition of the christain bigotries of my upbringing in today’s broader beliefs environment relates to islam. We hear some say that jihadists have nothing to do with islam and the opposing extreme view that islam is essentially an extreme religion. The latter version of identity politics allows bigots to argue that all muslims are a terrorist threat in the same way loyalist bigots used to argue all catholics or Irish were.
The truth for me is that jihadists use Islamic teachings to suit their political, economic and social ends. In other words they choose the elements that suit them. To move from this to the view that islam is necessarily extreme is a leap too far.
Similarly, however, to say that jihadists have nothing to do with “true” islam is also wrong in my opinion. All religious books can be interpreted in various ways. Just because some choose a peaceful interpretation of the Koran doesn’t mean Jihadists haven’t also based their approach on it. Equally certain Christian faiths (evangelical and roman catholic) interpret the Bible in a way that abuses women’s’ rights to birth control and prevent control of the aids decease. Many therefore die unnecessarily in certain parts of the world.
Religion sits alongside political, economic and social factors
The sectarian divide I grew up in was sometimes seen simplistically as one based on faith differences. The truth of course was that the disputes were actually using religion as part of a fight over political, economic and social objectives. The protestant loyalists wanted to protect their advantages whilst the catholic republicans wanted a fairer crack of the political, economic and social whips.
Similarly today we need to try to understand extremist views by reference to these factors as well. Both the islamists/jihadists as well as the far right are driven by religious beliefs that support their political, economic and social ends.
So what do I know?
Nothing changes but everything changes. It’s a different world today because of the rise of Islamism/jihadism (and the international nature of this) but it has similarities with my sectarian upbringing. To make progress I would argue we should
- Embrace secularism as it doesn’t mean atheism and it doesn’t attack religions and faiths. Conversely it protects all of us by ensuring no one religion or faith has advantages over the rest of us.
- Protect free speech (excluding only that which incites violence) as it will allow beliefs to develop over time as they should and prevent beliefs from an age that is no longer relevant being treated as untouchable.
- Avoid moving from a perfectly valid viewpoint to an extreme one of identity politics. For example, it is valid to argue that some Islamic faiths have problems that should be addressed (such as misogyny and attacks on apostates and free speech) but if you then say all muslims are dangerous you’ve overstepped the mark. Similarly, it is acceptable to argue there is a problem with bigotry against muslims but to then shout “islamphobia” whenever anyone raises issues with islam is creating not solving problems.
What do you think?
Two recent events in the city I’m from have made me think of comparisons between the sectarianism and bigotry I grew up with and today’s versions.
- The first was a senior Islamic imam praising a murderer of a politician who stood against strict blasphemy laws in Pakistan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123.
- The second was the murder of a muslim apparently by another who disagreed with his friendship towards Christians - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35898543.
I grew up in the sectarian bigoted divide of Glasgow. This was due to my family background and was made worse by the Roman Catholic faith based schools in Glasgow that resulted in the supposedly non-denominational schools I attended essentially being of the other (protestant) tribe. This was at a time when the sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland significantly affected our city due to the two-way migration between the two over many decades.
What did these experiences teach me about today’s versions of religious bigotries?
Protection by privilege
The loyalist side of the divide that I grew up in held the view that the way to prevent abuse by the republican side was to give themselves privilege or maintain those that already existed such as the Churches of England and Scotland being the established religious faiths of those countries. Today we hear politicians and others argue that we need to protect the “Christian nature” of the UK. This is essentially arguing for preservation of a way of life that supposedly existed decades ago despite the world naturally moving on. They fail to see, as my loyalist community also did, that the best approach to protect themselves (and everyone else) is a secular one. Secular does not mean atheist or anti-religion, it actually means a system of government, laws, schooling etc that treats everyone equally irrespective of their beliefs or lack of them.
Free speech including blasphemy laws
Both sides of my sectarian Glasgow divide united in favouring restrictions on free speech such as blasphemy laws. They liked the approach that limited discussion and debate of beliefs because in a weird way they were comfortable to perpetuate the sectarian divide that gave them purpose in life. Instead they should have seen that free speech (in a total sense that only restricts speech that incites violence) was the best protection of their views as others such as islamists would be coming along happily using restrictions on free speech to allow their sectarian world views space to grow.
I should be clear that by Islamism is meant the use of Islam in a political system that imposes its views on everyone irrespective of their own beliefs. Jihadism such as ISIS is the version of this that uses violence to achieve its aims.
Integration including Faith based schools
In a related way, sectarian groups are happy to avoid integration of different groups because it prevents or reduces the developments that come from a sharing of ideas and approaches between belief groups. In Glasgow, the Roman Catholic church argues that their faith based schools are needed to give their believers the choice to have their kids brought up in the faith both at school as well as at home. The lack of integration this engenders is obvious to anyone who looks.
Most people don’t look however because they experience the “faith based school lite” versions that are mainly divisive in terms of limiting equal opportunities (through selection of children from relatively wealthier families). These largely middle class, pleasant schools are however one side of the same coin that has tribal, divisive schools that allow islamist doctrine to be taught to impressionable kids.
A secular approach to education in my days in Glasgow would have helped reduce division and the same can be said of today’s versions that now include other faith groups.
Identity politics
As I grew up, it was common to hear all protestants being treated as loyalist bigots and all roman catholics as republican terrorists by the other tribe. Today’s versions of these generally involve right wingers treating all muslims as one group (and a dangerous terrorist one at that) or regressive left wingers treating everyone who criticises islam as racists (sic) or islamophobes.
On the subject of islamophobia, we seem to have started using a term which is, at best, misnamed and, at worst, extremely dangerous. Islam is a belief system (or number of them) and it’s not possible to have a phobia on a belief system. Rather you disagree with it and that is acceptable. It is possible, and too common, for people to be bigoted against muslims (ie the actual people rather than their beliefs). Surely this is anti-muslim bigotry or muslimphobia not islamphobia? The latter construct serves to stop any valid debate about beliefs as the far left shout islamophobe whenever anyone questions certain teachings of islam.
The repetition of the christain bigotries of my upbringing in today’s broader beliefs environment relates to islam. We hear some say that jihadists have nothing to do with islam and the opposing extreme view that islam is essentially an extreme religion. The latter version of identity politics allows bigots to argue that all muslims are a terrorist threat in the same way loyalist bigots used to argue all catholics or Irish were.
