The cost of austerity

There have been a lack of posts of a political nature on this blog recently, namely, on my part at least, because we've been sitting back and waiting to hear the consequences of our unprecedented coalition government.

I am not an economist so I cannot go into the details of the benefits vs the negative impact of reducing the budget deficit but I have noticed that many of the planned spending cuts are only going to cause harm. The people that we have elected are looking at things through a class-orientated window, unable to picture the lives of people in other circumstances to theirs and how damaging a signature or speech in the Commons will be.

I'm talking primarily about education. It is expected that the cost of tuition fees will up to double very soon. I understand the issue that a lot of money is being poured into universities and that needs to be reduced but this is surely the worse possible way of going about it. Tuition fees are the one thing that students in England cannot have any choice on (it is still unknown how Welsh and Scottish students will be affected) so this is the one thing which is going to create a barrier to all people pursuing further education.

Had accommodation or other optional costs been increased then less well of students would have the choice to look for cheaper non-university alternatives allowing the more affluent students to take the brunt of the costs. Another option, which has been proposed by the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, suggests a tax on students which varies depending on the quality of the degree and the income which is earned as a result of it. This way those who have studied Philosophy or art and get a salary of £20,000 are in less debt than the doctors and accountants who are earning £80,000.

A blanket debt of at least £40,000 is not a way to help the prosperity of our country. Surely this huge figure is going to stop students from poor backgrounds from applying altogether. It will also make it far less viable to study a subject at university which doesn't lead to a high paying job. In other words, as in every economically difficult time, the arts are going to suffer hugely. I feel that this increase is going to plant a debt on every person at the most economically unstable time of their life.

This is where I see the high brow condescending view from the politicians. This short-sightedness can only be from people who do not understand the damage of debt at a young age, from people who do not understand how people cannot find jobs and from people who have succeeded in life and suppose that everyone else could do the same if they just work hard enough.

This is a very sweeping comment on politicians. I know there are many who have a broader more caring perspective, one not driven by hard economics, but it seems their voices are being smothered by the shouts of the rest. It just seems like a step backwards in the development of our country; a falter towards Coketown or Victorian London.

For example, I am studying Philosophy and English this year. These are two subjects that have no set careers. Many people in my position must be reconsidering university altogether if furthering themselves comes at the expense of a life of debt

Can you put a price on broadening horizons, opening eyes to the mysteries of the world and developing individuals to rounded citizens? Yes, apparently. It's £7,000 a year

Proposition 8 ruled 'unconstitutional'. Yes, it's another victory for the namby-pamby liberals.

Yesterday, on 04.08.2010, something rather lovely happened. California's Proposition 8 was overturned, ruled 'unconstitutional', by a US District Chief Judge. Although the ruling is still pending appeal, it's not inappropriate to view it as a pretty extraordinary victory for common sense and equality.

For those who may be unfamiliar with Proposition 8, it was California's constitutional amendment which stated that marriage was only to be valid between a man and a woman. In short, gay marriage was completely outlawed, and thus so were the rights of gay people living in the state. Prop 8 as it's often colloquially referred to is also known as the 'California Marriage Protection Act', which I think says a lot about the mindsets of the bureaucratic bigots who pushed their pens to get it passed. 'Protection'? From what? From gay people? If it's 'protecting' the institution of marriage that concerns you so much, then maybe you should be excluding dangerous people from it, rather than people who don't quite fit under your umbrella of 'normality'.

It's also worth noting that it wasn't exclusively religious people who supported Prop 8. In fact, the California Council of Churches called for its 'immediate removal' on the grounds that some churches had given their support to gay marriage and it therefore infringed on the religious rights of the institutions. The Board of Rabbis of California also opposed it, as did all of the main bishops of the Episcopal diosces.

It also wasn't the media that called for the support of Prop 8. All ten of California's main newspapers were editorially biased against it.

So, who did support Prop 8? The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (that's the Mormons to you and me) certainly did. Then again, they probably voted while eating a delicious shellfish platter wearing nylon and polyester clothing, so I personally take their vote with a pinch of salt.

The fact is that the majority of people who supported Prop 8 did so because, in their cluttered little minds, the purpose of marriage is to reproduce.

