London Student » Comment

Greate Debate issue 8: Yes: UCL atheists were right to publish the prophet

Comment — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:31:51 +0000

The issue of the “Jesus and Mo” web cartoon, currently reproduced by the UCL Atheist, Humanist and Secularist society’s facebook page, is a contemporary example of our fear to question alternative opinions. It would appear that attempts by Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens and others to demystify and to re-appropriate atheism as an intellectual stance has been relatively successful. Despite this, many people, when asked to define their religious views, shuffle their feet and mumble that they’re probably atheist, often followed by a quick clarification, “well, actually, I suppose I am agnostic”. For me this is symptomatic of non-religious people’s concern of contesting religion, even passively. Now, before I come across all “Daily Mail”, and “its political correctness gone mad”, I do recognise the clear divide between actively offending someone’s religious sensibilities deliberately, and offense resulting from the reception of a personal belief or expression of this belief. This cartoon was certainly the latter of two situations.
As with the cartoons at the centre of the Jyllands-Posten controversy, these artistic expressions are satirical, intellectually based, and in the case of the current debate, inter-religious dialogue. The fear and panic over causing offense is a very real and a very insidious notion in our societies. This is especially evident within our universities. There is a real belief that as “educated” students we should possess the “self-awareness” not to upset our fellow students or members of the public. Whilst the Daily Mail and other right-wing beliefs may point to this being particularly prevalent in our attitude towards Islam, Muslims and the prophet Muhammad, and I believe there is some truth to this, I don’t think this is the fundamental issue.
The cartoons were created with an intended audience in mind, were posted in a space within which its intended audience congregated, and its intention, as with almost all satirical art, was to stir debate or at least to attract the issue presented with a new viewpoint. In the case of the “Jesus and Mo” cartoon, the artist clearly intends to take the atheistic discourses of religious and dissect it from a new angle. This fear to discuss, dissect and question is demonstrated perfectly by the UCL Union’s initial request for the comic to be taken off the facebook page.
It’s a minor development in the grand scheme of things, but it is indicative of the growing fear to question things other people have told us not too. There is simply no logical reason why the UCL Atheist, Humanist and Secularist society and its members should be forced, or indeed expected to adhere to a religious doctrine that they, as is proclaimed in their group’s title, do not belong to. Such expectations are merely proliferated by our own sense of responsibility not to upset anyone, especially, as is often whispered conspiratorially, minorities. Whilst we may wisely nod our head and quote that democracy burns at “451 Fahrenheit”, instead unbeknownst to us, we are burning our own bridges of freedom of thought, expression and critique by being, for want of a better term, too politically correct!

Response: NUS and Anti-Apartheid by James Haywood

Comment — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:04:10 +0000

This article is a response to James Haywood’s article published in issue 7

Even by the standards of those who support the BDS, and call on the National Union of Students and others to support it, this article seems to have been held to an even lower standard of fact checking or basic logic. Mr Haywood and his brothers-in-folly accuse the State of Israel of apartheid and Israeli companies and institutions of racism; it lies not in their mouths.

Haywood mentions the cowardly denunciation by NUS President Burns of King’s College London, my own university, over their partnership with an Israeli company that greatly benefited both parties, holding this up as some great act of heroism. As if we are not all used to the same rhetoric of bashing Israeli-related entities by public figures with a nod and a wink of an apology in private. Haywood goes further and suggests that the French giant Veolia in some way supports a racist infrastructure. Of course in reality, the transport system he refers to accepts only Israeli citizens and permitted foreign nationals, and excludes Palestinian Authority ‘citizens’. Any Arab-Israeli could use the service if he happened to work where the transport system services. There is nothing racist about Veolia’s transport network whatsoever. This willing disregard for the facts sets the tone for the rest of this article.

