Him, Flying the Red Flag

When Jeremy Corbyn first came to my attention in the throes of the Labour leadership campaign last year, his appearance caught me off-guard.  It wasn’t his intense socialism or demands for nationalistic responsibility – policies that I had thought were anathema to the modern Labour Party in the aftermath of Blair, Brown and Miliband – but rather just his sudden apparition on the stage.  

What caught me out with the man was how obscure he was, and yet how aligned we seemed to be.  Not necessarily on all policy, but certainly in most.  For years I had been telling disillusioned friends seeking revolution in the system that revolutionaries invariably make terrible political leaders and that change should come from within the establishment, something that they would dismiss idly as being fanciful considering how filled with cronies from Oxford, Cambridge and other poncy, privileged places the government was.  How could change be facilitated when guffawing gits controlled the system?

Vote for the people that are most inclined toward change, I would say.  And get involved.  Political apathy was such an annoyance to me that I conceived my final year project at university around that very issue, concerned that my cohorts were not just disillusioned but also blasé about being disillusioned.

Then Corbyn happened.  All of a sudden, it seemed as if there was a groundswell of support, and all of those uninterested people became the opposite overnight.  Suddenly the Islington MP had an army of young, loyal, leftist supporters ready to carry his banner.  They didn’t do it from the side-lines either, choosing to be casual observers whilst hoping the establishment Labour Party would hear them when they cast their ballots… they legitimately joined the bloody thing and cast their own votes.

For a long time I could not put my finger on what I found troubling about Jeremy Corbyn, until the media decided to tell me what it was I should find troubling, which is that he was unelectable.  I looked at him on the podium next to an astute Yvette Cooper and sincere Andy Burnham and in that moment I believed that this scruff would never be a credible Prime Minister.  It went beyond just his appearance.  I’ve always had an issue with career politicians, which is exactly what Corbyn is, regardless of his resistance to adhere to the sting of party whips.

But therein lay the problem.  It wasn’t his “unelectability” that made me concerned for his presence, but the fact that he was so often a rebel that I couldn’t work out why such a supposedly principled man continued to serve with the Labour Party.  Why wasn’t he an independent?  To be free of the shackles of the established system and represent his constituency only.  But then again, perhaps he wanted to continue to represent the worker, and in order to do that it seems you have to possess an in-road with the unions, which have usually always been tied to Labour.  The only problem with this is how he continued to stick with the party during Blairite rule.  The counter to this argument is that plenty of backbenchers stuck with Labour during Blair, and ultimately it was during this period that a chasm started to grow between the Parliamentary Labour Party (filled with Blairites) and the party base (filled with Bennites).

I don’t bemoan Corbyn playing the game, working the system… rather, I think he must.  I have also discarded my previous concerns that he lacks credibility – quite the reverse, I now believe he is the most steadfast candidate in the race to 2020.  We don’t know who will be on the Conservative ticket at the next general election, but based on the list of current contenders I’m not inspired.

Since last year, Jeremy Corbyn has shown himself to be an active and meaningfully different kind of party leader.  At his first PMQs as Leader of the Opposition he made it a democratic affair, inviting questions from the general public to be pitched to the Prime Minister.  Today, he has caved to peer pressure and started wearing a tie (though this begs concern for the future – what would happen if Theresa May displayed disgust at the lack of cravats in the House of Commons?) and put in several impressive performances both in and out of the chamber.  During this second leadership contest, I would not have been surprised if undecided voters went with the Londoner over the Welshman based solely on their debating styles.  Whilst Corbyn refused consistently to be drawn into personal attacks and kept on message, Owen Smith couldn’t help but finish every statement with the aside, “I agree with Jeremy on a lot of things, I just don’t think he is right for the leadership”, which is a pathetically meekish thing to say.  If you agree with most of your opponent’s policies but don’t think they’re right for the leadership, then you’re basically saying, “I agree with Jeremy, but I say it better”.

This is an incredibly arrogant position, assuming your level of charisma is so much higher.  As unfortunate as this may sound, it is true that charisma is so often predicated on your appearance and tone of voice, and Jeremy Corbyn has a wizened received pronunciation which will always trump falsetto Welsh in the ears of the majority of the population.  We’re going into personal attributes here which is wrong, but that is precisely what Smith’s campaign was essentially about.

