Monday 13 December 2010

The Silly Art of Anti Multicultural Rants






With the news constantly reminding me of the growth of the EDL and respect for my fellow human beings hampered by the number of far right trolls clogging up the web, I though I'd take to time to write down my take on multiculturalism and some of the silliness of the opposing arguments. 

It strikes me that the vast amount of arguments and debates over multiculturalism comes from confused definitions. In fact I'd say all the main far right arguments you seem to hear are totally dependent on confusion and misunderstanding in regard to conflicting definitions.

Some would say its the terrible picture of things to come.....


I should start by clarifying my definition of term 'multiculturalism'. 'Multiculturalism' for me is about accepting different cultures whilst staying within the framework of human rights. That is to say keeping within the confines of human rights there should be room for the freedom to have your own culture and to be a individual. People shouldn't be made to conform to someone else's idea of what their identity should be. I believe this to be pretty much the traditional definition of 'multiculturalism' and will refer to it as the 'traditional definition'. Believe it or not there is a moderate argument against multiculturalism, typified by, columnist for the independent, Johann Hari. However these arguments involve a massive redefining of term 'multiculturalism'. To Hari its about active promotion of cultural separation by government and is therefore easy for a moderate to attack.

I don't object to Hari's political views. In the main he has sound left wing opinions. I do object to his attempt at redefining the word 'multiculturalism'. I'll illustrate the differences with an example. We both don't believe their should be faith schools. I however don't consider them multicultural, I consider them monocultural. He would blame active promotion of cultures for faith schools and thus blame it on 'Multiculturalism' as he defines the term.

The alternative to multiculturalism (Traditional definition) is monoculturalism and thus any opposition to this definition of multiculturalism is fundamentally anti-liberty. The alternative to Hari's multiculturalism could be monoculturalism but it could also easily be multiculturalism (Traditional definition). Hari explains how he hoped to change the nature of the debate though redefining the language, however to my mind it seems likely that its been counter productive to his left wing goals.

Now to the basic argument that seems to occur repeatedly with various far right ranters. Its simple, really. They attack multiculturalism via one definition, then draw a conclusions based off anther definition. Any moderate person could attack multiculturalism via Hari's definition, however the far right then take that conclusion to mean that we should have monoculturalism. This is of course silly.

Johann Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us one thing - why multiculturalism must be abandoned 2008

Thursday 11 November 2010

Wednesdays Fun Little Rebellion



This week I had the pleasure of attending a large protest in London opposing the ConDem tuition fee 
increases with my boyfriend. My arrival was hampered due to the coach getting caught in heavy traffic. This resulted in a premature disembarking somewhere in the middle of London. 


Dazed and confused we eventually we worked our way to the protest on foot (After an initial detour) and we arrived at the back of the protest where I initially believed we was likely to stay. Fortunately my boyfriend didn't seem happy with that idea and began to racing though the crowd leaving me struggling to keep up. As we approached Big Ben he loudly cried out "Oh that's Carole from big brother!" to which as a non big brother viewer I replied "Who? Which one..." not expecting it to be the little middle aged lady next to me giving me a funny look. After weaving though countless people for what seemed like some considerable time, the crowed began to thin, I Presumed this was due to us getting passed a large blockage of people, many of whom had decided, inexplicably, to sit down in large circles. I have no way of knowing for sure but I felt we was getting near the front.

As we passed the Tory hq's we came across a few people dress in student union tops telling people how the building across the street was in fact "Tory headquarters and we're all going to protest over there". Other people was telling us that they was fake student union and not to listen to them. But we followed the flow of the crowd. I can't be sure but this whole Tory hq incident, that got so much attention in the news, may have been engineered by as little as 3 people.

You have to march protesters. If you have them standing around a building to long things happen. I don't believe these 3 people necessarily fully understood the consequences of their interference and I certainly don't believe the message many in the press gave about how it was 'Rouge elements who have infiltrated the march' who are responsible for the violence. They seem more interested in peddling simple answers and rhetoric we seem to hear after all protests.

In the Tory hq's courtyard, Despite being only meters from the action, I really didn't have a clue to the events
 other than a lot of shouting and a fire. I just couldn't see through the crowd. The biggest incident I was aware of at first was some idiot throwing a can of deodorant on the fire making a loud bang and causing the crowd to ripple back.




Early on some Tory HQ staff climbed to the roof and started making fake/joky fighting gestures at the students below. My fellow protesters, meanwhile, seemed to have invented a game out of looking for a man in suit standing at window then all pointing and chanting "Tory scum" at them. A bit later when the students got to the roof I remember saying how on earth did they get up their ( I'd still no idea they'd broken there way in at this point). Soon afterwards we started seeing the odd riot police turning up and we started to leave and make our way the the coach pick up spot.

Overall I have to say I enjoyed the protest and am glad to have gone. The coach trips both there and back, however, were an utter nightmare. 

Friday 15 October 2010

I am not tolerant.

I now realise I'm not a tolerant person and never have been.
Tolerate for me means 'To put up with something'.
If there's nothing objectionable about anther culture, race, extra there's no need to tolerate them.
I don't tolerate people who are cruel to others in the name of their culture because there is something objectionable about it.
Its important to acknowledge this as I believe many of the arguments from the far right are routed in misunderstandings and misuse of terminology.

The left often use 'Tolerate' to mean 'respect' and 'accepting'. The far right exclusively use the word to mean 'to put up with'. A definition I'd argue we should all stick to. There's no need for this confusing duel meaning, we can talk about the benefits of an accepting society. But we can all lack tolerance as, of course, we shouldn't be putting up with things when we could make things better.

Sunday 3 October 2010

So I start Another Endeavor

Is it only after boring days I look for a new hobbie? Well 'today' won't be the subject of this blogs first post.

I've been stoping over with my boyfriend in his student halls of residence for most of the last few months, and we have an issue.... Somebody is stealing our yogurts from the fridge :O

Could this be linked to the bath plug? There's a bath and its plugs gone missing...... But somebody is still managing to have baths. The plot thickens! I suspect the Chinese couple who have just moved in but i can't be sure. Humm to think of a cunning trap.