The next unsubstantiated claim is that there are now ‘terrifying similarities’ in the state apparatus of modern day Israel and apartheid South Africa. Not one is named. Hot on the heels of that statement of warped opinion rather than fact is the claim that groups like the BDS have put out of business Israeli companies, or are having an effect on the profit of companies that operate in the Territories. While there is no doubt that these campaigns have stopped minor deals for some companies, Israeli-EU trade has been growing more on more every year for over two decades, and in the UK Israeli companies have never been doing so well. Any effect of the BDS seems to be negligible, apart from in the area of academic links where UK-Israeli university exchanges are fast becoming extinct due to the militant hostility of the anti-Israel mob. How are you expecting to change the minds of Israelis if you refuse to permit them to come and study in the UK, meet you and hear your arguments? Why is no similar campaign launched against universities either based in disputed territories or as seems to be the case with the BDS are just in the same country as the conflict elsewhere? Why only Israel?

References to Palestinian Ghandis would be laughable if they were not such a libel on the good name of one of the great leaders of the 20th century. Haywood goes on to challenge those of us who strongly oppose the BDS movement to ask who we stand for, and the answer is clear; the great silent majority. This majority is the one that believes that the BDS mob should not be permitted to bully, shout-down and boycott Israeli companies and Israeli institutions just because they are prepared to be more vicious. We call for the equal treatment of the Jewish State because it seems that Haywood and his ilk are unprepared to offer it otherwise. Of course his article and their campaign is about singling out Israel, why else would they pick Israel rather than their own country, the US, China, India, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Kazakhstan or any of the other countries who breach international law in far more blatant and violent ways than the State of Israel?

The cause of anti-Apartheid was a just one, and the issue was black-white; the NUS was proudly involved. To tar any aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the modern State of Israel, with the same brush is to willingly disregard the facts in favour of a radical, partisan assault that is utterly unjustifiable. The Palestinian people have suffered long enough and made their own fair share of poor alliances to be hijacked by students in London, Birmingham and Leeds who have no concept of the situation. The BDS movement does not help them, and it betrays a level of double-standards for the one Jewish State that is as offensive as it is deplorable.

In a week where yet more evidence of rampant anti-Semitism was uncovered on UK campuses, Mr Haywood would do well to return to the library, take out a dictionary and a history book, and start checking his use of the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘racism’.

The US needs to look after its own

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:00:51 +0000

In 1967, photographer Al Clayton made a tour of the Mississippi Delta region of the US and captured images that shocked: young children standing by empty fridges, clearly suffering from malnutrition; dilapidated homes where families lived in cramped, unsanitary conditions – the pictures looked more like a charity appeal for a developing country than a report on living conditions in the “Land of the Free”.

Four and a half decades later, the view from the same small town of Belzoni, MISS. is alarmingly unchanged. A community that grew out of the demand for slave labour on the fields has been severely lacking in economic opportunity since the mechanisation of agriculture. Although almost all the homes now have such luxuries as running water, living conditions are still dire: many go without any heating through the winter and the outlook is bleak, with no local jobs and no public transport to any jobs there might be further afield.

The US is one of the most successfully “branded” countries in the world; the particularly vociferous rhetoric of US civic nationalism reminds us that this is a land where “all men are created equal”, and hard work will deliver material reward to any person regardless of background. And with their first black president, Barack Obama has supposedly blasted through the last remnants of racial discrimination. On top of these lofty, egalitarian principles, we can’t forget that we are talking about probably the most powerful and one of the richest countries in the world: the GDP per capita of the US outstrips that of many equal (though far from perfect) European states. But this rosy image of a “post-racial”, truly meritocratic society seems pretty hollow on closer inspection.

I will never forget the comment made to me by an American study abroad student from Missouri in my first term at King’s: “What’s so great here is that all the different racial groups socialise together as if they were all the same.” Now, I don’t believe the UK is an ideal model for good race relations, but this comment only highlighted to me the level to which racial inequality in the US is reflected in the segregation of all parts of society. The white kids do not hang out with the Hispanic, Asian or Black kids, and why should they? Each group generally has a completely different social reality to live in. Belzoni is, again, an illustrative case here: the black and white populations live separate lives within the same town and this phenomenon is repeated in other areas such as Detroit and Chicago. A report by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California in 2009 showed that 39% of black and 40% of Hispanic youths across the country attend deeply segregated schools, often also as a result of residential segregation and housing discrimination. There is a notable absence of measures from the government to improve integration, and ethnic minorities are disproportionately over-represented in gaol.

