Sinn Fein: The Trojan Horse of good Government

The insulting comments made by DUP MLA Gregory Campbell last month on the Irish language undoubtedly let himself and his party down - the party's opposition to the Irish language act has prevented society developing a unified culture in the North. However the response of Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams reveals much more about the parties in government at Stormont.

'The point is to actually break these bastards - that's the point. And what's going to break them is equality. [...] that's the Trojan horse of the entire republican strategy is to reach out to people on the basis of equality.' 

The message here from the Sinn Fein leader exposes what many have acknowledged for some time with his party. Their main target is electoral supremacy and building an equal society in the North is merely a front. Whilst their partners in leadership, the DUP have made no effort to present themselves as a 'party for the people' promoting welfare and social development - SF have consistently put themselves across as a left wing party looking to build a better society in this part of Ireland.

Quotes here however add to what is already a litany of corruption from the party. They were exposed last year for housing trade offs with the democratic unionists, used to maintain their respective electoral dominance in Newry & South Armagh and North Belfast. Clearly it is acceptable for these parties to ignore the needs of local people in order to retain electoral supremacy.

Further to this, the party were also recently exposed to have set up questionable means of payment to their constituency offices, allowing money to flow into the coffers of party members in 'research' companies where research does not seem to have taken place through their assembly expenses claims. Education minister John O'Dowd then claimed that 'the only audit that matters to Sinn Fein are the voters(sic)'. This ignorance of the importance of following public procedure in order to save the taxpayer money is another indication of the party's lack of interest in proper governance.

The admission of the Party President along with the multiple incidents of corrupt behaviour surely should have set off alarm bells. The continuation of a toxic ‘two communities’ housing strategy, total ignorance over necessary budgetary changes, combined with the refusal to implement a policy of integrated education – as stipulated in the Belfast Agreement – leads us to the conclusion that Sinn Fein is not a party who is trying to build a better, more equal society. It is a party which cares only for the weight of its own pockets and maintenance of its own vote.

Feminism and equality: The Private Sphere

The sex discrimination act of 1975, and the progress that women in the workplace have made since has done a great deal to address gender inequality in the UK. Women now make up over 47% of the workplace, a 10% rise since the act was introduced. We have increasing parity of esteem between people of various and no gender in society today. But how can the next step be taken?

Much of feminist thought centres on the politics of the personal - of accessing the things in private life which a society run by men always ignored. I think we can all agree on the massive value conferred on us by those who fed, cared for and reared us as children, and provided for our family within the home. The role of the carer, traditionally occupied by women in the past caused difficulties, and continues to create difficulties for women who wish to enter public life. Notably in recent months, UKIP leader Nigel Farage declared that women are of less value than men in the workplace as they may leave full time employment due to pregnancy or childcare needs. I would contest that the value is stored somewhere else, and that in order to balance personal value in the public sphere, we must do so in the private.

Provision of childcare allowances by government go some way to alleviating the perceived need for women to look after children, but the stigma of the female parent as holding primary responsibility for childcare still holds many driven and intelligent women back. Another solution could be to look at equality again, but in the private sphere of childcare. In UK law, the father of a child ONLY has parental responsibility if he cosigns the birth certificate as either a married or unmarried partner, or applies for parental responsibility through the court system. The mother has these rights automatically. I would contest this is incorrect, unfair, and damaging to gender equality.

Similarly, in cases of family breakdown, the mother takes primacy in custody arrangements, with access granted to the father based on her wishes. This attachment of the role of carer to the mother helps to perpetuate gender roles and entrench inequality. By treating parents as equals, and debating custody from this new standpoint, we increase the responsibility of all gender roles in private life and allow for real equality.

Were we to change such a law, and take primary custody and responsibility away from mothers, placing the responsibility for a child (once born) in the hands of both parents - this could help to alleviate the poisonous stigma attaching women to the private sphere and preventing their growth in public life. By placing responsibility in the hands of fathers to take part in childcare, to be an equal partner in private and public life we could bring families and gender equality into the 21st century.

Families today come in various shapes and sizes, and by addressing inequality in family life we can better address the inequalities which remain in public life. By giving fathers parity of esteem in custody arrangements, and in doing this conferring upon them the responsibilities of equal parenthood we can better achieve gender equality for all.

What are your thoughts? Please leave your comments below and share.

Poppy Fascism and why it's right to object.