As I already mentioned, I disagree with Jeremy on a few issues but it is not really the end goal upon which we diverge but the means.  I too would like to see a nuclear free world (at least in weaponised form), but he needs to have a viable alternative to mutually assured destruction to appease party moderates.  Is he going to look into more defensive options to ensure our security?  Sure, I recognise that the idea of launching nuclear missiles is frankly insane, but fundamentalist terrorist organisations actually are insane, and they're much harder to target from a submarine in the Indian Ocean.  

Following on from the above, our energy requirement is increasing incrementally year-on-year for obvious reasons and we need to be able to accommodate the growing demand.  Wind, solar and hydrodynamic sources maybe the preferred option, and are getting cheaper, but still do not beat nuclear on cost against efficiency.  For all those bleating about safety, remember that this is a technology first harnessed in the 1950s, at the same time we were first developing the modern computer.  If in the latter tech we started with levers and switches, and sixty years later are communicating instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet using touch-screen mobile devices, don’t you think our mastery of nuclear safety methods might have come a long way in that same period?  (Disclaimer: I’m not a fan of the Anglo-Franco-Sino deal currently being put into place at the moment).

The rail network needs to be better, but nationalisation is not the answer to everything – half of the problem is that the infrastructure itself (the tracks, signals, stations etc.) need to see more investment and attention.  Whilst I am not arguing that the train companies are to be absolved of blame, one of the reasons why they can’t add more coaches to over-packed trains is because the platforms of numerous stations on the network are too small.  For the millions of pounds being channelled into HS2 and Crossrail, relatively little is going to the maintenance and expansion of the current network.

Yet the policies on which we seem to universally agree are much more numerous.  We share a displeasure with the anachronistic method of criminalising drugs; I find it admirable that he has vocally supported the legalisation of prostitution to ensure the safety of sex workers, so many of whom have few other occupational choices – like addiction, it is difficult to escape from; whilst I don’t agree with him about the train companies, I certainly agree with his wish to see basic national utilities (energy, water etc.) renationalised; and we both oppose the reimplementation of grammar schools.  Whilst our arguments are different, we both recognise that membership of the European Union is a much more nuanced issue than the Brexit debacle gives it credit for.

So where do I stand with Corbyn?  Would I vote for him?  You might be wondering… did I vote for him?  Fortunately, I didn’t get swept up in the social justice hype that surrounded last year’s leadership contest and did not join the Labour Party.  I am not a member of the Labour Party.  I’m not a member of any party.  I am a subscriber to both Private Eye and The New Statesman; I get my news either from the BBC (because despite their biases, they are establishment based, and this in my opinion is better than being politically biased, which is what all other media organisations are) or the Associated Press; the only print media affiliation I felt comfortable with for a time was The Independent (for which I have felt somewhat vindicated since I started reading Private Eye); and in the last two general elections I voted for independent candidates.  I am not beholden to any political party, which gives me a wonderful sense of conscious freedom to vote either for or against Corbyn.

I still have my gripes, such as the half-hearted way he campaigned to remain in the EU and his handling of his core supporters.  Momentum members may say that this is media hype, but that group has been a rallying point for Corbynites who also fall into the social justice warrior category, another facet of modern society that unsettles me.  Corbyn’s unwillingness to admonish this activist group is concerning.  Activism is something that exists in the party political system, certainly, but the appearance of Momentum has created a nasty factional divide.  The fact the general public knows who they are is enough to know their influence, when they would struggle to name another Labour activist group or one within the Conservative ranks.  These gripes are real, but perhaps not enough to normally force me to turn on a candidate who I otherwise feel neither love or hate toward.

The problem still remains.  Whilst his credibility and public image has improved, Corbyn remains unelectable.  I know that people are going to hate me using that word, and have a perfectly good rebuke to it: he just got elected for the second time to leader of the Labour Party.

Yes… in the Labour Party.  Thousands of people voted for Jeremy Corbyn.  313,209 in fact.  But do you want to know what the electorate population of the United Kingdom is?

In 2015, it stood at 44,722,000.