A land where a black man can become president ought not to be a land where, according to recent Census Bureau data, a black family is more than twice as likely as a white one to live in poverty. A land which so stresses equality of opportunity ought not to be one where the share of aggregate income for the lowest earning 20% of society is 3.4% of the total, or where social mobility levels are low by comparison to the rest of the developed world. It ought not to be the case that, 43 years after Clayton’s exposition, a new photographer, Kike Arnal, displayed a similarly troubling set of images of the 20% of the population of Washington D.C. who live below the poverty line, mere blocks from the Capitol building.

Given the glaring inequalities, perhaps it is time that the American government stopped playing “world police” and started devoting more of its resources to its own citizens. The Obama administration’s defence spending is to make up 25% of the government’s budget in 2012, while welfare has 12% and education, a stunning 3%.

Although I specifically didn’t want to address the “Occupy” movement in this article, as I feel it would deserve an article of its own, given these last figures I will end with a slogan from posters I’ve seen on Wall Street; “If only the war on poverty were a real war, maybe we’d actually spend some money on it.”

Diversity or equality?

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:36:57 +0000

Diversity is the theme for February month on UCL. As a student of anthropology, originally from Denmark and with previous work co-operations with a advocacy organization for homo-, bi- and transsexuals, I can help but finding the theme interesting and provocative at the same time. The Scandinavian school and university system I was brought up in, focused on equality. Equal access to education; very few private schools and even the few existing ones had to follow a state regulated curriculum. Every child has to study math, Danish, English, history, science etc. from age 6 and the next ten years. That is not to say that diversity is not celebrated. Like the other Scandinavian countries, Denmark has a reputation for being a fairly liberal country when it comes to freedom of speech, religion (in the light of the Mohammed cartoons, that has become a entirely different discussion) and sexual orientation.
I do not have any interest in spreading patriotic emotions or praising the country I hold citizenship to; at the end of the day, what is place of birth other than a coincidence? What I really want to question is the rigid way of teaching, judging students’ knowledge at exams, the ranking system of the British universities, and what I consider as a unequal access to universities. Diversity is vital, I completely agree, and I have even heard cultural diversity compared to biological diversity, the latter is just as vital to the survival of the whole ecosystem as the former is to the survival of the human species.
But when does diversity become inequality? And can inequality be camouflaged as a celebration of diversity?
I just want to call attention to that the celebration of diversity, for me, is in the risk of sounding hollow and hypocritical when placed in a context of university ranking, the competition for good grades and competitive work sectors. Where is the so-called important diversity if everyone starts from a very different social background, with very different possibilities and access to education, and yet at the end of the day is judged by the same limited criteria?
I think diversity is important, even vital. A society where people are copies of each other is not simulating or interesting at all. The same can be said for universities. Celebrating diversity is a celebration of a stimulating milieu and unique personalities with same human value. The diversity important for universities is not just ethnic, religious or sexual diversity; it is also diversity in pedagogic, in communication and study methods, and in ways of evaluation teaching and students’ knowledge. When using a range of pedagogic and methods of learning, more students will benefit from the lectures. Diversity, without inequality, can be the end result.

Iran: is the Islamic Republic really the enemy?

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:35:49 +0000

Even thinking completely rationally, we are onthe brink of something pretty dangerous. As the Obama administration looks back on its predecessor’s mistakes (as well as its own) it can see it has achieved fundamental instability in Western Asia. US Foreign Policy has left a gaping hole in the Gulf – Iran.

For the past decade, the media has led us to believe that the main enemy has been Al Qaeda & Co – as in, any slightly political Muslim group – and that policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran was precautionary and necessary.

