Super Injunction Farce

So it's Ryan Giggs. How many of you didn't know this? Not many. I thought so.

To put it quite bluntly, the whole super injunction saga for the past few weeks has been completely and uttely ridiculous. A gag on the media in order to cover up celebrity wrong doings, which, only apply to England and cannot possibly be policed online.

Let's face it, in this age of mass media and technology, one cannot possibly cover up information of this nature. Even if I had tried to avoid finding out who this "Top Premier League Footballer" was, I would have failed miserably. Facebook and Twitter are like the women's bookclub in a small village. The purveyors of gossip and rumour.

And isn't this just a complete mockery of our so called liberal democracy which supposedly gaurantees a free press? I mean, the very fact that a wealthy person can pay for the courts to control the media should have the North Korean government scoffing at our supposedly superior system.

If a famous person does something wrong or immoral, they should face up to the consequences. Part of the package (or curse depending on how you see it) of being in the public eye, is that the media will report and scrutinize your actions should they get any sort of whiff. It is harsh but then if they did not want this happening, they should not have have done what they did in the first place.

Bin Laden’s death – A contradiction in reaction.

It is a peculiar sight to behold, on the day of Osama Bin Laden’s death, to see two headlines on the BBC website that seemingly contradict each other. “World safer without Bin Laden, says Obama” and “UK warning after Bin Laden death”.

It would seem that it depends entirely on how you interpret Bin Laden’s demise on whether the threat of terror really will decrease. On the one hand, the al-Qaeda leader’s termination is a blow to the movement - he was the global symbol of Islamic extremist fundamentalism and although not always the orchestrator, he was often the voice of justification that his followers admired and the rest of the world abhorred.

Yet on the other hand, his death will encourage a response from Islamic fundamentalism who will seek to avenge his death with further violent acts of terrorism.

And then there is the third question of whether his death will have any impact at all on disrupting al-Qaeda – a worldwide movement with hundreds of factions and numerous other leaders. Since 9/11, it felt at times, that the media and the US and British government were elevating Osama Bin Laden’s status to an unrealistic level. To a level where his importance and influence in extremism was hugely overstated. Governments become so embroiled in capturing this bounty “dead or alive” that they began seeing it too much as a game of cat and mouse, rather than a campaign to topple terrorist movements.

It would also seem that his media coverage will continue to contribute towards the leader’s mythology for further years to come, even helping to attract new supporters.

And so, whilst the patriotic cheering American citizens rejoice outside the White House, whilst the American forces pat themselves on the back, whilst Obama laps up the media acclaim for his country’s success in ridding this pest of a terrorist, we have to ask: has Bin Laden’s death actually done anything good for us?

Changing attitudes towards the British Empire.

David Cameron recently suggested, at a conference in Pakistan, that Britain and its Empire are responsible for many of the world’s problems.

If you conducted a survey one hundred years ago on the thoughts of the British people on the Empire, I am sure the results would have overwhelmingly displayed feelings of pride and accomplishment.

However, conduct the survey today, and I am sure a good proportion of the responses would be mixed, and would question the moral and ethical decisions that the British government made in their campaigns to bring civilisation and order to foreign lands they saw as wild, and undeveloped.

The shift in attitudes in some members of the British populace can be attributed to changing cultural attitudes to imperialism; a vast, rapid and highly critical media; and a re-interpretation and re-evaluation of history.

People now see imperialism as an arrogant belief in one’s superiority over other nations and cultures, and that attempts to impose one’s way of living on to others is unjust. This has been particularly evident in the rise of demonstrations against government intervention in foreign lands, which started in the 1960s with the protests in America against the Vietnam war, and have been continuing ever since with protests against British and American intervention in Iraq in recent years.

The media and its technological advances has disseminated information and reported on events that were previously extremely one sided or unknown to people back at home. When a war breaks out in Iraq, a journalist is already there reporting on the loss of civilian life and destroying of people’s homes and livelihood. We realize that there are two sides to every coin.

And now, history is no longer taught with a glorified sense of British achievements in foreign lands. We are also taught the ugly side of history – of the negatives British rule also brought; and the atrocities that some committed.

Perhaps it is no wonder than that even a Conservative Prime Minister has admitted that Britain’s history with the world has been problematic.

However it would be unfair to say that the British Empire was all bad. It did bring stability, technological advances and economic development to many regions. It did lead to the establishment of the commonwealth which has promoted just political causes.

Therefore this presents political leaders with a problem when they choose to praise or criticize British imperialism. They are damned if they do, but damned if they don’t.

I hate to admit it, but David Cameron has a point…

…and I feel dirty for saying so.

His speech detailing the failings of multiculturalism at a security conference in Germany (which can be found here) made a lot of sense to me. In fact, the points made were fairly similar to the ones I made in an essay I wrote on multiculturalism in my first year of university.

Multiculturalism has not entirely failed. But it does need to be reworked and reshaped.

The problem with the multiculturalism we have in Britain is that it creates insular factions within society. Racial groups who live in bubbles where they choose to interact only with people and processes within their culture. This can breed racial tension, as these groups are deeply suspicious of other groups, as well as mainstream society.

And in some cases, it can breed extremists.

I am not saying we should get rid of multiculturalism. The right to celebrate and honor one’s cultural heritage is a right that should always remain intact. What Britain needs , however, is a mixture of assimilation and multiculturalism.

Different cultural and racial groups should recognize that they are also part of one society and culture; and that they also have a set of British cultural values that everyone adheres to and is proud of. A collective identity.

By doing this, we allow ethnic minorities to celebrate their own cultural background, but also feel they are part of British culture. This will invariably lead to more trust between different racial groups and less racism.

