Home » Human Rights
Category Archives: Human Rights
Reform: The New Opposition, or an Uncomfortable Hiccup in British Politics
British politics is particularly interesting at the moment, as no one is really sure if we are witnesses to a radical change or if Reform will fizzle out and be a distant memory within 10 years or so (here’s hoping). I’m here to bounce some ideas around, think about the current political climate and just put out some comments about what’s going on. I’m hoping to keep at least light, and possibly short.
It’s structured as starting off with some points that are to Reform’s advantage, including the national political climate. It continues to some things working against Reform, including its sustainability. Considering how Reform has managed to gain such support is kind of weaved into the middle and briefly mentioned at the end.
The Political Climate: Inside the UK
Populism is on the rise, restriction of human rights is increasing and people seem to be getting angrier and more frustrated about politics. On a national level, there is a plethora of individuals who are disillusioned with modern day politics and seeking simple answers to big issues quickly and, unfortunately, right wing populism fills this gap perfectly.
Immigration problems? Ban them and deport them.
Crime problems? Give longer and harsher sentences.
Have a problem with the elite? Let Nigel speak up for the British People and let common sense prevail.
They’re easily digestible, easily understandable solutions to big societal issues and that definitely appeals to people.
We can easily dismiss supporters of any right wing populist party as incorrect, immoral and uneducated. But it is really not as simple as that. When an attractive left wing party is not there to foster a society which is genuinely has the interests of the working class at it’s heart, we open the door for right wing populism to scoop up the working class electorate. Indeed, we can’t totally blame the current ‘Labour’ government for the increase in Reform UK voters, as we can see trends of right wing populism globally, but we can definitely think about whether these UK voters would have gone to Reform UK if Labour was offering a better solution. A solution which had working class people front and centre, providing meaningful change such as education reform, anti-poverty initiatives, workers rights focuses, renationalisation policies and council house stock rebuilding. What we are possibly seeing here are voters with no party to call home, frustrated and without answers, so they seek these things in easily digestible populist parties.
Sustainability: Party Identity and Hypocrisy
Perhaps Reform UK’s biggest stumbling block, in my opinion, is its internal contradictions and its lack of preestablished identity as a party.
The internal contradictions are simple and obvious. Reform UK prides itself on being anti- elitist and anti-establishment but the party is lead by a millionaire bankrolled by aristocrats with a private education. Right wing populist parties are simply an extension of the elite and the establishment; an obvious conclusion if you dig even slightly under the surface. Surely this hypocrisy will be called out soon and listened to?
A slightly more long winded pitfall in the Reform Party (among many others) is its lack of party identity. Labour and even the Tories can rely at least slightly on their voters who vote for them because they always have, because of nostalgia for what the party used to be, because they’re a traditional party. Reform don’t have this. And not only this, but they don’t really have any developed policies; the Conservatives have the idea of low taxes, competitive markets, low regulation. Traditional Labour have higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, working class empowerment, nationalisation. and Reform have…? Immigration freezes, law and order and ‘taking the country back’. I’m not sure if their party identity and policies will keep their momentum moving to the next general election.
However, I do think that if they are able to maintain their momentum and get to the election they may go far, and may possibly overtake the Tories. But I think it rests on two things 1) momentum going into the next election and 2) No proper left wing alternatives emerging between now and then. Unfortunately I think number two is already certain.
The title of this blog, is a sort of tongue in cheek title. I do understand how dire this could be should Reform become positioned as the official opposition. For many people around the UK the effects of pandering to right wing populist racist rhetoric has already been experienced, and it will only get worse if Reform continue to gain popularity. Remember to vote, be politically engaged and speak up, we as young people have a huge role to play as our turn out is generally so low.
Images from https://www.reformparty.uk/ and https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/the-anti-elite-elites-reform-far-right
Share this:
What society do we want to live in?
Recently after using a service, I received an email to provide some online feedback. The questionnaire was asking about the services I received and to offer any suggestions on anything that could be done to improve services. This seems to become common practice across the board regarding all types of services and commercial interactions. This got me thinking…we are asked to provide feedback on a recent purchase, but we are not asked about issues that cut through the way we live our lives. In short, there is value in my opinion on a product that I bought, where is the value in my views of how I would want my community to be. Who’s going to ask me what society I want to live in!
