Defend Education's Demonstration and the Aftermath

Photo © 2014 James Phillips

The protest at the University of Birmingham had its troublemakers, but we should make sure not to accuse everyone there of violence and vandalism, and should recognise all of those at fault in this multi-faced debate.

This post is going to be very different from my others and will describe Wednesday’s events and aftermath from a very personal perspective. Attending the event as a journalist reporting for the University newspaper, Redbrick, I became subject to the same treatment as the protesters I was with. Although I sympathise completely with the demands of Defend Education, my attendance at the protest was as a completely impartial reporter. This article, posted on my personal blog, is a true account of my thoughts and feelings about the day.

The demonstration was never going to be a peaceful protest. It is almost impossible to actually hold a peaceful protest – one where aggression is absent – because of the passion that drives such events. Here it was anger towards the university at their continual attempt to shut down political conversations, anger at their choice to spend £60,000 on injunctions rather than raising the wage of the lowest-paid employees, and anger at the initiation of disciplinary procedures against six randomly selected students from the peaceful occupation of the Senate Chambers last year. This aggression cannot be held back otherwise the protest would be pointless. However, the physical aggression we saw from both sides – the protesters and the security staff – was unnecessary, damaging for the group’s reputation and a major set back for this opportunity for change. We only have to look at how close the group's demands came to becoming part of the Guild of Students' Beliefs and Commitments to understand this.

Defend Education’s potentially game-changing demonstration was hijacked, as we have seen multiple times before, such as at the 52,000-person strong march against tuition fees in London in 2010, which ended in the violence at Millbank. What could have been a loud march around campus, even ending in a new occupation or a strengthening of the existing one, was immediately ruined by the minority who chose to break into the campus’ well-loved icon: Old Joe clock tower. If there was one thing that the demonstration could have done to annoy the majority of students at the University, it was the defacement of this beloved symbol – the graffiti painted on to the base of the tower has angered even those students who would have ended the day still completely oblivious to this growing campaign. The unfurling of a 50-foot banner from the top of the clock tower, a clever move, would have been accepted, but this vandalism won’t be forgotten or forgiven. We are already seeing a rallying call for a clean up operation much like that seen in the aftermath of the London Riots of 2011. This act has unified students against the campaign group, rather than with the group.

To add salt to this injury, the demonstration moved around campus trying to gain access to the Aston Webb building through multiple entrances. The use of smoke grenades and fireworks to cause disruption (I can only assume in an attempt to cause confusion that could be used to gain access) was another step too far and any aggression from the security staff in response is overshadowed by this fact. Spectators will say that the security staff were only defending themselves and the University buildings from this threat. Maybe this is correct, but the level of aggression from the staff was disproportionate, and only angered protesters even more. When students are being allegedly shoved to the ground, some by their hair, this obviously exceeds what would be categorised as a proportionate response. So, noone is off the hook here: those who threw the smoke grenades and fireworks, and the security staff who violently responded are as equally as bad as each other. The eventual entry to the Great Hall did involve the violent breaking down of a rear entrance to the Hall, and this is certainly another example of actions that have damaged the campaigning group’s image, but we must remember that damage to property is trumped by the damage to persons that we had already witnessed, and were still yet to witness.

We must remember, however, that a small and unknown minority of the protesters committed these violent acts and that we cannot simply lump the entire demonstration into the same group. Arguably, the others are complicit in their acts by continuing to demonstrate and not distancing themselves from the actions but after some meticulous planning and large-scale coordination, to abandon the protest would have disheartened many in the movement and was simply not an option.

Once in the Great Hall, aside from the construction of a barricade made from equipment set-up for the Give It A Go Fair (another action that meant sympathy with the campaign was lost from students, although it’s not entirely clear whether protesters knew this was the case), the group were entirely peaceful, simply singing songs and co-ordinating next steps, despite the intimidation tactics used by security staff filming from overlooking balconies.

The arrival of the police caused a further loss of morale from those in the protest. As we were forced to stand outside in the cold and rain, without access to food, drink or toilet facilities or several hours, tensions heightened, protesters became agitated and some became unwell. Despite our pleas for some humanity, we were detained with no charge, and some who needed medical attention were refused it. The police can deny it was a kettle as much as they like but if one goes by its definition – the containment of protesters within a police cordon, with police deciding when and how protesters can leave – it is most definitely what happened on that dismal evening. Those who had committed the crimes that we were accused of – aggravated trespass, criminal damage, assault -, those who were just protesting and those who were there reporting, were all considered as guilty as each other. As a condition of leaving the kettle, we were all (illegally) given a choice: to give our details to police, or to be immediately arrested and taken to the police station. 13 people chose the latter, and ended up spending up to 30 hours in detention for a refusal to give over their names. This use of illegal tactics immediately put the group at a disadvantage and shows another classic example of intimidation tactics, designed to dissuade people from taking part in these legitimate activities again.

We must also take into account the University’s attempt to play psychological games with the protesters and other students, using divide-and-rule tactics. The University’s plea for sympathy over social networks and the follow-up message from the Vice-Chancellor now dominate the market for empathy from students. While students at the protest were being detained, charged and taken to court, unable to defend themselves on campus, the University slyly and successfully continued its campaign to discredit the group and, thus, their demands.

