Totaal aantal pageviews

zondag 20 november 2011

Western hipocrisy. I hate it.

US university investigates campus pepper spray use 

I was so disgusted when I saw this video.  It shows students at the University of California who are protesting in solidarity with like-minded protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement, being sprayed with 'pepper-spray'.

These chemicals were sprayed directly in the faces of students sat still on the floor.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? When I see events like these it reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971.  The 'guards' in this experiment developed sadistic tendencies and even created their own ways of controlling 'inmates' often via humiliating and degrading punishments.  This came from the perceived identities that the 'guards' thought they should take on and embody. The uniforms also dehumanise them and make it easier for them to control other people, as they have the support of other officers in uniform, often covered up with helmets, shields or even just sunglasses.

I also think about the way 'western' countries have handled the uprisings across the Arab world. They have denounced the 'atrocities' and heavy-handedness of the governments of these countries. They disagree with the use of water-cannons, rubber bullets and the like. However when it comes to their own people, students and others who have a genuine cause to be angry, it seems that it is accepted by our governments that our police forces calmly spray people in the face with chemicals. Wouldn't the US or even the UK government call this something like 'state-sanctioned terrorism'?

I am certainly not saying that the way that previous governments in some North African and Middle Eastern countries have treated their people is acceptable, not at all. My question is about the consistency of our attitudes, and the discrepancies between foreign and domestic policy.  Shouldn't we have the same policy about the way protesters are treated in our country and other countries?

There are of course many factors influencing the decision of governments and their security forces to use force to stop violence or other crimes that may be being committed alongside what is often peaceful protest (don't even use the London riots as an example, as that had almost nothing to do with protest - note I use the word almost; it started with a peaceful protest and others hijacked it and started something else completely).  Surely though, we can all agree that the video from the link at the beginning of this post is disgusting and, as the Chancellor of the University herself put it (after being the one to call the police), "chilling".

woensdag 9 november 2011

The "Gaystapo". This is what happens when Churches try humour...

... nobody gets them.


At least I hope Alan Craig made this simple mistake of trying humour. I certainly hope that it isn't Christian humour - their "rock" music is bad enough.


Here's an excerpt of a post he made on his blog today:

I accused Stonewall et al of fascist-type intolerance. I note they recently awarded Melanie Phillips their Bigot Of The Year Award. Whatever you think of her views, she argues rationally, reasonably, includes factual evidence and incites no-one to violence (it’s known as public discussion within a liberal democracy), yet she has been subject to this Nazi-style pillorying and demonisation.


This was of course, in reference to his recent article in The Church of England Newspaper on the "Gaystapo" and their unrelenting assault on "English" and "Christian" society (apparently the two concepts are inseparable even today).


I think the poor guy mixed up his words a wee bit, though.


He says he accused Stonewall of "fascist-type intolerance".  Now it's been a over 18 months since I was at the University of Sheffield (which has pulled an advertisement of a Biblical Studies MA from the CofE Newspaper's website), so my critical thinking may be a little rusty, but shouldn't he have written "intolerance of fascism"?


In his original article, he compared Winston Churchill to his own "side", as if they are the champions against a fascist movement, like he was.


Now I get what he's trying to say -  that the 'gaystapo' is intolerant of Christian views (a bit like a child saying, "well yeah we hate gays, but they hate us too"). This would have had the effect of cancelling out the argument, a bit like the chicken and the egg argument.


However, unlike the chicken or the egg, we know who cast the first stone, as it were. There was no "book of gay" decreeing "thou shalt not worship Jesus, Mary et al." There was the Bible, though. So in keeping with Craig's style of argument, I say to him:


YEAH WELL, YOU STARTED IT!