Friends, wealth and enemies.

There’s an excellent interview with the NYT’s Paul Krugman on the Guardian’s site at the moment, as he skirts around the UK showing Conservatives who’s boss on Newsnight, and other tricks. This section on how we’ve ended up in this economic catastrophe resonated particularly with me since reading:

If we divide the period between the second world war and 2008 into two halves, “the first half is a really dramatic improvement to living standards, and the second half is not.” It was certainly dramatic for the top 0.01%, who saw a seven-fold increase in income; in 2006, for example, the 25 highest-paid hedge fund managers in America earned $14bn, three times the combined salaries of New York City’s 80,000 school teachers. But between 1980 and the crash, the median US household income went up by only roughly 20%. “So it’s a total disconnect.”

Why would economists claim ordinary people were getting much richer if they weren’t? “The answer, I think, has to be that you need to ask: ‘Well who are the people who say these things hanging out with? What is their social circle?’ And if you’re a finance professor at the University of Chicago, the people that you’re likely to meet from the alleged real world are going to be people from Wall Street – for whom the past 30 years have, in fact, been wonderful. If you’re a mover and shaker in the UK, you’re probably hanging out with people from the City. I think that is the story of the disconnect.

And when you’re governed by that bubble, and they forget there’s a society outside that bubble, that economics and austerity immediately affects people outside that bubble, there are problems. It’s telling, that the Conservatives in the Newsnight clip view austerity as something slightly abstract, not something that has direct consequences on people’s lives. Something tells me that those in the social circles the government mix aren’t affected by austerity measures. Just a slight inkling, but perhaps they won’t know people who rely on subsistence benefits, or have had the DLA on which they rely cut, and are now destitute. I do, and I know of towns and cities that are seeing their already fragile economies take a hit as austerity bites.

It’s natural, though not necessarily healthy, to surround ourselves in our spare time with people who are similar to ourselves. Nearly all of my friends are left-wing, and university educated, though their main interests lie in various sciences, media, politics, medicine and art. Most of them are middle class, so I spend a lot of time mentally making notes of books they all remember reading (then later having panic attacks when I get waves of impostor syndrome and wonder if I’ve been let into my social circle on a widening participation scheme just like in university oh god oh god oh god). It’s probably not a problem David Cameron faces at dinner parties. But they’re not all middle class. There are varying degrees of poverty and wealth in our backgrounds, from my bottom-of-the-rung Shameless-style upbringing, to a friend who went to private school. Most of us went to “comp”. Some went to grammar school.

But when the similarity that exists in your friendship circle then spills over into the workplace, it becomes unhealthy. A friend is a nurse, so spends all day speaking to all sections of society. One’s a solicitor and deals with legal aid cases. Another spends all day interviewing people from around the country for different stories. I might work for a left-leaning paper, but all day, I read articles we carry that I disagree with. Some furiously. There is variety. But if there wasn’t? If you spent all day dealing with privileged people who reinforced your beliefs? Then came home and drank wine with people who did the same? Many of whom you’ve been to school with?

I worry then we’ll be in a position where the government make decisions that affect not lives of people because they are people, but their idea of people. And the idea of people requires a bit less empathy. Especially when the idea of people is constructed mostly from reports, files and briefing notes. And when a lot of the problems are caused by wealth inequality, and the very people who’ve benefitted from wealth inequality surround you every day, we’ll see more energy expended defending those people than lifting people out of poverty. Oh, but these people didn’t choose to be educated at Eton as children. No, nor did other children choose to be born into poverty, yet somehow this government sees fit to scapegoat them for all manner of social ills. Unemployed? You’re probably lazy. Nothing to do with the austerity drive. It’s hard to see a more fitting metaphor for this government than some unemployed people, forced to sleep under London Bridge, then work for free in the pouring rain as Brits waved at an extremely wealthy woman in a display of highly policed, organised nationalism. You’d think it’s indefensible that people should be made to work for 14 hours, unpaid, in the freezing rain, made to change their clothes in public, then steward in front of a bastion of wealth. But they will try.

