Power to the People

I know you’re not supposed to talk about religion or politics, but I’ve never understood why, and I’ve never been one to blindly follow rules. I’d rather discuss the big, deep important issues that make people argue than maintain the trivial equilibrium any day, and surely not talking about them only serves to perpetuate the segregation, lack of communication, narrow-mindedness and apathy that cause serious, widespread disruption. There’s a general election looming in the UK, our Prime Minister handed in his notice this week and then took part in a much-hyped televised debate with all of the other major party leaders. So on this most religious of weekends, I’m going to write about politics. But fear not, I won’t impose my beliefs, or tell anyone what to do, mainly because I have no idea what to do myself.

I’m struggling with the same dilemma as it seems a growing sector of the UK population are in the face of this election, and that’s knowing what to do, who to trust, or whether to bother participating at all. I’ve completely lost faith in the party I supported in the 3 elections I’ve previously been eligible to vote in. I never, ever thought I’d say this, and my mother despairs of her parenting skills when I do, but for the first time in my life, I’ve even seriously considered not voting at all. It wouldn’t be an easy choice for me – I believe in democracy in its purest form and as somebody highly insignificant in our society in terms of social standing and wealth, by not exercising my power to vote I am flying in the face of all that it stands for. Abstinence would also be a difficult act to reconcile with my belief in feminism. Had I been around in the early 1900s, I’d have surely been out there among the suffragettes fighting for equal rights, so as a woman, I would never surrender that extremely hard-won entitlement without very good reason.

But although he often talks a lot of the kind of hot air that would usually be followed by an excretion from a male cow’s bum, for once I think Russell Brand has a point. We need something worth voting for, and there’s currently nothing. We know from recent decades, when all three of the major parties have had some level of control, that they’re now almost impossible to separate from their cosy little scrum in the centre ground. Everyone is sick of privileged, career politicians who seem to have no idea or care what real life is like for the majority of people living in this country, and no problem with ignoring their wishes and screwing them over. We know that none of them will really change anything drastically enough for a population who are clearly ready for a big change.

However, I also believe that apathy has no place in politics. Everything in modern life is political, and therefore everyone has, or at least should have, a direct interest in politics. But I think in a lot of cases it’s not apathy or indifference that tempts people to abstain, it’s total, impassioned disillusion. When the only three parties in serious contention all occupy startlingly similar territory and have all been recently proven as liars when it comes to implementing policies from their rosy manifestos and the expenditure of public funds, I question how that’s a choice, and whether we truly live in a democracy at all. And when the fourth party gaining popularity and a sneaky outside chance stands largely for their own idiotic brand of right-wing nationalism, I find myself embarrassed by my countrymen and really don’t know where to turn.

The sad fact is, I don’t trust or believe in any of the major political parties standing, or approximately 99% of their employees. I’m not even sure I believe in our archaic political system any more. So how can I possibly vote without being a total hypocrite?

We, in our increasingly disunited kingdom, hold ourselves up as an example of the developed, western, wealthy, successful, free world, but it’s mostly built on extreme capitalism, barefaced lies and clever publicity. We have all the same issues of social and economic inequality as everywhere else, we just seem to be better at brushing them under the carpet, spinning them into something justifiable, using other issues as a way to detract from them or just outright covering them up. We pride ourselves in not suffering from the high-level corruption and dictatorial governments seen in other countries, but the continuing MP expenses scandal, the tax-dodging loopholes for million, billion, zillion and squajillionaires, the Hillsborough justice campaign, the propaganda against immigrants and benefit clamants, the so-called ‘war on terrorism’, Operation Yewtree, the Leveson inquiry and other recent events too numerous to mention prove this to be completely untrue. High-level corruption is absolutely a major issue in our country, it’s just hidden away, lied about and only gotten away with by the incredibly powerful and wealthy. These aren’t things I could ever comfortably respect or support.