This is also not taking into consideration the fact that Corbyn has been largely reliant on the youth vote to win his leadership campaigns, but that same demographic has been notoriously absent from national votes.  His electability is not based on whether or not he can appear Prime Ministerial, but whether he can realistically – statistically – win a general election in 2020.  By that point, he will be 71 going on 72.  He’ll have faced Prime Minister Theresa May (a seasoned and prickly opponent by all accounts) hundreds of times, and will have been judged on each of those appearances.  He’ll need to quash the dissent in his party, even if it means kicking out the Blairites.  If he wants to maintain his no-personal-attacks method of campaigning, he’ll need to learn how to do that effectively.

But more than this, he will need to address one of the biggest issues that the British public has about him: his stance on immigration.  This is for some people one of the biggest dilemmas facing Britain in the 21^st Century, and formed the backbone of the Leave campaign during the EU Referendum.  Currently Corbyn’s position is frankly unacceptable to the majority of voters.

Even the Remain campaign during the EU Referendum didn’t make a pitch on the back of freedom of movement; rather, they couched their argument in legal immigration, and accepted the need to control the border.  It was only the hard left that really wanted us to embrace this mantra of the European Union fully, but the problem with such high-minded rhetoric is it ignores the plain truth that migration will weigh towards the richer areas, because with economic wealth comes greater employment.  Plus, the UK has been subject for decades of a narrative that tells the world we are a rich nation, and barring easy land access to the USA, we should be a final destination for many migrants seeking success.  We can be proud of that, but not stupid – this country needs billions of pounds of greater investment in order to accommodate the increase in demand on our infrastructure, but to do so would plunge us into even greater debt controlled either by other nations or banks.

This puts me in the firing line for being called “right-wing”, but this presumes that the majority of the population of Britain are also either overt or covert right-wingers, in which case, it just further highlights the low chances Corbyn has of becoming our next Prime Minister.  Conservative or UKIP, it doesn’t really matter, because they only have each other to contend with on the right, whilst Labour has the cavalcade of Greens, Scot Nationalists, Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru on the left.  The splintering of the socialist side of the political spectrum is what gave David Cameron absolute control of Parliament in 2015.

Nevertheless I hope that – barring the appearance of a centrist liberal in one of the major parties who even greater represents my views – the Labour Party win in 2020 and Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister.  It will certainly shut up the moderate Labour members who screamed “unelectable” but held up an odd, barely-known, un-charming narcissist as an alternative.

But with four years to go, there is still a lot to be done, not just to serve as a feasible opponent of government, but also to clean up the Labour house and reconsider the policy.  Out of all things, he must change his position on immigration, but make sure that it is done in the style of a long, drawn out thought process in which he is publicly shown to be persuaded to the idea of either returning to migration rules which existed pre-1973 or implement new policies about restricting the border.  Considering this was a man who voted forty-three years ago against joining the EEC, I’m sure with a bit of theatricality this can be achieved.

He also needs to deal with the New Labour members in his midst, which is an even greater challenge.  Booting them out to form their own party will only hurt Corbyn-Labour’s share of the vote further, whilst keeping them in will raise questions about his leadership style.  Adding to this, the existence of Momentum is damaging his reputation both in and out of the party, so they need to be told to either disband or tone it down.

Yet, the mere fact that I hold conflicting views about Jeremy Corbyn is telling.  With all other party leaders I have really known in my lifetime, I have so often concluded that their failings outweigh their potential.  Yet with Jeremy Corbyn, I haven’t reached that same conclusion.  On the whole, his values fall fairly in line with my own with a couple of notable exceptions.

It comes down to what you find amenable about a candidate.  When Labour first ran in 1997, I’m sure numerous liberal economists voiced concern for their support of PFI schemes, yet 13 million people still voted for them.  When David Cameron sought to get the Tories back into office in 2010, I’m sure plenty of Conservatives were slightly turned off by his Europhilia, but 10 million of them voted for his party anyway.  The question becomes, for his two policy foibles – immigration and Trident renewal, which are both founded in moral reasoning – are we willing to ignore him entirely when the alternative may be an isolationist, privatising, austerity-inducing Conservative candidate?

Come What May

I wouldn’t say necessarily that we’ve got a new Prime Minister.  I’d say that we’ve been stuck with one.