Let Them Eat Cake

Summer’s finally arrived, we’ve been less promised more ordered to have street parties this year. The shops and high street windows are festooned with bunting. The high street shops that is, that are still open. So UKUncut decided to have a little street party of their own. Where better to do so than outside Nick Clegg’s house? So they pitched up with picnics, bunting and blankets. They knocked on neighbours doors to explain what they were doing and why. The neighbours we’re perfectly friendly and understandable: some found it hilarious. Then they sat down and engaged in a “Great British Street Party” in protest at the cuts Clegg has been implementing. 
Because UK Uncut is about “bringing to the doorstep” the face of the cuts. When Clegg is sat in Parliament jeering at an opposition bench alongside Cameron, he doesn’t ever have to really consider the day to day life of the disabled kids and vulnerable adults lives he’s cutting. If someone asks him a “difficult question” on Marr he can pull a face that is designed to look like “human empathy” but is in fact closer to “drawn out constipation” then blame either Labour or the Greeks, whichever we’re riffing on this week.
Then, as the Uncutters were doling out potato salad, Westminster’s Ayn Rand tribute act logged onto Twitter. Rather than seeing it as an amusing protest on a summers day, and a five minute diversion should Miriam decide to pop to the Co-op for some pasta, she started mashing the keyboard. Ah! A situation! An opportunity for a vox-pop! What shall my position be? She stopped short of calling them DAMN REDS AND COMMIEZ but did call on her followers to donate to the Lib Dems to redress this heinous wrong. At this point, Tim Montgomerie pointed out telling people to donate to your political opponents might not be the wisest move.

Twitter was alive with people squawking “Oh no, what if his children see!” See what? A street party? Well christ alive they’ll be fucking terrified next weekend. The entire country will be off limits. Or that a lot of people are very, very displeased with their father? Well, that’s a fact of life. And when you’re trying to teach children why we don’t lie, perhaps the consequences of your lies being on your doorstep isn’t a bad lesson. There was talk of banning peaceful protest from outside politician’ houses. We already have to apply for a permit to protest outside outside the seat of democracy, and if the expenses scandal taught us anything, it’s that our MPs have a glut of houses. Ironic really, considering young people like me will never be able to afford one.
But, his children didn’t see the peaceful protest. Because they weren’t there. Possibly because they were at one of his two other houses, or the grace and favour mansion he shares with William Hague. My siblings on the other hand, have to see the effects of his austerity programme every day. What happens when you cut benefits. Just like I had to the last time the Tories got in. Luckily privilege affords you the luxury of avoiding being confronted with the every day face of your actions. Do we really think that holding a street party is an “extreme reaction” to slashing benefits to thousands of individuals and families across the country? People struggling to even survive? We know how inequality works: this isn’t a short term measure, the effects of poverty will send ripples through generations to come. I think I know where my sympathies lie.

A Little Respect.

Tanni Grey-Thompson, the former Paralympic athlete now in the Lords, spoke to the Telegraph about a recent experience on a train, when she was forced to throw her chair to the platform and crawl off the train because there was no one to help her on the platform or train:

‘As a disabled person travelling you always have an element of fear, feeling very uncomfortable, of panic, of just wondering whether you’re going to get off. I think it is fair to say that a lot of disabled people feel like second class passengers because they don’t have the same treatment as everyone else. I don’t expect to be swept in to first class and treated better than everyone else – I expect to have the same experience, and that is often just not the case.’

Pretty fair, I’d say. What do Daily Mail commenters have to say?

I used to be very sympathetic to people like this lady, but after having numerous incidents where disabled people behaved in a most arrogant and demanding manner including queue jumping, and using their disability to get preferential holiday time I just let em get on with life. They demanded and rightly received equality in law, so I just treat them the same as everyone else now. – Parent, Co Durham AGREE 100%,. best made point of the day. These people cannot have it both ways. Very very well said.
- Jonathon, N.London, 26/3/2012 10:45

Oh.

We have been hearing for years that everyone is equal, now she wants special treatment the cry is different. I always help if I can, but more times than I care to remember, the disabled person has given me abuse for trying to help them……..you can’t have it both ways.
- James 001, West of Nowhere, 26/3/2012 10:52

Right.