These projected views stand alongside the obvious violent encounters in the US-Israel vs. Iran boxing ring, such as the US Spyplane that went down in December and the thrashing of the British embassy in Tehran. It does not all necessarily indicate an apocalyptic battle between West and East, but the world should prepare for an onslaught of psychological warfare between Iran and all those who oppose its dominion.

Essentially, a cold war on Iran has long been declared, and with news emerging that the European Union is planning to ban future purchases of Iranian oil, Iran will be subjected to an era of sanctions with the aim of crippling its economy.

Furthermore, it is evident that hostility is only going to escalate. With the Arab Spring raising the potential of stable democratic governments and debilitating Israel’s regional potency, the West must look towards other means of securing their allies’ hegemony. Whilst in reality these sanctions may not prove as materialistically debilitating as the UN wishes them to be, all they will do is rattle Iran’s already divisive regime – and harm its people. This act of economic aggression by the USA recalls the boycotting of Russian goods throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Iran is still years away from creating nuclear warheads; why else would Israel want to cleanse Iran of nuclear scientists? Surely if they had nuclear weapons already it would be futile? Clearly, fear has been inculcated well amongst the policy makers in Tel Aviv.

Moreover, usage of weapons against Israel is highly unlikely. The psychological advantage of having a nuclear deterrent is mightier than bloodshed, a fact which has been proven during the period when the US and USSR were at loggerheads with one another.

Another factor in examining current states of affairs as an extension of the Cold War is Iran’s relative docility in foreign policy – the country has not invaded a single country in the past two-hundred years and her own borders were violated by Iraq during its invasion in the 1980s.

Britain itself has puppeteered Iranian politics by replacing and overthrowing governments for over a century. Iran has given no reason to invite such hostility.

And don’t forget, fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers held Saudi Arabian passports, whilst Saudi Arabian soil did not feel the clump of a single American soldier’s footstep. Wikileaks aside, they haven’t been tarnished in the media to the extent Iran has either.

To take this point further, isn’t Iran arming itself an act of self-defence? After all, the US and Israel have attacked more than ten countries since 2001, and due to the destabilisation of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it would be unrealistic and stupid for Iran not to develop its weaponry.

I highly doubt either side wishes to start a war; however, these hostilities need to be further monitored and not be taken as a given by the media. If we really need an enemy, our knee-jerk reaction should not be Iran.