Consumerism may be the reason we get asked questions about products but surely before and above being consumers, aren’t we all citizens? I can make helpful suggestions on what I would like to see in services/products but not on government. We profess democratic rule but the application of vote every now and then is not a true reflection on democracy. As we can offer online surveys for virtually everything, we have ways of measuring trends and reactions, why not use these to engage in a wider public discourse on the way to organise our communities, discuss social matters and engage in a public dialogue about our society.
Our political system is constructed to represent parties of different ideologies and practices offering realistic alternatives to governance. An alternative vision about society that people can come behind and support. This ideological diversion is essential for the existence of a “healthy political democratic process”. This ideological difference seems to be less prevalent in public dialogue with the main political parties focusing their rhetoric on matters that do not necessarily affect society.
Activism, a mechanism to bring about social change is becoming a term that sparks controversy whilst special interest groups maintain and even exert their influence on political parties. This allows private special interests to take the “ear of the government” on matters that matter to them, whilst the general public participate in social discourses that never reach the seat of power.
Asking citizens to be part of the social discussion, unlike customer service, is much more significant; it allows us to be part of the process. Those who have no other way of participating in any part of the system will be castigated to cast their vote and may participate in some party political activities. This leaves a whole heap of everyday issues unaddressed. In recent years the cost of living crisis pushed more people into poverty, food, housing and transport became issues that needed attention, not to mention health, post-covid-19.
These and many more social issues have been left either neglected only to be given the overhead title of crisis but with no action plan of how to resolve them. People affected are voiceless, having to pick up the injustices they suffer without any regard to the long term effects. Ironically the only plausible explanation given now that “Brussels’ rule” and “EU bureaucracy” are out of the picture, has become that of the immigrants. The answer to various complex problems became the people on the boats!
This is a simplification in the way social problems happen and most importantly can be resolved. Lack of social discourse has left the explanation and problem solving of said problems to an old rhetoric founded on xenophobia and discrimination. Simple explanations on social problems where the answer is a sentence tend to be very clear and precise, but very rarely can count the complexity of the problems they try to explain. There is a great disservice to our communities to oversimplify causes because the public cannot understand.
Cynically someone may point out that feedback from companies is not routed in an honest request to understand customer satisfaction but a veiled lip-service about company targets and metrics. So the customer’s response becomes a tradable figure of the company’s objectives. This is very likely the case and this is why the process has become so focused on particular parts of the consumer process. Nonetheless and here is the irony; a private company has some knowledge of a customer’s views on their recent purchase, as opposed to the government and people’s views and expectations on many social issues.
Maybe the fault lies with all of us. The presumption of democratic rule, especially in parliamentary democracies, a citizen is represented by a person they elect every four years. This representation detaches the citizen from their own responsibilities and obligations to the process. The State is happy to have citizens that engage only during elections, something that can be underscored by the way in recent years that protests on key social issues have been curtailed.
That does not sound right! I can provide an opinion over the quality of a chocolate bar or a piece of soap but I cannot express my views as a citizen over war, climate, genocide, immigration, human rights or justice? If we value opinion then as society we ought to make space for opinion to be heard, to be articulated and even expressed. In the much published “British Values” the right to protest stands high whilst comes in conflict with new measures to stop any protests. We are at a crossroads and ultimately we will have to decide what kind of society we live in. If we stop protests and we ban venues for people to express themselves, what shall we do next to curtail further the voices of dissent? It is a hackneyed phrase that we are stepping into a “slippery slope” and despite the fact that I do not like the language, there is a danger that we are indeed descending rapidly down that slope.
The social problems our society faces at any given time are real and people try to understand them and come to terms with them. Unlike before, we live in a world that is not just visual, it relies on moving images. Our communities are global and many of the problems we face are international and their impact is likely to affect us all as people, irrespective of background or national/personal identity. At times like this, it is best to increase the public discourse, engage with the voices of descent. Maybe instead of banning protests, open the community to those who are willing to discuss. The fear that certain disruptive people will lead these debates are unfounded. We have been there before and we have seen that people whose agenda is not to engage, but simply to disrupt, soon lose their relevance. We have numerous examples of people that their peers have rejected and history left them behind as a footnote of embarrassment.