So on that basis, yes, some kind of protest, or rebellion, or revolution as Brand so flamboyantly puts it, would be the best thing the masses could do to invoke real change – not just in the leadership of the country, but perhaps in the whole system, and even our culture. However, I’m sensible enough to know that this plan will only work if NOBODY votes, and that’s never going to happen. There will always be the party stalwarts and the staunch upholders of our democratic rights who would never dream of abstaining. Russel Brand doesn’t seem to see that this makes his plan become very dangerous indeed. Ultimately, the rest of the populous not voting would only mean we ended up in a worse situation - being governed by the choice of the few, rather than the many. I suspect the non-voters would be among the first to complain.

Which brings me back to the dilemma of where to place my cross on the ballot paper. I briefly considered voting for one of the smaller parties, but I can’t help but see it as a pointless exercise. Perhaps if we had proportional representation it would be worth doing, but in our nonsensical ‘first-past-the-post’ voting system, it won’t achieve or change anything in the grand scheme of things, ultimately making it a wasted vote. Plus, there aren’t any of those I truly believe in either. The closest is probably the Green party, not only because they seem to be the only ones concerned with the environment and climate change, but also they are the only party who aren’t controlled by wealthy corporate sponsors and actively refuse donations from tax-dodgers. They are concerned with tackling problems at their root cause, rather than mopping up the consequences of obvious social problems. They also oppose austerity and stand for full nationalisation of the NHS and transport, as well as calling for a Living Wage for all workers. However, despite their appealing policies, I have no faith in their leader, Natalie Bennett, has continually shown weakness and a lack of knowledge during their election campaign. Plus it seems voting Green is not even an option for some, because they’re not a large enough party to have a candidate standing in every area.

While it would never be a consideration for me, it seems from the polls that a lot of people are leaning the opposite way, towards voting UKIP as a protest, or as the only alternative to the three major parties who can guarantee major change. I can understand why this is happening, but I find it so sad and scary that we’re following France in leaning towards the far right in our desperation, rather than using people power and coming up with a more liberal left alternative, as Greece and Spain seem to be doing. Nigel Farage spent the entire TV debate scapegoating, and I quote: ‘foreigners from 10 former communist countries’ for all the UK’s problems and outlining his plans to pull out of the EU, while conveniently ignoring that highly skilled, tax-paying immigrant workers are what keeps his precious NHS afloat and that his own wife comes from one of those EU countries and is employed by his party. Having said all that, I can’t deny that I actually admired him for keeping out of the schoolyard bickering the other leaders so often succumb to, and for at least having the balls to clearly state his beliefs and proposals despite their controversy, rather than pandering to his perceived voters like the lying, fawning, polished, heavily media-trained TV personality politicians we’ve grown accustomed to. In that sense, it’s easy to see why the voting populous are drawn to him. However, it’s almost amusing that such a traditionalist Briton can’t see the irony in a country that proudly invaded and colonised half of the free world closing its borders and cutting all ties with foreign countries. And I presume that the thousands of British expats (because strangely, it’s not called immigration when we do it) enjoying life in foreign climes will be allowed to continue.

Einstein once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We’ve seen what nationalist, right-wing governments have done to Europe and the wider world before, and I can’t believe we’re willing to go down that road again.

But for the overall, tip-top, most important reason to vote, we only need look at the statistics from the last election in 2010, which left us with the ill-fitting and unsatisfactory Con-Dem coalition. Of the population eligible to vote, 10.7 million voted Tory, 8.6 million voted Labour, and 6.8 million voted Lib Dem. However, 15.9 million didn’t vote at all, which only goes to show what a massive difference that huge number of unused votes could have made to any of those figures, and to those of the lesser parties, who could have used that support to become serious contenders. We can also see from the policies implemented by the current government and the targeted manifestos surfacing now that each party works hardest to serve those groups of society who bother to go out and vote for them. At the last election, 76% of pensioners used their vote, compared to 44% of 18-24 year-olds. As a result, we saw university tuition fees reach astronomical levels, housing benefit removed for the under 25’s and plans to force the young unemployed to do voluntary work for their welfare payments. Meanwhile, even the wealthiest pensioners kept all their benefits and perks, were excluded from the bedroom tax and had their private pensions protected against inflation and made easier to access. Incomes for the over 60’s have risen 1.8% since the economic crash of 2008, while incomes for the 22-30 age group have dropped by 7.6% in the same period. Interestingly, the Conservative party had a lead of 12% over Labour among voters over 55 years of age, while Labour received more votes from the 18-24 year-olds. Little wonder then, that Ed Miliband is pledging to cut tuition fees and increase affordable housing available to the young. The point is, if you want the government to meet your needs, or to represent you at all, the only way to do it is to curry their favour and vote for them.