The huge cost that disability has added to everyone’s burden over recent years doesn’t help public sympathy for you. Also you can afford any means of transport and help, why expect it? Your outdated romantic view of charity is your problem; and lets face it how long before it’s illegal not to help?
- Andy, Bath, 26/3/2012 10:49

Illegal not to help. Tyranny.

I find it odd that this Woman expects to be treated the same as everyone else.Yet as far as I can see she has been as no one helps able bodied people either. She’s received exactly as she asked for.What she is in fact demanding is special attention and moaning about not getting it.
- Andy, Norway, 26/3/2012 11:25

Thanks, “Andy”

If one is disabled it is important to organise ones life more prudently. Getting off a train at midnight is not the best of an idea. May I humbly suggest that too many disadvantaged people expect everything to be handed to them on a plate , and that there could be a slight degree of arrogance involved.
- Malachy, Belfast, 26/3/2012 12:17

The arrogance of crawling unassisted off a train at midnight.

she did get the same treatment as every one else. know one helps me of the train
- Sue Previsor, Doncaster CC HSE, 26/3/2012 12:17

Are you in a wheelchair, Sue? Or just allergic to logic?

It may not be PC but the railways and the underground are not a taxi service. The staff when available are always unfailingly considering of disabled people but they cannot be expected to provide a continuous butler service to everybody who travels. If we equipped all train to cope with someone with Ms G-T’s disabilities why should it end there? What about people who cannot even move at all? or speak or live without apparatus? The sad fact of life is you can only go so far to accommodate diabilities. You cannot put an escalator up Everest.
- Andy, Portsmouth, 26/3/2012 12:28

You want to live a life that doesn’t involve abject humiliation when commuting? PC gone mad.

Hang on. These people fought for equal rights. And rightly got them. They are entitled to equal pay, equal everything as far as I can see. When they have a bad experience they run to the papers. I only ever see tanni in the papers when she is rubbishing able bodied people. If i was to rubbish disabled people the way she is complaining about able-bodied people there would be holy war. Where are my equal rights??????
- Luca, France, 26/3/2012 12:35

I don’t know about you, but I get the impression Luca’s a white, straight bloke. What about his equal rights?

Dear DM. I had a bad experience at Croke Park recently. I didnt get priority booking. I didnt get priority seating. I didnt get parking at the front door. Nobody held the door open for me. Nobody carried my food and drink for me. please please will you write a story about me – you did a story about this lady so its only fair – I think they call it equality.
- Patrick, Leinster, 26/3/2012 12:38

Oh, Patrick, poor love. Buy a new dictionary.

What about able bodied men in this world. Where have our rights gone ?
- Arthur, Stoke, 26/3/2012 12:46

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh god, my soul has died.

And she is a Baroness because??? 11 gold medals does not justify a title!– Pete, Midlands, UK (not EU), 26/3/2012 12:15——————And the ironic thing is that they do not race in ‘wheelchairs’ – they are specially built very expensive machines that make it extremely easy to race. Where is the achievement in that ? I would like to see them race in actual wheelchairs.
- Sam, Manchester, 26/3/2012 13:15

Would you, Sam?

They could put a little cattle type wagon with a big ramp on the back of every train where all the wheelies can travel together so they don’t feel so different. – Bill, NY, 26/3/2012

Thanks, Bill. Nothing screams inclusivity like being hidden in a cattle wagon and called “wheelies”.

And yes, it’s easy to roll your eyes and say the bottom half of the Internet isn’t representative of public opinion. But the Daily Mail do moderate their comments, and the ones above are those that have been deemed inoffensive enough to stay up. Several comments, since taken down, suggested that wheelchair users lead a cushy life, and that they should be made to wait until no able-bodied people need serving in a supermarket or post-office because they have a “comfy chair” that able-bodied people are denied. I’ve had enough bad experiences on public transport, when I’ve had seizures and people have left me for three stops before calling for help, or the time a bus driver who refused to stop was chased by an ambulance and screamed at by a doctor on board, to know that these opinions are common. So really, it’s no wonder the government’s onslaught on disability rights is moving on apace.