Feedback on society, even if negative, is a good place to start when/if anyone wants to consider, what kind of society I want and my family to live in. Giving space to numerous people who have been vastly neglected by the political systems boosts inclusivity and gives everyone the opportunity to be part of our continuous democratic conversation. Political representation in a democracy should give a voice to all especially to those whose voice has long been ignored. Let’s not forget, representation is not a privilege but a necessity in a democracy and we ensure we are making space for others. A democracy can only thrive if we embrace otherness; so when there are loud voices that ask higher level of control and suppression, we got to rise above it and defend the weakest people in our community. Only in solidarity and support of each other is how communities thrive.
Share this:
Global perspectives of crime, state aggression and conflict resolutions
As I prepare for the new academic module “CRI3011 – Global Perspectives of Crime” launching this September, my attention is drawn to the ongoing conflicts in Africa, West Asia and Eastern European nations. Personally, I think these situations provide a compelling case study for examining how power dynamics, territorial aggression, and international law intersect in ways that challenge traditional understandings of crime.
When examining conflicts like those in major Eastern European nations, one begins to see how geopolitical actors strategically frame narratives of aggression and defence. This ongoing conflict represents more than just a territorial dispute in my view, but I think it allows us to see new ways of sovereignty violations, invasions, state misconduct and how ‘humanitarian’ efforts are operationalised. Vincenzo Ruggiero, the renowned Italian criminologist, along with other scholars of international conflict including von Clausewitz, have contributed extensively to this ideology of hostility and aggression perpetrated by state actors, and the need for the criminalisation of wars.
While some media outlets obsess over linguistic choices or the appearance of war leaders not wearing suits, our attention must very much consider micro-aggressions preceding conflicts, the economy of war, the justification of armed interventions (which frequently conceals the intimidation of weaker states), and the precise definition of aggression vs the legal obligation to protect. Of course, I do recognise that some of these characteristics don’t necessarily violate existing laws of armed conflict in obvious ways, however, their impacts on civilian populations must be recognised as one fracturing lives and communities beyond repair.
Currently, as European states are demonstrating solidarity, other regions are engaging in indirect economic hostilities through imposition of tariffs – a form of bloodless yet devastating economic warfare. We are also witnessing a coordinated disinformation campaigns fuelling cross-border animosities, with some states demanding mineral exchange from war-torn nations as preconditions for peace negotiations. The normalisation of domination techniques and a shift toward the hegemony of capital is also becoming more evident – seen in the intimidating behaviours of some government officials and hateful rhetoric on social media platforms – all working together to maintain unequal power imbalance in societies. In fact, fighting parties are now justifying their actions through claims of protecting territorial sovereignty and preventing security threats, interests continue to complicate peace efforts, while lives are being lost. It’s something like ‘my war is more righteous than yours’.
For students entering the global perspectives of crime module, these conflicts offer some lessons about the nature of crime – particularly state crimes. Students might be fascinated to discover how aggression operates on the international stage – how it’s justified, executed, and sometimes evades consequences despite clear violations of human rights and international law. They will learn to question the various ways through which the state can become a perpetrator of the very crimes it claims to prevent and how state criminality often operates in contexts where culpability is contested and consequences are unevenly applied based on power, rather than principle and ethics.
Share this:
Britain’s new relationship with America…Some thoughts
Within the coming weeks, Keir Starmer is due to meet Donald Trump and in doing so has offered an interesting view into the complexities of managing diplomacy in the modern age. Whilst the UK and US work collaboratively through bi-lateral trade agreements, and national security collaborations, the change in power structures within the UK and USA marks significant ideological difference that can arguably present a myriad of implications for both countries and for those countries who are implicated by these relations between Britain and America. In this blog, I will outline some of the factors that ought to be considered as we fast-approach this new age of international relations.
It can be understood that Starmer meeting Trump, despite some ideological difference is rooted in a pragmatic diplomacy approach and for what some might say is for the greater good. In an age of continual risk and uncertainty, allyship across nations has seldom been more necessary nor consolidated. On addressing issues including climate change, national security, trade agreements within a post-Brexit adversity, the relationship between America and Britain I sense is being foregrounded by Starmer’s Labour Government.