Anti-Semitism: still dangerous, still here

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:34:22 +0000

As students across the country prepared to return to study earlier this year, one graduate was being schooled by the French courts. The British fashion designer John Galliano was given a suspended fine for two incidents of racist and anti-semitic abuse. Galliano reportedly called a French lady a “fucking ugly Jewish bitch” and made some 30 anti-Jewish insults in the space of 45 minutes.
Condemnation of Galliano was widespread. For anti-semitism, in this sense, is easy to recognise. It is the language of the far-right, of Nazis and bigots. One drunk guy in a bar isn’t that big a deal, is it?
But there are subtler examples; in several incidents in past months serving MPs have questioned the abilities of Jewish officials to deal with issues such as Middle East policy. Such dual loyalty accusations are at the core of conspiracy theories which, as always, cast Jews as shady masters of money and power. It’s not quite as straightforward as calling someone an “ugly Jewish bitch” though.
Unconvinced? Let us take another example: The Islamist iEngage website uses more subtle language, but has the same message. Zionists advised the Government on a post Arab spring strategy, Zionists had a hand in the Iraq Inquiry, and Zionists are behind the EDL. Presumably, they are not talking about Christian Zionists or indeed secular supporters of the right of the Jewish people for self-determination. Indeed, they are talking about Jewish Zionists, any Jew who does not actively condemn Israel is part of the plot it would seem.
Or how about this: the day before the 2003 Iraq war began, a BNP press release blamed the war on a plot by “Zionist and Christian fundamentalist zealots around Bush” and “Blair’s pro-Israeli big business backers”. This is familiar stuff: the idea that rich Jews manipulate politicians and force other countries to go to war with each other for Jewish gain, has been a staple of far right anti-semitic conspiracy theories for over a century. But the very next day, the Muslim Council of Britain blamed the war on a plot by “Zionists and American neo-Conservatives” to “redraw the map of the Middle East”, which is essentially the same conspiracy theory. Is one anti-semitic and the other not, because of who says it?
This language can of course be the result of deep seated prejudices and stereotypes, or it may be the reproduction of language from the Middle East where this kind of conspiracy theory and much more overt anti-semitism is much more mainstream than in the UK.
A tirade from the BNP or from an Islamist group may be expected, but perhaps more troubling are examples of public figures and mainstream voices with significant followings using this type of language. In the Guardian, respected journalist Roy Greenslade said of Express Newsgroup owner Richard Desmond: “As a Jew, he may well have negative views of Muslims.” Greenslade later apologised, but that he didn’t stop to think before he wrote is cause for concern.
Even more worrying perhaps, are those established and prospective Parliamentarians who can mobilise political action. During the 2010 general election, serving MP Gerald Kaufman (himself a Jew) said “Jewish millionaires own half the Conservative Party” and Martin Linton (ex-MP for Battersea) recalled Nazi-imagery with his comment: “There are long tentacles of Israel in this country who are funding election campaigns and putting money into the British political system for their own ends”.
Coming full circle, back to campus, at LSE in December 2010, Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, referred to the “Jewish Lobby” at least four times in a talk where he said the “Jewish lobby” was “extremely dangerous and is endangering the whole planet, the whole world”, and that it “controlled” the American Senate, Congress and media. He suggested to a Jewish questioner that “You are bombing us every day”. The atmosphere at the talk became so heated that an audience member called a Jewish student and anti-racism officer who was speaking a “Nazi”, leading to wide disorder and the Jewish students having to leave. This is just one example of how abusive rhetoric directed at Jews is not an expression of free speech, but actually shuts down free speech on campus by making rational debate impossible.
Explicit anti-semitism about Jews remains relatively rare in mainstream British discourse; Galliano-type incidents are thankfully well understood and not often repeated. It is, however, disturbingly common for older anti-semitic conspiracy themes to be evoked by modern depictions of “Zionism” and “Zionist”. Such language feeds action.
Where Jews are held accountable for the actions of the state of Israel, regardless of their political views on the actions of the state of Israel, that is anti-semitism. It must be possible for Jewish students to express their views about Israel without fearing racist abuse in return.
Our campuses are the founts of free speech, exchange of ideas and broadening of the mind. Articulating criticism of Israel may be part of that. But let us think about the language we use so that our minds expand, rather than narrow.