With today being Remembrance Sunday, the past week or so have seen the annual return of the Poppy appeal to our daily lives. In recent years, the image and event surrounding it has become implanted into everyday life - football clubs at every level of competition across the UK have committed to a minutes silence before the game, and to wearing poppies on their shirts, actively supporting the appeal; with a few notable objectors, and television personalities are coerced into wearing the symbol on many national broadcasts.

Wigan winger McClean claimed to have
'sparked fury' through his conscientious
objection to the appeal.

Such support however, and the bile thrown at objectors such as James McClean in backlash to his refusal to wear a Poppy is now bordering on fascism. Contrary to the belief of many, the appeal does not seek to commemorate those who lost their lives in the two world wars early in the century, but to donate money to all British servicemen living or dead. Since conscription ended in 1960, this amounts to support of all those people who chose, not people who were forced, to go to war. These wars include the attempts by Britain to retain control of Northern Ireland; the Falklands; their intervention in the four Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan on the back of Bush's 'War on Terror' speech. Through the blanket imposition of the Poppy in national culture and daily life, the appeal attempts to drum up tacit consent to the actions of these people.

This attempt to use the plight of dead soldiers families and the legacy of the holocaust to create a feeling of support for the current actions of the armed forces amounts to fascism. Promotion of support particularly for Cameron's continued support of Israel abroad and further intervention into Iraq and Syria promotes imperialist notions which Britain should be trying to get away from.

But it's about helping the soldiers and their families. On the British Legion's Poppy appeal website, the goals of the Poppy appeal include helping, 'younger veterans who need employment and housing to live on.' Why should the British people support a system wherein working age veterans, who have left the military for one reason or another, require charity to afford housing? Support of the military in Britain today: a country which despite what the media propose is under no direct threat from outside invaders, and will likely continue not to be: amounts to support of a continued imperialist approach abroad, continued intervention in places like Northern Ireland and the middle east, places where past intervention only served to make things worse, and continued support of a system which does not even attempt to care for its veterans - it expects the public to do so through charity.

It is time to take off the Poppy, and to abandon support for militaristic regimes and those who support Britain's constant intervention in issues which it cannot and has not helped solve. What do you think? Please leave your comments in the discussion below.

Ian Paisley and other relics of the past

A recent article in the Guardian acknowledged the tributes to Ian Paisley after his death as being privy to the theory of 'live long enough and all is forgiven'. The media coverage surrounding his death focused on Paisley as a peacemaker, with David Cameron saying he would be remembered as the ''big man' of Northern Ireland politics' and would be 'greatly missed'. This is a far cry from the images of Paisley as a flat track bully, whose violent rhetoric inspired a far right stance amongst unionism throughout the early peace process. Further to this, the Reverend for a long time backed loyalist paramilitarism in its defence of a mid 20th century political system which even the staunchest supporter of the union would now admit was unjust and unethical. His passing is the passing of a relic which the political mindset of the North must move on from, but many others remain.

The death of Paisley and the obituaries which followed in the mainstream media, have highlighted many important ideas for those who hope the North can progress from its current malaise. His deposition by those who now run the DUP was well covered by the media earlier this year and shows the deep underlying issues which exist within the NI Assembly. As was heartily discussed at the time, Paisley had overstayed his usefulness to the DUP, faced with the rise of TUV they removed him so as to retain their position as the hardiest defenders of the union.

Success in the following election then allowed them to maintain a power base from which they instituted the Red Sky scandal, giving public finances to DUP donors whilst they destroyed housing executive property. Nelson McCausland (DSD minister at the time) further proved his superior usefulness in social housing trade offs with Sinn Féin, perpetuating the electoral majority of key party members, some of whom had led the deposition of the party founder.

This failure to progress to a consensus based system where parties set a joint agenda for the good of the people - as opposed to the current bilateral strategies based on maintaining the electoral relevance of green and blue parties is a deep wound in the system which sees no signs of healing under the leadership of the current incumbents of the OFMDFM.

Paisley's disposal at the hands of those who now lead the DUP has not however succeeded to maintain their unchallenged position as dictators of the agenda which the loyalist vote follows. Failures of the party to manage PR and promote new changes such as the removal of flags and symbols; growing multiculturalism in the North with the influx of new ethnocultural groups; and the secularisation of public policy with movements towards equal marriage based on sexual orientation has led to the growth of a new far right element in Loyalism. The growth of the 'Protestant Coalition' outlook from Loyalism is undoubtedly a consequence of disastrous management by an adversarial party in a political system based on progressive consensus and tolerance. This consensus, due to the leadership of Sinn Féin and the DUP has given way to stand off and trade off.