Hence, this leads me to my final point. It is incredibly disappointing that the Guild of Students, a union designed to represent students, support students, and fight for better conditions for staff and students at the University, has taken the stance it has. Having read through the President’s personal statement, I can agree with her that the way her distress was ignored by protesters was appalling and that should not be tolerated. But, similarly, those within the police kettle who needed medical attention were ignored. The censure of the Vice President (Education) at the Guild Council took place without the Vice President being able to defend herself and ignores the mandate on which she was elected: to fight against fees and cuts, and for better student representation. Of course, this latter point is a matter of interpretation, but this is the Vice President’s interpretation of mandate and, on that basis, she was fulfilling it. Further, she was doing the Guild’s job and supporting those students who had been illegally arrested, whilst the Guild ignorantly condemned the entire group of protesters.

Despite being a supporter of Defend Education and their demands, I agree that the demonstration was an appalling display. The violence and vandalism that happened had no place within the remit of a peaceful protest. Protesters did themselves, and the cause, no favours by resorting to it. The movement’s growing credibility was destroyed that evening when the clock tower was defaced, security staff were assaulted and an event designed for the benefit of students was postponed. This is not to say, however, that everyone at the demonstration is to blame, but just the minority who had their minds set on vandalism and violence from the start. Furthermore, the reaction from security staff, the university and the illegal arrests made by police show that they behaved just as inexcusably on, and prior to, the day. This is not an event that should be, or will be, forgotten.

Last Night's Protest was More Than Fireworks at the Palace

Photo of Anonymous Protest in Birmingham (January 2013) by Victoria Kettlewell

It is far from the status quo, but anti-austerity protestors are beginning to find their feet in the world. 

Anonymous activists and supporters took to London and other cities across the world last night to demonstrate their increasing anger and frustration with the longstanding ruling elite. Among them was Russell Brand, recently announced a revolutionary, and Caroline Lucas. Green MP for Brighton.

Protestors took to central London last night smartly donning the mask inspired by Guy Fawkes beginning a Bonfire to Austerity (literally) on Westminster Bridge. Their protest was one of many over recent years that aims to highlight the corruption of mainstream politics, the disgusting destruction of the environment and the malice of the banking industry. These are the people that Russell Brand gave an increased public voice for last week in his widely watched interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

These are incredibly important points; as dissatisfaction with politics continue, and people become more apathetic with the three untrustworthy options they are presented with, an alternative is necessary: a revolution. Now, perhaps we’re not talking about a full-scale French-Revolutionesque enactment, but we are talking about, as Brand put it, a ‘revolution of consciousness’ where people become vastly more aware of the atrocities and unethical attitudes of the government acting in their name. This is what will get us real change, whether this be through a new political party like the Greens, or through a new form of political control and governance it does not matter.  Unfortunately, this wanted effect on our consciousness and thought is difficult when those who most shape it are those who seek to retain the current power structures – the media – who are cozied up in the beds of the powerful.

Anti-austerity and anti-government protesters are stuck in a terribly biased situation. The media will want to run negative piece after negative piece and the Government of the day will simply ignore such arguments. When the opposition, who so profoundly announce support for their aims (like taxing the rich more heavily and imposing more regulation on the banking industry), gains Governmental control, still nothing will change. And while the population tacitly grants its support by voting in an election, nothing will change. A minority force like Anonymous is powerless by itself, but has no major player on their side.

It comes as no surprise that the right-wing media focus on the slightly more obstructive and violent methods adopted by a minority of protestors last night, hence detracting from the real message intended. The Daily Mail leads with ‘Funnyman-turned-activist joins protestors as they aim fireworks at Buckingham Palace’, for example. The media sets out to shut down minorities, and to dissuade against anything that challenges what is the status quo. One would like to think that this is regardless of newspapers, but this is shockingly, and sadly, untrue.

Now, certainly, the danger involved in setting off a firework in a very crowded space and towards a residential building makes the act ridiculous here. But we must remember that behind every method there is a genuine message: here it is that we must stop propping up our Monarchy using public funds when people are dying in the streets with no money, no home and no support.

Last night’s protest in London, and across the globe, was historic for the sheer number of anti-government protestors that assembled for it. Adorning the face of Guy Fawkes, protestors associated themselves with a force for change and challenging the establishment. Their next task is to rid themselves of those who dirty their image through violence and start recruiting more members of the public.

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

Today's recall of parliament reveals Cameron and Obama's deep want for imminent attacks in Syria, in response to the alleged use of chemical attacks by the Assad regime on its citizens in recent times. However, the debate uses a false dichotomy, presenting the options of military intervention or to sit back and watch as black and white. These are not in fact the only options available to us as a country and there are further choices we can make to act in a moral manner.

