Justice to The Reverend

My student debt is massive. So massive I see it as a completely different financial entity to the rest of my monetary life. The figure on it is so out of proportion with every other part of my financial dealings, it feels like there is no way it can really be anything to do with me. But it is. And it continues to slowly grow like some festering tapeworm, slowly sucking up small portions of my fragile disposable income and subtly strangling me from the inside. This month I paid off £25 of it. The interest charged on it was £22. So at this rate, I will have paid off the full £10,000 in 278 years. I imagine, Rev, that yours is more or less the same.

So boo hoo for me. And boo hoo for every other graduate whose salary crawls below the 20k mark. It’s an ugly situation for sure, but incredulous murmurings from the Confederation of British Industries suggest even uglier times ahead. The crux of the CBI report is that Universities need more money and the students should pay for it. Tuition fees should rise and grants should be cut. If a university education seemed out of reach for the UK’s poorest young people now, this would expand that disenfranchised group massively.

The reasoning given by the CBI spokespeople is that there is just no other way to raise the necessary funds needed to run these institutions at the standard required. Many universities are running large deficits and will undoubtedly need more money. But I just can’t accept that the only way to save the higher education system is to raise prices; intentionally fueling the disproportionate number of middle and upper class students who are able to go to university. Not only would this be unjust, but flawed and self-defeating on so many levels. Firstly, the CBI points out that the taxpayer can’t shoulder the costs due to the current state of the nations finances. I have two problems with this. By denying so many people the opportunity to realise their full potential, the long-term impact of this can surely only lead to a diminished output in years to come. My other grievance is concerning the prioritisation of how the contents of the national kitty is used. Now, I’m not going to get into the justification of our war in Afghanistan here, I just want to look at it in regards to its prioritisation. The figure put on the cost of this war is billions. Billions and billions. I would gamble that if you asked Regular John of the streets of the UK if he would rather his tax money went into securing an education for the next generation of Britain or for funding our war in Afghanistan, there would be overwhelming support for education. If we really want our nation to progress, education must be always be right at the top of spending priority. And always, always above war. I realise that the current situation is not quite as straight forward as this; we are at war in Afghanistan and by cutting the amount we spend on it would be condemning many British soldiers to death. But it is certainly a good argument for accelerating the progress of our exit strategy. Also, there’s always Trident to look at if freeing up cold cash is on the agenda.

There are also other potential revenue streams that should be tapped before shaking students by the heels until their lunch money rattles out. The largest of these must be revenue from big businesses. It is they who benefit so hugely from the higher education system, so it seems only right if they have more responsibility in funding it. This, in fact, was brought up by the CBI in a BBC interview, but unsurprisingly in very vague and half-hearted detail.

So the future of the UK’s entire higher education system is hanging very much in the balance. Any decisions made on how this is handled will have massive consequences on many socio and economic levels in the future. Which is why I curse the empty sickness in my stomach when I hear that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives intend to release any manifesto on the topic until after the next general election.

Jayfor to The Reverenr

The relationship between the US and Russia since the collapse of Communism has been confusing to far more people than just you and me, Reverend. And I think that this is a complex a policy as any that has been made in relation to this over the last couple of decades. But is the prevention of one cold war the catalyst for another? Russia may be lauding the US President with unreserved vigour, but Barak Obama’s specific reference to Iran’s ‘ballistic missile programme’ is unlikely to do anything to douse the fires of animosity between Iran and the US (or indeed much of the Western World - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s verbal attacks on the UK during the election protests certainly didn’t go unnoticed). The Iranian President’s answer of ‘without such [nuclear] weapons, we are very much able to defend ourselves’ when questioned about said nuclear programme undoubtedly contains considerable venom. Granted, Iran holds nowhere near the power and influence Russia did in those Cold War years, but the fear and paranoia is still likely to hold considerable sway in international politics whether the Iran threat is real or not. Many outbursts from senior Republican Party figures have confirmed this.

So maybe this is a lot to risk in return for political favours on the Latin America front, which as you suggest will probably be used more for ill than for good. But other consequences, such as removing potential US military targets from European soil and improving relations with the old enemy, Russia, makes fine sense. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor Justice