It stinks of hypocrisy.  When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair, both David Cameron and Theresa May made public statements about how Brown wasn’t elected, and so did not have a mandate for premiership.  Having read far enough into Blair’s autobiography (unfinished, but I think I got to a point and exhausted my interest) it is just blindingly obvious that Brown’s accession was pre-planned.

I too had the same gripe – and this was with a full realisation (not confined by a political expectation to ignore process when it is in your favour) that we, the public, do not vote for Prime Ministers.  As a parliamentary, partisan democracy we vote for members to represent our constituency.  They just so happen to belong to a political party.  And it just so happens that that political party may also win other constituencies.  They may even win the majority.  And it just so happens that the leader of that party gets to be Prime Minister.

So the fact that Gordon Brown became Prime Minister – as Theresa May has now – was and is perfectly constitutional.  My issue was borne out of indignant incredulity: why wouldn’t Brown call a general election?  Surely it would just make sense?  He had just under three years to govern; had a fairly good reputation as a supposedly successful Chancellor; and David Cameron had yet to really establish himself as a potential Prime Minister.  Labour’s poll numbers had leapt up following Brown’s appointment above the Conservatives, and calling a general election (serving democracy) would probably have bolstered those numbers.  It’s all conjecture – and perhaps silly optimism – but I do believe Brown would have commanded an emboldened Labour Party that wouldn’t make the decision three (now five) years later to elect a hopeless sap as their leader for the 2012 general election.

When I talked earlier about hypocrisy, unfortunately I must apologise if some of the stink comes from my own arse.  I cannot in a right mind suggest that Theresa May should definitely call a snap election.  In fact, I am inclined to agree with a lot of Conservatives who say that it would be irresponsible to do so when you consider the context in which she has become our head of government.

Following the vote to leave the European Union (something else I must make a point to talk about), we have started to see the effects that the experts talked about: the destabilisation of the economy.  Whilst it’s perhaps not disaster territory just yet, we have seen a definite fall in investment and the pound fall against the euro.  This is something that anybody should have expected: investment is based on risk, and if you do not see your investment as secure, then why would you risk your money?  The UK out of the European Union just became a riskier venture, and the longer that the country waits to formulate a coherent economic plan, the worse it might get.  In some respects, it is fortunate that Andrea Leadsom dropped out of the race and left it unnecessary to wait any longer for the debates and the vote.

This means that Article 50 can be triggered soon, and an economic policy can be implemented quicker.  As a former consultant, and no sound of scandal from his previous affiliations, Philip Hammond could be seen as a “safe”, or “meh” choice.  During his time as Minister for Defence, he cut military spending at the top of the structure to save money, and was the man who decided to use the army to make up the shortfall in security at the Olympics in 2012.  As far as defining moments go, these aren’t bad, but they’re not necessarily indicators of his ability to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

You know what, let’s save commentary on the new cabinet until the whole thing has been declared.

This is not to say that I endorse Theresa May.  I hold certain key principles close to my heart: secularism, free expression, democracy and human rights.  Unfortunately, the first three are not necessarily inherent to the United Kingdom.  The head of state is not only a queen but also the head of a church, and there is no legislation that grants us – even de facto – an inalienable right to free speech.  Plus, we are a democracy only at the behest of the monarchy (though they behest, lest they be behead(ed)).

However, we are party to the European Convention on Human Rights.  Remember how the EU Leave campaigns were frustrated at the Remain campaign for conflating the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights?  Well, it’s worth remembering that now.

Theresa May’s record on human rights has been troubling, and she wants to take us out of the ECHR.  She also wants to bring in restrictions on who should receive the rights lain out in a future British “bill of rights”, undermining the notion that human rights should be universal.  Two people so far have pointed out to me that human rights are a. a relatively recent idea, and b. only a social dynamic.  Er, obviously.  But on the first point, relative to what?  The Civil Rights Movement?  The Suffragette Movement?  Do we consider these movements just as minor as to be compromised?  And as a social dynamic, is it any less important as the separation of church and state?  Innocent until proven guilty?  Even the whole notion of government itself?

I hold the idea of universal human rights in too high a regard to simply dismiss it so I can be mildly optimistic about May’s appointment, but considering this is the corner our political infrastructure has backed us into, I would rather take May’s ladder up into the leaky attic than the trapdoor down into Leadsom’s damp basement.