Here is an example to illustrate. Amongst my British Chinese friends, there are two different types:

• The well rounded British Chinese person. He or she has friends from many different cultures and racial backgrounds as well as friends from his or her own community. He or she also embraces British culture alongside Chinese culture.

• The insular British Chinese person. He or she lives in a bubble where they only interact with other Chinese. He or she does their best not to interact with other races or cultures and is deeply critical and suspicious of British culture, choosing only to celebrate their own way of life. As a result of this, they find it very difficult to fit in to British society and do not make many friends at, for example, work.

As a society, we need to be to be encouraging the first option.

I therefore grudgingly admit David Cameron is right.

What’s the best way to handle things when you’ve been Wikileaked?

I admire Julian Assange. He’s very much like the kid at school who made a mockery of the teacher, by distributing mislaid photos of him intoxicated at the staff Christmas party in a tight embrace with another member of staff.

Perhaps the US government should also see Assange in this light and instead of simply pursuing this thorn of a kid for detention, they should also step forward in front of the class and explain their actions.

The problem being faced by the U.S and other national administrations is that, just like the kid at school, Assange is revered by many for his actions. His supporters include many high profile journalists and individuals within the media.

Whilst it would be foolish of me to think that the Americans would actually care about criticisms that they would face should they continue to chase Assange, I do believe they could gives us a little something to make us think they were not such a big international bully. That would be facing up to these leaked U.S cables and, instead of feeding us bent versions of the truth, holding up their hands and apologising.

The best way to handle embarrassment is not to get angry or even, but to face it and all those talking or laughing at you in a dignified and honest manner.

Of course some of you are asking, what about the ‘riskier’ cables? That is, the cables that do not just embarrass, but could potentially be dangerous for those mentioned as some have said? I am of course talking about the cables detailing important U.S government assets and resources as well as the locations of troops.

Well, to be honest, having assessed what was released I do not concur that this information poses a serious threat. Locations may have been released but most of these things could have been discovered or concluded to be there, with a bit of research and hard work from someone with a bit of intellectual clout.

Again, the best way to face up to these releases is to, well, face up to it. Publicly and honestly.

We now live in an information rich age. To keep secrets is to cling on to the past and reinforce mistrust and hysteria. One needs only to look North Korea to see how this is working out.

Governments should be learning from Wikileaks, not trying to destroy it.

It finally feels like a recession...well to me it does

Call me naive, but when I first heard news of Britain sinking into a recession back in 2007, I was expecting there to be images of a descent into squalor in urban environments and a drastic change in the behaviour of people affected by this economic crisis.

What I mean is, I was expecting to be bombarded by constant media coverage of picket lines and demonstrations of irate and desperate unemployed workers; I was expecting a plethora of boarded up and dilapidated shops to suddenly start appearing; I was expecting rubbish to suddenly engulf the streets; I was expecting whole families to be walking around in torn clothes begging for money.

Hell, I was even expecting some sort of dust storm to sweep across Britain taking with it every inch of arable soil, making it virtually impossible for our farming industry to continue.

Clearly my expectations of a recession were influenced by images of the Great Depression in 1930s and the Winter of Discontent during the 1970s.

None of the aforementioned has really happened. We are still subject to constant advertising campaigns of Apple’s latest release; people are still walking through Oxford Street buying the latest fashion; celebrity controversy and X-factor still dominate television; Premiership football is still attracting large audiences with millions continuing to be spent on players and their wages.

To put it bluntly, apart from the daily news reports of how unemployment is rising and how some numbers on a computer screen have changed somewhere, it doesn’t feel like a recession.
That is, until recently.

In a recession, there is always one group of people in society affected who are most visible to the media. In the 1930s, it was the American urban workers who were often photographed queuing up for jobs or handouts. In the 1970s, it was the British trade unions and their marches that became defining picture of that era.

Now in the late 2000s recession, it seems as though it is the students who have taken up the mantle of potentially becoming the iconic picture of our economic crisis. The thousands who have marched, and the minority who have rioted on the streets of London have finally made it feel, to me, as though we are indeed in tough times.

Students are, by no means, the only faction affected nor are they most severely affected. There have been many other groups in society that have already felt the grip of recession for several months and perhaps even years now. It just so happens, that this time round, the students have had the loudest voices.

And with several commentators mentioning that we are to expect more demonstrations in the upcoming weeks, it seems very likely that they will indeed become defining image of this era.

When You go to Prison, You are Denied your Liberty – but not your Human Rights.

“Oh those bloody Europeans and their damned liberal ways” was the thoughts of many today as news broke out that the government now had to consider giving the prisoners the vote under pressure from the European Courts of Human Rights.

But like it or not, prisoners are still human beings that are under the rule of the state. And consequently their basic human rights must still be adhered to.
Before all you Daily Mail readers jump and maul me to a painful online death, please consider this: what is the real point of prison? And the answer to that is: to restrict and rehabilitate those that have been a danger to society.

The key words are ‘restrict’ and ‘rehabilitate’. When you go to prison, you lose your liberty and freedom of movement. This removes the threat to society. You also go in to be taught a lesson and to potentially come out (if you ever do come out again) a changed person who will no longer pose a threat to society (although this part of the function of incarceration and how it is enacted seems to be somewhat questionable these days).

I concur with the idea that prison should be a harsh place where authority is harsh and punishment is even harsher. There should be no comfortable mattress nor TV viewing pleasure (and unfortunately, this notion has seemingly not been adhered to by the previous government who have given some prisons an almost homely feel). However, whilst these despicable individuals who have committed crimes deserve to be treated unsympathetically and severely, they do not deserve to be treated inhumanely.

Without the vote, government pays less attention to prison and what goes on inside them. Without the vote, prisoners lose touch of society and their road to rehabilitation becomes more difficult one to walk.