Israel. A small strip of land, about the size of wales, that is claimed to be one of the top 5 worst human rights violators. In fact many claim the west bank as being the worst place to live on the planet... period.
These people are what I like to call "wrong".
Isreal is not amoungst the top 5 worst human rights violaters, in fact its not even amoungst the top 10. If you truely think that the West Bank is the worst place to live on the planet, try spending a weekend in the Sudan or Somalia... or maybe North Korea and see if you still feel that way afterwards.
That's not to say that Israel has a squeaky clean human rights record, because it doesn't, it does violate the basic human rights of hundreds of people every day, most of these people being ethnographically percieved as palestinian, however it does nothing to help the pleight of these genuinely oppressed people by exaggerating the extent of the violations and extrapolating into relms of oppression that simply are not truthful in there representation of the situation in Israel.
This brings up an important question however, seeing as Israel is not actually amoungst the top worst countries in the world, why are we always hearing so much about Israel and so little about all these other countries? The answer to this is three-fold; Geographical, Historical and PR(ical?)
Geographically Israel is situated right in the middle of the Middle East, all reginal policies must consider it and any transport over land or air must negotiate with it. It has a near inpenitrable desert and situated right in the middle of that desert is demona, Israels Nuclear facility. It also has some of the most fertile ground in the whole of the region. This makes it an incrediably important political figure in the region and, taking into consideration the wider region's oil reserves, one of the most important areas in the world.
Historically, Israel (specifically Jerusalem and Bethlehem) is the birth place for many of the world's major religons including all the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism), Many wars have been fought to maintain its existance, during one of which nuclear bombs were very nearly used. Historically its international secret service MOSSAD is viewed as being the best secret service in the world, not only in capturing escaped nazi officers but also in counter-terrorism. This meant that after the event of 9/11 the US turned to Israel to help it in its "war on terror". Add to all of this the extreme circumstances in central Europe during the 1930's-40's which led to the UN deciding to establish Israel as a Jewish State in the first place and we can see that it is historically very significant.
A point should be made here that it is very easy to get caught up in the religious aspects of Israel and in so doing, ignoring the actual reasons for the conflict. This is not, nor should anyone try to twist it into becoming, a religious war. The conflict in Israel is currently based around land ownership and Human Rights and these are this key issus which need to be resolved.
In terms of public relations, it can simply be said that because Israel is currently under media attention, other media are jumping onto the band wagon and so it will continue to be in the public eye until either something really major happens elsewhere or until the issues are resolved and so stop becoming news worthy (media and good news tend not to mix so much).
So how can we resolve the situation in Israel?
Well many political bodies are advocating a two-state solution whereby a seperate Palestinian state is formed in the West Bank, bordering both Israel and Jordan. However, Many others are advocating a single-state solution and equalting a two-state solution to being the same as the "separate but equal" policy of segregated 1950's US. Those advocating the two-state solution reply by saying that two states would be more equale than the situation at current and so thusly an arguement ensues.
I personally do not advocate either a two-state or the current single state solutions. In fact I do not advocate any solution because all of the current ones being debated are formed from political bodies, each one with their own personal agendas. The Arab League, The UN, The US and even Amnesty International have all demonstrated extreme bias on the issue of the Middle East and so no solution which is designed by any of these bodys can be truely trusted to be based around what is best for the people of the region. Instead I advocate, not a solution but a system whereby, instead of top-down solutions being formed, bottom-up solutions can be formed about how to resolve individual conflicts in individual towns and neigbourhoods. This system can be refered to as local social networking and, due to current technology, doesn't even need a mediator. All solutions to local issues can be discussed by local peoples and then either voted on or decided upon within the same medium. Even better than this, if international expertise is required, that too can be sought within the same medium. Now many of you maybe asking, what is this magical medium of which I speak, where we can vote and learn and discuss with people across the seas? I have a one word answer for you: Facebook.
Facebook, Twitter and I'll go so far as to say basic Email! Any form of communication which can be seen by all local parties and can be made at anytime by anyone within the locality.