Now, I'm not trying to be facetious (much) here, but I think that's a complete load of excrement. If that's your argument, then surely infertile people, people who have gone through the menopause and people who just don't want children should have also been persecuted by Prop 8?

When you put it like that, the argument for Prop 8 pretty much flies out the window and gets defecated on by a flock of pigeons on the way down before landing in a huge pile of cow dung.

Gay marriage just doesn't affect anyone who doesn't choose to get involved. Unless someone kidnaps you at gunpoint and forces you to marry someone of your own gender, then I just don't understand how it infringes on your rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage shouldn't be a heterosexual privilege. Maybe it goes against your beliefs, but it doesn't harm you. Girls who look like Wotsits in string bikinis goes against my personal beliefs, but I recognise that it's their right to dress like that if they want to. I would never dream of passing a law that says they have to wear what I want them to wear because it offends me. Newspaper headlines with bad puns offend me, but do I want them banned? No. I just want journalists to stop being lazy. But that's another story altogether.

You might think, 'but I'm straight / British / ignorant. How does this affect me?' Well, to put it simply, the dismissal of Prop 8 symbolises a step in the right direction in the name of equality. The fact that it were allowed to be passed in the first place denotes a step backwards. Prop 8 symbolises everything that still needs to be addressed in society; prejudice, ignorance, violence (death threats and even hoax anthrax alerts were used on both sides) and segregation. Opinions were polarised and there was no suggestion of compromise.

To summarise, I suggest that anyone who supports Prop 8 take a good look in the mirror. Imagine if the law were reversed. Imagine if you woke up one morning and discovered that heterosexual marriage had been banned. I bet you'd fight for your constitutional rights then. You'd probably become a namby-pamby, equality-supporting liberal yourself.

Equality is not subjective. No-one is more deserving of equality than another. And if gay marriage offends you, then may I suggest that you focus on your own life and simply steer clear of it yourself.

The Election

"The Queen has kindly agreed to the dissolution of parliament and a general election will take place on May 6th."

These words were the political pistol shot which officially announced the start of the race, a race between the three largest parties in the country to convince us common folk that they should be in charge. A week ago the race for public support seemed intense but now that the date for the election has been announced, things seem to have gone into overdrive.

I'm not going to shower you with my opinion of who should be running the country because, firstly, you probably don't care what I think, but most importantly, I think that the political system is messed up. Let me explain. Democracy is when several parties put forward what they think is the bast way to run the country and then the people decide which of these ideals and strategies is best for the nation. However, looking at the news, campaign leaflets and adverts, all I can see are political parties who change their policies to gain support and win the election. It's a competition now instead of being a selection. Each party is looking out for itself by picking and choosing what will get them support, instead of what is truly best for the country. Take national insurance for example. Labour announce that to help claw back some of the crippling debt we've accumulated they will raise national insurance. In response to this the Tories say they'll half it, immediately gaining the support of dozens of businesses who don't want to see the higher insurance. Every time they're asked how they'll plug the £6 billion gap left from cutting the insurance they don't have an answer.

All I'm saying is that if you're reading this and have no idea (like many people) who to vote for look beyond promises said in the last couple of months. Wipe away the campaign slogans, the flashy smiles or pictures of the leaders cycling to work. Look at the lifeblood and history of what the party stands for before making a decision.

When the race comes to a close it'll probably be a photo finish but lets hope that when the results come in the winner will be able to keep running after the finish line and not just collapse on the track.

What Does it Take to Be British?

If you're foreign and you decide you want to make Britain your home, I mean.

Well, in my view, not a lot, actually. I have not lived here all my life. I was born outside the UK to parents of Anglo-Welsh origin, which means that when we came to live here, very little cultural adjustment was necessary.
There isn't lot of room left on this crowded little island (one of the reasons, along with the appalling climate, that I wonder why we appeal so much to immigrants). But I honestly will welcome anyone who abides by these two conditions:

1. You are willing to work reasonably hard and to abide by our laws (and not find loop-holes in them).
2. You do not shy away from integration.

