Parallels and Perspective

We’re not even a month into the new year, and already we have seen some inspiring action across the world. In Tunisia, the people protested against their government. In Egypt, protests are still going on (for up-to-date news, watch English Al Jazeera, they have been fantastic in covering it) against Mubarak’s rule. As I type, a Vice President has just been sworn in. Protests in London and across the UK have also started up again, now everyone has recovered from the laziness of Christmas and gotten back into the swing of things. In some cases these protests in the UK have led to clear police brutality (video from Leeds).

Iconic photo of a middle aged woman kissing a policeman - in Egypt this week. Copyright: Lefteris Pitarakis / AP.From MSN's Egypt photoblog

What is interesting is that in all of this we have faced constant snide remarks of “Well, in the US this happens all the time!” “It’s not as bad as in Egypt. You should be grateful you have freedom of speech to say that!” and so on.

I appreciate that comparisons can be helpful. For example, we should be emboldened by those in Tunisia and in Egypt. We should think ourselves lucky that we do not face what they face on a daily basis; that by and large we live in a more democratic country. And we should take heart from their uprising. It’s hope for our own. However, comparisons of “What are we grumbling about? They have it so much worse” are extremely unhelpful and patronising.

The implicit message in that is that we don’t know how good we have it; by being angry at things that are not life-threatening or ‘as bad as’ elsewhere that apparently means we are ignorant and this somehow detracts of diminishes the underlying message of the fight for freedom elsewhere. Which of course, is untrue. I don’t think for one second that people who protested in London today are unaware of the Egyptian peoples’ struggles. The protest evem made its way to the Egyptian Embassy – whether you agree with that or not – and this shows a sense that UK protestors see themselves as belonging to a wider community of protestors. So by no means ignorant of problems elsewhere. In fact, they are now aware, more than ever, that we live in a ‘global village’.

The way I see it, arguments of “why are you protesting when other people have it worse?” are – to go off point for a second – exactly the same arguments used against people who suffer from depression. “Why are you so unhappy, you have legs and arms!” (as someone who suffers from depression, I know this argument all too well!)
I think it’s important to not assess protests, or political unrest, or angry citizens in terms of justifying and comparing to other countries. What is important is that we all feel angry – whether we are in Egypt, Tunisia, elsewhere (I know other countries are going through similar phases) or in the UK. Whether we are being dragged from homes and murdered by the state, or whether our local library is being closed down – we all feel betrayed by our government. It doesn’t matter why, it doesn’t matter that people elsewhere ‘have it worse’ – NEVER let anyone tell you that you don’t have a right to feel angry, or betrayed, or upset! You have a right to be angry at anything you please, if it affects your life and you don’t like it.

What’s more, I’m finding myself enraged by Americans who keep somehow coming up on my radar and chiming in with “Call that police brutality?! Look at THIS!” – it’s not a competition to see who treats their citizens worse. In America, police taser people, but this doesn’t mean that it’s ok for protestors to be hit with batons at protests in the UK. I don’t want the police in my country to start using tasers. I don’t want for us to slip into that without a fight, or to turn round in ten years when they do use taser guns on protestors, and say “I didn’t see this coming! Why didn’t anyone say anything?!”

So yes, comparison gives us perspective in a world where things get blown out of proportion all too often and easily. But it also makes us less inclined to progress; to develop ourselves further. What good does it do us to look at people who are worse off, and feel bad that we are angry about things which, in the grand scheme of things, are not as bad? We need to feel angry. We need to progress. We need for things to change. And perspective-givers only hinder this by making us feel like whatever we want to fight for is not legitimate. I say, if you feel it, then it is.

Why are we against privatising forests?

Saw this post earlier explaining the benefits of privatising forests in the UK and I felt an overwhelming urge to respond. The post asks, why are people so against private involvement of our forests? “Private ownership can be much better than without private involvement. There are also many instances where private land is much better looked after than communal areas.”

Let’s be clear here: Forests are already owned, by the Forestry Commission, the “government department responsible for the protection and expansion of Britain’s forests and woodlands” (quoted on website). They plant trees, manage woodland on our behalf and sustainably harvest wood from them.