We have already seen how effective Facebook can be at organising clean up efforts around London and England, as well as making the world aware of major international events such as the Norway attack. Thus I cannot see a reason why social networking cannot bring about peace in the Middle East.
Please note very clearly that I am not claiming to have found the solution or even a solution to the issues in the Middle East, but I am claiming very strongly that the only place where such solutions can be formed, and be relevant, are from within the region itself, so instead of us" internationals" looking for a solution to the problem, we should instead be focusing on facilitating modes whereby solutions can be internally formed. These modes need to be primarily safe areas of discussion where not only are people allowed to express their opinions but also their naiveitys about the issues affecting their areas and about those whom they have been culturally taught are "the enemy/the other".
It is especially important that these modes be kept clear of external political motives, a prime example of which would be thirsty America (a thirst which seems to only get worse the more oil it drinks).
Mr Magic
Friday, 16 September 2011
Sunday, 11 September 2011
The beginning of victory
Whosever said that political activism was folly has thus been proven wrong for it is true indeed that the ban on MSM Blood Donations has now officially been lifted! This has been announced and publisised in several key sources including the BBC and the Metro... however it isn't a complete victory.
The lifting of the ban is conditional, in complex terms the doner must not have engaged in MSM for at least a year before they can donate blood. In simple terms this means that if Mr Magic were to have sex with, oh lets say Mr... Science. We would both have to wait a year after our romantic evening before either of us would be allowed to donate blood, even though neither of us have ever been diagnosed with HIV. In fact even if we both got tested, then had sex, then waited three months and got tested again... with all the tests coming back negative for HIV... we would still need to wait another 9 months without having sex, before we would be allowed to donate blood.
The scientific basis for this is that there is a three month period, after catching HIV, where the virus is undetectable and so this time lapse is to allow the virus to become visible to the tests. Now, I could understand if the rule was that gay men had to wait three months after having sex with a new sexual partner, that would be completely scientifically justified... but twelve months of celebasy is not.
I am also, however, aware of the political context that we are currently in. It was very recently that the House of Lords Released a Study called "No Cure No Vaccine" (or something along thoughs lines) which documented an increase in people catching HIV and though I cannot prove it, I am sure that this study did have some impact on the 12 month rule. This 12 month rule is also applied to people who have injected illegal drugs or had sex with prostitutes (and their sexual partners).
Whilst I do not endorse applying the same rules as we do for prostitutes and drug addicts onto the gay community,I can say proudly that any lifting of the ban is a step in the right direction, not only because for what it means for gay equality, but also because it shows without a shadow of a doubt that direct political activism does actually achieve results.
Let the Doubters Doubt... You Just Need To Keep Campaigning!
Mr Magic
The lifting of the ban is conditional, in complex terms the doner must not have engaged in MSM for at least a year before they can donate blood. In simple terms this means that if Mr Magic were to have sex with, oh lets say Mr... Science. We would both have to wait a year after our romantic evening before either of us would be allowed to donate blood, even though neither of us have ever been diagnosed with HIV. In fact even if we both got tested, then had sex, then waited three months and got tested again... with all the tests coming back negative for HIV... we would still need to wait another 9 months without having sex, before we would be allowed to donate blood.
The scientific basis for this is that there is a three month period, after catching HIV, where the virus is undetectable and so this time lapse is to allow the virus to become visible to the tests. Now, I could understand if the rule was that gay men had to wait three months after having sex with a new sexual partner, that would be completely scientifically justified... but twelve months of celebasy is not.
I am also, however, aware of the political context that we are currently in. It was very recently that the House of Lords Released a Study called "No Cure No Vaccine" (or something along thoughs lines) which documented an increase in people catching HIV and though I cannot prove it, I am sure that this study did have some impact on the 12 month rule. This 12 month rule is also applied to people who have injected illegal drugs or had sex with prostitutes (and their sexual partners).