Cameron used a speech which he did not intend to use and, as such, his rhetoric seemed forceful, defensive and led by his own briefing. His body behaviour, too, demonstrated a deep desire to come across as in charge of the debate, as his decisions were undermined by his own party members, other members of the house and public opinion. Deafening his ears to criticism that he brought the house back for a pointless debate, Cameron set out his argument for the motion and military intervention, citing the Joint Intelligence Committee's report that it was 'highly likely' that the Assad regime were those responsible for the attack. However, he had to concede that this motion was based on a judgement, not evidence, and therefore that there was no 100% certainty about it. He dodged questions asking how an attack on Syria would actually deter a dictator, who has already showed a lack of shame and worry, from continuing to use chemical weapons. Driven by the legacy of the Iraq War, Cameron refuted any claim that an attack in Syria would be similar, saying there would be no troops on the ground, and no attempt at regime change. As members around the house quizzed him on his statement, Cameron maintained his claim that 'if nothing is done, we're more likely to see chemical weapons used' and, strangely, argued that there was no need to look at evidence throughout.

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

Cameron's speech was seen widely as relatively weak and as reluctantly sticking to a brief, with many speculating that there was still a want to launch an attack soon. What was clear from Cameron's speech, though, was that he was certain that the conclusions of the JIC and the US were enough to launch a unilateral intervention without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Cameron Syria speech in summary - This is a judgement. Will Assad be more or less likely to use chemical weapons if we take no action?

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

Terrible speech from Cameron - no answers on how to avoid escalation, no answers on breaking international law, no case made

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

Miliband presented a far more heartfelt, solemn and emotional response to the motion as he tabled Labour's amendment, which included a requirement to hear the results of the UN tests, and that there be compelling evidence for the case. Despite a difficult staff, Miliband commanded a well-thought-out speech, but still presented one side of the dichotomy, refusing the idea that anything other than military intervention is viable, simply stating that we needed to be 'clear-eyed' before heading into war. Labour are not ruling out military intervention. Although he demonstrated far greater understanding of the real priority of such an intervention, Miliband failed to take notice of the fact that a diplomatic peace-keeping solution poses far less risks to life than military intervention of any sort. What did ring true though is that Miliband seemed more in touch with the Conservative Party than Cameron was, demonstrating the deep dissatisfaction from Tory MPs with Cameron's original war intentions.

Wow a hell of a lot of conservative back bench MPs are in agreement with what @Ed_Miliband is saying on #Syria. Cameron looking lonely.

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

'Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence' proclaimed Miliband to choruses of support, over some members complaining about the delay in response. Any response should be time-limited, have clear objectives and a legal course and for that the UN should not be seen as simply as an inconvenience, he stated. Yet, Miliband's speech, despite proving better than Cameron's, seemed just a bid to follow the appropriate course, and avoid a repeat of the Iraq war. The cynics among us will argue that this is a result of wanting distance from Blair and Iraq or wanting to shine on the good side of the argument, playing to his party's and the population's concerns. But a hidden message was made apparent; even if the UN Security Council do not approve military action, the Labour party would be prepared to commit to it anyway.

It comes of no surprise that Nick Clegg did not make a statement, but his party members were particularly vocal, with many sympathetic to Labour's amendment, or the amendment, not discussed, tabled by Caroline Lucas, detailed below.

George Galloway, ex-Labour, now Respect, and anti-war campaigner, spoke passionately against supporting either side of the war, referencing the video uploaded by the Free Syrian Army of a commander eating a man's heart, and the war crimes of the Assad regime. He continued by arguing against ordering our army to war, claiming that only 11% of the population agreed with such a decision. Shouting at the house, Galloway seemed to oppose almost anything stated yet seemingly proposing no solutions.

George Galloway: 'Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?'

— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) August 29, 2013

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tapped into perhaps what is being felt by the majority of citizens across the country as she noted that military intervention is not the best way forward for either the Syrian citizens at the centre of the violence, or the citizens of the UK. She noted that the original motion put to the House by the Prime Minister had changed due to the demands of other MPs and the citizens of the country. Lucas also stressed that any military intervention must require any sanctioning by the UN Security Council, even with the Labour amendment, and that this is simply seen as an inconvenience rather than a due course of justice. She declared that the summary of the legal advice granted to MPs was unacceptable and that members should be given more. She stated that she remained to be convinced that any military action would deter rather than escalate the horrors within the country, questioning what we would do if Assad retaliated to our attacks rather than back down. She argued that only a diplomatic solution would address the situation - unfortunately, her own amendment will not be given any time to be discussed today and thus, members of the house are given only black and white options. Members are 'misguided' when they state that not intervening with our military, ignoring the case that can be made using diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

What seemed to overarch the debate was the question of 'Why now?' as MPs wondered why the use of chemical weapons should cause an escalation of our response, when the deaths of over 100,000 did not. Surely, one death is as equal as another death. Furthermore, there was detailed concern regarding the response of the Syrian regime, and the further implications of any attack by Western nations. Indeed, a BBC correspondent has tweeted images of Israel handing out gas marks as they prepare for the potential of Syria retaliating to an attack by Western nations by using weapons in Israel.

Stocking up on gas masks in #Israel. Big queue in Tel Aviv distribution centre. Concern but no panic pic.twitter.com/OVE2NlDEo5

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

It is extremely pleasing to see that MPs voted, twice, against any step towards military intervention. Many MPs, during the debate, recognised the third option that is an increased attempt at diplomacy, humanitarian aid and forcing the two sides apart peacefully to find a solution. Unfortunately, the result in the Commons means there will be no action of that sort either, but we can at least relish in the fact we have not started another conflict which results in the deaths of many innocent people, and the potential for wider conflict across the world.