The truth for me is that jihadists use Islamic teachings to suit their political, economic and social ends. In other words they choose the elements that suit them. To move from this to the view that islam is necessarily extreme is a leap too far.
Similarly, however, to say that jihadists have nothing to do with “true” islam is also wrong in my opinion. All religious books can be interpreted in various ways. Just because some choose a peaceful interpretation of the Koran doesn’t mean Jihadists haven’t also based their approach on it. Equally certain Christian faiths (evangelical and roman catholic) interpret the Bible in a way that abuses women’s’ rights to birth control and prevent control of the aids decease. Many therefore die unnecessarily in certain parts of the world.
Religion sits alongside political, economic and social factors
The sectarian divide I grew up in was sometimes seen simplistically as one based on faith differences. The truth of course was that the disputes were actually using religion as part of a fight over political, economic and social objectives. The protestant loyalists wanted to protect their advantages whilst the catholic republicans wanted a fairer crack of the political, economic and social whips.
Similarly today we need to try to understand extremist views by reference to these factors as well. Both the islamists/jihadists as well as the far right are driven by religious beliefs that support their political, economic and social ends.
So what do I know?
Nothing changes but everything changes. It’s a different world today because of the rise of Islamism/jihadism (and the international nature of this) but it has similarities with my sectarian upbringing. To make progress I would argue we should
- Embrace secularism as it doesn’t mean atheism and it doesn’t attack religions and faiths. Conversely it protects all of us by ensuring no one religion or faith has advantages over the rest of us.
- Protect free speech (excluding only that which incites violence) as it will allow beliefs to develop over time as they should and prevent beliefs from an age that is no longer relevant being treated as untouchable.
- Avoid moving from a perfectly valid viewpoint to an extreme one of identity politics. For example, it is valid to argue that some Islamic faiths have problems that should be addressed (such as misogyny and attacks on apostates and free speech) but if you then say all muslims are dangerous you’ve overstepped the mark. Similarly, it is acceptable to argue there is a problem with bigotry against muslims but to then shout “islamphobia” whenever anyone raises issues with islam is creating not solving problems.
What do you think?
Sunday 22 November 2015
My friend Kevin
My friend Kevin Wilson was one of the good guys. He was a man that I owe a lot to. Unfortunately I will not be able to repay him as he has died suddenly at a tragically young age.
Kevin brought me to the city of Manchester that I'm proud to now call home. He recruited me to work with him on a new corporate finance venture there. The job and the location would change my life. I thanked him by leaving for a new job a few years later. He never held it against me. As I've just changed jobs again, I won't now be passing the Clarence House building we shared an office in as I walk to work. However, every time I do walk past it, Kevin's "head related" comments in the office will pop into my head - "I'm off to squeeze my head" and "I had my head painted again at the weekend" probably need no explanation. His impersonation of the BeeGees will also never be forgotten.
Kevin always looked for a sneaky bargain but was generous to those around him. He would find a way of spending less if it made sense but would be the biggest spender if it helped his family or friends. The former led him to introduce me to "rice & 3" curries in Manchester while we worked for the London based merchant bank, County NatWest. He also took great delight in using the subsidised NatWest canteen around the corner from our office. Cheap deals tickled him despite the up market world he lived in. You can take the poor boy out of Gorton....
His generosity extended to working with The Big Issue in the North as a non executive director where I'm told he added a huge amount to this excellent charity. Kevin had done really well for himself given his background but never forgot how fortunate he was. One reason he did well was because of his search for "the next big idea". As an example, he developed a Chinese based prediction methodology which always sounded like tosh to me. However he launched a book, smartphone app, internet site and computer game using it. He had an entrepreneurial spirit despite what I or anyone else thought of the content.
I benefited from Kevin's generosity in many ways but I'll mention two here.
Firstly, he and his wife Rosemary were generous enough to take a group of family and friends to Their beloved Yvoire on lake Geneva to celebrate their wedding. And this was after having us at their wedding and reception in Bath. This was a truly beautiful trip that was all the more poignant for me as Kevin had previously taken me to Geneva to help run a week long finance course for 10 years. To revisit it as he celebrated his marriage to his true love was unforgettable. I was just pleased we didn't revisit the Nelson bar for a bottle of Satan beer - an 11% proof headache inducing introduction to Geneva I'd had with Kevin on my first Geneva trip with him.
I remember Kevin finding Rosemary again after they had been together at Bradford University many years before. Soulmates reunited and a beautiful happening that changed Kevin's life to the good. It was lovely to see them celebrate their 100th birthday (50 each obviously) together at Bath Racecourse as an early indication of their bond. The night always pops into my head whenever anyone mentions the time England thrashed Germany 5-1 as that was on that very Saturday night.
The second time I benefited in a major way from Kevin's generosity was when I needed to borrow a substantial amount of money for a few days. He and Rose stepped in to help in a trusting, unquestioning way that others would not have. The purchase it facilitated will always remind Serpil and I of Kevin and Rose's kindness. More importantly, the people it benefited will always remember Kevin and Rose even though they've never met.
Kevin was unique amongst my friends as the only one that knew all of my 3 wives. In fact he was my best man for one marriage. In the same way that I saw him struggle with separation and divorce and then find his true love, he saw me do the same and kindly told me that I was doing the right thing when I had my doubts. We even spent some time in Toronto when we were both trying to make sense of personal relationships. The blind leading the bewildered some would say. I'll always regret not going to meet him for a pint when he'd finally left his first wife and wanted a chat. My family commitments were my reason but I regret it nevertheless.
I saw his relationship with his son Doug flourish despite the trials and tribulations of divorce. Kevin's pride in his son was obvious and great to see given the difficulties he had in bringing him into this world. Kevin also used the opportunities he had to show his stepsons, Ben and Nick, that he loved them both too.
Kevin was also the reason I will always favour the sky blue football side of Manchester, but was also the reason I didn't support them. His love for Man City meant he would occasionally take me to Maine Road. The best City experience I had with Kevin though was watching the Gillingham play off final on TV in his house. As I celebrated the astonishing turnaround in the match, Kevin was totally dumbstruck. His disbelief at the unfolding events made the game even more astonishing than it already was.