Gove’s education reforms: the ten-year experiment we can’t afford to try

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:30:46 +0000

Michael Gove has been both praised and reviled for the speed, audacity and extent of his education reforms. As he admits this week that it will take ten years to judge the results, it is worth considering whether his reforms are going far enough.
We have a deep educational malaise in this country that requires a radical reassessment of where British schools are headed, yet the government is not giving it the debate it deserves.
We judge our state schools primarily through one vehicle: the league table. This has led to certain schools being seen as far more successful than others, with no understanding of the enormous differences that separate so many educational establishments; they have greatly varying student bodies from exceptionally wide socioeconomic backgrounds, and some serve a relatively small number of pupils whilst others cope with several thousand.
Parents have compounded this inequality further; faced with the apparent certainty of this league table, they have sought out those schools that are inherently advantaged. We now have a state system where the most successful schools are either grammar, where private tutoring for the entrance exam is often the norm, or comprehensives with small catchment areas where property prices are often 20% higher than the surrounding areas. In both of these instances, we have seen a shift towards the de-facto privatization of state schooling in this country.
Combined with private schools, these chosen few students monopolize entry to the top universities, and in turn become the parents who purchase houses in expensive catchment areas, or send their children to private primary schools in an attempt to get them into the grammar and save on later fees. The government has claimed it is deeply concerned by the widening disparity in living standards in this country, the widening disparity in pay and opportunities. Educational equality is the only way to achieve it.
The governmental approach has been, contrary to popular opinion, to reform the system from the below up. They are in the process of freeing up all state schools from local authority control, and are giving large grants to ‘Free Schools’, run by parents or companies and not required to teach the national curriculum.
The central tenet behind Gove’s reforms is to give parents more choice; yesterday’s policy announcement that teachers will be sacked within a term, as opposed to a year, is also part of this bigger picture. By placing power in the hands of parents, he is hoping state schools will be forced to react and improve their services.
Yet increasing parent power is only going to increase, not decrease the problem. What we require is a radical rethink of our entire schooling system, driven by top-down reorganization; the Government must make educational equality, not parental pandering, at the heart of its reform
Firstly, make a choice; we should either have a fully comprehensive system, with private and grammar schools turned into comprehensives, or a fully privatized system, where an extension bursary system would make education free for the majority, but penalize those parents earning above a certain amount.
Secondly, we should standardize the exams system; instead of certain schools offering the IB, some experimenting with the Cambridge Pre-U, and others worrying about whether ‘soft’ A levels will be enough for university admission, we should have something akin to the American SATs. Every student undertakes the same set of exams at a certain point in their development.
Once you have successfully leveled the playing field of these two essential areas, you can tackle the inequality of opportunity in a radical way; the university admission system needs to be torn apart and rewritten.
Universities must agree on a set ranking which places them all nationally, a difficult but necessary task. Then take the standardized results from every school in the country, and divide admissions as follows: the 1st student from every school goes to the 1st university. The 2nd best student from every school goes to the 2nd best university. Suddenly parents would be left scrambling, no longer would 33% of Oxbridge admissions come from eight private schools, and our society would become instantly more equal from the bottom up.
If the Government is serious about healing the widening disparity in our society, about giving the majority of our young people something to aspire to, then Gove should stop tinkering with minor changes, giving a little less more money there, a little more power to that parent or to that head teacher; he should be as audacious and intelligent as he’d like to be thought of.
If he doesn’t change course, then the Conservatives will be standing in front of the voting population in 2020 defending the fact that society is even more unequal and disparate as it was in 2010. Instead, Gove could stand tall and say that, in just ten years, he’d radically overhauled our schooling system in a way not seen for a hundred years, making education the powerful vehicle for equality that it is meant to be.

Great debate issue 8: Were the UCL atheists right to publish the prophet? No side

Comment — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:30:13 +0000

The UCL Atheist Society claim to be the bastion of rational thought and open debate, and yet the use of an image depicting the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus having a drink in a pub to advertise a social was entirely to the contrary.

It is common knowledge that the consumption or purchase of alcohol is strictly forbidden in Islam. To depict Prophet Muhammad in such a way is not only grossly insensitive, but outright offensive and intentionally inflammatory. It instantly alienates a huge proportion of the university population, and stifles genuine open debate.

But what of freedom of expression? The first point to make is that absolute freedom of expression does not exist. As a society, we draw a line – we are able to justify arresting individuals for inciting hatred or banning football players for racist abuse. While there may be no legal grounds for stopping the use of such images, it does not change its moral dubiousness. If the organisers of this event were not astute enough to realise that the image was disrespectful, despite attending an institution that prides itself on being globally diverse, they certainly knew the impact it had after receiving polite requests from concerned Muslim students to remove the image.

It is extremely difficult to convey to someone who does not have faith just how offensive such actions are, because for atheists, there is nothing which is sacred. The only analogy that may be of some use, although still remarkably inadequate, is as follows: this image is on par with me using a cartoon which depicts obscene illustrations of a fellow student’s parent. While no one could legally force me to remove that image, I doubt there are many people who would agree that it is right for me to use such an image. Moreover, the wrongness of that action does not depend on whether I made the original image – even if it was taken from a comic strip, it would remain morally repugnant.

So what was to be gained from all of this? I agree that there are certain circumstances where the offense caused to a few by a particular action is outweighed by the overwhelming gain to be made. It is for that reason that I would encourage protests and speaking out against the injustices carried about by military forces and governments in many parts of the world, despite potentially causing offence to the citizens of those countries. Far from being intellectual or academic, this image was entirely devoid of any point whatsoever.