Assange and “Rape-rape”

Understandably, Interpol’s Red Notice for Julian Assange, and today’s extradition hearing has garnered a huge flurry of press and online attention. That a warrant for his arrest on charges unrelated to the publishing of masses of highly confidential US Cables seems massively convenient for politicians that have been baying for his blood.

What I don’t understand is the need many journalists, bloggers and public figures have felt to examine the charges and exonerate Assange of any guilt. I’ve read countless blog posts, and tweets, predominantly by men, explaining that the Assange faces aren’t rape but “sex by surprise”, and snide remarks about those quirky Swedes and their bizarre laws. Predictably, the Mail are leading with the idea that Assange was set up, that the women acted as “honeytraps” (it’s Adam and Eve all over again). The fact that one of the women was mentored by a “militant feminist” has been brought up, despite the fact it seems a non sequitur.

Firstly, I’m uncomfortable with so many people feeling that they can expressly define rape, and say unequivocally that what occurred in a bedroom between two people does, or does not constitute rape. I have no idea what happened between Assange and the two women he is accused of raping. I’d argue only the three people involved do. Equally, I know very little about Swedish law, and I’m uncomfortable with people who aren’t conversant in it making statements that the charges he faces are charges that shouldn’t exist in any legal system.

This case has parallels to Roman Polanski’s: both initially avoided international arrest warrants, when both were detained people were quick to dismiss the cases against them. Whenever I see another person come forward to dismiss the claims Assange is being detained for, I’m reminded of Whoopi Goldberg proclaiming that what Polanski did, and admitted he did, wasn’t “Rape-rape”.

I enjoy Polanski’s work. Repulsion is one of my favourite films. In my head I’m capable of appreciating his art, and condemning what he subjected a 13-year-old girl to. The case against Assange is yet to be proven. However, I’d like to see the left accepting that as humans, we don’t neatly fit into “good” and “bad” pigeonholes. Just as I can concurrently enjoy Rosemary’s Baby and think that Polanski as a child rapist is a deplorable individual, I can believe that Wikileaks is necessary and a worthy endeavour, and accept that Assange may be a rapist.

By all means, argue that the timing of Interpol’s warrant may be suspect, or that the charges may not have received such attention had the Embassy Cables not been leaked. But don’t try and define rape, or examine the tabloid fragments of the case and claim that there is no case to answer. Assange was aware that the charges would be brought, and has come forward knowing the press attention would make scapegoating him difficult.

Further Reading:

Feministing – Some Thoughts on “Sex By Surprise”

Cath Elliot – Why it’s wrong to casually dismiss the allegations against Julian Assange

Where Are The Headlines For Those Who Don’t Come Forward?

The Telegraph reports today that a woman was sentenced to 8 months in prison for falsely retracting a rape accusation. Not falsely accusing, falsely retracting a claim. The full story can be read here, and Rape Crisis’s statement here. Briefly, the woman went to the police, and reported that her husband had raped her 6 times on 3 occasions. Several months into the trial, she contacted the police to drop the charges. When the court proceeded, and she was arrested for perverting the course of justice, she admitted that the allegations had been true but she had been emotionally blackmailed by her husband’s family to drop the charges so he would receive a lesser penalty.

This story is chilling on a number of levels: it continues a trend of women being prosecuted when rape cases they have brought fail, and on a wider scale makes women far less likely to come forward. Unless you’re raped by a complete stranger in a dark alley, you can expect clouds of doubt, questions about your behaviour, and whether you brought it upon yourself. If you know, or even worse, you’ve dated or previously consented to sleep with your rapist, you can expect the sympathy to dwindle. If you had a drink beforehand, or were wearing, well practically anything, ditto. Stranger rape accounts for a small fraction of rapes reported, and yet it’s still viewed as a yardstick by which to judge how much someone has suffered. Never mind the emotional torment bound up in being raped by someone you’ve trusted, or even loved. Whoopi Goldberg was able to claim that Roman Polanski drugging and raping a minor wasn’t “rape rape” without much backlash.