Peter Robinson was quoted earlier this week as saying the Stormont system was 'no longer fit for purpose' and he would look to the Westminster government to engage in further talks for a solution. This comes less than a year after the huge amount of money spent bringing in US diplomat Richard Haass offered no results in solving issues over flags, parades and dealing with the past. This unveils a basic incompetence in the leadership of the Stormont executive.

DUP failure to properly lead in the progressive changes to policy on flags and symbols which must take place to become a less confrontational society, failure to govern in a responsible way which benefits the people, and failure to come up with any solutions to the problems they are paid to solve leads to a simple conclusion. Paisley is a relic which the North are better moving on from, but he is not the only one, until the relics still sitting in the executive office on the hill are also disposed of, progress cannot be made. We can't however wait until they dispose of themselves as they did with the Doc, the people of the North must stand up to the relics in OFMDFM, in Sinn Féin and in the DUP and take a leaf from Reverend. Ulster must say no to the powers that be or we will 'never, never' move on and become the fantastic multicultural, tolerant society we believe we can be.

Is there an anti Islamic agenda in the UK?

Anyone watching the BBC news this evening would have seen their propaganda machine in full flow, in outlining of the structure of the Islamic State, quotes such as 'married to sister' were casually interspersed with the relevant information being conveyed - pictures of a crying British mother shown while a solicitor read a statement about her daughter's indoctrination into IS.

An executive who confirmed they would offer only humanitarian aid to fighters in Iraq only a few weeks ago are now fully involved in a system of air strikes against IS and the leaders of both government and opposition are proposing a tough response to the fighting; suggestions even being made that passports of UK muslims who travel to Syria could be revoked. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This draconian response, cracking down on those who offer aid in Syria is not new, post 9/11 the Blair government used invocation of a state of emergency to pass the anti terrorism, crime and security act (ATCS act) - the most drastic reaction of any European state to an attack which took place on a different continent. The ATCS act allows the UK to indefinitely intern those suspected of 'terror charges' pending deportation, whether that deportation was granted or not. This new policy of revoking the passports of even British nationals suspected of such is an extension of the draconian, authoritarian school of thought in dealing with the threat of fundamentalism.

But is this reaction based on previous successes? Succinctly, no, since the ATCS act was brought in in 2001, stop and searches amongst the muslim community have increased drastically, anti immigration politics has come to the fore electorally and parties such as UKIP and the BNP have gained widespread support at local level. The demonisation of the muslim people in Britain as an 'enemy within' has been motivated by the increased securitisation and aggressive foreign policy implemented by the Blair government and now continued by the coalition.

This culture of fear has not been allayed in many cases by the mainstream media within Britain. Of course the main news outlets such as News International and BSkyB distribute a 'Fox-lite' geared towards the conservative elements within UK society, but other more traditionally balanced outlets such as the BBC fail in their depictions of society in many cases as well, as outlined in the beginning of this article.

Choudary on the Immigration Row
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJxn8AYtfq8

There is a major issue in Britain at the minute with framing the arguments of fundamentalist Islam. In Channel 5's 'Big Immigration Row', muslim cleric Anjem Choudary was introduced to the audience as, 'radical muslim Anjem Choudary, hate figure to some as you may hear,' as jeers were thrown from the studio audience. Whilst the author would not give support to the perspective of Islam held by Choudary, framing him in this light drastically dilutes his ability to convey any perspective whatsoever, the message that the killing of Lee Rigby in Woolwich was at least partially motivated by the global nature of the 'war on terror' which Britain has got itself involved in. This lack of interest in understanding the motivations of radical Islam generates hate towards the normal, functioning members of British society.

The ignorance of the mainstream media in helping us understand the motivations of IS and others in a rational and balanced way remains a problem in the ongoing and escalating conflict, and allows for the situation to continue to escalate; with liberal values of the multicultural, tolerant society we aim to build giving way to securitisation and marginalisation of some within our communities. Bourgeois conservative David Cameron, hate figure to some as you may hear does not seem to be leading us out of this mess.

Do you agree? Leave your comments below.

Should University fees reflect Vocational Utility?

The fees hike imposed by the Tory government in their first year in power has been one of the most controversial reflections of the failings in the UK democratic system. Turning their back on pre election pledges the Liberal Democrats sold off a huge amount of their voter base, and are unlikely to perform well in the forthcoming election. But how do fees impact ordinary people? Both through the tax money afforded to the exchequer and the huge debt placed upon individuals, Cameron's neoliberal philosophy for further education is proving to be wrong in so many ways.