Issues in Isolation

I’ve noticed a problem with the current debate in the UK – a debate that has actually been ongoing for many years now, but will be coming to a head in June – which is based on the issue of whether the country should remain in the European Union.

The problem is that it is being viewed in isolation.  No single issue – especially when they are political – can be observed in a vacuum, because it always comes with two fundamental burdens: context, and impact.  This is particularly pertinent in this debate, because the referendum on the 23^rd June as to whether or not these sceptred isles should leave the European Union will be one of the most important decisions made by the population in the last fifty years.

There are two major parts to the Leave campaign that I want to address.  The first is a current, almost inconsequential aspect, but I want to go into it in some detail to demonstrate the oddness of dismissing the remarks of such a powerful office.  The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, decided to drop in on London and deliver a quick speech about why the USA would want the UK to stay in the EU.  This was instantly decried by the Leave campaign, who called him out on a few things:

1. He used the word “queue”, implying that the speech was penned by one of Cameron’s lackeys rather than Obama’s;
2. The President should not be getting involved in the debate, as he is not British, let alone European;
3. Why should we pay any attention to this position, when voiced by a man and a country who would never themselves hand over sovereignty to a larger entity?

Let’s address each of these points (within the larger point) one by one.  First, yes, he used the word “queue”.  Of course, it’s entirely likely that the speech was written by Number 10 and not the White House – but then again, this is the general position of the United States anyway, so Obama still consented to giving the speech, so this point is redundant either way.  Plus, it’s entirely likely that Obama’s team simply adapted their vernacular to suit their British audience… whatever, this is a cheap shot and not really worth the time to dissect.

The President’s opinion, when giving speeches as part of his office, generally takes on in that moment the elevated mantle of “policy”.  This isn’t just Mr Obama spouting his personal beliefs, but is an aspect of US foreign policy.  Even the Leave campaign accepts that leaving the European Union would cause initial risk in the markets and require us to re-establish a number of trade deals – this is not in dispute.  When one of those trade deals is with the United States of America (potentially some of our most important deals are with the US), they have a right to voice their opinion on the subject.  This is not domestic policy, this is foreign policy, to which any country in the world with which we have either diplomatic or economic ties can either condemn or condone.

On the third point… they already did.  People seem to have readily forgotten how the United States of America was actually formed.  The original thirteen colonies technically established their independence from the British Empire separately, and it wasn’t until after the Revolutionary War that a union was formalised.  The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: a union of states, who agreed to concede sovereignty over certain legislation with the creation and later expansion of the federal government.  Each state has its own senate; individual legislation; independent control over their emergency services; and so on.  The USA’s political makeup is essentially where Churchill initially expected – hoped even – the EEC would finally venture.  Look back through the history of the United States and you see similar gripes against centralisation of authority as we’re witnessing in Europe: consistently throughout the 19^th and even into the 20^th Century, the romanticised, unruly Midwest saw the federal government as the enemy against liberty.  So sure, perhaps the United States of America as a single entity would not concede their freedom to a larger union, but that’s probably because they’re already part of a union.  If North America ever joined into a larger union, then I can imagine there would be one central federal government, but the next tier would not be “Uesica”, Canada, Mexico etc., and instead be the states and territories.  Colorado, British Columbia and Durango senators would all report directly to the brand new North American senate.

Returning to my opening statement observing points in a vacuum, let’s not forget that the United States of America is currently in the midst of primary voting: deciding which two candidates they will get to choose from in the general election, and for the first time in a long time, the focus of the primary debates has not been on foreign policy, but domestic: tackling institutional racism; reining in Wall Street bankers, welfare and the minimum wage, and so on.  We’re only lucky in some respects that Hillary Clinton is currently the Democratic (and realistically therefore, the general) forerunner for the White House.  At least she’s not as bothered about tackling corruption, so we might be able to get a trade deal on the table relatively quickly.

Back to the initial two points I want to look at, that’s pretty much covered the criticism of Obama’s visit and speech.  The second point is constitution.  With the signing of treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon, it doesn’t really matter if we didn’t get a say (because our sovereignty comes from the Queen via God, and not the people), what matters is that our legal constitution, organic as it is, changed.  We are tied to the European Union legally in small but powerful ways – the fact that we are holding a referendum on the subject demonstrates this bond.

