Monthly Archives: December 2012

Yes, it IS right to point fingers at Indian culture for its rape epidemic

Sometimes people miss the wood for the trees. Owen Jones says that ‘Sexual violence is not a cultural phenomenon in India – it is endemic everywhere’.

As Owen summarises a key strand of thinking, one that many have referred me to, I think its worth challenging as it can be counter-productive.

1. No one had said rape is an India-only problem. Neither the Reuters blog post nor the Telegraph news piece Owen doesn’t link to cover the issue sneeringly. Both are balanced pieces.

I’ve not yet read one piece in the media that says violence against women and/or rape is exclusively concentrated with Indian men, and that western societies are utopias in contrast. Until this becomes a narrative I see no need to become knee-jerkingly defensive.

2. It’s counter-productive to lump all countries together when they have different cultures, laws, biases and records on protecting (or not) women. It would be ludicrous for example to say both Sweden and India are doing the same on violence against women.

The reason why campaigners point out that it is way better to be a woman in Canada than India is because they want the latter to improve and challenge its own record. If you disregard the differences then there is no pressure on countries to improve their laws.

3. Violence against women is a cultural problem. There is no getting away from this fact. It is culture that leads to a country’s laws and culture that discourages or encourages this violence. And it is this mentality and culture we need to challenge if we want people to behave differently.

Jenny McConnel summarised this perfectly on my Facebook wall yesterday:

It is culture (education, religion, media etc) that sends the messages to men that women are sexual objects, and somehow less equal than men. It is culture that builds the masculine ideal; which includes violence, controll and domination. (You must remember that men rape men and women can rape men. The same with domestic abuse, women aren’t always the victim.)
By saying it is a ‘male’ problem, you imply that it is somehow hardwired into their brains from birth, just because they possess a penis rather than a vagina.

Of course such views are also prevalent in other countries, but South Asia is getting worse and a huge proportion of humanity lives there. It is imperative on all of us to loudly show solidarity with the women there who want to be heard, instead of hiding behind moral relativism and fear of sounding ‘Orientalist’.

4. Trying to avoid talking about India lets the government and many Indians off the hook. This unwillingness to point fingers for fear of looking racist is counter-productive because it allows some Indians and their government to brush the problem under the carpet and pretend things are the same as in Canada. They’re not. To see meaningful change you have to prod and poke and expose.

India has a woman problem – that’s not just me saying it but Indian women themselves. Listen to them. Or instead of Rashmee Roshan-Lall you could ask Urvashi Butalia. Or see how Shazia Nigar points fingers. Some Indian women even want chemical castration as an option.

Lastly – I’m not saying this is an Indian-only problem either. I would be equally outraged if it were to happen here too, but it happens much more in India. It also seems hypocritical to point out that Uganda and Iran have a terrible record against gays, and Israel has against Arabs, while trying to avoid pointing fingers at India (or Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka for that matter – they all have very similar cultures).

It would be rather sad if people avoided showing solidarity with women who want to challenge Indian culture to change, for fear of looking racist. That is a road paved with good intentions going straight to hell. Come and join the Southall Black Sisters demo on 7th January.

Report: paying a Living Wage could save UK billions

The analysis from the Resolution Foundation and the IPPR think tanks to be published early in the new year is the most detailed examination of the potential impact of the living wage on the public finances yet.

The living wage is a pay level calculated as the minimum hourly rate for a basic but acceptable standard of living and currently set at £7.45 outside London and £8.55 in the capital.

The new analysis suggests that its introduction nationally would add around £6.5 billion to the gross annual earnings of the country’s employees.

However, the report shows that the Treasury would collect more than half of the initial financial gains from a living wage – around £3.6 billion – in the form of higher income tax payments and national insurance contributions, as well as lower spending on benefits and tax credits.

But the study also examines the extra costs to the public purse of paying a living wage to all public sector workers. It suggests that wage costs would increase by more than £1.3 billion – leaving an overall public saving of more than £2 billion.