At a time when voters and their rights are largely ignored, it’s difficult to keep believing that voting is an effective way to instigate change. But when there’s no alternative, when protests and revolutionary acts are also ignored, or worse, met with a violent response and/or punishment from the establishment, voting is the only power we have. Never forget how fortunate we are to live in a state of relative freedom and to have the option of exercising those freedoms in choosing and influencing our government. In the current system, voting is the only way we can realistically instigate change, and therefore it’s more important than ever that we all actively utilise our democratic rights and call out those MPs to make life fairer for their constituents. Left with a choice of feeling like a hypocrite and either voting tactically, to avoid the worst-case scenario as I see it, or just picking the best of a bad bunch, I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, but I know I have to vote, and I know the only way to create change is to make yourself heard. I hope everyone, especially the young, the poor, the disenchanted, and the under-represented recognise the importance of their input. If you can’t see a way to vote to make things better, then consider voting to prevent making things worse. Even the small impact your voice can make is surely better than having no say at all.

If you like my blog, please feel free to comment here ↓ or become a follower over here à

Maybe you'll also like the fiction writing on my website: http://www.shelleyirving.com, where you'll also find links enabling you to purchase my debut novel G.O.D.

Or you can 'like' my facebook page to read more regular thoughts and ramblings: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shelley-Irving-Writer/227455587342847

Evolution Devolution Revolution

There’s been much discussion in the media and on social networks lately about breastfeeding and photos of breastfeeding, and whether they should be allowed in any public domain. Well, of course they should, that’s not worthy of even a sentence of debate in my blogosphere. What makes the argument even more ridiculous is that we had a simultaneous debate in the UK about whether national daily newspapers should finally stop featuring page 3 girls, who have continued exposing themselves in public for money and male titillation for decades, with fewer complaints. But I’m not going to enter into a rant about societal misogyny, the sexualisation of women’s breasts, or the hygiene implications of being forced to feed a vulnerable baby in a public toilet, because the thing that saddens me most about it all is the confirmation that our ‘civilised’ society just keeps on pushing humans further and further away from nature, and I really don’t believe that’s a good thing.

The fact that this most natural of human practices is even questioned seems absolutely ludicrous to me. It’s the very thing that makes us mammals and a part of the natural world. Our species could never have survived without it. The fact that we’ve now largely replaced the most nutritious, immune-boosting, perfectly designed substance in the known world with dried chemical substitutes and deemed the delivery of it somehow indecent or offensive is completely absurd. What other animal ever has to hide away from the rest of its kind for simply rearing its young? It’s the fundamental purpose of every species and surely a thing to be celebrated.

But the (over)reaction to seeing babies get fed is not the only indicator of this sad truth about humanity that’s caught my attention.

Nudity in general is deemed somehow shocking and vulgar in modern society, and also has to be kept away from public forums and the children. Unless, again, it’s for sexual gratification, in which case it’s acceptable, or at least something we can turn a blind eye to. People who enjoy being naked as part of their normal, daily lives are made to do so behind closed doors or in designated areas only, and often labelled as weirdos. Because civilisation has decided that wrapping yourself in irritating fibres, suffocating your skin and weakening it to the effects of the sun and environment is a far more normal, healthy and sensible way to live.

Everyone I know who is looking to buy or rent a house wants it to come with the biggest gardens possible, not so they can enjoy the beauty, wonder and power of nature, but so they can endlessly cut, trim, shape, mow, weed and hack things to death in some endlessly futile effort to order and control it.

I often hear children warned against and scolded for running off, getting dirty and climbing trees or any of their artificial counterparts, when in actual fact, as curious little apes, it’s in all of their natural instincts to do so. Apparently we now think it’s better for them to avoid any risk or adventurous discovery whatsoever, and instead sit sedentary, indoors, in front of light projectors, eating processed, additive filled rubbish.