Moreover, I consider that Starmer should tread carefully and not appear globally as though he is too strongly aligned with Trump’s policies, especially on foreign policy. This mistake was once made by Tony Blair, following the New Beginnings movement after 9/11. It is essential that whilst we maintain good relations with America, this does not come at a cost to our own sovereignty and influence on global issues. I see here an opportunity for Starmer to re-build Britain’s place on the global stage. Despite this as what some strategists might call a ‘bigger picture’, it goes without saying that Starmer may face backlash from his peers based on his willingness to enter a liaison with Trump’s Government. For many inside and outside of the Labour Party, the politics of Trump are considered dangerous, regressive, and ideologically dumbfounded. I happen to agree with much of these sentiments, and I think there is a risk for Starmer… that will later develop into a dilemma. This dilemma will be between appeasing the party majority and those who hold traditional Labour values in place of moving further into the clutches of the far right, emboldened by neoliberalism. It is no secret however that the Labour party has entered a dangerous liaison with neoliberalism and has alienated many traditional Labour voters and has offered no real political alternative.
Considering this, I sense an apprehension is in the air regarding Starmer’s relationship building with America and Donald Trump, that some might argue might be more counter-productive than good. Starmer must demonstrate political pragmatism and arguably the impact of this government and the governments to come will weigh on these relations… Albeit time will tell in determining how these future relations are mapped out.
Share this:
The Problem with True Crime
There has been a huge spike in interest in true crime in recent years. The introduction to some of the most notorious crimes have been presented on Netflix and other streaming platforms, that has further reinforced the human interest in the gore of violent crimes.
Recently I went to the theatre to watch a show title the Serial Killer Next Door, which highlights some of the most notorious crimes to sweep the nation. From the Toy Box Killer (David Ray-Parker) and his most brutal violence against women to Ed Kemper and the continuous failing by the FBI to bring one of the most violent and prolific killers to justice. While I was horrified by the description both verbal and photographic of the crimes committed, by the serial killers. I was even more shocked at the reaction of the audience and how the cases were presented. The show attempted to sympathise with the victims but this fell short as the entertainment value of the audience was paramount and thus, the presenter honed in on the ‘comedic’ factor of the criminal and the crimes committed. Graphic pictures of the naked bodies of men, women and children brutalised at the hands of the most sadistic monsters were put on screens for speculation and entertainment. Audience members enjoyed popcorn and crisps while lapping up the horror displayed.
I did not stay for the full show…..
The level of distaste was too much for me but from what I did watch made me reflect deeply and led me to the age-old topic among criminologists and victimologists that question where the victims are and why do they continue to be dehumanised. Victims of these heinous crimes are rarely remembered and depicted in a way that moves them away from being viewed as human and instead commodities and after thoughts of crime.
The true crime community on YouTube has been criticized for the sensationalist approach crime. With niche story telling while applying one’s makeup and relaying the most brutal aspects of true crime cases to audiences. I ask the question when and how did we get to this point in society where entertainment trumps victims and their families. Later, this year I will be bringing this topic to a true crime panel to further explore the damage that this type of entertainment has on both the consumer and the victim’s legacy. The dehumanisation of victims and desensitisation of consumers for entertainment tells us something about the society we live in that should be addressed…..I am sure there will be other parts to this post that will explore the issues with true crime and its problematic and exploitative nature.
Share this:
Civilian Suffering Beyond the Headlines
In the cacophony of war, amidst the geopolitical chess moves and strategic considerations, it’s all too easy to lose sight of the human faces caught in its relentless grip. The civilians, the innocents, the ordinary people whose lives are shattered by the violence they never asked for. Yet, as history often reminds us, their stories are the ones that linger long after the guns fall silent. In this exploration, we delve into the forgotten narratives of civilian suffering, from the tragic events of Bloody Sunday to the plight of refugees and aid workers in conflict zones like Palestine.
On January 30, 1972, the world watched in horror as British soldiers opened fire on unarmed civil rights demonstrators in Northern Ireland, in what would become known as Bloody Sunday. Fourteen innocent civilians lost their lives that day, and many more were injured physically and emotionally. Yet, as the decades passed, the memory of Bloody Sunday faded from public consciousness, overshadowed by other conflicts and crises. But for those who lost loved ones, the pain and trauma endure, a reminder of the human cost of political turmoil and sectarian strife.