And the way society views rape by someone who is known to you, and assumes that you could have prevented it, is massively damaging. I can count, from the top of my head, 11 women I know, myself included, who’ve been raped. They all knew their rapist, two-thirds were raped by an ex-boyfriend. None of them went to the police. It all came down to one reason: they knew they wouldn’t be believed, or if it did go to court would go nowhere due to lack of evidence. What evidence can you provide? Several of them had been drinking before being raped. Some had shared a room with the perpetrator. None of us felt able to go to the police. Perhaps most worrying is that two of them were law students.

I can’t see this getting any better under the current government with their grandstanding over anonymity for defendants in rape cases, and the fact that forces are now being pulled up for handling rape cases abysmally shows how rotten the system is. But I know that everytime the tabloids report and vilify a woman who’s been prosecuted, women read the story, and a large number decide there’s no point reporting rape.

As a friend asked recently: where are the headlines for women who don’t come forward, for fear of not being believed?

Tck Tck Boom

I noticed a few tweets earlier regarding a new video campaign from 10:10 had launched: what piqued my interest was that they seemed to be coming not from the usual green, environmental tweeters, but from political and scientific people, and that their responses were quite angry. I took a look, as you can, though not on the 10:10 site, as it’s since been removed:

The comments surrounding the video on Twitter and Youtube are telling: green campaigners are asking “what’s the point?” Who is the video targeted at? If it’s at those who are undecided on the need to cut their individual carbon emissions by 10%, they’ve effectively been told “agree with us, or we’ll kill you”. We’ve depicted ourselves as extremists which plays perfectly into the hands of those who wish to debase our arguments if that’s the case. If, on the other hand, the argument is that we can’t afford not to cut our emissions, the point is played so poorly, and so crassly that the visceral reactions of those who previously wavered show that many people who previously wavered, are now calling the 10:10 campaign “eco-fascists” and “enviro-nazis” or any other clumsy portmanteau evocation of Godwin’s Law.

As with Peta’s campaigns, I imagine one of the key aims of the campaign was to get people to talk. Peta regularly use semi-naked women, or porn stars as in a recent campaign to spay animals, to grab attention.

Unfortunately, sexualising women alienates a lot of people who would otherwise be brought onside with Peta’s messages. And that’s what I fear 10:10 have done today. I imagine they’ll come out and say they wanted people to talk about carbon emissions, and look! That’s what we’ve all been doing, but I think that’s poor form, and an argument that doesn’t hold. There is such a thing a a bad publicity, and the fallout from this has the potential to be far-reaching if people feel it gives them licence to abdicate personal responsibility in green matters. In essentially saying “Agree or we’ll kill you” and portraying those who won’t agree to do something about climate change as victimised, they’ve given those who aren’t willing to make an individual contribution to tackling the problem a moral get-out clause to do so.

The Daily Mail vs The Burka

After the French government decided to ban a small minority of women from choosing what to wear, it was only a matter of time before the Daily Mail realised they had a unique opportunity to combine hating Muslims and women, and jump on the burka bandwagon. And they’ve done so by misrepresenting Caroline Spelman’s interview with Adam Boulton on their front page (Monday 19th). Here’s the excerpted interview:

So Spelman argues convincingly that women should have free reign on their sartorial choices, saying:

“I don’t, living in this country as a woman want to be told what to wear… for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning what you wear”

But the Mail lead with the headline “MINISTER: BURKAS EMPOWER WOMEN” which is a blatant misrepresentation of Spelman’s comments. They could equally have led with the headline “Minister: Motorhead T-shirts Worn As Turbans Empower Women”. Wearing anything in particular doesn’t necessarily empower women, but removing the right to make that decision unequivocally disempowers them. This is the point Spelman makes, and the point Damian Green also makes in the article. Despite Green also contributing, the Mail lead with Spelman’s comments, though they’re equally uncontroversial, and snidely remark that Spelman “appears to be making a feminist argument”. Heaven forbid. But Green also makes a feminist argument, because it’s the same argument. Still, best not miss the opportunity to have a potshot at a female minister.

The article also helpfully provides an update in European feelings on the burka.

Spain is to debate banning the burka this week. The ruling Socialist party has indicated it will support the the opposition popular party, which says the garments are degrading to women.

