We and They...

 ... or how Cameron's empty rhetoric demonstrates just why choice of language and substance behind it, is something we must judge and hold our politicians accountable by. 


Yes everyone's least favourite Moomin David Cameron made a speech this weekend at the 47th annual Munich Security Conference, that has sparked quite an uproar. The issues, about the threat of terrorism and extremist behaviour, are as you can imagine, quite sensitive topics and were handled with all the grace and gentility of a hand gliding hippo. And just for good measure, the timing turned out to be such a magnificent balls up that it could have been a scene right out of The Thick of It, coming just hours before the EDL marched on Luton in an anti Islamic Extremist demonstration.

The speech was of course picked apart by the press and Cameron critics to reveal it's weaker, more contentious aspects. Do not image that the entirety actually involved Oswald Mosley style black shirting, with fatwa baiting, jihad taunting slurs, arms flapping, foaming at the mouth and much gnashing of teeth. It did not. Yet from what I've just written, I bet you were picturing what such a scenario would be like, even just for a second. You see that's the power of language, it inspires and creates, and can be used to great effect, both in the positive and the negative. So when Mr Cameron, the leader of the coalition, stands in front of the world and spouts, we pay attention to the language, terminologies and analogies he employs, both as a means of revealing his own agenda, but also to see what message he is sending to the rest of the world as a representative of this country.

And it really doesn't read well. I'm afraid to say that this man, who couldn't even get a country united enough against one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in recent years, to vote him and his party into unshared government, is now lecturing on the need for a national unity in the face of 'failed multiculturalism'. And how does he go about this? A small excerpt;

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

In one sentence Mr Cameron has made harmful and counterproductive distinctions between segregated communities or 'they' as he so tactfully puts it, and 'we', what he later goes on to describe as the mainstream, and 'our values'. The language is alienating to say the least, talking as if the dreaded 'they' will not hear such utterances and assuming the like-mindedness of his audience.

But it goes so much deeper than this ham fisted language, which given it's tone was not surprisingly taken up that day by many EDL marchers as a sign of unity. There are startling failures in the speech in terms of content. At one point he speaks of the 'passive tolerance' of recent years. I can only assume he means the passive tolerance of New Labour, that saw some of the most regressive attacks on civil rights and freedoms in modern times all in the name of fighting extremism, and legislations which were opposed at the time by members of this coalition no less, on the grounds of civil liberties violations. Are we now to understand that these were too soft?

Then there's the sweeping assumptions that segregation leads to extremism and that extremism and forced marriage are intrinsically linked - to me Cameron's isolated and misplaced sentence on the issue of forced marriage in the midst of a speech on security, ignores the complexities of the issue and seems more like moral point scoring. Add to that the notion that there is such a thing as 'British values', that the mainstream is identifiable and attainable, all the while maintaining that there are problems with state sponsored multiculturalism and powerful segregation groups, but without going into any real specifics, and you have a speech that is holier than a nun at Easter.

Yet more importantly Cameron lacks real resolution; ensuring language attainment and National Citizen Service may sound nice, but this presumes that extremism is solely the responsibility of so called segregated community and reeks of assimilation rather than integration. In amongst the misrepresenting, the 'us and them' suggestiveness, are there solid plans to tackle poverty rates or immigration geography trends that one would assume lead to segregation (if of course this is even what causes extremism)? Not really, not unless you consider getting everyone in the country to hold hands at the proms to the chorus of Rule Britannia a plan, though even that might also be a slight issue Mr Cameron - as before you start on your venture into the Islamic community, you may well be wise to venture to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, hell, even half the north of England, where I think you'll find very different versions of national identity and 'our' values.

I ♥ my Library

Guest blogger Sarah writes about why she still loves the public library and thinks it should be retained as an important resource.

I was never a good student, in fact I was a very bad reader when I was little. My mam didn't have time to help us read and I remember struggling at school. But I always loved going to the library, mostly with my school. There was always something really exciting about seeing so many books in one place. I would always make a bee line for the collection of children's annuals, my favourites were the ones about kids TV programmes such as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and Captain Planet. They were a bit ragged, some had scribbles in them, but it was better than nothing, which was what we had at home.

My dad left my mam when I was 6 years old. We hardly saw him after that. When I was 10 my mam met a man who moved in with us. He was ok at first, but became very violent and abusive, to her and to us kids. It wasn't a happy home life for me and my sisters. My older sisters would spend more time at their friends and boyfriends but I didn't really have anywhere other than my gran's, but she didn't live close, so instead I'd walk to our town centre after school and at weekends and go to the library.