Whilst I’m wary that such an exercise might quickly be branded “fear-mongering”, “hyperbole” and “speculative”, I do want to quickly have a look at what might happen when we apply this logic to the outcome in which we leave the European Union.  Markets are inherently, by their very nature, based on risk and the security of investment.  It’s undeniable that leaving the EU would cause disruption (as I’ve already mentioned, this is not disputed by the Leave campaign), and would be reliant on how quickly we could re-establish old trade links with European and Commonwealth countries to help stabilise.

Now I want to take the opportunity to remind you, reader, that Scotland had a vote on independence last year, and in my opinion, 45 to 55 was a close victory for retaining the United Kingdom.  What is not so close, is the polling in Scotland regarding sentiment toward the EU; polls consistently show that a majority of Scots would want to stay, and that is also the official position of the Scottish government… er, a government controlled by the Scottish National Party.  Considering Nicola Sturgeon has not ruled out a second referendum, I think leaving the EU and fundamentally changing our constitution – combined with uncertainty in the market place – would be enough for strong voices to call for a second referendum.

I recently visited my grandparents.  They’re very typical of the older generation in the UK: part-observant Church of England, Daily Mail readers, conservative at their core… my grandfather served in the Royal Navy and my grandmother was a teacher.  Yet, despite what you might imagine would be a natural inclination towards leaving the EU to reassert British sovereignty, my grandmother asked how my older brother and I would be voting – my younger brother had previously given his answer, and is based largely on the overwhelming support of the British science community to stay in.  We both also said we would vote to remain in the EU.  My grandmother then surprised by saying that, well, that’s how they shall vote then, as participation in the Union will affect us in greater ways – and for a greater period of time – than them.  I couldn’t help but think how wonderfully progressive her thinking was!

Backlash against Obama:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36117907

Scotland’s position on Europe:

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-european-union-or-leave-the-eu#line

British scientists on the EU:

http://home.bt.com/news/science-news/83-of-scientists-polled-back-staying-in-eu-says-research-journal-nature-11364048965035

Semantics and Other Ponderings

At work, the Metro newspaper is a regular staple in the breakout room, and I usually read it every day either on my lunch hour or in a break period - partly because it keeps me somewhat informed, and also because it can be bloody hilarious.  In the same way that I enjoy reading YouTube comments sometimes - to bask in the glorious stupidity and rare moments of comedic genius - I also quite like perusing the "letters" section in the Metro.

One of the main stories today was about David Cameron's recent use of the phrase "bunch of migrants".  It's clear that David has a rather dim view of immigrants especially considering he's made this faux pas before, so it really shouldn't be a surprise to people.  Then again, I don't think people were surprised by it, just a little offended.

I, on the other hand, am not bemused by Cameron's language - I'm more bemused by how the media has managed to spectacularly upstage the reason why the Prime Minister said "bunch of migrants".  Whilst I don't want to go so far as to imply conspiracy, it is rather odd how the media has managed to do just enough to ensure that people forget the intent behind what Jeremy Corbyn says, whilst making a meal out of the soundbites they can capture out of context.

Cameron was directly attacking Corbyn for his recent visit to Calais, where the Labour leader was appalled by the conditions of the camps and the reaction of the French authorities to the situation.  Instead of listening to his opposition and engaging with them on the subject, presenting the appearance of a concerned (de facto) head of state, he chose instead to disparage his opposite number across the despatch box.  Calling out the Prime Minister for his use of the word "bunch" is attacking semantics.  Who cares what word he used?  The individual statement means nothing, it's the reasoning behind the entire statement that we should be concerned about.

MJ and BS

The next story on the list from Metro was about Michael Jackson, and the casting of a white man to play him in an upcoming movie.  In light of the talk about the whitewashing of the Oscars, I'm sure this story is probably coming at a bad time for Joseph Fiennes and the production company making the TV movie about the late singer's life.  If this film was about MJ when he was black, then I'd agree with all the outraged fans (and surprisingly, no, I'm not being sarcastic there).

Yet, we have to acknowledge that if this film is about Jackson's life after his skin lightened, then casting a black actor only to have his skin toned whiter could be considered a reverse-racism of the actors seventy or eighty years ago who used to apply "blackface" so they could play black people.  Plus, I'm still confused about the whole black-white thing - is having dark skin cosmetic, or cultural?