Let me discuss the last point. I don't mean by that that you have to fully abandon the culture of the country you left, but I would recommend putting aside elements of it that are not compatible with our culture. Let's say, for example, in your culture, a rite of passage for children is ripping out every hair on their head individually. You must desist in this practice when you come to Britain because we would view it as child cruelty. You must also be willing to mix with indigenous Britons and all the minorities that exist here.
It is a two-way thing. We in your adopted homeland (people who were born British and people who chose to be British) have duties towards you, such as protecting you from racist attacks*, but you must not come here expecting special allowances of any kind.

*I mean genuine racism, not just criticism.

And Now For Something Topical...

The date today, as many of you should have noticed by now, is April 1st- otherwise known as April Fools Day. Now, being an advocate of this celebratory day- one of the few remaining uncommercialised by themed cards and gift wrap- I followed in the annual tradition of tricking people and playing immature jokes. As a Brit, I had only until noon to get this mischievous day out of my system. However, it’s the Easter holidays and I didn’t wake up until somewhere around ten (a time which, for many, is still considered too early) leaving myself only two hours. So many fools, so little time.

With such a short amount of time to hand, what is the best trick one can play in order to fully utilise the day? Many websites and newspapers will publish false stories, and many of them will be believed because people are so predisposed to believing certain sources. Many people simply forget about the existence of April Fools Day altogether, one of the many reasons the general populace are easy to fool, if only for a second.

Having flicked through a copy of today’s Independent, I noted two April Fools jokes within the opening eight pages or so and both of these were in advertisements. The first was attempting to sell new MiracleShirts™, a shirt for men which utilised G.U.F.F technology to eliminate body odour. The second was from BMW, proposing that BMW owners should buy new badges for their cars in either red, yellow or blue to display their support for a chosen political party- this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a false advert from BMW on April 1st and for that I commend them (but not those that emailed uwe.benhadde@bmw looking to buy one of these badges. These people truly are fools).

Whatever fake products these adverts were promoting (and a part of me questions the ethics and liability of false advertising in these cases), we still get a clear idea of the easiest method of fooling people:

Tell people things that they want to hear.

Yes, it’s basic and may be construed as cruel to get peoples’ hopes up only to cut them down with a jubilant ‘APRIL FOOLS!’, but it gets the job done. People are only too ready to believe the things that they wish to be true.

I took a similar approach myself. For example, I told a few friends that school would remain closed a few days after the intended finish date of the Easter holidays due to a leak creating water damage which would need the extra time to be safely dealt with. It wasn’t particularly funny for anyone other than myself, if only to hear people’s reactions when I pointed out that I had, in effect, lied to them. I’d say about roughly 90% of people I told this to believed me and so I was quick to correct my own misleading ways- had that rumour spread it could’ve been a hazard; if amusing.

April Fools isn’t about making people look foolish, it’s about encouraging people to laugh at themselves and even, in some ways, to become more wary of what they encounter in the media. It’s like a yearly lesson in how not be gullible in a world saturated by media gossip and rumours. You’ve got to be shrewd about what you take in and not just accept everything at a face value, even if sometimes the unbelievable turns out to be what should be believed (as demonstrated here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8598637.stm).

Only the paranoid minority will ever remain vigilant on this day of childish pranks and mild hilarity. Only the brave few will ever pull proper, newsworthy stunts and for that, I salute them. I’d rather not get arrested. However, I think this day does remind us something- not to be wary of this one day a year, but to always be cautious of believing what you want to be real. There lies an inescapable danger in life, and we can all be made fools of twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and fifty six days a year. So learn to laugh at yourself and not to take everything too seriously and you should be fine, though beware the Pucks among the pigeons-

‘Lord, what fools these mortals be!’

Is France's Burqa ban justified? - Part II

For clarity’s sake, a good place to start anything seems generally best to be at the beginning, and so before we even reach France let me discuss the Islamic principle behind it all. In Saudi Arabia, around 1400 years ago Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed verses to the Prophet Muhammad, the compilation of which is called the Quran.

