On the Nature of Responsibility

Well, how nice of you! You’re still reading my blog despite the recent lapse in posts... I can’t apologise enough for that, so thank you for the evident forgiveness.

Today’s post will be of a slightly different vein- more attempted philosophy rather than attempted current affairs analysis. Though I will use David Cameron’s political attitude as an example of an evil I hope to rid the world of (possibly), so it won’t be entirely politics-free.

The political attitude in question is Mr Cameron’s constant relaying of blame to the previous government. We’re all aware of it- whenever a decision he makes is unpopular, such as raising tuition fees, his got-to response is “well, the previous government messed up and left us their problems to clean up, so it’s their fault we’re taking this action!” This is generally considered to be irritating by the lefties of Britain, due to the unjust diverting of blame towards their preferred political party. However, said lefties have to admit that Labour were guilty of much the same during Tony Blair’s first few years in power- whenever he got criticised for a decision, he would say “well, it’s only because Thatcher and Major messed up so badly.”

So this shifting of responsibility is found across the political situation, as well as on a much smaller level. You hear it every day- “I didn’t make that mess, I’m not clearing it up!” “I didn’t want to take this course of action, I’m not going to help you deal with the consequences!” “I didn’t set that house of fire, I’m not putting it out!” (okay, the last one was a bit extreme.)

This raises a problem. Not only does this tactic of getting out of doing anything irritate people (generally something to avoid), it decreases the chances in any given situation of Things Getting Done. What if the person responsible for a problem is presently unable to sort it out/clean it up? Are you going to leave the mess/consequence as it lies until the culprit is available for duty? What benefit does that have? None, as far as I can see. Even if the culprit is available, there’s no reason not to help out- two people doing something leads to the something being done in a lot less time. Also, said culprit may be being stubborn, in which case it’s probably best just to sort it out now and reprimand them later. And what if there is no clear culprit? What if any number of people could be considered responsible? Rather than arguing about who has the pinnacle of responsibility, it would be so much more efficient if people just got on and sorted the consequences out.

For the sake of Things Getting Done, and the subsequent improvement of people’s lives, I think a new definition has to be applied to the concept of responsibility. For this, we must think of the most overly-quoted line in the Spiderman franchise- “with great power, comes great responsibility”. Now, as annoying as it is that people have clichéd this line, they wouldn’t have done so had it not made sense. And if we accept that the statement makes sense, we can expand it, to simply “with power, comes responsibility” or, for the mathematical among you, “power = responsibility”.
The point is, if you have the power to improve a situation, then you subsequently have the responsibility to use that power. This new attitude towards responsibility is vital, I think, to ensure people don’t wriggle out of doing things that really need doing. The attitude outlined at the start of my rambling, “if I haven’t caused something, I have no responsibility in improving it” is illogical and ineffective, and more often than not, leads to things that need to be done being left alone with horrible consequences.  

So, in a vague sort of conclusion, I challenge you. I challenge you to go forth from this blog and make something better that you didn’t cause. Clean something up that you didn’t spill, campaign for a change in law you didn’t pass, try to mend a heart you didn’t break. It can be a little thing or a big thing, it doesn’t matter. But find some way to utilise our refreshed attitude towards responsibility, and hopefully inspire other to do the same. In the words of Ghandi, “be the change you want to see in the world.”

The majority of this post, I confess, was very rambling and awkwardly-worded, which I think was down to my desire to get a blog post out quickly. I may go over and re-words bits of it at a later date.
And yes, I know I’m being over-dramatic, bringing Ghandi quotes and broken hearts into something that possibly seems inconsequential. I’m having an over-dramatic sort of day. But the point still stands!

Thanks for reading!

Gay Education

One of the debates lying under LGBT politics is whether it is right to teach young children about homosexual relationships.  The left say that teaching about homosexuality will promote tolerance and inclusion for gay children, and help to reduce the power of the stigma that still exists around homosexuality. The right say that it will degrade the significance of the traditional family, and undermine the rights of religious conservative parents to be opposed to gay rights.
Admittedly, this debate is a lot more significant across the pond in the US than in the UK. But there are voices in Britain (such as my very favourite political party, who produced this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roDGIwWT77Q ) who agree with the American Republican party in saying that the existence of homosexuality should be denied during primary-level education.