Whilst I do not endorse applying the same rules as we do for prostitutes and drug addicts onto the gay community,I can say proudly that any lifting of the ban is a step in the right direction, not only because for what it means for gay equality, but also because it shows without a shadow of a doubt that direct political activism does actually achieve results.
Let the Doubters Doubt... You Just Need To Keep Campaigning!
Mr Magic
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
MSM Blood donations: The Governments Reply
Behold what many thought would never come to fruition... a reply, not from Dame Sally Davis alas, but from Rowena Jecock; Head of policy for blood safety and supply since 2009. Please Note that it has been reformatted and my real name ommitted, but the content of the reply has not been changed.
This is only one of several such articles which can be found relating to people having to wait for transfusions and transplants because of the aquisition of blood.
Dear Mr Magic
Thank you for your email of 6th August to Dame Sally Davies, bringing to her attention the e-petition asking for the abolition of the exclusion of men who have had sex with men as blood donors. Dame Sally has asked me to reply on her behalf.
I would like to agree with your point that the selection criteria for blood donors should be based on scientific fact and medical knowledge. This is certainly the Government’s policy. And as scientific and medical knowledge grows over time, the criteria need to be reviewed.
You may be aware that the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs has completed a review of the evidence base for donor exclusion and deferral in the UK UK
I would like to reassure you on one point. You mention that there is currently a blood shortage, and that patients are going without operations and other treatments as a result. I am pleased to say that this is not the case: the National Blood Service in England
Yours sincerely,
Rowena Jecock
Head of Policy, Blood Safety and Supply
And thus we come to an interesting conflict of facts, please observe:
This is only one of several such articles which can be found relating to people having to wait for transfusions and transplants because of the aquisition of blood.
Also observe the date of this article... 2010, which to my calculations is not ten years ago, though I could be wrong as maths is not my strongest of subjects.
Secondly, she has brought to my attention a piece of knowledge that I had not previously known, that the review of the policy for excluding sexually active gay men (which has been around since 1977) was started in 2009. This is interesting as, to my knowledge, Dr Rewena Jecock was appointed head of policy for blood safety and supply on the 22nd of January 2009. This means that, unless it was started during the first 22 days in January, she was person that was incharge when this policy started to be questioned.
So, for anyone who would like to contact Dr Jecock and ask her personally why gay man are banned from giving blood or to congratulate her for challenging the ban in the first place, the E-mail address for her Secretary is Tina.Lee@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Happy Writing
Mr Magic
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Enterprise zone's?
This blog entry is very short, my apologies in advance.
In a society based on production where manufacture is the primary industry, an area or space of involuntary labour, whether that be due to force or the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without labouring, is referred to by the emotionally charged term "Labour Camp".
We live in a society that is not based on production but instead based on services, the intermediary industry providing mediums of sale and the services required for such sales (i.e insurance, fiscal products, clarical and secritarial services, sales assistants, etc). These sales can be of almost anything, even other services, such as education (we provide the teachers) or medicine (we provide the doctors).
The big question that I wish to pose is, what would be the equivalent of a "Labour Camp" in a service society?
What would we call an area or space of involuntary service, involuntary due to the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without providing service?
hmmm...?
In a society based on production where manufacture is the primary industry, an area or space of involuntary labour, whether that be due to force or the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without labouring, is referred to by the emotionally charged term "Labour Camp".
We live in a society that is not based on production but instead based on services, the intermediary industry providing mediums of sale and the services required for such sales (i.e insurance, fiscal products, clarical and secritarial services, sales assistants, etc). These sales can be of almost anything, even other services, such as education (we provide the teachers) or medicine (we provide the doctors).
The big question that I wish to pose is, what would be the equivalent of a "Labour Camp" in a service society?
What would we call an area or space of involuntary service, involuntary due to the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without providing service?
hmmm...?
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
The arcane solution to all social issues: Remediation
"Remediation"
I am nearly certain that politicains of the past invented this word so that it could be used, at times like these, to sound very impressive and as if they have discovered some incrediable solution to all of the social issues around. What remediation actually means is very simple, "to remedy, cure or treat usually via educative means", In simpiler terms it means to give people schooling.