We must now seek the third option of peaceful diplomacy, stop angering the Arab world and reduce our reliance on the Western might. We must also hope that the US do not take the unilateral route they have announced they are considering today.

I wrote to my local MP to detail my concerns around the vote today, the text of which can be read below:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a constituent with deep concern regarding the possible military intervention of the UK and other parts of the western world in the Syria crisis and I am hoping that you will listen and take my concerns into account when placing your vote in Parliament this Thursday.

Although I agree that the Syrian crisis is an incredibly appalling situation and that there is a strong case for intervention of some sort, I believe that military intervention is a dangerous path to head down. Learning from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must note that these conflicts have not yet ended, people continue to die each day and deep resentment of the Western world has come about as a result of these confrontations.

Furthermore, with hundreds dying each day in Syria, the case for intervention should be centred around their suffering rather than the might of the West. If we are to bombard the country with bombs and cruise missiles, we must ensure that they are only used against targets which sustain the country’s military capabilities - no citizens should be killed in the process. We must also provide on-the-ground humanitarian aid to victims of the violence on both sides and seek to reunite displaced children in the country and those who have fled - this should be our highest priority.

However, it is also incredibly important that satisfactory evidence is reached to ascertain that the use of chemical weapons was under the instruction of the Assad regime and that a multilateral agreement is reached with the UN or NATO before we commit to any military intervention. In the meantime, we should act to ensure that those injured are given proper treatment and attempt to implement a ceasefire.

My preferred outcome of the debate on Thursday is for the UK and other western nations to act as peacekeepers, working with either side of the conflict to reach a diplomatic situation, allowing for no more bloodshed and, hopefully, a consensual agreement that can lead to a better situation for all those involved. Most importantly, it will allow the absolutely necessary humanitarian aid to be granted and for displaced children and adults to return to their war stricken country and find their loved ones.

Too many have died in this conflict, and the UK should not oversee or be the cause of any further deaths.

I do hope this message reaches you before the vote and that you take my concerns into account.

This article is a work in progress and will be updated as further developments are made.

Caroline Lucas – the MP arrested for doing her job

 Photo by No Dash For Gas

Today’s arrest of Caroline Lucas at Balcombe is more than just a display of ideological commitment, but of deep understanding of her role as MP for Brighton Pavilion, and the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons.

A Member of Parliament (MP), as I’m sure you are aware, is elected to their role to fulfil the responsibility of representing their constituents on matters in and out of parliament. With 650 MPs to represent over 60 million people, this can be an exceptionally difficult feat, with an ideologically diverse community lobbying their ideologically committed representative. Unless you begin to treat ideologically different citizens like separate species, with communists in Zone A and ultra-capitalists in Zone Z, it’s unlikely that any MP will ever to be able to effectively represent their entire constituency. And even if you did adopt this deeply despicable policy, good luck trying to send those who have features from both Zone G and Zone P. It is for this reason that it is an extremely likely occurrence for constituents to write to other MPs to express their views. Unfortunately for them, the law prevents MPs representing non-constituents.

Hence, Caroline Lucas’s job is one of real difficulty. As the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons, Caroline has faced head-on the task of representing her own interests and her constituency’s interests in parliament whilst having to, essentially, ignore the floods of correspondence she receives from other Green Party members, environmentalists and ideologically aligned people around the country. It is events like today, in Balcombe, that she is able to properly represent those who have contacted her over and over again with their opposition to fracking, Cuadrilla and the Government’s poor attempt at being the ‘Greenest’ ever.

Caroline should serve as an inspiration to all of us and a role model for other members of the House. As an MP who does her job, of representing her constituents, rather than giving in to the party whip, defined by the party donors, she remains one of few who really holds the government to account. The pictures of Caroline being dragged away from the protest by police, whilst doing her job, show her standing with dignity, accepting her fate and believing in her cause.

What is ludicrous is the utter hypocrisy of our political state, where the companies set out to destroy our environment in the name of keeping the lights on, are protected from those who present a risk of “damaging property”. The MP who represents her constituents and other likeminded citizens in an attempt to make society better is arrested while those sitting on the benches in the Houses around her are ignored while they avoid tax and accept bribery. Caroline Lucas’ arrest today is an eye-opener to the backwards nature of policing tactics – the big, greedy and powerful are protected, whilst the small do-gooders of society are punished.

Congratulations to Caroline Lucas, her son, and the many people who have taken part in protests today, standing up for what they believe in and uniting against the Government’s ignorant plans.

Also published on Redbrick

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

"Get behind fracking" demands David Cameron in The Telegraph today. Think of the benefits to the economy, he lays on. Ignore the environmental impact, he infers. As anti-fracking protests continue strong in Balcombe, Sussex, the Tory Prime Minister adds yet another controversy to his premiership's legacy, so what substance lies behind his words?