The lower houses of parliament in France and Belgium have approved a ban on face-covering veils, but their upper chambers have to ratify the law.

The Netherlands may yet decide on a ban, while Switzerland has outlawed minarets, from where Muslim are called to prayer.

Sorry, minarets? I thought we were talking about burkas. The section above is entitled “Opposition Grows in Europe”: opposition to burkas, or Muslims as a whole? It’s clear what the article’s insinuating.

This topic is likely to roll on for a while, especially while Philip Hollobone MP wages a one-man war on Muslim women in his constituency and Britain as a whole. Hollobone’s previous exposure in the press came when he claimed wearing a burka was “like going around with a paper bag on your head”, refused to meet constituents who did not want to remove face coverings and was investigated by the local police. He’s also a staunch defender of your right to hate gay people, thinks only a man and a woman should be able to have children, and was one of the few Tories UKIP actively campaigned for. A ringing endorsement if one was needed. Hollobone’s Private Members’ Bill is due for its second reading on the 3rd of December this year. Expect to hear far more on the burka from the tabloids, until then.

Edit: Jim Jepps has also written about the delightful Mr Hollobone here. I’ve a feeling we’ll both be keeping an eye on this MP for a while.

The Daily Mail’s Grief Porn

The Daily Mail’s fight to rid the world of women in trousers has been covered extensively elsewhere but on a recent trip to their website to peruse their Judging Women™ sidebar for tips on being more true to my gender (note to self: become shorter, blonder, thinner, wear less, have babies), the Mail appeared to have surpassed itself in thigh-rubbing voyeurism.

The Mail chose to cover the repatriation of the bodies of three soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, not by describing their upbringings, but by focusing their attentions on one of the widows and in particular, her dress. What should have been a sombre affair was, for the Mail, just another opportunity to up its daily quota of lecherous photos. Seemingly there’s nothing the Mail can’t illustrate with attractive young women in dresses. In the first piece that had mentioned the deaths of three soldiers in Afghanistan, Heidi Kirkpatrick’s pink dress was described as “vibrant” twice. Her dead husband’s picture was included once. Five almost identical full length photos of the widow were incorporated into the piece, with Heidi Kirkpatrick crying in every one. Apparently the Mail can’t accept that their readers will appreciate the full tragedy of an event without the visual aid of pretty people crying.

This is insulting, both to servicemen and their families. Whether or not you agree with Britain’s continuing involvement in the Afghanistan conflict, stories on military casualties should be just that: stories, of human interest, rather than vehicles for shoehorning blondes in “vibrant” dresses into your already facile, sexist rag.  Here’s a primer for how to cover military deaths for the Mail:

1. Focus on the individual: their childhood, background, history in the army – all of these are more important than covering the colour of one mourner’s frock.

2. Make the headline about the casualties: that three of the first words in your headline concern a widow’s sartorial choices for a funeral is deplorable.

3. Cover the event: photographs showing the volume of mourners who have turned out is a) more sensitive and b) has more journalistic worth in news reportage.

4. If you have to include photographs, don’t make the majority of them of one person, in the same place: the story here seems more concerned with a widow’s dress. Why not include childhood photos of the deceased? Pictures from important moments of their life? Graduation, a wedding, the deceased with their parents?

5. Consider the impact of your reporting on those you cover. I can’t imagine the family of Jamie Kirkpatrick, including his widow, are thrilled that during one of the most traumatic days of their lives, you have interviewed them, under the guise of writing a genuine tribute to someone they loved, and then turned their loss into something more akin to a fashion spread. Papping celebrities is one thing: doing so to a woman in floods of tears is another.

Particularly galling is the fact that only last week, the Daily Mail berated the BBC for being voyeuristic in its coverage of Wimbledon (farcically, next to a column of papped shots of celebrities) ranting that televised scenes of spectators kissing are a “gross invasion of privacy”. It’s a shame that more of the Mail’s moral rage isn’t directed at their own coverage of grievers in Wootton Bassett.

Edit: Anton Vowl’s also covered this on the excellent Enemies of Reason