The negativity of actual visits to Maine Road with Kevin however meant that I ended up taking my son, Fraser, to watch Blackburn instead. Little did I know that Kevin would get the last laugh as supporting Indian owned Rovers would became a much more negative experience than an Arabic bank-rolled City. It seemed right that the day after Kevin died City were battered 4-1. He would have laughed at the throwback to the City performances he knew for so many years.
Kevin was one of those people who would make little or no contact with friends for long periods of time (maybe just me and he was trying to tell me something!). Eventually he would suddenly turn up as if we'd been together just the day before. It's so sad he cannot now do this to me again.
Two things I've learned from the shockingly sad news of Kevin's death:
1. I don't remember telling Kevin I loved him. I hope I did. Tell people you love them before they, or you, are not there. In fact Kevin and I discovered a video of "More than Words" by the band Extreme in a bar in Geneva. It contains the words
"Then you wouldn't
Have to say
That you love me
Cause I'd already know"
I hope it's true.
2. When the good people die too young we should be reminded of the short time we have on this earth. JFDI.
Kevin was a true friend. I will always cherish my memories of him and will really miss him.
RIP my funny, kind, intelligent friend Kevin Wilson, 1951 - 2015.
Kevin brought me to the city of Manchester that I'm proud to now call home. He recruited me to work with him on a new corporate finance venture there. The job and the location would change my life. I thanked him by leaving for a new job a few years later. He never held it against me. As I've just changed jobs again, I won't now be passing the Clarence House building we shared an office in as I walk to work. However, every time I do walk past it, Kevin's "head related" comments in the office will pop into my head - "I'm off to squeeze my head" and "I had my head painted again at the weekend" probably need no explanation. His impersonation of the BeeGees will also never be forgotten.
Kevin always looked for a sneaky bargain but was generous to those around him. He would find a way of spending less if it made sense but would be the biggest spender if it helped his family or friends. The former led him to introduce me to "rice & 3" curries in Manchester while we worked for the London based merchant bank, County NatWest. He also took great delight in using the subsidised NatWest canteen around the corner from our office. Cheap deals tickled him despite the up market world he lived in. You can take the poor boy out of Gorton....
His generosity extended to working with The Big Issue in the North as a non executive director where I'm told he added a huge amount to this excellent charity. Kevin had done really well for himself given his background but never forgot how fortunate he was. One reason he did well was because of his search for "the next big idea". As an example, he developed a Chinese based prediction methodology which always sounded like tosh to me. However he launched a book, smartphone app, internet site and computer game using it. He had an entrepreneurial spirit despite what I or anyone else thought of the content.
I benefited from Kevin's generosity in many ways but I'll mention two here.
Firstly, he and his wife Rosemary were generous enough to take a group of family and friends to Their beloved Yvoire on lake Geneva to celebrate their wedding. And this was after having us at their wedding and reception in Bath. This was a truly beautiful trip that was all the more poignant for me as Kevin had previously taken me to Geneva to help run a week long finance course for 10 years. To revisit it as he celebrated his marriage to his true love was unforgettable. I was just pleased we didn't revisit the Nelson bar for a bottle of Satan beer - an 11% proof headache inducing introduction to Geneva I'd had with Kevin on my first Geneva trip with him.
I remember Kevin finding Rosemary again after they had been together at Bradford University many years before. Soulmates reunited and a beautiful happening that changed Kevin's life to the good. It was lovely to see them celebrate their 100th birthday (50 each obviously) together at Bath Racecourse as an early indication of their bond. The night always pops into my head whenever anyone mentions the time England thrashed Germany 5-1 as that was on that very Saturday night.
The second time I benefited in a major way from Kevin's generosity was when I needed to borrow a substantial amount of money for a few days. He and Rose stepped in to help in a trusting, unquestioning way that others would not have. The purchase it facilitated will always remind Serpil and I of Kevin and Rose's kindness. More importantly, the people it benefited will always remember Kevin and Rose even though they've never met.
Kevin was unique amongst my friends as the only one that knew all of my 3 wives. In fact he was my best man for one marriage. In the same way that I saw him struggle with separation and divorce and then find his true love, he saw me do the same and kindly told me that I was doing the right thing when I had my doubts. We even spent some time in Toronto when we were both trying to make sense of personal relationships. The blind leading the bewildered some would say. I'll always regret not going to meet him for a pint when he'd finally left his first wife and wanted a chat. My family commitments were my reason but I regret it nevertheless.
I saw his relationship with his son Doug flourish despite the trials and tribulations of divorce. Kevin's pride in his son was obvious and great to see given the difficulties he had in bringing him into this world. Kevin also used the opportunities he had to show his stepsons, Ben and Nick, that he loved them both too.
Kevin was also the reason I will always favour the sky blue football side of Manchester, but was also the reason I didn't support them. His love for Man City meant he would occasionally take me to Maine Road. The best City experience I had with Kevin though was watching the Gillingham play off final on TV in his house. As I celebrated the astonishing turnaround in the match, Kevin was totally dumbstruck. His disbelief at the unfolding events made the game even more astonishing than it already was.
The negativity of actual visits to Maine Road with Kevin however meant that I ended up taking my son, Fraser, to watch Blackburn instead. Little did I know that Kevin would get the last laugh as supporting Indian owned Rovers would became a much more negative experience than an Arabic bank-rolled City. It seemed right that the day after Kevin died City were battered 4-1. He would have laughed at the throwback to the City performances he knew for so many years.
Kevin was one of those people who would make little or no contact with friends for long periods of time (maybe just me and he was trying to tell me something!). Eventually he would suddenly turn up as if we'd been together just the day before. It's so sad he cannot now do this to me again.
Two things I've learned from the shockingly sad news of Kevin's death:
1. I don't remember telling Kevin I loved him. I hope I did. Tell people you love them before they, or you, are not there. In fact Kevin and I discovered a video of "More than Words" by the band Extreme in a bar in Geneva. It contains the words
"Then you wouldn't
Have to say
That you love me
Cause I'd already know"
I hope it's true.
2. When the good people die too young we should be reminded of the short time we have on this earth. JFDI.
Kevin was a true friend. I will always cherish my memories of him and will really miss him.