It’s been less than a decade since Section 28 was repealed, a Thatcherite introduction which forbade teachers from talking about homosexuality “in a positive light.” It’s perhaps unsurprising then, that no-one my age (I’m aware of) heard about homosexuality through any sort of official education. It wasn’t mentioned during sex ed, or any lessons that talked about relationships or health. We always assumed that we would marry a member of the opposite gender, and didn’t even consider that might not happen. The only time you heard the word “gay” at that point was as an insult. It was something terrible, something you denied being even if you weren’t quite sure what the word constituted. It was impossible to come to terms with the fact you might be “gay” one day, sometimes even until the end of secondary school.

Since I’ve finished GCSEs less than a year ago, I doubt it’s changed very much.

Including lessons about homosexuality at primary school, even so much as saying “some people are attracted to members of their own gender, and cannot help this,” would make such a huge difference. If the first time I heard about “gay” was from a teacher rather than a older student trying to insult me, coming out would have been so much easier. The way things are now, it takes forever to get over the internal stigma that “gay = bad.”
By leaving out lessons about gay issues, we isolate those children who grow up to be gay, and those children who are raised by gay couples. We don’t make it any more likely for children to be gay, as certain religious and political conservatives would like us to believe. No fewer people are going to get married and raise children. It will just allow people to be accepting if they, their relatives, or their friends turn out to be gay.

Maybe you believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin. I don’t really have a problem with that, you are entitled to believe what you happen to believe. But children are also entitled to experience a range of opinions as they grow up, so that their overall experience of something is neutral, and they can form their own rational opinion when they are older. Which leads me back to my previous argument- children should be provided with a neutral-to-positive description of homosexuality to counter all the negative stigma they will be exposed to from a very young age.

You cannot say you support homosexuals/oppose homophobia if you want homosexuality to remain a stigma subject in schools. Allowing this will only increase stigma and discrimination against homosexuals, and will do nothing to counter the increasing gay suicides that have been in the news.

If you are gay, then you are wonderful the way you are.
If you are a teacher, you have a responsibility to be including towards all your pupils/students, including those who are gay or are being raised by a gay couple.

Love be with you all!   

Aung San Suu Kyi

I first read the name Aung San Suu Kyi no more than a month ago, and as of last last week, she has finally been freed from her roughly 20-year-long house arrest.

Firstly, an introduction to one of the most impressive human beings in history.  Aung San Suu Kyi in no less than a modern-day, Burmese Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Her fight for democracy in Burma has lost her nearly everything- not only did she lose her freedom, her imprisonment isolated her from her family for longer than most of us could bear thinking about, ultimately resulting in her not being present when her husband died. She does not know what her children currently look like, they have grown too much since she last saw them.

Lots of people, including this BBC correspondent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11774522, have questioned the reasons Burma’s military government has for releasing Aung San Suu Kyi. It has been suggested that there is some elaborate game being played by General Than Shwe, the supreme leader, in suppressing resistance against his leadership. At any rate, it’s certainly probable that the junta does not see Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) as a threat any more.
If this is the case, then it is up to the international community to prove them wrong.

Democratic governments in Asia and the West need to call out for democracy in Burma, louder than ever before. The release of Aung San Suu Kyi will re-spark resistance in Burma, and we can amplify that spark internationally to put even more pressure on the unjust Myanmar government. So let’s be proactive about this. Please, if you’re reading, write to MPs, write to newspapers, form student groups, organise marches, all with one intention- convincing the government of Britain or whatever country you are in to declare official support for the NDL ‘s cause, or even to go as far as declaring they do not recognise the Union of Myanmar as a legitimate state.
There is no dispute here. Unlike in Tibet and Israel/Palestine, there are no complicated arguments about who has the rights which land. The military in Burma seized power brutishly from the people who live in it, and if we believe in democracy, liberty or humanity, then we must oppose them.

I urge anyone reading this to stand up and speak out for Burma. We in Europe, North America and most of South East Asia are lucky enough to live in places where the public voice can and does make a difference, so let’s not waste that. Let’s use democracy to fight for democracy.

Make sure the sacrifices of Aung San Suu Kyi do not go to waste. She, if anyone, deserves to see a democratic Burma. Let’s give her that, since she’s given so much.

*Side note: the reason I have used the name ‘Burma’ in all instances when I am not referring to the official state, is that that is the name the country had until the military junta chose to rename it Myanmar. So Burma is a more appropriate name when speaking pro-Burmese democracy. 

Democracy ≠ violence

I couldn’t decide whether to blog about the American midterm elections, or university fees. Then I saw this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822, and the decision was made.