Not many comments I have today, it's hard to take things in on medication, but something that was on my mind as I chewed through my mango and pancakes this morning was Obama's recent abandonment of missile defence in eastern Europe. Many in America have criticised the President for his so-called sucking-up to the Russian regime and so jeopardising US defence, however, this move, although aggregating the Polish and Czechs, clearly has much more logic than the US media machine will let on. 1) By gaining Russian support, rather than undermining it's sphere of influence around Eastern Europe by expanding defence on what was once considered Soviet soil, there is more chance for for imposing stricter sanctions on Iranian nuclear activity, measures that Russia has so far failed to reach agreement on with the west. 2) Another reason for gaining Russian support is to more closely monitor worrying movements closer to the US borders. The US has rightly or wrongly (most often wrongly) been afraid of the threat from Latin America and the US government has all too often intervened in Latin American affairs, whether supporting rebel groups to led a coup d'etat or sending in mercenaries to assassinate important political figures. The twenty first century appears to be a very different story for the US strangle-hold on Latin America, especially after the formation of greater coalition between Latin American countries (although the name of that particular coalition has disappeared from my mind just now) - without this greater solidarity between these countries, the US might have been able to bolster military presence in Columbia and wave off any concerns from Columbia's neighbouring countries by suggesting it was just a move to aid the mysterious fight against the drugs trade, but such acts are not as easy to implementt as they used to be because much of Latin America has gained the economic strength and solidarity to stand up to the stoned-cold paranoid US machine. And so it seems that America needs help from Russia, a nation that has been well respected in much of Latin America if only for its links with Communism, though, Russia has built up this sphere of influence and now controls major oil lines through Latin America. To cut to the chase, the American's are afraid of the increasing ties between Venezuela and Iran... Chavez has agreed to open more doors for increased oil output to Iran in exchange for knowledge of nuclear technology - is this another episode of US paranoia, perhaps not, as just last week Chavez visited Iran and agreed to stronger ties in trade and oil.

In the wake of Obama's victory and whilst the inevitable was looming for George Bush, the former President said of his Presidential victor: “‘this is a dangerous world…and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.’” Obama has not yet acted on many of the massive expectations he has set himself, but over the coming months we'll soon know whether his new regime of stronger ties between the US and Russia will be better for the American people than years of cold war paranoia between the two states.

Rev. to Justice

Women’s equality – inherently different between western and Islamic cultures, so hard to compare how women’s equality, as viewed in the West, is necessarily brought into question by the Burka. In terms of Islamic culture, to suggest that the Burka poses an obstacle to the equality of future generations would be to wipe away centuries of historically and religious symbolism -

So, Burka as a religious symbol, or Burka as a mode of suppression?

There is another argument here, which fights for the freedom of every country to have it’s own cultural identity:
Fully Liberated Muti-culturalism, or limited multi-culturalism? Every country has the right to exhibit their cultural and social values (in the UK we have the Queen and English tea, in Holland they have the clog and marijuana, in Brazil everyone loves football, in Russia everyone is a spy) and no country should, unless certain laws or actions amount to physical or psychological harm upon its citizens, should be held hostage by another country’s cultural, political or religious values. So, for instance, if one were to emigrate and start a family, surely they wouldn’t expect that country to have to bend over to any special demands that they may have brought from their own homeland with the exception of a flag for nostalgic reasons perhaps, and they would surely expect their children and the generations after them to live in such a way as to be acclimatised - in so much as the law is upheld - to the cultural values of the country that has adopted them.

Even if a person hasn’t emigrated, but decides to become a Muslim and decides that they must cover their face, well then it is their problem to find a society that can empathise with their religious customs and allow them to externally display their full identity. The same could be said, for example, if a person felt uncomfortable living under a the roof of particular political regime – if the politics aint changing any time soon, then perhaps that person should move to a place where they can live comfortably without feeling suppressed or antagonised by politics they fundamentally disagree with – unless, of course, there is real cause for revolutionary change. Then, every man, woman and child should stay and fight for their freedom and right to basic human rights.

When we travel to Arabic countries where girls legs on show (however hot and smooth their thighs are) are seen as a sign of disrespect, we teach our children to accept these laws, just as we might be forced to accept that some countries have stricter laws on alcohol or drugs – like in the US you can’t drink before the age of 21, so as a person under 21 you must drink alcohol where you won’t be found by the authorities, otherwise you face the consequences.
So, what I’m getting at here is, if as a person you feeling strongly that you must wear a particular type of clothing - short skirts perhaps - or even smoke dope legally, then you must choose a country that accepts yr conditions – or do it indoors where you’ll not offend others - and not expect any country to accept yr views and values.

It is a shame that certain countries have harsher views on multi-culturalism than those displayed in the UK, but I believe that these are very rare in the world and have their advantages and disadvantages within our society. But, if the French wish to have a society where people’s faces must be shown- for whatever reasons, security, equality etc - especially in classrooms, airports or shopping centres, then that is the choice of that countries democratically elected leaders and as a citizen, if yr religious values are suppressed in some way, then you must either accept the conditions within the country you live or leave –

One cannot expect other people’s cultural and social values to be blighted by religious anarchy. Either way, it’s all a show of control by the state – just as a ban on cigarettes is. Funny how they tell us we’re not allowed to smoke ANYWHERE because cigarettes are bad for everybody’s health, but we can still buy the damn cancer-sticks from the shops.

Jayfor to Rev.