RIP my funny, kind, intelligent friend Kevin Wilson, 1951 - 2015.
Friday 9 October 2015
Bigotry
Why do I care?
I grew up in a bigoted environment as some of us unfortunately do. In my case, it was one focussed on the protestant/catholic Christian divide of Glasgow. I have therefore been interested in the many forms of bigotry which I've encountered ever since the time in my life when I realised that there was another approach to fellow human beings which I preferred. This has been a fairly constantly developing thought process for me and will hopefully continue to be as I keep questioning my beliefs and opinions. This blog post tries to explain where my thinking currently is. In particular, it has been prompted by many discussions on religious freedom and extremism as well as my recent experience of political protest.
What do I say?
The first thing to say is that I believe that we are all biased (and therefore bigots) to some extent. We cannot help but judge people we see or meet based on how they look or sound, never mind what they say. This means we all need to keep fighting the automatic reaction to be a bigot.
My overall mantra is this - discuss and criticise people's beliefs but don't attack the individual. This is not easy, especially where someone's beliefs are so ingrained and closely held, that they treat any criticism of beliefs as a personal attack. I believe that the tools of equal human rights and secularism are crucial in this.
Religious beliefs
To criticise Islam or any other set of religious beliefs is completely acceptable. For example, the misogyny engrained in all three Abrahamic religions and Islamic teachings on apostates deserving death. To attack Islamist, jihadist or right-wing Christian ideology that uses religious texts and teaching as its basis for extremist fascist style political systems is also totally acceptable. For example, the Klu Klux Klan or Islamic State/daesh. To treat all religious group as if they all act as one, agree on everything or are all a threat is not acceptable and is bigotry. Hope not Hate, Maryam Namazie and Maajid Nawaz always seem to get this right and are worth following on social media. Using muslims as an example, there are many different views amongst them and to treat them all as believing in the Islamic teachings on apostasy and misogyny is as bigoted as seeing all roman catholics as believing that abortion and contraception are wrong.
The term "Islamophobia" is sometimes used by regressives (on the left) to stifle free speech by describing anyone who criticises beliefs as a bigot (normally the term racist is used even though muslims are not one race). On the other hand, "muslimphobia" bigotry (attacking the people not their beliefs) is alive and well and makes me as sad as any other bigotry, racism or xenophobia. Attack beliefs not people and the world will be a better place.
Some painful examples of this have arisen recently in the comments I've seen on social media concerning the Syrian refugees. I have no doubt that there will be some islamist/jihadist extremists amongst the people fleeing war torn Syria. However to see some people argue that we should not help refugees because of this seems inhumane to me. As inhumane as stopping all state benefits in the UK because a few abuse the system.
Human Rights as a tool against bigotry
The tools to use against bigotry are human rights legislation and a secular approach.
Basic human rights are beautifully enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Europe (as part of the Council of Europe rather than the European Union despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe) we have legislation under the European Convention on Human Rights and it's court the European Court of Human Rights. In the UK we also have the benefit of domestic legislation (The Human Rights Act) that enshrines ECHR into our court system so that we can deal with disputes here rather than in Europe (again despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe). Follow Amnesty International, Liberty, The British Institute of Human Rights and The Peter Tatchell Foundation who generally get this stuff right.
These protections for human rights enable bigotry to be attacked as they all try to ensure that we are all treated the same in legislation irrespective of our innate traits (colour, nationality or sexuality) or beliefs (religious, political etc.). If you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of human rights legislation "going too far" (such as allowing terrorists who owned a cat to remain in the UK and so avoid extradition) or proposing that we should have associated "responsibilities" before we earn human rights then please do me a favour:
1. check the facts of the case that shows "it's gone too far" as it's not true
2. read the legislation and show me the section you would delete thinking of yourself benefitting from the protections it provides to us all equally.
We also need to guard against criticising human rights laws because they are used by groups we disagree with. For example, I believe that groups like CageUK use human rights laws to try to cover for their extremist islamist fascist beliefs. We should argue against these beliefs not human rights legislation. Incidentally, the Orange Order who were a key part of my bigoted childhood are similar to groups like CageUK. They pretend they are trying to protect equal rights for protestants but, actually, are arguing for continuation of the privileged position they have historically held in the UK.
A secular approach as a tool against bigotry
I am particularly amazed when people treat a secular approach as an attack on basic rights. Secularism is not atheism, despite some religious people trying to conflate the two, nor is it humanism, which is an approach to life using rational evidence ignoring all superstitions. A secular approach attempts to ensure that any religious beliefs or lack of them does not give anyone a position of privilege over others (e.g. faith based state funded schools or Church of England bishops sitting in the House of Lords) or allow them to legally discriminate against others (e.g. ban homosexuals from a hotel). It has at its core our basic human right to be treated equally under the law irrespective of our beliefs (in the same way as for innate traits such as nationality, colour or sexuality).
Similarly as for human rights legislation above, if you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of Christians being persecuted in the UK please again check the facts of the case as the truth is that these are situations where Christians are actually arguing that their right to be bigots and treat others as inferior should allow exemption from the law (e.g. a bakery refusing to bake for a homosexual wedding) or that their previous position of privilege should be protected even if others are then in an inferior position (e.g. parents choosing a state funded faith based school for a child then arguing for travel costs to be paid which wouldn't if a more local non faith based alternative was chosen).
In this area, we also need to guard against cultural relativism where some justify beliefs and actions of certain groups because "it's the way they do things" given the group's cultural, religious or national background. If people live in the UK then their actions must be subject to universal laws applying irrespective of belief. As an example, we in the UK have stupidly allowed sharia courts to exist as "it's how they do things in their communities". This has been a disaster. We need to ensure that everyone in every community is subject to the same laws and associated rights. Otherwise we for example allow sharia courts to treat women as second class citizens in marriage disputes.
I should be clear on one thing regarding secularism. I am not arguing that religious groups should not have a say like everyone else. What I'm saying however is that they shouldn't have a more privileged voice than other groups e.g. the pope being given a voice in the United Nations as head of the Vatican state (a pretend country) or, closer to home, the church of England as the UK's established church having sole rights to our head of state monarchy and unelected bishops in our parliament.
Free speech
For me we should all fight for free speech as it is a cornerstone of equality and progress. There are two caveats however.