Raising the cap for university fees is a bad idea on a number of levels. Obviously it’s bad for students- prospective and current undergraduate students may be forced financially to drop out of or not go to university, which will lead to a decrease in job prospects and quality of life. This also has the effect of increasing the rich-poor divide, as better-off students will find it much easier to study and get better-paid jobs, and not-as-well-off students will find it much harder to study at higher education, leading to not-as-well-paid jobs.
 It will also affect everyone else, too. A decrease in uni students means a decrease in professional workers (doctors, lawyers, teacher, etc), which means the services those professionals provide will be less abundant. As well as the obvious disadvantage, this also means the economy is eventually going to suffer- which right now is the last thing we want.

So the government’s cut on university funding is a bad thing. We get that.
But is starting fires and breaking windows really going to change anyone’s mind?

So, you’re marching to make a statement. Marching is good. I like marching. Marching, in its’ best form, is a way of peacefully objecting to the government’s actions, and it ensures said government can be held accountable by the public between elections.
But when it amounts to vandalising the Conservative and Lib Dem part headquarters, something’s gone wrong.

Firstly, this instantly creates the image of “sensible, coherent people making a decision” (the Coalition Government) being attacked by “incoherent, selfish thugs” (the students involved with the vandalism). There are sensible arguments against the cuts (more, I dare say, than sensible arguments for the cuts), but this image is going to induce the gut reaction in the floating/moderate public that the only people against the cuts are violent, unintelligent and have no reasonable objection to the cuts. Therefore, support for the student cause will go down.

The government must be seen to not be compromising with violent protests such as these- imagine if they decided to legalise gay marriage, then changed their mind because certain right-wingers lit fires outside registry  offices. If any MPs change their vote because of the protesters, they will forever be labelled as “cowardly”, and even “unworthy of office.”  It’s also a personal issue- you wouldn’t want to change your mind because someone threatened you with violence, as a matter of pride. So not only will the vandalism not convince anyone to vote against the cuts, it may even stop people amongst the Coalition voting that way who may have done so before.  

In conclusion, if you are going to object to the rise in fees, you have my full and enthusiastic support. But please, for the sake of everyone who stands against the cuts, prevent yourself from becoming violent during your objection.

Islamohysteria

Recently, lots of people have been coining terms about Islam and attitudes towards Islam with the prefix “Islamo-“, and I’ve decided I want to join in. So here goes:

Islamohysteria ( n): a state of hysterical or irrational Islamophobia, characterised by the belief that the presence of openly practising Muslims is a threat to Western freedom and culture.

Sound good?
Right-wing organisations and individuals in Britain, continental Europe, and the USA have been expressing Islamohysteric points of view for a while now. Nick Griffin of the British National Party has used the phrase “huge numbers of Muslims shouldn’t be in Britain trying to convert Britain into an Islamic society.”  The ironically named Party for Freedom in the Netherlands wants to ban the Qua’ran on the basis that it explicitly teaches its readers to commit terrorist acts.  Fox news in America has released extensive reports claiming that Europe is being “Islamified”.

Islamohysteria basically comes down to two claims: the majority of Muslims are terrorists, and/or the majority of Muslims want to convert Western civilisations into Islamic ones, via the so-called process of “Islamification.”

Both of these claims are baseless and unjust. There are millions of Muslims who were born in America and Europe, and don’t want to terrorise or the West or disestablish West democracy any more that the average white Christian does. Also, consider the vast majority of the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. These are ordinary working and family-raising people who have seen their homelands devastated by war and violence from Islamist extremists, and the Western responses. Do you really think these people want any more violence? Do you really think they are likely to join forces with terrorist organisations who have made their lives hell?

Also, Islam really isn’t very different from Christianity.  Both are monotheistic, both are Abrahamic, both place much value in prayer and missionary work. Is there much difference between the aims of the Red Cross and the Muslim concept of Zakat? Of course, people like to contradict this by pointing out the violence that has been committed in the name of Islam, but by doing this, they turn a blind eye to much of Christian history. Why are the actions of the Taliban so much worse than the crusades, the Northern Irish troubles, and the persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages?

There is no reason for Western culture to antagonise Islam. It is very much related to the Juedo-Christian heritage that European tradition and culture is largely based on, and there is no proof, none whatsoever, of an organised Islamification movement.

Islamohysteria is irrational, discriminatory fear-mongering. It must be countered by rational voices in politics and the media, in the same way that we counter sexism, homophobia, and white supremacy.