The debate and discussion around Julian Assange's extradition is becoming increasingly polarised and destructive for progressives. People, who would normally share a perspective on the importance of Wikileaks and the vital role that it has played in exposing the machinations of the state, are now at each others throats. Supporters of Assange are being labelled misogynists and those who believe that Miss A and Miss W have a right to have their allegations heard are now feminist extremists.
As somebody who believes that Julian Assange's work in setting up Wikileaks has made him one of the most important political figures of his generation, my instinctive response to the Swedish and UK government's respective positions was cynical. Rather than focusing on the extensive political implications of what Wikileaks has disclosed, Assange had become the story. Following the accusations the discussion was no longer the conduct of our troops in Iraq, it was about condoms and consent. The Swedish and UK governments might claim to be acting in the name of justice - but we all know that their interest in justice was being encouraged by the long reach of the US government and its agencies. Then there are the inconsistencies in the way in which the enquiries are being conducted, that have been so effectively outlined by Naomi Wolf. All of this points to a level of political manipulation that perhaps should no longer surprise us. But this affair is not just about Julian Assange and the threat that he poses to disingenuous governments, it is also about two women who have made statements alleging sexual misconduct and their right to have those allegations heard..
As a supporter of the work of Wikileaks this puts me and others in a difficult position, should we show our loyalty to the cause by rejecting the allegations out of hand as politically motivated? The problem is that in doing so we would be judging the women as liars and worse. This is what many of Julian's supporters have already done, in their eyes he is innocent and Miss A and Miss W are players in an elaborate and carefully planned honey trap. What people need to accept, is that it is possible that Miss A and Miss W are telling the truth. The reality of the situation is that none of us know the facts of the case and non of us are in a position to make an informed judgement about what happened. The truth will only ever be found in court - if the Swedish Authorities believe that he has a case to answer, which at the moment is not certain.
The argument against Julian returning to Sweden is that doing so would put him at risk of extradition to the US and the type of persecution that Bradley Manning is currently enduring. It is undoubtedly this fear that was instrumental in his decision to seek asylum with the Ecuadorians and given the vehemence with which he is viewed in the the US you can understand his motivation. Unfortunately it is a strategy that has all the hallmarks of one that was developed in panic and in the long term it is likely to prove ineffective in protecting Julian from the long arm of the US Agencies on whose doorstep he will be living. What seeking asylum in Ecuador will certainly not do is protect his reputation and his legacy, which is being massively damaged by the lack of clarity and closure.
In the light of the current impasse the rhetoric on the social networks is becoming increasingly vitriolic. More and more people are confusing loyalty to a cause with loyalty to a man and more and more people are conflating loyalty to their gender with justice. Whilst Julian Assange might believe that claiming political asylum is in his best interests, what would really be in his interest would be clarity and closure. Whether innocent or guilty of what Miss A and Miss W have accused him of, the only way forward for Julian lies in Stockholm, where he can either prove his innocence or ask forgiveness.
Monday, 20 August 2012
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
UniLad, Lads and a Culture of Rape
As men we know what men are. We know what they talk about, when there are no women around. The language and the borderline, or overtly misogynistic culture that seems endemic in 'all male' environments. So in some ways, the tone and references made in Unilad should not have surprised or shocked me, but they did. They shocked me, because the 'Unilad' community think that talking about women in this way is acceptable to the society in which they live. To be precise, the surprise is that this kind of language is not exceptional and hidden, it has become embedded in the context of their everyday lives - it has become normal and in seeing it as normal they feel able to share it with the wider world. It is this presumption of normality on the part of the men concerned that is perhaps most disturbing.
The Unilad website and Facebook page has angered a great number of people and true to form the usual response to any kind of challenge, is to state that the whole thing was some form of joke and that people or feminists who don't get it should get back in the 'kitchen'. But they are of course missing the point and failing to realise that their views and 'humour' play an important part in sustaining what can only be described as a culture of misogyny and rape. The statistics speak for themselves.
In the 12 months between 2008 and 2009 over 43,000 people went to the police and stated that they had been subject to a serious sexual assault, most of these will have been women. Because of the appallingly low conviction rates for rape (which between 2007-2008 was only 6.7%), the government estimates that up to 95% of serious sexual crime goes unreported. On that basis we can estimate that in 2008-2009 there may have been as many 860000 serious sexual assaults - most of which will have been against women. So if we accept that the real level of sexual crime could be up to 20 times greater than the reported rate - then a woman is far more likely to be sexually assaulted than involved in personal theft, she is more likely to be sexually assaulted than have her car stolen and she is far more likely to be the victim of serious sexual assault than she is to be burgled. In short, serious sexual assault is something that probably affects a far greater number of women in this country than we realise.
So the rape, sexual assault and denigration of women- is not something that I think that the Lads of UniLad or elswhere should be joking about - because lads - the prevalence of serious sexaul assault in our society means that the victims have every chance of being your sister, your mother and your future wife. But you will never know and they will never feel able to tell you, because deep down they will know what you are - part of the problem.