What this signify's is the beginnings of the stratification of the post-secondary education system. Those who naturally progress to A-Levels and then BA's are viewed as normality and those who do not are viewed as damaged and so require "remediation" so as to rehabilitate them onto the "correct" path of life, whether that be them completing the former qualifications later on in life, or whether that be accepting that they are less educated and therefore undeserving of gratification of a high salary and generally less beneficial to society.
Educational stratification can also be called intellectual segregation, where the highly intelligent are kept separate from those who are not. The issue with this stems not only from an ethical standpoint, that people should be defined by their intended actions rather than their genetic intelligence, but also from a scientific one. Intelligence is a subjective term and whilst I may have an IQ of 134, my knowledge of immunology is compariably lower than that of a biological scientist who's IQ maybe considerably lower. That same biologist may end up finding cures for very many diseases and save thousands of peole's lives, whereby it is highly unlikely that I will find the cure for any biological disease. How is it right to say that I am better than that person then, simply because I have a greater intelligence? How can it even be claimed that I have a greater intelligence? Surely it is more intelligent to dedicate you life to finding cure's for diseases and in so doing furthering the medical ability of humanity, than it is to large segments of your time writing a "blog".
So what really is going on?
At the momemt, remediation is being considered for those who, the government believe, have a high chance of committing crimes. This does not mean to say that they need to have committed crimes in order to be sentenced to involutary remediation, only that they are at high risk. Remediation already exists with the criminal justice system for those who have been found guilty of criminality.
In my previous two post's I mentioned two possible aim's of the government, one was the gentrification of area's of the UK and the other was the possibility that the government maybe trying to criminalise having low economic means. If the latter is enforced then the involuntary remediation of all of those with low economic means may follow. Remedial educational facilities tend to be separate to general educational facilities, thus the result would be the separation of the lower class from general educational facilities occupied by the middle and upper classes. Whilst I am definiately no Marxist, this is certainly beginning to look reminiscient of the theorie's of the aforementioned.
Separated from general educational facilities, driven out of their homes due to gentrification and criminalised because they are poor... These are not simply measures to limit riots or to increase the economic stability of the UK, they are the same segregational techniques employed in central europe in the 1930's, however I believe that the aim is slightly different here than there and is one that has never actually be acheived.
Proletaricide. A word you will probably never have come across before. It means the destruction of the lower class within a society and is normally precidented with an attempt of simple ethnocide, which is the attempten destruction of their culture.
In easier to understand terms, Tony Blair's 'war on terror' was an attempted ethnocide of the culture of terrorists and when this failed it lead to the attempted destruction of the people of that culture (i.e. the terrorists). In the same way I fear that when David Camerons attempts at ethnocide of the culture of the lower class fails, he will resort to attempting to destroy the people of that culture.
Mr Magic
I am nearly certain that politicains of the past invented this word so that it could be used, at times like these, to sound very impressive and as if they have discovered some incrediable solution to all of the social issues around. What remediation actually means is very simple, "to remedy, cure or treat usually via educative means", In simpiler terms it means to give people schooling.
What this signify's is the beginnings of the stratification of the post-secondary education system. Those who naturally progress to A-Levels and then BA's are viewed as normality and those who do not are viewed as damaged and so require "remediation" so as to rehabilitate them onto the "correct" path of life, whether that be them completing the former qualifications later on in life, or whether that be accepting that they are less educated and therefore undeserving of gratification of a high salary and generally less beneficial to society.
Educational stratification can also be called intellectual segregation, where the highly intelligent are kept separate from those who are not. The issue with this stems not only from an ethical standpoint, that people should be defined by their intended actions rather than their genetic intelligence, but also from a scientific one. Intelligence is a subjective term and whilst I may have an IQ of 134, my knowledge of immunology is compariably lower than that of a biological scientist who's IQ maybe considerably lower. That same biologist may end up finding cures for very many diseases and save thousands of peole's lives, whereby it is highly unlikely that I will find the cure for any biological disease. How is it right to say that I am better than that person then, simply because I have a greater intelligence? How can it even be claimed that I have a greater intelligence? Surely it is more intelligent to dedicate you life to finding cure's for diseases and in so doing furthering the medical ability of humanity, than it is to large segments of your time writing a "blog".