The pro-fracking alliance of Caudrilla and The Conservative Party announce the godsends of the new energy initiative at any hint of disapproval: cheap energy, self-sufficiency and enough jobs to provide for the unemployed and the millions of illegal immigrants popping out of the sewage system. Meant to be a bit of good news, the Nasty Party must be in disarray that their distraction from their widespread attacks has only added fuel to the fire. Rather than prompting street parties and celebrations akin to those on New Year's Day, simply the possibility of fracking has resulted in angry gatherings. 

The potential of fracking is vastly outweighed by its potential to wreck the environment. Carving up the countryside, destroying habitats and contaminating water, it's hardly going to be Beautiful Britain. 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas doesn't exactly suggest a short-scale and isolated project; if David Cameron's partners manage to find shale gas, which is a certainty, there's no doubt that they'll continue to exploring elsewhere in the country. It really should come as no surprise that fracking is being favoured over other options when one of Cameron's advisors, Lord Browne, is the chief executive of Caudrilla. The big black bags of money that the Government are saying will drop into the Treasury or the local public's back pockets are empty promises. If anything is reinvested into the economy, it will be minimal. We only have to look at the 'Big Six' to recognise this; despite their massive profits this year, they still have the cheek to demand more money from their customers. Here is where Cameron's promise of cheaper energy can be called into question.

The latter two promises, self-sufficiency and jobs, also raise eyebrows. Although it may be the case that fracking can provide them both, they are not the sole approaches that can offer, and they are far more the cleanest. Fracking is a dirty process, and presents the highly likely chance of water contamination in the local area. Add the certainty of increased traffic from unclean lorries through the local area, and the noise created during the process, and it the pollution is an abysmal thought. Furthermore, climate change is a real concern in the present day and as we continue to rely on finite and dirty resources to power society, we are forgetting the long-term problems and solely thinking of the short-term benefits. It has been predicted that 60-80% of resources in the ground must not be extracted if we are to avoid any of the catastrophic results of climate change. In contrast, there are various green energies that can be invested in for all the same benefits. Additional money placed towards procuring energy-efficient homes and building technologies to catch renewable energies is far more sustainable and financially viable. The jobs created by implementing a shale-gas service are equally required for a large-scale investment project in sustainable and clean resources, that will not just benefit us, but generations to come and have far more public support than dirty fracking.

The language used by the pro-fracking alliance is misleading and ignorant of alternatives and public opinion. Despite widespread opposition, the technology, which is in its infancy, is being favoured over far more sustainable technologies, which can provide the very same benefits. There is enough shale gas to keep us powered for decades, they say. But there is enough sun, water, wind and heat to keep us powered indefinitely.

Also posted on Redbrick.

Keep Calm! This Murder Was Legal

Image by Werth Media 

Seventeen months on from his death, Trayvon Martin’s family have been denied justice, as the jury declare George Zimmerman as ‘not guilty’ of second-degree murder. On the evening of February 26th 2012, Zimmerman followed Martin from his car on his own charge of Martin looking “up to no good”. Within twenty-one minutes of Zimmerman phoning the police declaring his unfounded concerns, Martin was declared dead after having been shot by the neighbourhood watch coordinator. The evidence suggests that this was a completely unprovoked attack on an innocent teenager, yet strangely, Zimmerman has been acquitted.

Despicably, there was nothing to suggest that Martin was involved in any criminal activity. In fact, it appears that Martin was returning to his home, and only began running from Zimmerman as he became aware of the fact that he was being followed. Ludicrously, according to the transcript between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher, Martin deserved the attention, because “it [was] raining and he [was] just walking around, looking about”. That hardly calls for active pursuit – when did it become a crime to walk around in the rain and use your eyes to look at things around you. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, but he continued. Zimmerman was also reluctant to give his address to the dispatcher. This already screams guilt.

If the injuries that Zimmerman suffered were a result of Martin’s actions, it can only be assumed that they were in self-defence against the unwarranted pursuit and aggravation of the powerless neighbour watchman. The attack escalated quickly and resulted in the shooting of the teenager; Martin was shot within seven minutes and dead within twenty-one minutes of Zimmerman calling the non-emergency line. Zimmerman cries that he acted in self-defence, but if we are to believe that he followed Martin and acted to detain him before the police arrived, with no justification outside of supposed suspicious activity, then Trayvon is the only one who could have cried self-defence. It’s not a legitimate claim to argue that you acted in self-defence against someone else who was already acting in self-defence. You can’t claim that you acted in defence when it was you that instigated the altercation.

Some might argue that this verdict of ‘not guilty’ does not proclaim Zimmerman’s innocence, but that there was simply not enough evidence to convict him as guilty. But the call with the dispatcher, testimonies from witnesses, and no evidence to suggest that Trayvon was involved in any criminal activity at the time, only suggest that there was no legitimate motivation for Zimmerman to pursue and kill the teenager. Furthermore, Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon, did not have any power as a police officer and, thus, no right to use his gun in defence, and may have acted with a racist motivation - did Zimmerman see him as suspicious because he was a black male walking around? He was recorded stating “fucking punks” and “these assholes, they always get away”, implying that he discriminated against Trayvon on the basis of being part of the group that he named as “punks” and “assholes” – this group most certainly could have been based on race. This may not be just a case of murder, this may be a new case of anti-racism.