The Unilad website and Facebook page has angered a great number of people and true to form the usual response to any kind of challenge, is to state that the whole thing was some form of joke and that people or feminists who don't get it should get back in the 'kitchen'. But they are of course missing the point and failing to realise that their views and 'humour' play an important part in sustaining what can only be described as a culture of misogyny and rape. The statistics speak for themselves.
In the 12 months between 2008 and 2009 over 43,000 people went to the police and stated that they had been subject to a serious sexual assault, most of these will have been women. Because of the appallingly low conviction rates for rape (which between 2007-2008 was only 6.7%), the government estimates that up to 95% of serious sexual crime goes unreported. On that basis we can estimate that in 2008-2009 there may have been as many 860000 serious sexual assaults - most of which will have been against women. So if we accept that the real level of sexual crime could be up to 20 times greater than the reported rate - then a woman is far more likely to be sexually assaulted than involved in personal theft, she is more likely to be sexually assaulted than have her car stolen and she is far more likely to be the victim of serious sexual assault than she is to be burgled. In short, serious sexual assault is something that probably affects a far greater number of women in this country than we realise.
So the rape, sexual assault and denigration of women- is not something that I think that the Lads of UniLad or elswhere should be joking about - because lads - the prevalence of serious sexaul assault in our society means that the victims have every chance of being your sister, your mother and your future wife. But you will never know and they will never feel able to tell you, because deep down they will know what you are - part of the problem.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Diane Abbott, cultural hegemony and the killing of Stephen Lawrence
The clever thing about so much of what happens in this country is that it happens with subtlety, and the issue of race and cultural identity is an area where some of that subtlety finds its most nuanced expression. We all know that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence are racists. They personify racism in its most crass and brutal form. We know that TV programmes such as Alf Garnett and Bless thy Neighbour were racist and we have learnt that the Metropolitan Police were or are institutionally racist. But are all white people racist as is implied by Diane Abbott's tweet.
The killing of Stephen Lawrence and the events that have followed it, represent many of the essential characteristics of the embedded nature of racism in the UK. The appalling hate expressed in the act and the recordings that the police made during their investigations are its most extreme manifestation. Then there is the overt racism of the police officers involved in the initial enquiry and the institutional racism that defended their practise. But perhaps the most disingenuous aspect, is the way in which Stephen Lawrence has become an icon of our (the white community's) absolution and redemption. By eulogising the work and struggle of Stephen's parents it seems as if we are trying to absolve ourselves of our complicity in sustaining the culture that killed him and that has kept his killers safe for a generation, and for some of them it will be longer. The conviction of two of his murderers is not evidence that Britain has finally become an intrinsically multi-racial and culturally inclusive society, it is evidence that we were ashamed of what had happened and have done our best to make amends for the Lawrences. But what we should never be allowed to believe, is that convicting them deals with the culture that killed him.
Stephen Lawrence was killed by racist thugs, who were protected by their friends and families and racist policemen; who in turn were employed by a racist institution, that was sustained by the racist beliefs of a society that believed that street crime was a problem for the black community. We might want to believe that Stephen Lawrence's murder couldn't happen again or that racially motivated policing doesn't unfairly affect the black community. But it is an expression of our racism that people die, get stopped and are arrested because they are black. It is also an expression of our racism that we still accept that this is acceptable or deny its existence. But our racism doesn't stop there and a much more subtle example of how racism works in this country was demonstrated during the last election.
The interlinking and articulation of the issues of racism and immigration has a long and well documented history. The Duffy Gate, scandal that arguably cost Gordon Brown the election, was a classic example of the extent to which racially ambiguous beliefs have come to be accepted as legitimate. Gillian Duffy's association of mass immigration and the exploitation the benefit system may or may not make her a bigoted woman but they were views that were based on a racially stereotyped perception of eastern European immigration. What was most revealing about the response to this was not that Gordon Brown had referred to her as a bigoted woman, but rather that there was universal acceptance that there was nothing wrong with anything she had said. And what has been almost as shocking, has been the way in which Gillian Duffy has been feted as a heroin of the working class. It is this acceptance, that is indicative of the extent to which racial stereotyping is a norm that has become acceptable within our society.
And now the media has turned its attention on Diane Abbott for having the courage to state what is actually obvious. That an essentially white community is embedded within its culture and that is able to maintain its dominance by dividing and stereo-typing its minority communities.We have done it with the Jewish Community, the Irish Community and are still doing it with the Muslim and Black communities. Its nothing new, its recognised in the literature and as Stuart Hall has demonstrated, it is dominated by representations of black people as good or bad or as co-operative and unco-operative. You can all guess which category Diane Abbott falls into.
As a black MP, Diane Abbott has managed to survive in a society that is nowhere near as inclusive as it believes it is. Some things have improved, but the racism that killed Stephen and allows some of his murderers to stay free is sustained by the actions and acceptance of all of us. We all hear racist comments and then pretend we haven't, we all have racists in our families and do not condemn them. All that Diane has done is to speak up for a community that still experiences racism on an everyday basis. She has challenged the complacency of a dominant white community and been slapped down by a party that fails to understand that the struggle against racism has barely begun and that is now far too ready to tolerate racism in its support.