The Atheist society showed a surprising lack of maturity. If they wanted to discuss aspects of Islamic teachings with which they had issue, they could have arranged for an intellectual debate in a civilised environment. Regardless personal opinion, such a discussion would have been inclusive rather than divisive, and which furthermore, would foster a greater degree of understanding and mutual respect, rather than confrontation and alienation.

This wasn’t about debate – this was thoughtlessness and a chance for a few students in the committee to gain instant fame and a place on Richard Dawkins’ christmas list. In doing so, it is unfortunate that they have done a considerable amount of damage to image of UCL Atheist Society. They did so merely because they could. Freedom of expression became a convenient guise to demonstrate a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions.

What is perhaps most alarming about this whole episode is that had this been about another group, there would be no divided opinion. There is consciously or subconsciously, an acceptable face of Islamophobia that, since the last decade or so, has pervaded our society.

The Internet Strikes Back

Comment — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:07:07 +0000

The 18th January 2012 saw the Internet rise up and rear its head in an unprecedented show of force, with online giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Reddit leading a massive campaign against SOPA and PIPA – the planned anti-piracy bills being debated in the US Senate and Congress. Perhaps most hard-hitting, especially to students, was the terrifying ‘black-out’ of Wikipedia, which asked hapless users to “imagine a world without free knowledge.” Social networking sites soon began to buzz with talk about the dangers of the planned piracy bills, and by the end of the day political support for the bills had crumbled. American lawmakers and politicians began to realise just how much they had underestimated the power of the internet.

The criticism levelled against these anti-piracy bills was well-founded. The bills proposed to block access to any website which violated copyright law, meaning that sites which allow users to share information such as YouTube or Wikipedia could be shut down if just one user illegally uploaded copyrighted material. Backed by some of America’s most powerful lobbying groups representing big business and the entertainment industry, those drafting the bills did not even attempt to consult representatives of the internet, and therefore failed to reflect some of their legitimate concerns. Namely, that these draconian laws would have severely restricted the free-flow of information online, and in the process threatened the development of what has perhaps been the most profitable and revolutionary invention in human history.

Admittedly though, piracy is a huge problem that costs the entertainment industry billions of pounds in potential revenue each year. With music and films so easily obtained for free online, many see little point in going out and purchasing them for the full price. Of course, this is not morally excusable, and is rightly classed as theft. Yet it is also partly explained by one of the ongoing mysteries of the digital age. Although the running costs associated with packaging, retail and marketing have been removed, many major companies have failed to adapt and still expect us to pay full price for what have effectively become intangible goods. Should we really have to pay iTunes 99p per track, or channels such as Film4 £3.50 to watch a film (once)? Unlike other areas of mass consumption, much of the entertainment industry just doesn’t seem to have matched its prices to the lower costs of production.

However, others have shown how revenue can be sustained by taking a more pragmatic approach to online sales. Many bands have followed Radiohead’s example and are giving away albums in exchange for voluntary contributions. Meanwhile on-demand movie services such as LoveFilm, which offer users unlimited access for a small monthly fee, are rapidly growing in popularity. In addition, revenue from online video advertising has rocketed, more than quadrupling since 2008. This shows how many people would prefer to pay a small but reasonable fee, or simply watch a couple of adverts, in order to enjoy a reliable, high-quality service and avoid the guilt and risk of illegal piracy.

Meanwhile in China, where pirated DVDs have long dominated the market, some companies such as Fox and Time Warner have started selling films for as little as two dollars in order to recover some of their lost revenues. More recently, a deal was made between Fox and Chinese video website Youku, allowing online users to view the latest Hollywood films for a tiny charge. Similarly in India, which also suffers from rampant piracy, firms have begun selling legitimate DVDs for cut-prices, beating the counterfeit competition by providing higher-quality and risk-free goods.