The restructuring of the student loan system and fee repayment was intended as part of Cameron's austerity measures to 'cut the deficit' and balance the books, however the huge debt placed on those taking less prestigious courses has ultimately not been repayed to the exchequer and as such the government lose out on more than under the previous system. Since implementation
of the new system the percentage of loan money written off due to non payment has risen by over 20%. More than half of the monies loaned is not being collected due to the lack of real value gained by many courses, as graduates fail to earn enough to repay based on the lending agreement.

So what is the solution? Vocational utility with regards to degree courses offer an alternative which tailors the education system more successfully to the job market. It is a simple projection to say that much of the money lost by the exchequer in write offs is lost from less prestigious courses which do not have adequate vocational utility. For instance, computer science related courses had a 10% unemployment rate in the last statistics released, based on this estimation, the courses which have a clear low employment rate and graduate earning potential could be charged more in tuition, in order to dissuade people from taking on these courses: whereas courses such as law and education, which have a very high employment rate, could be charged less in fees.

This would push exceptional students into courses which benefit the jobs market as we have exceptional people in competitive arenas. It would also serve to weaken the philosophy introduced by New Labour that University is the best option for the majority of students. Many courses introduced in the last 15 years do not reflect value in the jobs market particularly with the need for tuition induced debt. A tuition system better tailored to the changing job market in the UK would offer high performers a better deal, intelligent students who make good decisions about future markets better vocational utility and would make those who University may not be the best option for look more at other options. We need a system which educates people that University is an option amongst many, not the option over all others.

Do you agree? Leave your comments below.

Sunshine on Leith: Scottish Independence and a revitalised left.

As we approach the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014, many have argued the practicalities of an independent Scotland, with the major parties in Westminster claiming that they would deny Scotland the pound in an attempt to scare off voters worried about Scotland's economic stability were they to 'go it alone'. These practicalities have been defended and argued by Scottish politicians, calling Westminster's bluff on whether it would devalue the pound by ejecting Scotland in such a manner, but it is not the practicality of freedom Scotland should worry about.

The wealth of benefits Scotland would take from independence are varied and important. Becoming a non-nuclear state, joining the majority of the rest of the world and in realist terms, decreasing the risk to itself from outside powers as it steps back from international politics to focus on development at home is one, it's ability to cultivate Scottish resources for the benefit of Scots and to develop its own relationships with the rest of Europe are others. Most importantly however, the electoral makeup of the Scottish Parliament sees 55% of MSPs coming from the 'left' of the m
ain parties in Westminster (SNP and the Green Party). With only 15 members from the far right conservatives. Whilst the SNP and Labour wouldn't be described as 'real' lefty parties, they promote a far more social democratic ideology than the Westminster leadership, and Scottish Labour electorally see much of their support coming from traditional, pre-Blair labourites as opposed to new, neoliberal labour in the south. The dominance of more social democratic parties in Scotland offers hope not only for an independent Scotland, but for the whole of Britain. 

The abandonment of Clause 4 and the socialist principles of the labour party by Blair in order to make the party appeal to the middle ground in England is something which has damaged the left in Westminster, this doesn't look to be changing anytime soon - Miliband today still subscribes to privatisation of major public services and a largely neoliberal economic strategy. This abandonment of socialist priniciples by the traditional left leadership in Britain, coupled with the difficulties posed by the first past the post electoral system in allowing for small party growth to affect real change has meant the UK parliament is virtually devoid of any strong left wing voice in voting terms. Aside from relics of old labour who still occupy back benches such as Dennis Skinner, who has recently been voted off labour's party council, and single activists such as George Galloway, the House of Commons is almost devoid of any lefty voices. But this could all change should Scotland gain independence.

The development projects which the SNP have promoted as the benefits of an independent Scotland will, if enacted, provide stark contrast to the austerity being imposed on England and Wales. Social development in Scotland and a growing state, contrasted with rising costs in higher education, and social budgets being slashed south of the border could create a shop window effect which has the potential to revitalise the weak left in Westminster. It may get worse before it gets better, but sunshine on leith could provide a new dawn for the rest of Britain.

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

The Assault on Gaza and a New Soluton

The recent assault on Gaza inspired by the killings of three Israeli teenagers in June of this year have led to a huge swell in support for the people of Gaza and Palestine from many sources in the West. An initial continuation of the BBC's pro Israeli stance has now weakened with some more balanced coverage coming from many Western media outlets.