So what really is going on?
At the momemt, remediation is being considered for those who, the government believe, have a high chance of committing crimes. This does not mean to say that they need to have committed crimes in order to be sentenced to involutary remediation, only that they are at high risk. Remediation already exists with the criminal justice system for those who have been found guilty of criminality.
In my previous two post's I mentioned two possible aim's of the government, one was the gentrification of area's of the UK and the other was the possibility that the government maybe trying to criminalise having low economic means. If the latter is enforced then the involuntary remediation of all of those with low economic means may follow. Remedial educational facilities tend to be separate to general educational facilities, thus the result would be the separation of the lower class from general educational facilities occupied by the middle and upper classes. Whilst I am definiately no Marxist, this is certainly beginning to look reminiscient of the theorie's of the aforementioned.
Separated from general educational facilities, driven out of their homes due to gentrification and criminalised because they are poor... These are not simply measures to limit riots or to increase the economic stability of the UK, they are the same segregational techniques employed in central europe in the 1930's, however I believe that the aim is slightly different here than there and is one that has never actually be acheived.
Proletaricide. A word you will probably never have come across before. It means the destruction of the lower class within a society and is normally precidented with an attempt of simple ethnocide, which is the attempten destruction of their culture.
In easier to understand terms, Tony Blair's 'war on terror' was an attempted ethnocide of the culture of terrorists and when this failed it lead to the attempted destruction of the people of that culture (i.e. the terrorists). In the same way I fear that when David Camerons attempts at ethnocide of the culture of the lower class fails, he will resort to attempting to destroy the people of that culture.
Mr Magic
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Is my family classified as a "Gang"?
As David Cameron, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith declare war on "Gangs" it would appear that they may inadvertantly be declaring war on something far far bigger than they could contemplate. Is my family classified as a "Gang"? in short, the answer is yes.
According to the definition of what constitutes as a "Gang," my Family unit is, in fact, a prime example, as is also a group of electrical plugs, a navigation systen made up of lighters and my personal favourite, an economic tool used within the printing industry. The term is so vague that it can be made applicable to any group of people, regardless of age or reason for meeting. In fact it is so vage it can be applied to any group of anyTHING.
Whilst this might seem a pedantic point, I raise it because of how often this word is now being banded about in statements claiming to explain why the riots happened and how we can stop them in the future. For example Iain Duncan smith said recently on the BBC the "gang problem that we have in the UK" and that the way to resolve this is to "crackdown on all gangs, everywhere, at the same time, for all the time." He even stated that the gangs manipulated the criminality of the riots.
Now if you simply replace the word "gang" with the word "group," you can see just how empty and meaningless statements like this are. What is clear from these statements is that he was refering to "criminalgangs (groups)," which only increases the ridiculous nature of these statements as the founding purpose of the police was to stop people breaking the law, "everywhere and at the same time, for all the time." We have in fact been doing this for the last 300 years.
My concern, however, is not in the semantic intelligence of politicians more than in their proposed policies and the current discussions about giving police more powers to diffuse "gangs (groups) of youths (children)" especially as the specific people that they are talking about stem from low economic backgrounds. To put this as bluntly as possible, if this policey is enforced it will criminalise friendship groups being formed by teenagers in public. Whilst this will not be too damning for those who have private spaces to form friends, those who do not have such spaces (those who come from a backgrounds where their "private space" is either shared or simple non-existant due to a lack of economic means) will be hindered in their social development and possibly alienated because of this social deficit.
In the previous post I mentioned the possibility that the eviction of people from public housing initiative's maybe an attempt to gentrify areas. This Alienation technique could also be seen as method to induce gentrification, however I am now concerned that it maybe to do with something far more grave. Again, whilst I am not suggesting that this is what the government are planning, the steps they are currently taking indicate that the following maybe their desired goal.