Firstly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should feel able to randomly start discussing such things with someone who just happens to be passing us in the street. In other words, free speech isn't about being able to start hassling individuals. Its about being able to say what you believe in any public forum (e.g. a meeting, event or publication) or where the conversation is already taking place amongst people you are with. I know someone who approached a woman in a hijab at an event and started asking if she thought she was part of the problem of misogyny in Islam. It wasn't appropriate to hassle the individual and was seen as threatening by those nearby. I've been guilty of this on social media where innocuous posts have led me to inappropriately make a point only vaguely related to it to criticise the person's beliefs. If you've been one of them I apologise unreservedly. However I don't apologise at all if your social media post was on the topic that I then criticised your beliefs on - that's free speech and if you don't like it unfriend or block me - as others have done! We can be kind and civil to each other even if what we say in discussion forums offends others' beliefs.
Secondly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should incite violence. This brings us into the very debatable area of so called hate speech. I believe that we should have laws in place that mean anyone who says that others should be physically attacked will be prosecuted. This is "hate crime" not "hate speech" and we already have laws on this in the UK. What if the comments are offensive to others? Although I fully accept that this is another difficult area, here I think the need for free speech overrides any concerns for people's feelings or any possibility that others will use the comments as an excuse for violence. There have been a number of university students' unions recently who have introduced "safe space" policies to try to avoid offence being caused. This is totally misplaced. If someone doesn't want to listen to a speaker who will offend them then they either shouldn't go to the event or, better still, they should go and tell the speaker why they are wrong.
Governments generally adopt an attitude of "something must be done" and therefore err on the side of trying to prevent upset and offense. This attempt to protect people is misplaced. We should protect free speech for all even if it offends others' beliefs (subject to the caveats I've described) even if we abhor what is being said. We are lucky enough in the UK to have abolished our ridiculous blasphemy laws. Such legislation tries to stop religious people being offended. It also stops debate and discussion and is an enemy of free speech. Worse still, it allows valid criticism to be stifled where religious groups are abusing their position or are benefiting from a privileged position. Even worse, blasphemy laws give protected religious groups a feeling that it is then appropriate to attack "blasphemers" as currently seen in Bangladesh where atheist bloggers are being killed and maimed.
Politics
I was recently involved in some of the protest events associated with the Tory party conference coming to Manchester. In particular this involved a gig at the People's History Museum ("PHM") and the TUC organised march on the next day as the Tory party conference began in Manchester. I've never been party political and take the view that to always support a political party irrespective of the specific item being debated is too restrictive. I'll generally feel more supportive of a certain party at any point in time but would rather disagree with them if I felt it necessary - for example if they attacked basic human rights or a secular approach to legislation.
The PHM and TUC events were totally different in many ways. One was the element of hate and bigotry that existed at the TUC march and other Tory party conference protests. I appreciate this was due to the profile of these being totally different but it still highlighted important differences to me. A small element on the march were more focussed on being anti-Tory bigots than emphasising the positives of a different approach. It's always going to be easier to attack than explain the benefits of a different approach but some just aren't interested in the latter. They are totally focussed on attacking "Tory scum" rather than showing why their alternative approach is better.
I think we should consider this by replacing the word "catholic" or "muslim" for "Tory" in what is said. All of these are relevant in that they relate to people's chosen beliefs. So if you object to the Tory government's treatment of the disabled or pensioners for example then say so. Exactly the same as if you object to Islam or Catholicism's treatment of women. If, however, you then think it's okay to shout "tory scum" because of the Tory government's policies, then presumably it's also okay to shot "muslim/catholic scum" at imams and priests?
Underlying this is a bigotry that assumes all Tories hold the same views and that they are all bad. Such identity politics is as bad as certain Tories treating all benefit claimants as being layabouts or right wingers demonising all poor people as being lazy.
What do I know?
As usual I know only what I believe is right and fair at the time. I would be really interested in others' thoughts on my ramblings here on, what I believe, are important topics for us all.
I grew up in a bigoted environment as some of us unfortunately do. In my case, it was one focussed on the protestant/catholic Christian divide of Glasgow. I have therefore been interested in the many forms of bigotry which I've encountered ever since the time in my life when I realised that there was another approach to fellow human beings which I preferred. This has been a fairly constantly developing thought process for me and will hopefully continue to be as I keep questioning my beliefs and opinions. This blog post tries to explain where my thinking currently is. In particular, it has been prompted by many discussions on religious freedom and extremism as well as my recent experience of political protest.
What do I say?
The first thing to say is that I believe that we are all biased (and therefore bigots) to some extent. We cannot help but judge people we see or meet based on how they look or sound, never mind what they say. This means we all need to keep fighting the automatic reaction to be a bigot.
My overall mantra is this - discuss and criticise people's beliefs but don't attack the individual. This is not easy, especially where someone's beliefs are so ingrained and closely held, that they treat any criticism of beliefs as a personal attack. I believe that the tools of equal human rights and secularism are crucial in this.
Religious beliefs
To criticise Islam or any other set of religious beliefs is completely acceptable. For example, the misogyny engrained in all three Abrahamic religions and Islamic teachings on apostates deserving death. To attack Islamist, jihadist or right-wing Christian ideology that uses religious texts and teaching as its basis for extremist fascist style political systems is also totally acceptable. For example, the Klu Klux Klan or Islamic State/daesh. To treat all religious group as if they all act as one, agree on everything or are all a threat is not acceptable and is bigotry. Hope not Hate, Maryam Namazie and Maajid Nawaz always seem to get this right and are worth following on social media. Using muslims as an example, there are many different views amongst them and to treat them all as believing in the Islamic teachings on apostasy and misogyny is as bigoted as seeing all roman catholics as believing that abortion and contraception are wrong.
The term "Islamophobia" is sometimes used by regressives (on the left) to stifle free speech by describing anyone who criticises beliefs as a bigot (normally the term racist is used even though muslims are not one race). On the other hand, "muslimphobia" bigotry (attacking the people not their beliefs) is alive and well and makes me as sad as any other bigotry, racism or xenophobia. Attack beliefs not people and the world will be a better place.