Image from ICAHD illustrating Israeli
demolition of Palestinian homes

Since the beginning of the Israeli assault on the Gaza strip, 'Operation Protective Edge', the death toll in Gaza tops 200. The densely populated area has been constantly bombarded by airstrikes leaving many innocents dead, yet the idea of sanctions against Israel has not appeared as an option for Western allies. John Kerry has called only for ceasefire talks between both sides with Obama promoting Egypt as a power broker due to their new President being 'less conciliatory towards Hamas' than his predecessor. This seems a weak response to a conflict which has seen no Israeli deaths from Palestinian rocket attacks (CNN) compared to such large amounts of civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. Continued support for the Netanyahu government who promote such violent, indiscriminate responses to Palestinian revolt is both irresponsible and immoral. This is a government who continue to demolish Palestinian settlements and deny Palestinians human rights. (as articulated by the image on the right)

Since the formation of the Israeli state, its relationship with the Western powers who once colonised it, has been incredibly irresponsible on the West's part. After Britain abandoned its colonial post and Truman supported the creation of a Jewish state in the 1940s, the West has continually supported a state with a horrendous human rights record, displacing Palestinians and disallowing them basic civil rights, the UN dual state resolution (181) can be seen to have now failed - Israel is continually encroaching upon Palestinian settlements and now has effective sovereignty over the territory. This unilateral support continues up to this day - in the third presidential debate of 2012, both Obama and Romney committed to supporting Israel militarily and politically with no conditions given.

This support of a violent, irresponsible Israeli government has to stop now. With continued breaches of human rights in Gaza and the West Bank it is up to the international community to pressure leaders into finding a new solution. Should the West abandon its policy of support for Israel, promote a new solution for the territory of Palestine which promotes civil rights for all and a consensus based single government between Israelis and Palestinians. For the best of the people, and to move away from the dangerous policies the West creates for itself by allowing Zionism and Hamas' brand of Arab nationalism to be seen as the most viable means for leadership in the area, why not promote a single state solution? Why not promote human rights and a move away from the right wing rhetoric spouted by both sides in the last few weeks?

Does a single state offer a better solution for the people of
Palestine? Please leave your comments and thoughts in the section below.

The 12th Man: The Orange Order vs. The People

On the weekend that has been billed to be the most infamous Twelfth in years, possibly since Drumcree, the question still remains as to why the Orange Order seems to motivate such support in modern Ireland.

Robinson recently failed to condemn intimidation
 of a Nigerian man in East Belfast

The last 18 months have seen growing discontent amongst Unionist communities over issues such as flags, housing and dealing with the past - leading to several examples of racist attacks and protests over flags and symbols. Peter Robinson's reaction to this has been to run and hide from voters, fearing a backlash should he be seen to accept new reforms whilst doing little to prevent them.

In recent weeks with the growing publicity around the Parades Commission's decision to disallow the Ligoniel Bands to pass Ardoyne, Robinson has staunchly backed the Order in a judicial review of parading and backed a 'graduated response'. This is not a new tactic from the Unionist political class. 

A retreat to Orangeism and trust in the 'orange machine' has been a tactic used by Unionists as far back as Carson, whenever the Unionist political class feel under threat. After Home Rule the Order were used to destroy the labour movement, a movement helping both working class Catholics and Protestants, and promote sectarianism. These divide and conquer tactics have been typical ever since, Orange manipulation in a Protestant middle class dominated media corrupted the early civil rights movements and Housing Action Committees in Derry in the late 60s, claiming IRA involvement and motives of partition in what was really a workers and residents rights movement. 

The laughable 'Ulster Covenant' mock up at the press conference of Unionist leaders was a clear example of a retreat into Sectarian divisions and promotion of old jingoism. This clearly shows that promotion of the outdated and discriminatory values of the Order is Robinson's 'siege mentality' reaction to retain the Protestant vote. Sectarian carve ups in electoral politics have not been uncommon even in recent years and it is clear recent reluctance to crack down on extremist elements amongst Loyalist communities is due to a wish to retain what the DUP believe to be the 'core Protestant vote' and maintain their relevance as a party of conflict. 

We can only hope that in the coming weeks the reaction to whatever events occur on the Twelfth weekend, (at time of writing 3 people have been stabbed in Belfast on the 11th night) the reaction is stronger than the action from Orangeism, and the people can finally abandon old conservative Unionism and move on as a single community. The coming years of Tory austerity policy and hard times could see a return back to the Troubles of Northern Ireland, or it could finally see a United labour movement abandon old divisions and move on together. If that progress is to be made however, the outdated discriminatory politics of the Orange Order and those who follow it must be removed from the face of society. 

Do you agree? Post your views in the comments section below.