We can’t even resist interfering with the natural properties of other species. We love to share our lives with animals such as dogs and horses, who at their evolutionary peak have developed windproof, waterproof, warm and protective fur to allow them to deal with whatever the elements and environment can throw at them. But humans, in our infinite wisdom, shave all that off so we can replace them with vastly inferior, man-made coats instead.

I for one am wholly unconvinced that any of these examples prove the superior advancement of our species.

But humans are bizarre creatures. We still depend on nature for everything that keeps us alive, yet we are so arrogant as to think we can abuse or be repulsed by it instead of showing gratitude. We treat the natural as the unnatural. We think we’ve risen above the animals, when in so many ways all we’ve done is become the worst example of them. We’re certainly the worst on earth at just being the species that we are. Instead, we have become animals who constantly fight and deny our natural instincts and urges and try our damndest not to behave like animals. We’re conditioned to not want to be what we are, or behave as we’re innately programmed to. We’re often advised to ‘be ourselves’, when in actual fact, that’s the last thing society wants any of us to do. And then we wonder why there have been such dramatic and alarming increases in depression, anxiety and dysfunction related mental illnesses across the globe.

How much will we allow this twisted lifestyle to affect our health, our development, our planet and our future sustainability before we realise it has to change? I’m not saying we should all revert to caveman mode, but the boiled-down fact is we are just an overpopulated bunch of clever primates, and there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Going ‘backwards’ even a little bit would do far more good than harm. I look at humanity and I look at the rest of the animal kingdom, who are all experts at their own individual lifestyles and appreciative of everything nature has given them and resourceful with it, and I genuinely wonder who really are the intelligent ones?

Je ne suis pas sûr si je suis Charlie

Since the atrocities in Paris this week, beginning with the attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, there has been much talk of free speech, and a sudden and impassioned public uprising to defend it. Before I say anything else, of course I wish to retain all of the freedoms we enjoy, and I condemn the actions of the gunmen regardless of their race, religion or cause. However, I have really struggled with two elements of this story bringing up a moral dilemma for me: Firstly, that nobody in Europe truly has freedom of speech while apparently deluding themselves that they do; and secondly, that I’m not always sure we should be trusted with total freedom when we so often abuse the forms of public expression available to us.

Free speech is of course, an essential civil liberty in the west. It’s changed the world several times over, caused revolutions, wars, political and constitutional changes, etc, etc, etc, and allowed art and media to provide powerful reflections of the past and present societies in which they were created. It’s something we almost take for granted, it’s so inbuilt in our values. Indeed, it’s the first amendment on the US bill of rights, only marred by the fact that second on the list is the right to bear arms (presumably to use against those whose opinions differ to your own).

My point is, that while it’s a fine libertarian ideal to uphold and defend, we’ve never had freedom of speech in the west anyway. Freedom is an absolute. We can’t be a little bit free - either we are, or we’re not. This murky middle ground in which we currently exist, where nobody’s quite sure what’s permissible and what might land us in jail or get us killed is definitely not free.

Every country celebrates it, and yet every country modifies it with the stipulation: ‘within the law’. While those laws differ throughout Europe and the US, none are without restriction. In fact, the UK has stricter laws on free speech than anywhere else in Europe, covering everything from threats, abuse, insults, harassment, breach of the peace, racism, terrorism, incitement, gross offence, treason, indecency, obscenity, defamation, trade secrecy, classified material, copyright...the list goes on and on. Countless songs, books and films are still banned and re-edited every year. The TV schedule is subject to watershed rules and the internet routinely regulated and censored. It even came to light during a televised political debate on the subject this week that the BBC operates a ban on all depictions of the prophet Mohammed. Here is a direct quote from their editorial guidelines on political, religious and topical sensitivities:

‘Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form.’

So even our nation’s public-funded, impartial, fair and most highly respected broadcaster obediently stays not only inside the law, but also its own, harsher, self-imposed rules. So much for freedom of the press. How can we possibly encourage journalists to dig deeper and push boundaries when it’s so unclear how far those boundaries are allowed to be pushed? The Leveson Inquiry and continued sales of certain related newspapers proved beyond doubt that not only do we not have a free press in the UK, but we don’t actually want one. Meanwhile, those who dare to break the rules to publish things they believe the public have a right to know end up in prison, or being forced to take long-term refuge in a South American embassy.