The argument set out in Toryradio’s post above is that private land (ie gardens in this case) look nicer than the communal grassy area nearby which has been untouched.

The problem in selling off forests is that the fear is buyers will not be picked out – forests will be sold to the highest bidder. The carelessness with which this is being done is frightening – if an energy company wants to buy it to chop trees down for energy, then they can do. If a property development company wants to flatten it to build houses then they can. One hopes that this won’t be the case, but this is the worst-case scenario and what a lot of us fear.

Comparing national forests to personal gardens/small open spaces is ridiculous. Gardens are individual spaces cared for by individuals, and communal patches of green are left abandoned because I suspect councils’ don’t have enough money to care for them. I highly doubt that residents care much for it either. It’s a token square patch of land – here you go, have your green patch so that we can say we are environmentally friendly and everyone has access to some green land..

On the other hand, forests are vast, beautiful ecosystems (let us not forget there are other users of the forests apart from ourselves) which we can all appreciate – the sort of place we can take our children for a picnic, go bird watching or just enjoy the outdoors. Companies view assets such as forests in a very different way – in fact, to them it is perhaps not even a forest – merely land to be used. Something to build on. Something to make money from. Not something that can be opened for the public to enjoy for free. Why would you let people in for free!? Shocking…

Anonymity is power

We’re all incredibly conscious of our public image. How do people perceive us? With the meteoric rise of twitter as a mass-communication tool, people are forgetting just how powerful it is, and getting caught out. One such unintentional victim of open-ness is Sarah Baskerville, whose name is now synonymous with “what not to do on twitter”.

It’s not her I want to talk about though. It’s what this says about us as a society.

Letts’ harsh, cruel criticisms of ‘Baskers’ is indicative of how we are beginning to treat problems in society as a whole. To go slightly off tangent and into the complex web of issues that is Higher Education, as I see it, the core problem in the education sector is lack of choice outside of University. More choice which will automatically decrease numbers, therefore reducing the financial strain of funding students. Slashing budgets and increasing fees dramatically only serves to solve the symptom and not the root cause of our problems.

This seems to be our approach to absolutely everything, including, sadly in Sarah’s case, ordinary people. Something goes wrong – cover it up and pretend it’s not there. Someone is unhappy or talking about something we don’t want them to – shut them up. We are forgetting that civil servants are humans, too. Unbelievably, they have feelings and opinions! Of course, you wouldn’t expect Ed, Dave or Nick to be tweeting about their ‘epic hangover’, but we shouldn’t put pressure on ordinary, hard-working people to be shining paragons of virtue, either.

In the last week or so, a friendly dragon by the name of Puffles has wandered into our midst on twitter. There is quite a big fuss around Puffles now. They have amassed followers very quickly – from all parties, and all viewpoints.

Despite a lot of questioning and assumptions about Puffles, the person behind the account has remained resolutely silent about themselves, conversing with curious users in the third person and posting links. They are a civil servant and live in fear of being discovered; of losing their job through trying to educate people about what is really happening – with information which, for the most part, stems from official websites that few people look at.

Interestingly, Puffles has imposed a few house rules upon their twitter account – no remarks about specific parties or politicians, and sticking to issues under the PCS Union umbrella. Certainly no references to themselves. They tweet links to government websites (with information already in the public domain) that the public wouldn’t otherwise find or even think of looking for. Tweets are focussed on encouraging people to engage with elected representatives, making people aware of their legal rights – and always strongly against violence as a way of addressing problems. Puffles highlights issues, providing further information for what we should be concerned about and adding them to debates – but this is always done in a “I think you should know this” way, without judgement or opinions.

Concern of becoming known has prevented Puffles from starting a blog providing information that everyone can learn from. I hope it doesn’t put them off for long, because thirst for transparency and clarity of information is growing rapidly. Under a government whose core members spin u-turns like it’s a baton race and brazenly lie to the public time and time again, who can we trust? We are dependent on those on the inside and it is our duty to protect them from exposure.