The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman shot dead an innocent male, with no real power to use such force. The police arrived just a moment later, and that one moment could have been enough to save this young male’s life. Yet, the jury declare Zimmerman as ‘not guilty’ of murder and even manslaughter, which seems ludicrous. There is no doubt here that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin – it is also likely that he planned the action from the moment he set his eyes on him – and that his response was not a proportionate response to the attack he alleges he was defending himself from.

As such, the string of protests in response to the verdict are justified, pronounced and internationally supported. There is real cause for concern in this case and the appeal for a further case should be backed by millions of supporters. Yet, Obama has called for calm, seemingly acknowledging the verdict as final and dismissing the distress the case has caused for people across the world.

However, if this appeal to the civil rights case is unsuccessful, Zimmerman will be unlikely to live his life as an innocent man. In the minds of many across the United States (and indeed the world), he remains a guilty man, and he will not be allowed to forget the death of the young teenager that he caused.

Disaster Strikes Again

Image by The Bay Area’s News Station

This week has been ridden with disasters and terrorism - the Boston explosions and today's gunfight, the explosion at the Texas fertiliser plant, the ricin-laced letters sent to a US senator and Barack Obama, and the earthquake in Iran. Unfortunately, they are the harsh reminders of what a fearsome world we live in. We should not be subject to such worries yet, on a daily basis, many are; anti-terrorism legislation, constant presence of surveillance devices and security announcements on public transport serve to remind us.

This week’s Boston bombings are a horrible event for the hundreds of thousands citizens to endure. Twice this week, ordinary people have been warned to not leave their homes and been left stranded with a continual threat of death, disaster and destruction to their relatively peaceful lives. Causes for celebration became crime scenes and, as is far too common in the United States, a place where people go to learn, became a place where people should avoid for their own safety. It is not a situation that anybody should have to experience.

Hence, it is ludicrous that people should use such time to promote their political message. As support and solidarity was expressed from people across the world, others took the opportunity to attack the media for their coverage of the events in contrast to the coverage of other equally-important events. On Twitter, there were messages along the lines of “the media are forgetting that people die in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria everyday”. But this is a sad argument. Yes, it is true that people do die in these sorry situations, but there is no reason to devalue the deaths and injuries of those affected in other crises. 

Perspective: 3 killed in Boston but in Iraq last month, 271 people were killed in similar attacks m.aljazeera.com/story/20134156…
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 18, 2013

Indeed, media coverage of events in war-struck zones is not as high as it should be and there are areas of the world that the media do prioritise over others. This is wrong and this is unfair, but the death of anyone is a highly important event. It is important to provide coverage to any distressing events, but to capitalise on the coverage of one act of terrorism to protest the lack of coverage of another is disrespectful.

Yes, media coverage of deaths in conflicts (Syria, Iraq) is disgracefully poor. But doesn't lessen the tragedy for injured/dead in Boston.
— Eytan Halon (@eytanhalon) April 15, 2013

The world is a truly dangerous place in which to live. Damage is done to individuals and their environment almost constantly, and the right coverage is never given, and equal coverage will never be possible. We are experiencing a period of complete upheaval of our beliefs and faiths and this is not something that should be ignored. We should not tolerate any threat to life, but to use one horrific event to protest about another is simply petty. Save it for another day.

This Country is at War…

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

...with itself. As fresh strike announcements are made from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) after votes in their annual conferences, it does not come as a shock. This is yet another wave of strikes that adds to the wall of resistance that is being built by unions across the country. Today Post Office workers went on strike, last November students took to the streets of London and now we look forward to a summer of more protest against the Government aims. Nothing will match that of the million-strong march against the Iraq war in 2003, but this united front does serve a united message to the Government; we are at war with the Government.

The Government’s cuts, reorganisation and privatisation is not going unnoticed and unchallenged, and these are hitting hard across many sectors of the nation. Astoundingly, however, there is an air of annoyance between sectors and the public. With the announcement of strikes from teachers today, there were criticisms across the board from mothers, fathers and students, who, in dismay, challenged the skills of these professionals and argued that this meant they had no right to go on strike. Now, these are unfair judgements and accusations – people do forget the strains and pressures of teachers and lecturers commonly arguing things such as “they get the summer off” and “they work short hours”, but these are myths. Both of these “holiday” periods are used for marking or preparing, not for simply bathing in their luxurious grand lifestyles. Yet, these myths fuel sectors to fight amongst themselves, rather than to fight over the main problems.

It seems ludicrous that sectors of society facing the same threats would argue about the disruption to life each other causes, rather than unite and offer support against the detrimental changes the Government is making. Instead of holding a general day of action, unions hold their own individual days (perhaps with other unions in the same sector, such as teaching), but then criticise and complain when other sectors do. We are forgetting that if the Government were not making these disastrous cuts to our services, then there would be no need to strike. Furthermore, the most effective parts of protest is the disruption it causes; after all, disruption only rebounds negatively on the Government. To take that away, would take away its effectiveness. But to criticise and complain is to show a divided society, and this we should avoid.