As a start, the report will recommend, all Whitehall departments and London boroughs should pay their staff at least the living wage by April 2015 and explore the costs of paying sub-contracted staff the same rate.

The London weighting means that most public sector workers already earn at or above the London living wage, so introducing the living wage for all staff would cost relatively little in the capital but would set a precedent for others to consider following. Only six London boroughs currently are accredited living wage employers -Lewisham, Islington, Camden, Lambeth, Hounslow, and Southwark.

Five million people are paid less than the living wage, three million of whom are women. Yet more than 85 per cent have permanent contracts. More than 3 million households (13 per cent) contain at least one adult earning less than the living wage.

Fewer than 45,000 workers have achieved a living wage as a result of recent campaigns.

These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas

The AR-15 style assault rifle, the weapon of choice in both the Colorado shooting and the recent Newtown massacre, has seen a huge jump in sales across the US since the incidents.

Many Americans even got them for Christmas presents.

Here are some tweets of them rejoicing or even showing off their newly received assault rifles. One of those who got an assault rifle for Christmas is apparently just 10 years old.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! We’re taking a break

The Liberal Conspiracy blog is run by a people who cannot avoid alcohol in large quantities* over Christmas and the New Years’ holidays.

It would imprudent of us to post lots of content then, or write any editorials than to say Merry Christmas!

See you in the new year; don’t do all the things we would do. And it’s totally legitimate to blame any Christmas mishaps on the Tories – the internet said so.

—–
* This may or may not reflect just the editor’s preferences

Woman banned from FB after threats is still targeted

Last month Liberal Conspiracy reported on the Facebook banning of Icelandic women’s rights campaigner after she reposted a death threat that was made against her.

Hildur Lilliendahl Viggósdóttir was booted off the social network for 30 days for taking a screenshot of a death threat that was made against her.

But now she’s been banned from Facebook again for an old link to the same screenshot.

Ms Viggósdóttir got in touch with Liberal Conspiracy and explained the latest twist in the online campaign against her:

Late October I posted a picture of a death threat made against me. I was reported, the picture was removed and I was blocked for 30 days.

Before I was blocked I linked to said picture in a Facebook-comment. I then finished my 30 day ban and a week later or so, I was reported for this (then probably 5-6 weeks old) comment. Posting screenshots may be against the rules, fine. But the link in question had been dead for weeks. The picture had been removed at least 5 weeks prior so there was nothing in the comment worthy of a block – or even removal.

She says she’d had no luck getting in touch with Facebook but wanted someone to review her case and explain what she did wrong.

Does she think Facebook are singling her out?

I know Facebook is not targeting me specifically. They’re hardly gonna lose much sleep over one powerless girl in Reykjavík, what with their billion users and all.

I’m being targeted by some little non-organized group of boys who want me silenced because they’re afraid that otherwise I’ll call them out on their sexist bullshit.

She told Liberal Conspiracy that she believes “stupid rules” should be challenged and only by breaking them she has managed to draw people’s attention to the “hypocrisy that supports misogynistic views and behavior”.

After he story made the national news in Iceland, the man who made the threat against Ms Viggósdóttir suspended his profile.

She wants Facebook to have more staff available to review problems such as hers, where women being targeted aren’t so quickly banned.

She added:

As every outspoken feminist on the internet, I’ve been subject to a lot of harassment and violence online, in person and with phone calls this year. I get Facebook-messages and emails with name callings and threats of violence all the time. Very recently someone posted this to 9gag. The picture was taken in 2006 after a random assault by girls in a bar.

The day before yesterday I got an anonymous email in the middle of the night, in which I was told to stop being a cunt or else fall down a flight of stairs.

She has also received accolades too. Ms Viggósdóttir is up for “hero of the year” award by an Icelandic newspaper. Ironically, the public can only vote through Facebook.

Labour call for asylum for Afghan interpreters

Yesterday, the Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper wrote an article expanding on Labour’s policies on immigration, building on Ed Miliband’s speech last week.