What I am now refering to is the criminalisation of having low economic means. This is an inversion of the model of economic gain that we are used to. Under the previous Governments, It was the employers responsibility to pay their employee's a decent wage. If they did not do this then they were viewed as the criminal and the employee was viewed as the victim. Under this model, it would appear that, it is the employee's responsibility to ensure that they are recieving a decent wage and if they are not then they are viewed as a criminal because they either need to rely on benefits, or exist in an empoverished state which decreases the social and economic value of the area they reside. They are viewed as lazy and those earning a higher wage (this group, most likely, including their employer) are viewed as the victims because their tax money is being spent on either supporting these "lazy" people, or because their tax money is being spent on attempting to improve the areas where these "lazy" people reside instead of their own. This is not a sustainable economic model in a society claiming to be ethical as it de-humanizes those who are the most vunerable. It should also be recognised as the clear violation of basic human rights and morality that it is. We should feel priviledged to have the economic means to be charitable to others, rather than be resentful of giving the little that is asked of us.
Mr Magic
According to the definition of what constitutes as a "Gang," my Family unit is, in fact, a prime example, as is also a group of electrical plugs, a navigation systen made up of lighters and my personal favourite, an economic tool used within the printing industry. The term is so vague that it can be made applicable to any group of people, regardless of age or reason for meeting. In fact it is so vage it can be applied to any group of anyTHING.
Whilst this might seem a pedantic point, I raise it because of how often this word is now being banded about in statements claiming to explain why the riots happened and how we can stop them in the future. For example Iain Duncan smith said recently on the BBC the "gang problem that we have in the UK" and that the way to resolve this is to "crackdown on all gangs, everywhere, at the same time, for all the time." He even stated that the gangs manipulated the criminality of the riots.
Now if you simply replace the word "gang" with the word "group," you can see just how empty and meaningless statements like this are. What is clear from these statements is that he was refering to "criminal
My concern, however, is not in the semantic intelligence of politicians more than in their proposed policies and the current discussions about giving police more powers to diffuse "
In the previous post I mentioned the possibility that the eviction of people from public housing initiative's maybe an attempt to gentrify areas. This Alienation technique could also be seen as method to induce gentrification, however I am now concerned that it maybe to do with something far more grave. Again, whilst I am not suggesting that this is what the government are planning, the steps they are currently taking indicate that the following maybe their desired goal.
What I am now refering to is the criminalisation of having low economic means. This is an inversion of the model of economic gain that we are used to. Under the previous Governments, It was the employers responsibility to pay their employee's a decent wage. If they did not do this then they were viewed as the criminal and the employee was viewed as the victim. Under this model, it would appear that, it is the employee's responsibility to ensure that they are recieving a decent wage and if they are not then they are viewed as a criminal because they either need to rely on benefits, or exist in an empoverished state which decreases the social and economic value of the area they reside. They are viewed as lazy and those earning a higher wage (this group, most likely, including their employer) are viewed as the victims because their tax money is being spent on either supporting these "lazy" people, or because their tax money is being spent on attempting to improve the areas where these "lazy" people reside instead of their own. This is not a sustainable economic model in a society claiming to be ethical as it de-humanizes those who are the most vunerable. It should also be recognised as the clear violation of basic human rights and morality that it is. We should feel priviledged to have the economic means to be charitable to others, rather than be resentful of giving the little that is asked of us.
Mr Magic
Monday, 15 August 2011
The dangers of sensationalist MP's
After the recent remarks made by Iain Duncan Smith to BBC Radio 4, it would appear that the UK Government are genuinely considering removing all benefits from those convicted of having been involved with the recent UK riots. Whilst for many this would seem an appropriate addition to any custodial sentence, the current considerations are being held to include the removal of benefits from those convicted but not sentenced to a custodial punishment.