Hence, society is not just at war with the Government, but rather at war with itself. The small battles that we fight are detrimental to the strength of the united anger that could be. To win, unions must unite; to win, society must multilaterally, unanimously fight back.

How Not to Protest Effectively

Protestors rally outside Starbucks in Birmingham City Centre

The right to protest is a fundamental and respected right of the United Kingdom’s democracy and over the past couple of years we have seen many protests of varied causes take place in cities and towns across the Isles. Carefully and tactically planned, the aims of these protests are clearly to try and create change by winning over those around them with their cause, gathering more supporters and influencing the public opinion as a whole. However, the opposite effect can often be the result; rather than join the cause, the public criticise the protestors for “disrupting the working day”.

The anti-cuts and anti-tax-evasion pressure group, Anonymous, protested in the city centre of Birmingham on Saturday 5^th January. Demonstrating outside major high-street retailers and banks such as HSBC, Vodafone and BHS, the group rallied outside the Bullring Shopping Centre, causing the entire building to be locked down with shoppers stuck inside and outside waiting for them to disperse. Among those waiting outside was a shop-owner who complained to those protesting that they were interrupting his working day and causing him to lose money. Inside the shops, staff members barricaded the doors to stop those protesting from getting inside as customers were moved towards safety at the back of the shop. Commercial behaviour in Birmingham was brought to a standstill.

My guessing is if protesters who stormed @bullring had jobs they could afford to shop too. Try working and not disrupting my day.

— Mark Rice (@StaffsMark) January 5, 2013

Compassion can be felt all-round. There is some agreement with the cause that the cuts are hard and detrimental and that tax-evasion by major corporations is unjust and immoral and there is agreement that a protest should be held to demonstrate this anger as an effective way of raising awareness and rallying support. But there is disagreement over the method and tactics used by these pressure groups in order to do the former. The question raised is whether it is effective and fair to demonstrate outside the individual high street stores. It is arguable that it is neither and this is an opinion that many observers in the streets raise.

An apparent lack of consideration appears to prevail in the organisation of a protest outside a high-street. The fact that the employees of these companies have little or no say into the governance of the corporation as whole appears forgotten in the minds of protestors. Hence, the method of attacking individual shop stores is ineffective and often ignored by the decision-makers. In essence, the protestors are simply instilling fear in the hearts of the employees and customers of these shops as well as increasing a negative perception of themselves and their cause, creating the opposite of the desired effect.

However, the alternative (to protest outside the headquarters of the major corporations to the decision-makers themselves) is difficult. Usually these businesses are placed in locations far from the major public eye, reducing awareness-raising and there’s no way of knowing when the senior bosses are actually present at the headquarters to take note of the protestors concerns. Even if they are, it is not necessarily going to make any difference. Upon observation of previous examples (i.e. most protests outside the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street or Millbank), it is uncommon that we can see any direct effect on impending legislation.

The right to protest is one that should remain, but the ability and effectiveness of protests is minimal. Hence, the organisation of a protest must be more thoroughly considered before it is carried out, or the risk of making no effect but a diminishing level of support is highly likely. The protests witnessed in Birmingham and the comments during and after them simply show the disastrous effects of an ill-thought-out demonstration.

Also published on Backbench

Why So Anti-Love?

Image by Guillaume Paumier

Laws differ across the world and the sentences awarded to those who break them differ even more. But the “crime of homosexuality” is perhaps one of the most controversial. As the UK and the US seem to have same-sex marriage on the agenda, countries like France and Uganda appear to be heading in the opposite direction.

Despite a Tory back-bench rebellion extremely likely, the overwhelming support for same-sex marriage in the Commons and Scottish Parliament will guarantee that it will pass into law and the rights for LGBT people in Great Britain will be massively increased and put on a par with heterosexual rights. But it’s questionable as to why society can be so divisive in the first place; after all, surely the concept of love is equal among all, so the accessibility to affirming that should be too. Anti-homosexuality simply doesn’t make sense.

Thus, recent events in France and Uganda seem utterly preposterous. Hollande, France’s President, is rightfully pushing through a bill through parliament that will allow both same-sex marriages and adoption for same-sex couples. Yet, despite this being one of Hollande’s key election policies, seventy thousand took to the streets of Paris in protest and one thousand mayors signed a position in opposition. Perhaps the most ludicrous of suggestions (also raised by Lord Carey, ex-Archbishop of Canterbury) is that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy – obviously all gay people cheat and want to marry lots of people at the same time. Love between two people of the same sex isn’t equivalent to love between two people of opposite sexes – gays need a lot more to satisfy their desires. Ridiculous!

Meanwhile, in Uganda, the Speaker of Parliament has despicably announced the “Christmas gift” of passing anti-homosexuality legislation. Otherwise known in the media as the “Kill the Gays bill”, the bill allows for the death sentence for those who commit the crime of so-called “aggravated homosexuality” or life imprisonment simply for being homosexual. Hence, options for gays in Uganda are either to live a heterosexual life, to hide their homosexuality or to seek asylum in another country. I’m sure you’ll agree that none of these options would be particularly appealing to you – why should you have to adapt your life, and hide your inner emotions, in order to escape imprisonment or death?