Fast forward to the present day, and we find a world still grappling with the consequences of war and displacement. In the Middle East, millions of Palestinians endure the daily hardships of life under occupation, their voices drowned out by the rhetoric of politicians and the roar of military jets. Yet amid the rubble and despair, there are those who refuse to be silenced, who risk their lives to provide aid and assistance to those in need. These unsung heroes, whether they be doctors treating the wounded or volunteers distributing food and supplies, embody the spirit of solidarity and compassion that transcends borders and boundaries.
But even as we celebrate their courage and resilience, we must also confront our own complicity in perpetuating the cycles of violence and injustice that afflict so many around the world. For every bomb that falls and every bullet that is fired, there are countless civilians who pay the price, their lives forever altered by forces beyond their control. And yet, all too often, their suffering is relegated to the footnotes of history, overshadowed by the grand narratives of power and politics.
So how do we break free from this cycle of forgetting? How do we ensure that the voices of the marginalized and the oppressed are heard, even in the midst of chaos and conflict? Perhaps the answer lies in bearing witness, in refusing to turn away from the harsh realities of war and its aftermath. It requires us to listen to the stories of those who have been silenced, to amplify their voices and demand justice on their behalf.
Moreover, it necessitates a revaluation of our own priorities and prejudices, a recognition that the struggle for peace and justice is not confined to distant shores but is woven into the fabric of our own communities. Whether it’s challenging the narratives of militarism and nationalism or supporting grassroots movements for social change, each of us has a role to play in building a more just and compassionate world.
The forgotten faces of war remind us of the urgent need to confront our collective amnesia and remember the human cost of conflict. From the victims of Bloody Sunday to the refugees fleeing violence and persecution, their stories demand to be heard and their suffering acknowledged. Only then can we hope to break free from the cycle of violence and build a future were peace and justice reigns supreme.
Share this:
State Crime
A year ago, on this day a terrible accident took place. Two trains collided head on: a passenger and a cargo train. The crash was ferocious, following a massive bright explosion, that was heard for miles. The official count of fatalities are 57 dead and over 100 injured, some of whom very seriously, one of whom at least on a medically-induced coma. The term accident implies something that happened unintentionally and unexpectedly. As the story emerged, different elements came to the surface which indicated that what happened, was not unexpected. The people who worked in the train service raised the alarm months, if not years in advance, sending official statements to the relevant departments and the minister for transport. There were several accidents months before the disaster and there were calls to correct the infrastructure, including the signalling system. Several politically motivated appointments in key positions also meant that the people in the organisation at certain levels lacked the expertise and knowledge to work with the complexities of the railways. The employees’ protests were largely ignored as they never received an official response. So, was it an accident, a disaster, or a crime?
I have left the details, names and even the country of the disaster out, for one reason only. This tragedy can happen in any place at any time and for any kind of people. The aftermath leaves people wondering why it happened and if it was preventable. The pain of those who lost loved ones transcends borders, race, and origin. The question posed earlier remains. Worldwide we have seen similar disasters some of which have permanently marked the local and international community. It is the way we deal with the aftermath that will partially answer the question of what this tragedy was. A disaster goes in deep highlighting questions such as; what do people pay taxes for, what is the role of the State and how important is human life?
People in position of power were warned about it beforehand. There were similar incidents that should have signalled that something wasn’t right. There was underfunding and lack of staffing. All of these may have happened separately, but considered together, they cannot support this being an accidental event. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Then the question is whether this event is a crime or not. Crime is usually seen as a social construction of individual behaviour in conflict with social conventions. This focuses crime onto an action by an individual and therefore the motivations and intent focus on the usual gains, opportunity and other personal rewards. This approach largely ignores an entire section of criminology that deals with harm and social injustices. A crime of this magnitude has individual actors who for their own motivations contributed to the disaster. Nonetheless this is something bigger; it encompasses, services, organisations, departments, and ministries. This is a State crime. Different parts of the State contributed to the disaster and once it happened, they tried to provide a harried response on an individual’s fault…human error.