These benefits include social housing and social maintainence/welfare pay which, if removed, could lead to many being homeless and without the financial means to support themselves. Whilst many people are supporting the removal of benefits on the basis that the Tax money saved could be spent on reconstructing the damaged areas, I condem the decision to even hold the discussion.
For a Government to be threatening people with homelessness, as a punishment, is barbaric. We already have a legal system which has appropriate sentencing powers and that has proportionate punishments for this crime. Such sensationalist punishments, as this, are completely unnecessary and will only go toward further debasing of our value system.
The removal of legitimate means of support from people already pre-disposed to theft will only lead to an increase in theft, and the increase of any singular form of crime within an area, has been proved throughout history to lead to an increase in all forms of crime within that area. Unless, of course, something far far more sinister is underfoot...
Whilst I am not currently suggesting that this is being used for the following means, I hold no reservations that if it is, the UK ethical compass is vastly further off point than anyone could have previousely forseen. What I am refering to is the possibility of an attempt at a form of social engineering referred to as Gentrification.
Gentrification is the attempt to improve the affluence of an area by removal of its working and lower class residents. Simply put, the plan to evict people from public housing, if they have been charged with being involved with the riots, is strictly a punishment that applys only to those in public housing initiatives. For private home owners/renters (in other words those with enough capital to afford private residence) this punishment is negated as the Government holds no jurisdiction, in terms of the ability to evict, over private land. Furthermore, eviction is the most direct form of Gentrification as it literally is a way to repell people from an area. What compounds this further is that one of the areas included is London, The capital of The UK, where millions of people work and live. Gentrification on that scale would be comparable to an exodus and raises questions as to where this mass of people would end up residing. The historical answer to that question is rather grim as it reveals ghettoisation and settelments as being the most popular resolution and at this point we are now no longer discussing Gentrification, but Segregation. Not Segregation based on race or religion, but based on economic capital and wealth.
I sinserely hope that these discussions lead to the decision that removal of benefits is not a fitting punishment for non-custodial riot related crimes.
Mr Magic
These benefits include social housing and social maintainence/welfare pay which, if removed, could lead to many being homeless and without the financial means to support themselves. Whilst many people are supporting the removal of benefits on the basis that the Tax money saved could be spent on reconstructing the damaged areas, I condem the decision to even hold the discussion.
For a Government to be threatening people with homelessness, as a punishment, is barbaric. We already have a legal system which has appropriate sentencing powers and that has proportionate punishments for this crime. Such sensationalist punishments, as this, are completely unnecessary and will only go toward further debasing of our value system.
The removal of legitimate means of support from people already pre-disposed to theft will only lead to an increase in theft, and the increase of any singular form of crime within an area, has been proved throughout history to lead to an increase in all forms of crime within that area. Unless, of course, something far far more sinister is underfoot...
Whilst I am not currently suggesting that this is being used for the following means, I hold no reservations that if it is, the UK ethical compass is vastly further off point than anyone could have previousely forseen. What I am refering to is the possibility of an attempt at a form of social engineering referred to as Gentrification.
Gentrification is the attempt to improve the affluence of an area by removal of its working and lower class residents. Simply put, the plan to evict people from public housing, if they have been charged with being involved with the riots, is strictly a punishment that applys only to those in public housing initiatives. For private home owners/renters (in other words those with enough capital to afford private residence) this punishment is negated as the Government holds no jurisdiction, in terms of the ability to evict, over private land. Furthermore, eviction is the most direct form of Gentrification as it literally is a way to repell people from an area. What compounds this further is that one of the areas included is London, The capital of The UK, where millions of people work and live. Gentrification on that scale would be comparable to an exodus and raises questions as to where this mass of people would end up residing. The historical answer to that question is rather grim as it reveals ghettoisation and settelments as being the most popular resolution and at this point we are now no longer discussing Gentrification, but Segregation. Not Segregation based on race or religion, but based on economic capital and wealth.
I sinserely hope that these discussions lead to the decision that removal of benefits is not a fitting punishment for non-custodial riot related crimes.
Mr Magic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)