Giving back the poppy

I won't be wearing a poppy this year. It is not that I am unsympathetic to the sacrifices of our soldiers. Its not that I don't understand, that the freedom I express in writing this, has been bought with their blood. It is not that I am not grateful. But symbols are very precious things, their meaning is never fixed; it is nuanced, balanced and delicate. The poppy above all symbols is a fragile representation of what they gave, of the place and fields in which they fought, of the blood that they shed, the numbers in which they fell and finally and hopefully, in the flowers and blossom of their rebirth and growth.

Its not because of them that I shall not wear a poppy this year, it is because of us and what we are letting it  become. Somehow the meaning of the poppy is shifting. It is no longer simply a symbol of what they gave in the name of freedom . Its hard to define but you can see it in the change in the culture of the poppy and they way in which it is being used. There is the debate around whether or not the England football team could wear a poppy in a friendly match against Spain. It became a matter for parliament, a struggle against the intransigence of FIFA. When in truth, FIFA's policy on the wearing of symbols and icons has been instrumental in depoliticising football. What do FIFA do now when the Serbians and the Croats want to remember their war dead the next time they play?

Then there is the sartorial fascism of the BBC and other major media outlets who have effectively made it compulsory for people to wear poppy's if they are taking part in interviews. This might seem trivial, but when used  in this way, the poppy is not an icon of freedom, it is a badge of conformity and coercion. There is something in that sense of compulsion and obligation that reminds me of the people who used to go around handing out feathers to young men who hadn't volunteered. It reminds me of the difference between the soldier and the jingoist, the people who pay the price for war and the culture and politics that sends them there. The people of Britain have always been mobilised in the name of freedom and most of the time freedom expresses itself in the little things we do and the choices we make in the context of our everyday lives, such as what we might choose to wear.

But perhaps the greatest threat to the delicate symbolism of the poppy comes from our government and its institutions. The announcement yesterday that the government was banning 'Muslims against Crusades' might seem to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Their, 'Hell for Heroes' campaign is offensive and their plan to burn poppies on Armistice Day equally so. Yet should burning poppies and challenging the justification of western military intervention in other parts of the world necessarily make them a proscribed organisation? Perhaps and perhaps not, but by announcing their decision on November 10th and by linking the proscription to the burning of poppies, the government made it almost impossible for human rights groups to challenge the decision. The symbolic power of the poppy as the preferred icon of the jingoist made the decision untouchable. And today the appropriation of the poppy seems all the more complete when we read the following tweet from the Metropolitan Police:

 ' Individuals seeking to disrupt the 2 minute silence will be dealt with robustly '

Somehow you can't help but feel that its time to remember what they fought for and give the poppy back

'...Poppies whose roots are in man's veins
Drop, and are ever dropping,
But mine in my ear is safe---
Just a little white with the dust.'
Isaac Rosenberg

Watson's mafia jibe, the Murdochs and the British State

James Murdoch may have got off relatively lightly the other day, and there are some who think that it is thanks in part to Tom Watson. Whilst Tom and other members of the committee adopted an aggressive stance toward Murdoch, ultimately their attacks failed to land on the issues that really mattered. By comparing News International to the Mafia, Watson may well have created news head lines but they were headlines and comparisons that some believe are a distraction . At this point in time, the real issue and the area where Murdoch seems most vulnerable, centre's on the matter and possibility of wilful blindness.

Murdoch's argument in relation to this issue, has been that the size and structure of the organisation has made it impossible for him to have oversight of everything going on in relation to this issue. At a certain level this seems perfectly plausible but in the context of this case it means that by seperating themselves in this way the Murdoch's have been able to operate a strategy of plausible deniability. Such a strategy would repeatedly allow James Murdoch to plead innocence or ignorance. Of course at this point in time we do not know that this was the case and Murdoch's ignorance may be an inevitable consequence of a management style and structure that is inefficient, but it could also be deliberate and have the advantage of leaving the more unsavoury aspects of running  British tabloids to the likes of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulsen. What is probable, is that when things started to go wrong the involvement of the News Corporation executives will have been very carefully managed and particular care will have been taken to control the audit trail. People may have presumed that James Murdoch was fully in the know, but as he carefully pointed out in his evidence, that presumption has been based on supposition and perception not documentary evidence. 

A strategy of wilful blindness would also have been helped by the cosy nature of the News International's relationship with the British political elite and the Metropolitan Police and it is this that should probably concern us the most. Time and again in his evidence Murdoch cleverly acknowledged that they should have looked at themselves harder and sooner - but didn't do so because they had placed too great a dependence on the Met to bring wrong doing to their attention. At the moment we can only presume why police officers decided that the original hacking investigation was an isolated incident, when now the evidence for systemic hacking would seem to be overwhelming. The sad truth of the matter is that the hacking scandal is not simply a product of the actions of an over mighty news organisation; It is as much a scandal of British politics and of policing. Without their privileged position within the British political and policing establishment, News International would never have been in a position to contain the original crime and prevent rigorous examination of their activities.  News International was and is not the Mafia - but there are profound questions about its relationship with the British state that were not asked, and issues of patronage, privilege and protection that are yet to be explored. Calling James Murdoch a mafia boss may well have been a distraction - but in the longer term it is a comparison that may yet come home to roost. 

So whilst Tom and the committee may have failed to secure the outright evidence that they sought, you can't help but feel that the Murdoch's and a number of as yet unnamed figures have been backed a little further into a cul de sac, from which there is no way out.   

Occupy and St Pauls

The media is doing what the media does so well, reducing something complex to a set of reductionist statements and headlines. The occupation at St Pauls is being portrayed as a crisis within the church when in reality it is no more than an expression of a tension that is inherent or even essential to its existence. The Church, indeed any Church, is both a set of ideas and values, and an institutional and organisational presence. The arguments that have taken place within the Church of England this week are a reflection of that reality and of the commitment of the Church to maintain both its values and its institutions.

The protesters have convincingly argued that the values of their campaign are in keeping with many of the  underlying values and principles of the Church. Social justice, equality and human rights are all integral to the values of both. The difficulty for the Church is that as an institution its is deeply embedded within the cultural constraints of the society in which we live. Whilst Occupy can and should adopt a more radical approach to the issue of social injustice the Church can realistically only adopt an approach that is at best progressive. The Church of England is what it says on the tin - an institution that is integral part of this country and of the values which are central to it. Whereas Occupy is an expression of the anger that many of us have toward the exploitation of the people. These are not groups that are in opposition but allies in a common struggle.

Occupy St Pauls came about because the Movement and the Church share a commitment to social justice. The resignations are regretable, especially for the individuals concerned, but do not represent a crisis in the Church. The resignations are far more a reflection of its internal diversity and the commitment of its people to uphold to its values and its organisational sustainability, they are also a reflection of the decency of the Dean and his colleagues. As for the media thats totally missing the point... whats new.