Just as many in the western world now mock the religious for believing so wholeheartedly in something that they don’t think is real, consider that perhaps the rest of the world are now laughing just as hard at us for believing so staunchly in the myth that is our so-called freedom.

I saw this cartoon shared on social media shortly after the killings at Charlie Hebdo, and it really got me thinking. It highlights one of the many double standards at work in western free speech, particularly where religion is concerned, and probably due to our terrible Holocaust guilt (because let’s not forget that the west has been and continues to be responsible for many of its own despicable atrocities and acts of terrorism). 

In France, the Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic activity in speech or print. It’s interesting to note that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ has only been exclusively applied to Jews in recent history. The true definition of Semites actually covers many of the peoples of the ancient Middle East, and the Semitic religions include Islam and Christianity as well as Judaism. So if we’re allowed to criticise and ridicule Islam and Christianity so freely, then surely it has to apply to Judaism and every other denomination too.

Blasphemy concerning any religion is one of the restrictions on free speech in many eastern countries and even several in the west, so it’s bound to be a highly inflammatory area for people living in other cultures under different constitutional laws, especially in the current climate. For me, when it comes to derogatory depictions of Islam at the moment, it’s not about defiantly making a display of exercising free speech or rejecting fear and terrorism, it’s about basic humanitarianism and compassion towards that enormous majority of Muslims who aren’t extremists, and causing obstruction to any hope of mutual respect and peaceful resolution. There’s a huge difference between using satire as a humorous device to shine a light on shortcomings of institutions, and using it as a one-sided and deliberately insulting vehicle to further enforce a divide and fuel such a volatile fire. I don’t know what the answer to all this is, but I know that it won’t be reached while communication between both sides consists of persistent insults, threats and extremely violent acts.

The editors, journalists and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had been warned many times before about taking their deliberately offensive satire too far. They had already suffered numerous threats, even seen their office firebombed and been ordered to pay many heavy legal fines for taking their use of free speech beyond the law, all the while continuing to skate along the borderlines of provocation. In many ways it’s admirable, of course they had the right to satirise, and nobody could ever begin to suggest that all those innocent people deserved what happened to them. But then I can’t help but think that perhaps just a little more BBC-esque thought on their part to political, religious and topical sensitivities wouldn’t have gone amiss, and may even have saved lives. So I guess my question is not why shouldn’t everyone have the right to be offensive and antagonistic, but why does everyone want to be?

I also noticed that the tragedies in Paris buried the big European news from the day before the first shootings, which reported the Pegida anti-Islam and immigration marches which continued to gain momentum in Germany throughout the week. I myself, and I suspect many others, especially Islamic extremists, are more offended by events such as this than any cartoon that ends up in the next day’s recycling.

Unfortunately, the defence of freedom of speech is a tricky area, in which everyone has to defend things they find abhorrent or offensive so that they may be allowed to continue to express themselves. So while I may disagree with Pegida, I will always stand up for their right to march for whatever cause they see fit. But I also believe that we ought to be very careful about purposely and publicly insulting or ridiculing other cultures, races, religions politics and beliefs, because it ultimately makes us no better than those who judge us for our own. So at the same time as defending free speech, I will continue to stand up for tolerance, because if we are to be granted these freedoms, then we have to allow everyone else those same rights we claim for ourselves. And even though the law says it’s okay to emotionally damage whole nations or groups of society, so long as you don’t physically hurt them, I disagree.

So I guess in my ideal world, we’d have total freedom of speech, combined with total respect and understanding and a desire to peacefully coexist that meant we never felt the need to push our freedoms to their limits. What a shame we’re human.

If you like my blog, please feel free to comment here ↓ or become a follower over here à

Maybe you'll also like the fiction writing on my website: http://www.shelleyirving.com

And I'd appreciate it if you'd actively 'like' my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shelley-Irving-Writer/227455587342847