Hidden away in the article was this startling line:

That is why I am calling on the Government to offer a settlement scheme for Afghan interpreters who helped British troops and now face threats from the Taliban as the troops pull out.

That sounds like a fairly significant announcement. Bizarrely, the media has mostly ignored the story.

So I called up Yvette Cooper’s office to ask for more details.

A spokesperson from the office confirmed to Liberal Conspiracy that Labour is calling on the government to offer asylum to Afghani interpreters who have worked with British Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

The policy obviously require consultation with British commanders on the ground as well as the interpreters themselves. But if they feared for their lives or those of their families, I was told, the interpreters should be welcomed in the UK.

But it isn’t clear how many would be eligible under the scheme. It is estimated that 600 interpreters have worked for Coalition forces, but there are no specific numbers for just British forces yet.

The last Labour government was pushed to implement a similar policy a few years ago for Iraqi interpreters who had helped British armed forces, following a campaign by bloggers and MPs.

But the Iraqi interpreters policy was too restrictive, the spokesperson acknowledged. It ended far too quickly and was more focused ‘on keeping people out than judging who needed our help’.

Yvette Cooper’s office stressed that they did not want to encourage a brain drain of well-educated Afghans to the UK, but if an interpreter feared for their lives then they should get asylum.

“They’ve been though the hardest citizenship test you can envisage.”

UPDATE: We’ve received a statement from Yvette Cooper

We owe a debt to those Afghans who have worked alongside our soldiers, some of whom have been injured in roadside bombs or gunfire. In some instances interpreters have faced threats from the Taliban against them and their families, and as we begin leaving Afghanistan we cannot leave behind people who face threats from the Taliban after risking their lives to help Britain.

I am calling on the Home Secretary to support a scheme that provides settlement to Afghans who have worked alongside our servicemen and women. Like the settlement programme agreed for Iraqi staff and their dependents under the last Government, it should ensure the Afghan staff are helped to settle and are not subject to the long waits and employment bans currently in place.

Examples of Afghan interpreters injured on the frontline, and then waiting two years in asylum queues, or even rejected, while worrying about Taliban threats to their families are very troubling. Our allies do not treat those who work for them in this way, and neither should Britain. These interpreters have already shown great commitment to British interests. If someone fears for their family’s safety as a result of working with British troops, and helping to fight for Britain’s long-term security, we should act.

Why the ‘pleb-gate’ affair should also worry the Left

by Jonathan Kent

Forget what Andrew Mitchell actually said. Put aside the stubborn suspicion he hasn’t wholly come clean. The damage was done not because he actually said ‘pleb’ but because people found themselves so readily able to believe he did, because it resonated, because it seemed to sum up his party’s attitude. That’s not changed.

This is about the police.

Michael Crick’s Channel 4 report casts serious doubt not just on the police account of events but also raises the possibility that police officers actively conspired to unseat a cabinet minister.

The police log that ascribed the ‘pleb’ remark to Mitchell also claimed that “several members of public [were] present” during the incident. So too did a statement from ‘a member of the public’. The two accounts apparently closely corroborated each other on that and several other details.

Yet CCTV footage seems to show no members of the public outside the gates. It doesn’t even show Mitchell behaving in a way that would lend credence to the reports of a tirade. Of course it would be no surprise if two accounts had tallied if they were founded on the truth, but if two accounts carry very similar false accounts it must raise the strong possibility that, at the very least, that the author of one version had access to the other.

Now we are told not only that the independent witness was not there but that he wasn’t a member of the public. He is apparently a serving police officer.

Furthermore Crick’s report contrasted a recording made by Mitchell of a meeting with Police Federation representatives with their account of the meeting. The comparison certainly seemed to suggest that the Police Federation account misrepresented the meeting in a way that put Mitchell in a very poor light.