The word racism was designed to describe situations where somebody is suggesting a difference between two people with distinctive visual differences - borne out of where in the world their ancestors came from - and then implying inferiority as a result of that difference.  Racialism is the same, except it doesn't imply inferiority, simply claiming there to be a difference that has no effect on status.

Yet people seem intent on reclassifying the term "racist" to fit any situation where inferiorities are implied between cultures - which is not the same as race.  All this serves to do is avoid discussion between things upon which we can make claims that takes its cues from philosophy, rather than the scientific basis upon which we can say this:

"There is no such thing as race."

One Twitter user wrote:

"I hope the spirit of MJ comes back and moonwalks all over this BS.  MJ was always proud to be black, no matter his skin colour."

Er... what?  If we want to make the claim - the SCIENTIFIC claim - that the colour of your skin is only skin deep and has no reflection on who you are; your cultural affiliation; what you believe; etc., then comments like the one above have no place in a world where we are trying to break down these barriers.  Black and white is a descriptor of skin colour, in the same way big and small can be descriptors of a person's nose or bulbous and flabby can be descriptors of a person's double chin.  Michael Jackson may have been black once, but he wasn't by the end of his life.

I recognise that there are cultures that people define as "black" and "white", but far from wanting to ignore the problems that arise from these divisions, I do recognise them as problems that need to be overcome by creating a more integrated society rather than perpetuating the idea, "hey, you with the black skin, you stand over there and try and get that ball in that net, whilst we with the white skin stay over here and whack smaller balls with sticks."

Swede Justice

That was supposed to be a play on "swift justice", but it doesn't really work does it?

The final thing that caught my eye in today's Metro (which, at the time I'm writing this is fast becoming yesterday's Metro) was the story about the Swedish National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, who said he felt sympathetic towards a migrant who killed refugee worker Alexandra Mezher.  Naturally, social media erupted, branding Eliasson a monster for his comments.  Let's take a close look at what Eliasson said:

"Well, you are of course distraught on behalf of everyone involved.  Naturally, for the person killed and her family, but also for a lone young boy who commits such a heinous incident.  What has that person been through? Under what circumstances has he grown up? What is the trauma he carries?  This entire migration crisis shows how unfair life is in many parts of the world. We have to try to help solve this best we can."

At the time he was speaking, the suspect in question was being detained in a psychiatric clinic in Sahlgrenska University Hospital, which at least suggests that the police thought him mentally unstable.  Anybody who believes that Eliasson was being unreasonable should also be advocates of locking criminals up and throwing away the key... but that's not how the criminal justice system works, especially in the Western world where we favour rehabilitation over out-and-out punishment.  This is particularly the case in Scandinavian countries, where their "top-security" prisons are more like community homesteads.

For the most part, people who commit criminal acts suffer from various mental afflictions, it's just that they're either too insignificant to be provided psychiatric assistance or they don't steer personalities radically enough; but they do still cause internal conflict within the individual.  Ignoring these problems invariably leads to re-offending; violence; depression; and prison suicides.  One of the best things we can do for first offenders is provide them with the support they need to recognise the fault and find a way to fix it.  Throwing them into a dark cell for a fixed number of years without cause for reflection and change is no help at all, to them or society as a whole.

Eliasson at least seems to recognise this, and rather than simply exact some state-based vengeance upon the boy, wants instead to ensure that he never does it again - without resorting to throwing him in jail for the rest of his natural life.

Perhaps this opinion, rather like Fienne's casting as Michael Jackson, is simply bad timing as Sweden (and the rest of Europe) reacts to and debates the migrant crisis.  Nevertheless, for those who attempt to maintain a steady mind despite the chaos, his comment - along with any others that continue to advocate the values that have defined Western civilisation - is very welcome.



Slang Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs/12124618/PMQs-live-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-David-Cameron-go-head-to-head-on-January-27.html

Ralph Fiennes will Beat It:
http://pagesix.com/2016/01/27/fans-outraged-a-white-actor-is-playing-michael-jackson/

Sweden's Police Commissioner:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/638650/Outrage-as-police-chief-shows-sympathy-for-migrant-who-killed-refugee-centre-worker