At present, only eleven states in the world allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Ten European states have a constitutional ban on it altogether. Same-sex marriage legislation began to pass through legislatures in the early 2000s – hopefully we can see more of this in the years to come.

Staff and Students Dig for the Truth

Calls of “shame” filled University Square last Wednesday as staff and students gathered in protest against the University’s decision to close the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, where a reduction of funding in the department will have a massively negative effect on current and prospective students in the area. Furthermore, the proposal is forcing staff members in the department to question the certainty of their future at the University with a possible 17 compulsory redundancies.

Almost comically, the Save The IAA Campaign’s protest simultaneously coincided with Vice-Chancellor, David Eastwood’s visit to Chicago where he was presenting and publishing the work of the department. Despite hailing their renowned work, he has initiated such a far-reaching threat. It is nothing more than hypocrisy and a method to build his and the University’s international reputation.

With over 1800 people having signed the official petition (something Simon Furse tells us spans 30 metres if laid out) and a turnout of around 200 people to the protest, it is evident that this campaign has a vast amount of support outside of the IAA department. Following cuts made to the Sociology department, students have recognised what effects actions like this will have, and that the decisions are not contained.

The closure of this department would set a dangerous precedent for other departments at the University, with minds immediately drawn to the futures of the Social Sciences, Law and Business. Despite the University’s colossal turnover of £125 million in the previous five years, and the trebling of tuition fees, we are expected to sit back and accept the possible closure of these departments.

Simon Furse, Guild Vice President (Education) branded the University as having “real contempt for students”, and “keeping students in the dark” about the process by holding the consultation during the summer break.

The attitude was no different within the crowds; it was clear that the same thought was on everyone’s minds, despite their course or their position. Theology PHD Student, Will said it seemed that “once they’ve finished cutting Archaeology, they’ll cut other courses which don’t seem so lucrative”.

Meanwhile, also amongst the protestors, was Robert Killick OBE, who studied Archaeology at PHD level in the 1980s. Asked why he was at the protest, he said “I am here to support my fellow Archaeologists. It is a disgrace the University is closing such an illustrious institute, one that has many achievements to its name and is often reported in national press”.

Well-supported and a success, the march began at the Main Library before heading to the Vice-Chancellor’s Office in the Aston Webb building (where protestors were, hilariously, greeted with a small police presence) before returning to the main library.
It is appalling and disgusting that the University are considering such destructive action against such a fantastic department at the University, seriously affecting both students’ and staffs’ futures. These decisions are life-changing and it’s not something we should sit back and accept.

Also on Redbrick: http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/staff-and-students-dig-for-the-truth/

Tories Not Welcome in Birmingham

With no aim but to express anger, frustration and dissatisfaction, the protest outside the Tory conference on Sunday had a resounding message; the Tories were not welcome in Birmingham. If the public had their way (which they rarely do), the Tories would have hosted their conference as far away from the ICC as possible.

Crying out with the crowds, it was more than obvious to me that the atmosphere was one of genuine rage. Across both the public and private sectors, the cuts are hitting hard; their consequences deep and far-reaching. From railway workers, to fire-fighters, to lecturers at our University, there was cross-spectrum resistance to the Tory presence. And, despite police officers being unable to protest along with us by law, the liaison officers were sympathetic to our cause. “Birmingham Grannies against the Cuts” were a particular favourite group of mine; not least because it shows that Government policies are spanning generations and the most vulnerable are, despicably, getting the rough end of the stick whilst the most fortunate are cut more and more slack.

Students, including NUS officers Vicki Baars and Aaron Kiely, also lined the ranks, demonstrating against raised tuition fees and continuing further and higher education cuts. Asked why they were demonstrating, Mathematics student, Ollie Jones said they were “angry” with the cuts that the Tory party were making in Government, particularly in opposition to changes to the NHS.

Vicki Baars, NUS Vice President for Union Development hit the spot when she tweeted, “at the rally against #cpc12, the Conservative led government has tripled Tuition Fees, introduced FE fee’s for over 24’s… Let’s defend edu!”

Inspiring speeches were given by general secretaries from public sector unions including the UCU, RMT and Unite. Christine Blower, general secretary for NUT, addressed the crowds “there is a will to privatise our education” and cited that one in five young people can’t find a job, while Bob Crow, RMT, called for re-nationalisation of the railways.

Yet, the protest was disappointing; in spite of a supposed five thousand attendees, it felt quiet and too jovial, and both the march and the rally were over in two and a half hours. Once it had finished, it had finished. It was by far lacking the passion of previous protests. Whilst timid voices shouted for a tax on the rich, the one percent, Cameron stood, unscathed and with security for protection, that his Government would not be introducing a mansion tax. Once again, our demands were ignored.

Fortunately, I can confidently say that the upcoming protests by the TUC and the NUS in London will be much more impactful. If #demo2012 is anything like the student protests of 2010, we will see fifty thousand take on Westminster and show this shambles of a Government that we will not just sit back and take what they throw at us. For ourselves, and future generations, we will say “no more”.

Photo by Victoria Kettlewell

(as published on Redbrick at http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/tories-not-welcome-in-birmingham/)