Some painful examples of this have arisen recently in the comments I've seen on social media concerning the Syrian refugees. I have no doubt that there will be some islamist/jihadist extremists amongst the people fleeing war torn Syria. However to see some people argue that we should not help refugees because of this seems inhumane to me. As inhumane as stopping all state benefits in the UK because a few abuse the system.
Human Rights as a tool against bigotry
The tools to use against bigotry are human rights legislation and a secular approach.
Basic human rights are beautifully enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Europe (as part of the Council of Europe rather than the European Union despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe) we have legislation under the European Convention on Human Rights and it's court the European Court of Human Rights. In the UK we also have the benefit of domestic legislation (The Human Rights Act) that enshrines ECHR into our court system so that we can deal with disputes here rather than in Europe (again despite what some nay-sayers would have us believe). Follow Amnesty International, Liberty, The British Institute of Human Rights and The Peter Tatchell Foundation who generally get this stuff right.
These protections for human rights enable bigotry to be attacked as they all try to ensure that we are all treated the same in legislation irrespective of our innate traits (colour, nationality or sexuality) or beliefs (religious, political etc.). If you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of human rights legislation "going too far" (such as allowing terrorists who owned a cat to remain in the UK and so avoid extradition) or proposing that we should have associated "responsibilities" before we earn human rights then please do me a favour:
1. check the facts of the case that shows "it's gone too far" as it's not true
2. read the legislation and show me the section you would delete thinking of yourself benefitting from the protections it provides to us all equally.
We also need to guard against criticising human rights laws because they are used by groups we disagree with. For example, I believe that groups like CageUK use human rights laws to try to cover for their extremist islamist fascist beliefs. We should argue against these beliefs not human rights legislation. Incidentally, the Orange Order who were a key part of my bigoted childhood are similar to groups like CageUK. They pretend they are trying to protect equal rights for protestants but, actually, are arguing for continuation of the privileged position they have historically held in the UK.
A secular approach as a tool against bigotry
I am particularly amazed when people treat a secular approach as an attack on basic rights. Secularism is not atheism, despite some religious people trying to conflate the two, nor is it humanism, which is an approach to life using rational evidence ignoring all superstitions. A secular approach attempts to ensure that any religious beliefs or lack of them does not give anyone a position of privilege over others (e.g. faith based state funded schools or Church of England bishops sitting in the House of Lords) or allow them to legally discriminate against others (e.g. ban homosexuals from a hotel). It has at its core our basic human right to be treated equally under the law irrespective of our beliefs (in the same way as for innate traits such as nationality, colour or sexuality).
Similarly as for human rights legislation above, if you've been misfortunate enough to have read the right wing press or heard politicians who've peddled the stories of Christians being persecuted in the UK please again check the facts of the case as the truth is that these are situations where Christians are actually arguing that their right to be bigots and treat others as inferior should allow exemption from the law (e.g. a bakery refusing to bake for a homosexual wedding) or that their previous position of privilege should be protected even if others are then in an inferior position (e.g. parents choosing a state funded faith based school for a child then arguing for travel costs to be paid which wouldn't if a more local non faith based alternative was chosen).
In this area, we also need to guard against cultural relativism where some justify beliefs and actions of certain groups because "it's the way they do things" given the group's cultural, religious or national background. If people live in the UK then their actions must be subject to universal laws applying irrespective of belief. As an example, we in the UK have stupidly allowed sharia courts to exist as "it's how they do things in their communities". This has been a disaster. We need to ensure that everyone in every community is subject to the same laws and associated rights. Otherwise we for example allow sharia courts to treat women as second class citizens in marriage disputes.
I should be clear on one thing regarding secularism. I am not arguing that religious groups should not have a say like everyone else. What I'm saying however is that they shouldn't have a more privileged voice than other groups e.g. the pope being given a voice in the United Nations as head of the Vatican state (a pretend country) or, closer to home, the church of England as the UK's established church having sole rights to our head of state monarchy and unelected bishops in our parliament.
Free speech
For me we should all fight for free speech as it is a cornerstone of equality and progress. There are two caveats however.
Firstly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should feel able to randomly start discussing such things with someone who just happens to be passing us in the street. In other words, free speech isn't about being able to start hassling individuals. Its about being able to say what you believe in any public forum (e.g. a meeting, event or publication) or where the conversation is already taking place amongst people you are with. I know someone who approached a woman in a hijab at an event and started asking if she thought she was part of the problem of misogyny in Islam. It wasn't appropriate to hassle the individual and was seen as threatening by those nearby. I've been guilty of this on social media where innocuous posts have led me to inappropriately make a point only vaguely related to it to criticise the person's beliefs. If you've been one of them I apologise unreservedly. However I don't apologise at all if your social media post was on the topic that I then criticised your beliefs on - that's free speech and if you don't like it unfriend or block me - as others have done! We can be kind and civil to each other even if what we say in discussion forums offends others' beliefs.
Secondly, free speech and the right to criticise others' beliefs doesn't mean we should incite violence. This brings us into the very debatable area of so called hate speech. I believe that we should have laws in place that mean anyone who says that others should be physically attacked will be prosecuted. This is "hate crime" not "hate speech" and we already have laws on this in the UK. What if the comments are offensive to others? Although I fully accept that this is another difficult area, here I think the need for free speech overrides any concerns for people's feelings or any possibility that others will use the comments as an excuse for violence. There have been a number of university students' unions recently who have introduced "safe space" policies to try to avoid offence being caused. This is totally misplaced. If someone doesn't want to listen to a speaker who will offend them then they either shouldn't go to the event or, better still, they should go and tell the speaker why they are wrong.
Governments generally adopt an attitude of "something must be done" and therefore err on the side of trying to prevent upset and offense. This attempt to protect people is misplaced. We should protect free speech for all even if it offends others' beliefs (subject to the caveats I've described) even if we abhor what is being said. We are lucky enough in the UK to have abolished our ridiculous blasphemy laws. Such legislation tries to stop religious people being offended. It also stops debate and discussion and is an enemy of free speech. Worse still, it allows valid criticism to be stifled where religious groups are abusing their position or are benefiting from a privileged position. Even worse, blasphemy laws give protected religious groups a feeling that it is then appropriate to attack "blasphemers" as currently seen in Bangladesh where atheist bloggers are being killed and maimed.