The verses relating specifically on how to dress are as following:

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)

Interestingly, the women here are being advised to cover, not in order to be *hidden* as is the general stereotype of Muslim women, but to be *recognised*. The context behind these verses was that many women were being harassed when visiting the marketplace by non-Muslim men, and thus covering themselves became a symbol of dignity and respect; the very identity of a Muslim woman.

The other main verse on this topic is:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).

And there you have it. From these words, Muslim women over the ages from thousands of different cultures, spanning countries around the globe have adjusted their conduct and dress, in principle not for the sake of men but for the sake of God. The hijab is a term generally speaking given to the headscarf worn by many females, the burqa is a term given to the long shapeless cloth with netting that is worn predominantly in Afghanistan, and the niqab is a term given to a small black piece of cloth that covers the face and is worn with an accompanying long dress which is also usually black. This debate is therefore about the niqab being worn in Western countries and not about the burqa, although the term is used by the media probably I suspect for the extra scare factor.

Phew! Now with all the formalities out of the way, how do I feel about it all? Well as a Muslim female myself, I do wear a headscarf and have determinedly done so for many years out of my own choice. I am well aware that France has banned such religious symbols from their schools and workplaces, but that would be a different discussion. In this case, the issue is about the covering of the face, and although I do not do so, I know of various Muslim women in the community who do, every single one of them having made the choice individually.

To cover your face in public is an interesting concept. In many Muslim countries today, women are obliged to do so out of pressure from society and basically to prevent standing out like a giant amongst the crowds, instantly noticed, instantly judged . (Much in the same way that I would feel rather uncomfortable walking around the city centre in a sari, although of course I wouldn’t be penalised) But in the West, with the lack of such an environment, it does seem rather strange for a woman to take a cloth and conceal their face. With growing tensions around the world towards Islam, and the rise of extremist groups, there is no doubt a stirring hostility towards Muslims even in Britain. And this is exactly why I strongly feel that the problem lies not in the niqab itself, but in the lack of understanding and more specifically the lack of communication between Muslims and those who are not Muslims. One lady once related to me an incident when she was walking in a park with friends and was shouted at to go “Back home and leave us alone.” As a Muslim convert, white and British for generations on end, she was left wondering where exactly “home” was, if it didn’t mean Britain.

What I believe frightens the living daylights out of the French government is the thought of any intelligent female choosing out of their own will to dress in such an orthodox manner. I have yet to meet a ‘niqabi’ in Britain who was forced in dressing the way she does. The question that then arises is why? Why do they feel the need to cover their face when nobody is pressuring them to do so? And this is where we go back to the beginning. The logic is actually very simple – God says to conceal your beauty, and the most beautiful and striking part of your body is your face, therefore cover yourself including the face. Such a striking submission to one’s own principles and faith is something that is rarely highlighted in Western society.

I refuse to be told that dressing modestly, whether it is a simple headscarf or the complete black attire, shows tyranny and domination over females from a society where advertising is largely based on sexual beauty and the standard female role models are only famous due to their physical appearance. At the end of the day, all of us have the basic fundamental right to dress however we so please, whichever end of the spectrum.

Now we move on to perhaps the most crucial part. Does the niqab prevent integration of these women into society? To some extent, inevitably it does; the women cannot have jobs in the mainstream public sector, for example. But bearing in mind that these women have made the choice themselves, surely they have considered it thoroughly enough to then know the consequential issues that arise? Surely to assume that they don’t know is an insult to their intellect?

These women are such a minority that there has never been any statistical research into their lifestyles, but from personal experience I can confidently assert that the niqabis I have known are the most active Muslim women in the community. To show such a strong declaration of faith by the way they dress is only a fraction of the passion they feel towards their religion and I do believe, towards society as a whole. These are the women who are the teachers and guides of the Muslim youth in mosques and Muslim schools, the most vocal in political campaigns and protests and may I stress, the most determined people I have ever met in working to breaking down social barriers and to clear the ‘extreme terrorist’ labels that have unfortunately been hurled upon the religion.

There are of course difficulties presented when anybody covers their face in public and there are issues that need to be addressed. A ban however will achieve nothing except to fuel hostility and widen further the gap of misunderstanding. It would be much more logical that legislation be made that the niqab be removed for circumstances such as when within the healthcare system or in police custody. Perhaps facilities need to be created that provide a female only environment where women can feel comfortable and this would particularly be useful for those who are victims of domestic abuse, for example, and need to talk to someone. I can only guess - Muslim women who wear the niqab need to speak up and have their opinions heard.