Faith. And France. And fashion. And freedom…

Nicolas Sarkozy is not mincing words. When it come to an issue that divides not only the French people, but the French politicians in Versailles, he has made his position crystal clear. In his first state of the nation speech to Parliament, and indeed the first made by a French President in over 150 years, Sarkozy put forward his views that he wanted to see an end to Muslim women wearing the burka (and niqab) in France. “Not welcome on French soil” holds a very powerful tone.

In his address, the President stated that it was not objections to the garments’ religious significance, but it was an issue of women’s ‘liberty’ and ‘dignity’. This statement is a brave one. Mostly, I believe, because it is peppered with all sorts of paradoxes. The first is regarding the use of the word ‘liberty’. What Sarkozy is proposing here is upholding a woman’s liberty by removing her right to wear a certain garment of clothing. This sounds strangely like one of Orwell’s examples of doublethink. So he must have at least one of two scenarios in mind. The first I can think of is the assumption that many Muslim women are forced into wearing clothes that cover their faces by oppressive partners or peers of significant religious influence. This is certainly plausible. The problem is that there is no way of finding out what proportion of women are oppressed in this way and what proportion would feel oppressed by having to show their face in public. This brings me to ‘dignity’, which I’ll address in a moment. The second scenario that comes to mind regarding ‘liberty’ is that Sarkozy believes the general public has the right to be able to see the faces of all other citizens. I don’t see how this holds up though. Ban tinted visors on motorcycle helmets? Ban oversized sunglasses? Balaclavas? Either way, it’s there to be argued.

So, ‘dignity’ then. Aspects of dignity are undoubtedly universal, but other can definitely be seen as subjective. In Western culture, almost any woman would feel her dignity had been stripped from her if forced, or hell, even suggested that she covered her face in public. Equality between the sexes is a notion that has shaped Western culture and so it seems logical that to be denied this equality by being denied the right to show your face in public is to say that you have been rejected by your culture. And this is undignified. But, of course, the opposite is also true. A Muslim woman who strongly believes that her religion (and by extension, culture) is shaped on the subversive role of women would surely feel equally stripped of dignity if she were forced to display her face in public.

With these paradoxes tangled like a kite in a power line, the direction we need to look is forward. In what ways would this shape the future? Both the following generations of Muslim women and also the shape of our own Western culture. Do garments like the burka suggest to our future generations that the necessity for women’s equality is only an opinion? Would the banning of such garments suggest that tolerance ends at a cultural divide?
The French Council for the Muslim Religion, Mohammed Moussaoui, brought up the problem of stigmatism. And it can certainly be seen that the passing of a law that bans the wearing of burkas or niqabs is inherently suggesting that the Muslim faith need be viewed with suspicion. At a time where tension between Western and Muslim cultures is ever mounting, suspicion can be a dangerous thing.

Rev. to Jayfor Justice

Well, not having a defence against even the smallest potential threat (after all, government must have had scientists and analysts undertaking stringent risk assessments on the premise of nuclear warfare in order to sanction such a defence scheme (well, at least, we hope it wasn’t an activity sought though the caprice of bored ministers)) would be like leaving your door ajar and making a clear statement that you were vulnerable. Now, most people would be too scared to take a peek inside that door, perhaps they’d be worried that someone was at home with a baseball bat to hand - just like when we left Cardiff for a hedonistic weekend in Leeds in 2006, leaving our door not just unlocked, but swinging wildly in the bitter Welsh wind, nonetheless, we came back to a house that hadn’t been robbed – but there will always be those people – North Korean leaders - who will be more likely to have the crazy-balls to open up the door and see what they can find – or bomb.

And yes, JJ, I do agree that the potential for our little island being wiped off the map is minimal, almost non-existent, but until nuclear weapons are completely done away with (including you, America) it would be a far more shrewd bet to have a system in place that would be able to counter the minimal threat of a North Korean all-in call.

Justice to Rev

There are certainly some points there Rev. North Korea being the most prominent and terrifying. I would like to think that our best defence against them is diminishing our nuclear power; proving that we really have no intention of cracking open their isolationist shell with atomic particles. The leaders and generals of North Korea are telling their people that we (well the US in particular, but since Blair we’ll be associated with whatever they do) are planning to bomb them back to the dark ages. A policy of reducing our arms, you would hope, would make this claim seem totally unsubstantiated. There is, however, a pretty fundamental flaw in this thinking, which fertilises my indecision like three tons of cow shit. The North Korean media is controlled so heavily by the Powers That Be, that if they wanted their public to know nothing of this policy, it would be easy to cover up.

But I would like to think that a nuclear arms free world is the way of the future. It is a hell of long way off at the moment, but any kind of step towards it I believe is a brave and noble one. If we announced the scrapping of Trident today, would missiles from all over the world really come crashing down on our Green and Pleasant Lands? I’m sceptical. After all, the US would come to our defence. Wouldn’t they?