I remember just loving how quiet it was. I didn't have to fight for the TV remote, or make myself heard over all the voices at home. It was also a safe place to be, for a few hours at least. This continued well into my teens, even when other activities such as boys and drinking started to take over and even after my mam's boyfriend had left, which he did when I was 14. I'd go after school, even though my school had a library of it's own (I hated school and couldn't wait to get out of there at half three) and started to become a big reader. I'd even do some homework when I could be bothered and was the only one of my siblings to get enough GCSE passes to go to college and do an NVQ.

I'm now 26 and still read loads, at least a book a week. It may not be what most people call classic literature - I love Catherine Cookson, Robert Rankin and anything by Stephen King and I love the fact that I now live in a house where there are plenty of books. But I still visit the library. I have two children of my own and they go to Story Times, percussion groups and mother and baby groups, all in the library and even though they can't read yet, they love looking at the picture books.

It would be a real shame if other people were to miss out on libraries in the future. I know it helped me a lot and it is already helping my kids. 


Not only a social or cultural amenity, libraries are of course a means of reducing paper usage, as sharing resources is part of the practice. More than 450 libraries across the UK are currently threatened with closure and today is Save Our Libraries Day, with campaigns and events being held all over the country. If you haven't visited your local library for some time, why not pop in today and make use of the facilities, perhaps while you still can.

Check out the following sites for more information.

http://www.voicesforthelibrary.org.uk/wordpress/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12367392

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/culture-cuts-blog/2011/feb/05/save-our-libraries-day-live-coverage


Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Watermelon Slur: Why it says more about the accuser than the accused

If you haven't heard the term already, a Watermelon in this context, is someone who is apparently 'Green on the outside, Socialist (and therefore red) on the inside'. It's a lazy and ineffective attack for a number of reasons. Firstly, those who throw the term about probably think they are being oh so clever, when it is in fact nothing more than a bastardization of another tasteless term, the 'Coconut', used to question the essential 'blackness' of some people (in pop culture terms, the likes of Tom from The Boondocks and Carlton Banks from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air were often accused of a 'black on the outside, white on the inside' characteristics).

Secondly, while the 'Coconut'  is rightly offensive, its lame cousin the Watermelon is rather more of a venomless snake, given that for most Greens the concept is neither new, surprising or by any means an insult. The English Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, when questioned about her Watermelon credentials on last weeks BBC Politics Show, simply replied 'well I don't have a problem with that' and I doubt many others would argue.

Being Green is about so much more than treehugging, it's about concern for our social environment too. This does not make us afraid of progress or change, but it does make us concerned that when this change comes about that it not done at the cost of the vulnerable. Want to cut our over reliance on the public sector Mr Wilson and Cameron? Go ahead, I'm sure we'd all welcome alternatives, but who exactly will pick up the slack? Private industry? What private industry? Only an idiot cuts the rope before the safety net has arrived. As a member of the Green Party I support the Green New Deal and I feel that investment in this area is one of the only workable alternative economic solutions. Once in place, then, and only then, can we be confident that our workforce has alternatives. Is this socialist? Perhaps, and I don't have a problem with that.

Finally, the idea that one should be embarrassed, ashamed or in any way hide one's socialist or leftist tendencies, reveals far more about the accuser them than it does us. Clearly, like the Tea Party protesters in the US, these people still live in their own bubble where they see a social outlook and concern akin to to the loopy left, communism or erm, Nazism. This is certainly not the case. If you can't admit to any social concern, and that is concern for the weakest and poorest people in your country and the world over, then you have no business in politics... well you do, just join the Condems, DUP or the Republican Party.

I was out protesting on Saturday in Belfast against the EMA cuts and compared to previous efforts the turn out wasn't great, especially given that the university fees issue in Northern Ireland is still very much up for debate. I imagine that in part this was due to the mass student exodus that takes place at weekends in Belfast, but also the unfortunate reputation that these protests have gained following violence in England. However, another protester from People Before Profit, summarized that in the protest movement is in danger of forever being labelled as a socialist niche and that success will only come when the notion that people can change their society for the better by speaking out against the unwise decisions of their officials, appeals to a broader range of people. As a socialist himself, he understood the need for support from more middle/central political groups, who have voiced disapproval of current government actions, but refuse to get their hands dirty. I think there's a lot to be said for this, as it seems in the face of flying Watermelons, that some people are still very much afraid of reds under the beds.