So to return to the implication behind Diane's tweet - that white people maintain their cultural hegemony through division and rule and that as such all white people are racist. Self evidently we are not all the kind of racist thug that kills and nor are we all the kind of racist whose practice would affect the conduct of a police investigation. I personally do not believe that stigmatising immigrants is an effective way of dealing with the debt crisis. However, I have never been stopped and searched and neither has my son, but I know that if I were a black man this would not be the case. But this injustice and the myriad other forms of discrimination that that are an integral characteristic of a multi-faceted black Britain have not stirred my outrage - I have remained a passive beneficiary of my community's cultural dominance. So does my tolerance of this injustice make me a racist? On occasions it probably does because even the passive tolerance of racism allows it to flourish and as it flourishes the community that is an integral part of who I am retains its hegemony.
The killing of Stephen Lawrence and the events that have followed it, represent many of the essential characteristics of the embedded nature of racism in the UK. The appalling hate expressed in the act and the recordings that the police made during their investigations are its most extreme manifestation. Then there is the overt racism of the police officers involved in the initial enquiry and the institutional racism that defended their practise. But perhaps the most disingenuous aspect, is the way in which Stephen Lawrence has become an icon of our (the white community's) absolution and redemption. By eulogising the work and struggle of Stephen's parents it seems as if we are trying to absolve ourselves of our complicity in sustaining the culture that killed him and that has kept his killers safe for a generation, and for some of them it will be longer. The conviction of two of his murderers is not evidence that Britain has finally become an intrinsically multi-racial and culturally inclusive society, it is evidence that we were ashamed of what had happened and have done our best to make amends for the Lawrences. But what we should never be allowed to believe, is that convicting them deals with the culture that killed him.
Stephen Lawrence was killed by racist thugs, who were protected by their friends and families and racist policemen; who in turn were employed by a racist institution, that was sustained by the racist beliefs of a society that believed that street crime was a problem for the black community. We might want to believe that Stephen Lawrence's murder couldn't happen again or that racially motivated policing doesn't unfairly affect the black community. But it is an expression of our racism that people die, get stopped and are arrested because they are black. It is also an expression of our racism that we still accept that this is acceptable or deny its existence. But our racism doesn't stop there and a much more subtle example of how racism works in this country was demonstrated during the last election.
The interlinking and articulation of the issues of racism and immigration has a long and well documented history. The Duffy Gate, scandal that arguably cost Gordon Brown the election, was a classic example of the extent to which racially ambiguous beliefs have come to be accepted as legitimate. Gillian Duffy's association of mass immigration and the exploitation the benefit system may or may not make her a bigoted woman but they were views that were based on a racially stereotyped perception of eastern European immigration. What was most revealing about the response to this was not that Gordon Brown had referred to her as a bigoted woman, but rather that there was universal acceptance that there was nothing wrong with anything she had said. And what has been almost as shocking, has been the way in which Gillian Duffy has been feted as a heroin of the working class. It is this acceptance, that is indicative of the extent to which racial stereotyping is a norm that has become acceptable within our society.
And now the media has turned its attention on Diane Abbott for having the courage to state what is actually obvious. That an essentially white community is embedded within its culture and that is able to maintain its dominance by dividing and stereo-typing its minority communities.We have done it with the Jewish Community, the Irish Community and are still doing it with the Muslim and Black communities. Its nothing new, its recognised in the literature and as Stuart Hall has demonstrated, it is dominated by representations of black people as good or bad or as co-operative and unco-operative. You can all guess which category Diane Abbott falls into.
As a black MP, Diane Abbott has managed to survive in a society that is nowhere near as inclusive as it believes it is. Some things have improved, but the racism that killed Stephen and allows some of his murderers to stay free is sustained by the actions and acceptance of all of us. We all hear racist comments and then pretend we haven't, we all have racists in our families and do not condemn them. All that Diane has done is to speak up for a community that still experiences racism on an everyday basis. She has challenged the complacency of a dominant white community and been slapped down by a party that fails to understand that the struggle against racism has barely begun and that is now far too ready to tolerate racism in its support.
So to return to the implication behind Diane's tweet - that white people maintain their cultural hegemony through division and rule and that as such all white people are racist. Self evidently we are not all the kind of racist thug that kills and nor are we all the kind of racist whose practice would affect the conduct of a police investigation. I personally do not believe that stigmatising immigrants is an effective way of dealing with the debt crisis. However, I have never been stopped and searched and neither has my son, but I know that if I were a black man this would not be the case. But this injustice and the myriad other forms of discrimination that that are an integral characteristic of a multi-faceted black Britain have not stirred my outrage - I have remained a passive beneficiary of my community's cultural dominance. So does my tolerance of this injustice make me a racist? On occasions it probably does because even the passive tolerance of racism allows it to flourish and as it flourishes the community that is an integral part of who I am retains its hegemony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)