This shows how those powerful lobbying groups within the entertainment industries who pushed for the US anti-piracy bills have to adjust to the new realities of the information age. Whilst efforts to legally clamp down on piracy are fully justified, they will never fully succeed in upholding copyright law, and should not come at the cost of the freedom of the internet. Like the war on drugs, the war on piracy is unwinnable; people will always find a way to circumvent the law. The film and music industry therefore need to find more effective ways of safeguarding their profits, by lowering their prices, increasing ease of access or finding alternative sources of revenue such as advertising. The real way to beat piracy is not through legislation, but through the market.

David Cameron’s visit to Saudi Arabia: Reflections

Comment — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:05:42 +0000

With Saudi investment in the United Kingdom totalling approximately £62 billion, it does not take a genius to understand why David Cameron wishes to cement a firm relationship with King Abdullah and Prince Nayif. Although I do feel that his visit was provoked by a desire to present a façade of amicability between the Arab world and Europe, a relationship that has been strained since the Iraq war, Cameron’s speech regarding Iran whilst visiting Saudipinpoints the crux of the trip.
Hostility between Iran and the United Kingdom will not be something that disappears anytime soon. If anything, whilst talking about Iran Cameron urged for the her nuclear disarmament, a proposal that I agree with. However, the fact that Cameron proposed that all the countries of the world unite against Iran for nuclear disarmament seems to be a bizarre proposal. I write this highlighting Cameron’s inclusiveness of the Middle East and North Africa whilst making this statement – which suggests to me that either the British Prime Minister is incredibly naïve with regards to the torrid affiliation between the West and the Middle East, or is someone who holds unrealistically high expectations. Either way, neither of these options imply someone who realistically wishes to resolve such an issue in the shortest time possible.
Cameron furthermore stated that Great Britain has been “leading the way” in applying pressure to Iran for nuclear disarmament, a notion that seems somewhat paradoxical with his visit to Saudi Arabia in the first place. It cannot be denied that Saudi Arabia is one of the major players in the Middle East in terms of its exportation and importation of commodities, as well as its key product oil, and it is further leading the way in terms of its trading with Europe. Indeed, its exports to Great Britain yield a higher cumulative total than any other Middle Eastern country. But Cameron’s outward demonstration of his intolerance towards Iranian hostility whilst on his visit appears unwise; after all, with divisions in political Islam aside, does Cameron believe that Saudi Arabia would choose to form an alliance with Great Britain over Iran? I firmly believe not. yYes, it is undeniable that the leaders of both the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia do have vested interests in affirming a harmonious affiliation between their countries, but to propose that Saudi Arabia would side with a Christian country against a neighbouring Muslim country is nonsensical. Iran poses no clear and present threat to the United Kingdom, and with British and American ties as strong as they ever were, any potential threat would be reciprocated with Western aggression.
In this sense, Cameron’s visit to Saudi Arabia could potentially have been used to mask the magnitude of the seriousness of Iranian hostility. But to me, the whole fiasco is very poignant, with the risk of war not being unimaginable (although still very unlikely at the present time). Cameron’s speech echoed the reasons and rationality that invoked Great Britain’s invasion of Iraq – invasion based upon a ‘better safe than sorry’ ethos. I am not for one minute suggesting that the United Kingdom and Iran should or could even be the best of friends – there is a greater chance of George Galloway joining the British National Party than this ever happening -but I see an urgency to develop some sort of mutual understanding between the countries. Presently, I would say Saudi-British relations are sound, with Saudi Arabia’s mercantile economy prospering from its trading with Great Britain. Although this will ultimately lead to a further demarcation between elite and menial citizens of Saudi society, that is a topic for another discussion. But I suggest Cameron’s ‘threat’ to Iran made on his visit should be greeted not with satisfaction, but with consternation as although there may still be ambiguity as to whether the nuclear disarmament of Iran is necessary, Cameron’s visit ultimately reflects strained Western-Middle Eastern relations, British links with Saudi Arabia superficially ratified by economic gain and the increasing possibility of World War Three.