Apart from the routine media scares, I have never come across or heard of any niqabi whose children were born with rickets and I do believe you have to be genetically predisposed to the condition before the wearing of cloth on your face can be hazardous to your or their health. It is exactly these sort of misconceptions that need to be clarified, and I must agree that our R.E. lessons at school were rather useless in this respect.

Although it is a step that I am not personally prepared to make, I can only look at niqabis with admiration for the struggle they endure for what they believe in. Isn’t that supposed to be the moral of every Disney movie anyway? And so I end by presenting to you a lovely thought provoking quote stolen from a fellow blogger.

“ Mother Teresa would be banned from France – her burqa wouldn’t be allowed by Sarkozy.”




Khadija x

Is France's Burqa Ban Justified?

Let me discuss France before I go onto the burqa. I’m aware that the French have strong traditions of secularism, and that’s why their government would give serious thought to a ban on the burqa and ours would not. Education is completely secular in France. You’re not allowed to show any symbols of faith. That means no hijab, no crucifixes, no turbans etc. And French children also aren’t taught RE unless they go to faith schools, which are independent from the state. I have a French friend whom I remember discussing Easter with a year ago. I asked if he was giving up anything for Lent and he replied, "C'est quoi, le Carême?" What's Lent?

Now, I don’t agree with the religious indoctrination of children, but I do think they ought to be taught about religion. Like it or not, it plays a very prominent role in the world today and we must have some understanding of it. That said, I was dissatisfied with the way religion was represented in my RE lessons, but that’s a different matter for a different post.

So, how do I feel about the burqa? Well, I never feel threatened by it, although it would be possible for nefarious persons, Islamist or not, to conceal themselves beneath it. What I do feel, though, is that it’s a statement of separation. It draws the line between manifestation of faith and reluctance to integrate. How can I communicate with you on a personal level if you won’t even show me your face?

I’ve heard some Muslim women say that they feel the burqa protects them from judgement on the basis of their appearance. But it doesn’t make you invisible. In fact, it can make you stand out, in a way. You still have an appearance, even when you’re swathed in black, and it’s an appearance I view with puzzlement and uncertainty. I find myself wondering, “What have you got to conceal?”

I appreciate that no woman wants to be viewed as a slab of meat. But I think it’s easy enough to dress modestly without having to veil yourself from head to toe. Also, it seems to me that whoever originally thought of the burqa wanted to reinforce the protection - and possession - of women by men. I remain unconvinced that you aren't wearing the legacy of oppression. Ongoing oppression, in some Islamic countries, where it is fully necessary to cover up well in order to avoid “asking for rape.” Now, if I were a man, I would be insulted by this notion because it suggests that men are animals who can’t control their sexual urges.

There’s also the argument that Muslim women in western countries are not forced to cover up; they do so out of choice. I cannot disagree that a ban limits their freedom to dress as they wish. However, there are some Muslim women, even in this country, who come from ultra-conservative families that force them to wear the burqa. And if a woman in this category violates the burqa ban in France, who will be prosecuted – the woman or her family? That’s where a ban gets tricky.

I really wouldn’t want to restrict anyone’s freedom in any way unless absolutely necessary. Smoking in public places was banned because passive smoking is harmful to others. A burqa does not harm people who look at it, but I have heard of cases of burqa-wearing women being so deficient in vitamin D, due to lack of sunlight, that they give birth to children with Rickets.

So please, if you wear a burqa, I entreat you to think of your unborn children. And of the society you live in. Many people, like me, can’t shake off the slight sense of insult that you don’t want us looking at you; that you don’t trust us. I know a burqa doesn't automatically signal that you want nothing to do with everyone else in society, but really, if you are sincere in your wish to integrate, then the best way for you to show it is by revealing your face.

Perhaps the French government, before going for a ban, should have tried to appeal to burqa-wearing women – to make them aware that they are alienating themselves and to ask them seriously to reconsider.