Years ago, in another place the toxic gases of a plant killed and blinded thousands of people; a nuclear cloud was released in another incident and people were made to evacuate their homes for ever. Some years ago, a fault in a type of plane grounded an entire fleet after a couple of crashes. A terrible earthquake which revealed errors in construction and design. Boats full of people sinking and no one seems to take any notice. A similar picture in most disasters: people looking for their loved ones, feeling powerless in front of a State that took decisions to ignore the risk and the calls of the experts. So, what does this train disaster, the plane crashes, the boat sinkings and the earthquake destruction have in common? They are all State crimes. In modern literature we have learnt to recognise them, identify the commonalities, and explain what a State crime is. What we haven’t done as effectively is to find a way to punish those responsible. Each State, like in this train disaster, recoils into providing all necessary information and changing its mechanisms; maybe because for some countries profit is above people, providing of the main intentions behind State crime. Whilst the State delays, the dead await justice.
In memoriam to the 57 and to the millions of victims of state crimes.
Share this:
The racialised cost of e-waste
We are in a climate where electronic goods are the norm and the way ‘forward’ for the modern society in which we live. But what of the effects of living in a world with so much technology and a constant need to replace and upgrade our electrical goods? One of these effects is toxic waste and pollution. According to the Global E-Waste Monitor, of the 53.6 million metric tons of e-waste generated in 2019, only 17.4% was collected and recycled properly (ITU, 2020)
When you get rid of an old phone or laptop, where does it go? In some cases, it may be reused or recycled safely, but for many, they may end up in parts of Asia or on a site like Agbogbloshie in Accra, Ghana.
Agbogbloshie was one of the largest e-waste sites in the world, hundreds of thousands of tons of waste were dumped at this site. Workers at this site spent hours looking through the waste site for valuable parts and scrap metal they could sell. Doing this on a daily basis for years had adverse effects on the health of these workers: skin problems, headaches, stomach ulcers, and those are the health effects that are more easily identified, but what of those health defects not yet visible.
In July 2021, the Agbogbloshie site was demolished suddenly and without warning. Whilst some have heralded this as a great move, the way it was done was arguably inhumane and irresponsible. Workers at the site were not notified of the demolition and were forcibly removed from the site without time to take their belongings with them. They were not given the time or support to find alternative employment arrangements, leaving many in financial difficulty. For many, they have now moved to smaller waste sites, or they bring scrap metal into their homes and around their families as they no longer have a site to work from. Is this better? It could be argued that if the aim was to help these individuals minimise the health risks associated with working on the scrapyard, then they have failed. If the claim is that human rights were being violated by allowing individuals to work on the scrapyard, what of the human rights violations when the workers were forcibly removed?
I draw similarities to the aerial destroying of coca crops in countries such as Colombia. Hidden under the guise of the greater good and supporting the impoverished, why is it always those at the bottom of the ladder who are adversely affected. It is time for governments to be held accountable for the harms they cause and to start supporting and investing in their citizens.
To find out more: https://africanarguments.org/2022/07/agbogbloshie-a-year-after-the-violent-demolition/
Share this:
Christmas Toys
In CRI3002 we reflected on the toxic masculine practices which are enacted in everyday life. Hegemonic masculinity promotes the ideology that the most respectable way of being ‘a man’ is to engage in masculine practices that maintain the White elite’s domination of marginalised people and nations. What is interesting is that in a world that continues to be incredibly violent, the toxicity of state-inflicted hegemonic masculinity is rarely mentioned.
The militaristic use of State violence in the form of the brutal destruction of people in the name of apparent ‘just’ conflicts is incredibly masculine. To illustrate, when it is perceived and constructed that a privileged position and nation is under threat, hegemonic masculinity would ensure that violent measures are used to combat this threat.
For some, life is so precious yet for others, life is so easily taken away. Whilst some have engaged in Christmas traditions of spending time with the family, opening presents and eating luxurious foods, some are experiencing horrors that should only ever be read in a dystopian novel.
Through privileged Christmas play-time with new toys like soldiers and weapons, masculine violence continues to be normalised. Whilst for some children, soldiers and weapons have caused them to be victims of wars with the most catastrophic consequences.
Even through children’s play-time the privileged have managed to promote everyday militarism for their own interests of power, money and domination. Those in the Global North are lead to believe that we should be proud of the army and how it protects ‘us’ by dominating ‘them’ (i.e., ‘others/lesser humans and nations’).