Politics
I was recently involved in some of the protest events associated with the Tory party conference coming to Manchester. In particular this involved a gig at the People's History Museum ("PHM") and the TUC organised march on the next day as the Tory party conference began in Manchester. I've never been party political and take the view that to always support a political party irrespective of the specific item being debated is too restrictive. I'll generally feel more supportive of a certain party at any point in time but would rather disagree with them if I felt it necessary - for example if they attacked basic human rights or a secular approach to legislation.
The PHM and TUC events were totally different in many ways. One was the element of hate and bigotry that existed at the TUC march and other Tory party conference protests. I appreciate this was due to the profile of these being totally different but it still highlighted important differences to me. A small element on the march were more focussed on being anti-Tory bigots than emphasising the positives of a different approach. It's always going to be easier to attack than explain the benefits of a different approach but some just aren't interested in the latter. They are totally focussed on attacking "Tory scum" rather than showing why their alternative approach is better.
I think we should consider this by replacing the word "catholic" or "muslim" for "Tory" in what is said. All of these are relevant in that they relate to people's chosen beliefs. So if you object to the Tory government's treatment of the disabled or pensioners for example then say so. Exactly the same as if you object to Islam or Catholicism's treatment of women. If, however, you then think it's okay to shout "tory scum" because of the Tory government's policies, then presumably it's also okay to shot "muslim/catholic scum" at imams and priests?
Underlying this is a bigotry that assumes all Tories hold the same views and that they are all bad. Such identity politics is as bad as certain Tories treating all benefit claimants as being layabouts or right wingers demonising all poor people as being lazy.
What do I know?
As usual I know only what I believe is right and fair at the time. I would be really interested in others' thoughts on my ramblings here on, what I believe, are important topics for us all.
Thursday 8 October 2015
Je suis Charlie
JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO
JE NE DETESTE PAS
I AM FREE SPEECH
I AM NOT – HATE SPEECH
WE ALL HAVE BELIEFS
I BELIEVE IN EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS
WE CAN ALL OFFEND OTHERS’ BELIEFS
I AM A BLASPHEMER
WE ARE ALL BORN AS CERTAIN THINGS
I WAS BORN A WHITE – NAY PALE BLUE – HETERO SCOT
FREE SPEECH IS NOT INSULTING PEOPLE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY WERE BORN AS
I NEVER USE HATE SPEECH
FREE SPEECH IS NOT INCITING VIOLENCE
JE NE DETESTE PAS
I AM FREE SPEECH – THIS IS JESUS AND MO
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME BLACK PEOPLE ARE RACIST
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT INFERIOR TO WHITES
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME COUNTRIES ARE VERY CORRUPT
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL FOREIGNERS ARE NOT CORRUPT
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME CHRISTIANS ATTACK ABORTION RIGHTS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL CHRISTIANS ARE NOT MYSOGINISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – ISRAEL COMMITS WAR CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL JEWS ARE NOT ZIONIST EXTREMISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – ISLAMIC STATE ARE ISLAMIST JIHADIST FASCISTS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF TERROR
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME RELIGIONS ATTACK HOMOSEXUALITY
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE NOT HOMOPHOBES
I AM FREE SPEECH
I OFFEND BELIEFS
JE SUIS AVIJIT ROY IN BANGLADESH
JE SUIS RAIF BADAWI IN SAUDI ARABIA
JE SUIS MF HUSAIN IN INDIA
JE SUIS HRANT DINK IN TURKEY
JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO IN FRANCE
I AM NOT – HATE SPEECH
JE NE DETESTE PAS
JE NE DETESTE PAS
I AM FREE SPEECH
I AM NOT – HATE SPEECH
WE ALL HAVE BELIEFS
I BELIEVE IN EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS
WE CAN ALL OFFEND OTHERS’ BELIEFS
I AM A BLASPHEMER
WE ARE ALL BORN AS CERTAIN THINGS
I WAS BORN A WHITE – NAY PALE BLUE – HETERO SCOT
FREE SPEECH IS NOT INSULTING PEOPLE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY WERE BORN AS
I NEVER USE HATE SPEECH
FREE SPEECH IS NOT INCITING VIOLENCE
JE NE DETESTE PAS
I AM FREE SPEECH – THIS IS JESUS AND MO
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME BLACK PEOPLE ARE RACIST
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT INFERIOR TO WHITES
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME COUNTRIES ARE VERY CORRUPT
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL FOREIGNERS ARE NOT CORRUPT
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME CHRISTIANS ATTACK ABORTION RIGHTS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL CHRISTIANS ARE NOT MYSOGINISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – ISRAEL COMMITS WAR CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL JEWS ARE NOT ZIONIST EXTREMISTS
I AM FREE SPEECH – ISLAMIC STATE ARE ISLAMIST JIHADIST FASCISTS
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF TERROR
I AM FREE SPEECH – SOME RELIGIONS ATTACK HOMOSEXUALITY
I AM NOT HATE SPEECH – ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE NOT HOMOPHOBES
I AM FREE SPEECH
I OFFEND BELIEFS
JE SUIS AVIJIT ROY IN BANGLADESH
JE SUIS RAIF BADAWI IN SAUDI ARABIA
JE SUIS MF HUSAIN IN INDIA
JE SUIS HRANT DINK IN TURKEY
JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO IN FRANCE
I AM NOT – HATE SPEECH
JE NE DETESTE PAS
Saturday 26 September 2015
Free speech, religious beliefs and human rights
The letter pictured below was published in response to a "Let's keep the flame of free speech bright" article in the Amnesty UK magazine. It is a great example of the well meaning approach of some who actually play into the hands of religious extremists.
As supporters of human rights we must defend free speech at all costs. It is a cornerstone of basic rights for all - especially minorities and the oppressed.
Juliet Chaplin's letter uses the terms "used responsibly", "common courtesy", "common good with responsibility", "the truth" and "common sense and consideration" as somehow being caveats to free speech. This totally ignores the fact that what is "responsible", "truth" or "common sense" depends on personal views. Free speech is about being able to disagree with opinions even (perhaps especially) if they are deeply help. Otherwise no one can challenge perceived wisdom, majority held or extremist views even though they all need to be discussed openly and freely.