When the contents of the police the report were leaked it wasn’t to the Guardian or the Mirror, it was to The Sun. The Sun, already locked in a tussle with the political class, published; not too many questions asked. Together the police and News International took a major political scalp just when they most needed to. It served as a reminder to Downing Street that both could bite back.

Mitchell was one of the less sympathetic figures in a government that no one who believes in social justice had much sympathy for in the first place. So some on the left might be tempted to simply sit back and enjoy the show. That would be a mistake.

No one in politics, left or right, should be anything but deeply disturbed at the possibility that part of the state’s security apparatus is meddling in politics. It was bad enough that police officers and News International journalists apparently conspired to invade the privacy of victims of crime and people in public life alike.

Too often the left has found itself on the rough end of the criminal justice system. From Blair Peach to environmental protesters left pregnant by undercover cops the police have appeared to some to take sides, pursuing their own agenda and that it’s a right wing one.

The possibility that they’re working to bring down our elected representatives is way more worrying.

Four quick thoughts on British hostility towards immigration

Sunny draws attention to the "awful" fact that the public are overwhelmingly hostile (pdf) to immigration.

This raises the question: what if anything can be done to change this?

One possibility is to appeal not merely to the facts, but to the evidence of people's own eyes.

A poll (pdf) by Ipsos Mori has found that although 76% of people think immigration is a big problem in Britain, only 18% think it a big problem in their own area, and twice as many say it is not a problem at all.

However, several things make me fear that an evidence-based approach won't suffice to change people's minds:

» Hostility to immigration does not come merely from the minority who lose out in the labour market. People from higher social classes and the retired are as opposed to immigration as others. And even in the 60s, when we had as full employment as we're likely to get, there was widespread anti-immigration feeling. This suggests we can't rely upon improving labour market conditions to improve attitudes to immigration.

» There's little hope of attitudes changing as older "bigots" die off. The Yougov poll found that 68% of 18-24 year-olds support the Tories' immigration cap. 

» Antipathy to immigration has been pretty stable (in terms of polling if not the violence of its expression) since at least the 1960s. This suggests there are deep long-lasting motives for it; I'd call these cognitive biases such as the status quo and ingroup biases.

» There's an echo mechanism which helps stabilize opinion at a hostile level. Politicians and the media, knowing the public are opposed to immigration, tell them what they want to hear and – a few bromides aside – don't challenge their opinion; one of the many appalling features of "Duffygate" was Gordon Brown's abject failure to challenge Mrs Duffy's hostility to immigration. (The BBC is also guilty here: "impartial" debates about immigration often seem to consist of the two main parties arguing about how to control it.)

All this makes me ambivalent about "calls for a debate" about immigration. Part of me thinks: bring it on – let's talk about the facts. But another part of me thinks that rightists just want to raise the salience of an issue on which public opinion is on their side.

There is, though, a deeper issue here. The fact that public opinion is hugely and stably opposed to immigration suggests that there is a tension between liberty – immigration is an issue of freedom – and democracy.

Poll shows voters blame banks for British economy

Who is to blame the for austerity and cuts to public services and social security?

Most polling companies only offer voters the choice between this Tory government and the last Labour government.

But could that be misleading? A new poll released today by Survation shows it is.

When allocating “blame” for the financial problems in the UK a significant majority of British voters put the most blame at the door of “the banking industry”.

71% of people do not primarily blame the Labour government of the time for the 2008 financial crash.

This should give Labour more confidence when confronted with the common accusation that this government has to deal with the “mess that Labour created”.

Neil Foster, director of Progressive Polling, who commissioned the poll, said of the findings:

Today’s poll shows that a clear majority of the voting public don’t buy the idea that the last Labour government was most to blame for the 2008 financial crash. Labour can be more confident in defending its past record while at the same time and be bold with its plans to reform the banking system and outline important safeguards for the future.

Survation interviewed a representative sample of 1003 adults in Great Britain by online self-completion December 14th 2012.  Results were weighted to fit the demographic profile of all adults.

The full tables can be downloaded from here.