Still in 2023 children play with symbolically violent toys whilst not being socialised to question this. The militaristic toys are marketed to be fun and exciting – perhaps promoting apathy rather than empathy. If promoting apathy, how will the world ever change? Surely the privileged should be raising their children to be ashamed of the use of violence rather than be proud of it?
Share this:
What value life in a far-off land?
Watching the BBC news and for that matter any other news broadcast has become almost unbearable. Over the last three weeks or so the television screen has been filled with images of violence, grief, and suffering. Images of innocent men, women and children killed or maimed or kidnapped. Images of grieving relatives, images of people with little or no hope. And as I watch I am consumed by overwhelming sadness and as I write this blog, I cannot avoid the tears welling up. And I am angry, angry at those that could perpetuate such crimes against humanity. I will not take sides as I know that I understand so little about the conflict in Israel, Gaza, and the surrounding area, but I do feel the need to comment. It seems to me that there is shared blame across the countries involved, the region, and the rest of the world.
As I watch the news, I see reports of protest across many countries, and I see a worrying development of Islamophobia and Antisemitism. The conflict is only adding fuel to the actions of those driven by hatred and it provides plenty of scope for politicians in the West and other countries, to pontificate, and partake in political wrangling and manoeuvring before showing their abject disregard for morality and humanity. The fact that Hamas, as we are constantly reminded by the BBC, is a proscribed terrorist organisation, proscribed by most countries in the west, including the United Kingdom, seems to give carte blanche to western politicians to support crimes against humanity, to support murder and terrorism. How else can we describe what is going on?
The actions of Hamas should and quite rightly are to be condemned, any action that sees the killing of innocent lives is wrong. To have carried out their recent attacks in Israel in such a manner was horrendous and is a reminder of the dangers that the Israeli people face daily. But the declaration by Israel that it wants to remove Hamas from the face of the earth would, and could, only lead to one outcome, that being played out before our very eyes. The approach seems to be one of vengeance, regardless of the human cost and regardless of any rules of war or conflict or human dignity. How else can the bombing and shelling of a whole country be explained? How else can the blockading of a country to bring it to the brink of disaster be justified? How do we explain the forced migration of innocent people from one part of a country to another only to find that the edict to move led them into as dangerous a place as that they moved from? There seems to be a very sad irony in this, given the historical perspectives of the Israeli nation and its people.
We don’t know what efforts are going on behind the scenes to attempt to bring about peace but the outrageous comments and actions or omissions by some western politicians beggar belief. From Joe Biden’s declaration ‘now is not the time for a ceasefire’ to our government’s and the opposition’s policy that a pause in the conflict should occur, but not a ceasefire, only demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the plight of Palestinian people. If not now, at what time would it be appropriate for a ceasefire to occur? It seems to me, as a colleague suggested, politicians and many others seem to be more concerned about accusations of antisemitism than they are about humanity. Operating in a moral vacuum seems to be par for the government in the UK and unfortunately that seems to extend to the other side of the house. Just as condemning the killing of innocent people is not Antisemitic nor too are the protests about those killings a hate crime. Our home secretary seems to have nailed her colours to the mast on that one but I’m not sure if its xenophobia, power lust or something else being displayed. Populism and a looming general election seems to be far more important than innocent children’s lives in a far off land.
The following quote seems so apt:
‘…. politicians must shoulder their share of the blame. And individuals too. Those ordinary citizens who allowed themselves to be incited into hatred and religious xenophobia, who set aside decades, sometimes centuries of friendship, who took up sword and flame to terrorise their neighbours and compatriots, to murder men, women, and children in a frenzy of bloodlust that even now is difficult to comprehend (Khan, 2021: 323).’[1]
If you are not angry, you should be, if you do not cry, then I ask why not? This is not the way that humanity should behave, this is humanity at its worst. Just because it is somewhere else, because it involves people of a different race, colour or creed doesn’t make it any less horrendous.
Khan, V. (2021) Midnight at Malabar House, Hodder and Stoughton: London.
[1] Vaseem Khan was discussing Partition on the Indian subcontinent, but it doesn’t seem to matter where the conflict is or what goes on, the reasons for it are so hard to comprehend.
Thoughts from the criminology team 