I may believe that eating meat is horrific. However, if Juliet or anyone else wants to extol the virtues of vegetarianism then they should be able to do so even if it offends and upsets me. The same goes for religious beliefs. These are beliefs you are choosing to have. It is not the same as your nationality, colour or sexuality which are innate traits that you cannot choose. To attack these is what hate speech actually is. Hate speech is also incitement of violence. It is not hate speech to disagree with the deeply held views of others - religious or otherwise.
To be clear, supporters of free speech do not advocate random unsolicited rants in the face of someone who you might disagree with. We are instead talking about the ability to publish articles and cartoons as well as speak in public forums. No one is suggesting we should be able to randomly approach someone in the street and tell them their beliefs are wrong. to that extent I agree with Juliet's "courtesy" comment.
Juliet also makes the two comments commonly made by apologists for religious extremism. Firstly, "it is well known that the Prophet must not be depicted". This treats all muslims as one group with unified views on this and other matters of islam. It is not true. There are many faith groups within the Islamic religion who are relaxed about this depiction (for example around 6 million alevi muslims in Turkey). In fact, by playing the homogenous card, Juliet plays into the hands of the extremists. It is islamist extremists who have recently created this idea of any depiction of Mohammad as being so horrific to muslims. We need to resist this as defenders of universal human rights for all.
Secondly, Juliet says "religious rights are being trampled on. Several Christians have been persecuted". Total nonsense I'm afraid. Please detail even one case where this is actually so in the UK. The cases referred to are actually cases where Christians have argued that their beliefs should allow them to trample on the human rights on others or generally applied laws. e.g. bakers refusing to bake for homosexuals, bed and breakfast providers refusing to let homosexuals stay and a nurse refusing to conceal her crucifix chain as it was a safety hazard in the hospital. These people are the abusers of universal human rights and we should fight against the bigotry they attempt to promote. Human rights defenders should not help people with certain beliefs impose them on others or receive preferential treatment because of them.
Friday 25 September 2015
RIP great uncle Hugh.
Hugh Burden was killed at the age of 20 around 11am on June 28 1915. His death was unpleasant in both the way and why it happened. Despite this I had the privilege of visiting the site of his death at Gallipoli almost exactly 100 years after the event.I had always been told that Hugh was “killed in the first world war in Germany”. The unlikelieness of this was lost on me (soldiers didn’t generally get to Germany itself) until someone doing some research on Hugh’s father’s Ragged School in Falkirk recently told me that he had been killed at Gallipoli. Hugh’s father (John) had 6 children with Hugh’s mother, Margaret, including my maternal gran. He then married again (to a woman also with 6 kids) and left for the US where they had a daughter. When John returned to Falkirk he was sentenced to prison for bigamy - one of a few family secrets that were never talked about. In fact, my gran never told my gran-pa about it.
Hugh was a volunteer in the 8th Cameronians Battalion, 156th (Scottish Rifles) Brigade (part of the 52nd (Lowland) Division. They did some basic training in Grangemouth, travelled to Liverpool and then set sail from there to Egypt via Devonport (Plymouth) to join the Mediterranean Expedition Force.
On the 10th of June 1915 he wrote his last letter home to his mum whilst on the SS Ballarat ship either travelling from Egypt to Gallipoli or moored there. Luckily we still have it. He tells her not to believe all the media reports of death and destruction - little did he know what awaited him and his fellow Cameronians. He also asks her repeatedly to send fags and cigarette papers!
They landed on Y or W beaches in Gallipoli on 14 June on loan to the 29th Division having had very little training and inadequately equipped with poor information and planning available. Unfortunately they then became part of a campaign that was fundamentally flawed in origin (per Winston Churchill at the Admiralty) and execution in Gully Ravine (per senior officers Hamilton, Hunter-Weston, Simpson-Baikie and Beauvior de Lisle).
On Monday 28th June the Cameronians were part of an attack around Gully Ravine (“Sigindere“ to the Turks). They were on the right-most flank on Fir Tree Spur east of the Ravine. There was virtually no artillery cover from either land or sea for the part of the Ottoman lines they were attacking so Hugh and 472 of his 8th Cameronians colleagues were casualties (with over 300 dead) in 5 minutes in one of 3 ways:
- bombed in the trench before the attack
- machine gunned as they went over the top towards Turkish trenches at 11am totally unaffected by artillery fire
- left injured in no man’s land where the scrub eventually caught fire under Turkish bombing and so were burned to death.
This was a war where the military were the really serious causalities unlike the second world war where civilians were major casualties (through bombing raids of cities and the holocaust). It was a time when people were treated as weapons to be used, killed and injured in massive numbers with no regard to the inhumanity of this. As an example Hunter-Weston said that he “cared nothing for casualties” and commented that the massacre at gully Ravine had “blooded the pups” when the shocking casualties became known including Hugh. Such abuse caused the commander, Granville-Egerton, of the Cameronians when he arrived at Gallipoli to protest so much that he was eventually disciplined.
Almost exactly 100 years after this catastrophe, my wife and I visited Gallipoli to see the locations related to Hugh and the Cameronians. It was an extremely poignant occasion even more so because of the beauty of the peninsular these days and the fact that Hugh’s great nephew was visiting as the first family member since his death and with a Turkish born wife. In addition, nature has reclaimed the area as if to say “I’ll take over again now you ridiculous humans have stopped killing each other and destroying my work”.
We visited the Helles monument where Hugh’s name appears as his body was never found or was unidentified. Through the excellent work of Stephen Chambers in his Gully Ravine book and Battlefield Guide Andy Crooks (who produces www.gullyravine.org.uk) we were also able to find the area where the trenches had been that Hugh died in or near. It is cultivated fields now and the sight of sunflower, melon, tomato and berry crops in an area where such carnage took place in 1915 just shows how insignificant we really are. Some trenches west of where Hugh died still exist and we were able to sit in them. There seemed to be only one appropriate way to commemorate Hugh’s short life - we read his last letter home to his mum and smoked a big Cuban cigar on his behalf. A delivery of nicotine 100 years too late that he couldn’t enjoy himself but the sentiment seemed right.
It was an extremely poignant trip to commemorate Hugh’s life and early death amongst a Gallpoli casualty list of 36,000 Commonwealth, 10,000 French and 86,000 Ottoman troops.
RIP great uncle Hugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)