Category Archives: equality

I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

Sold short

by Chris Nash

If you plan to exploit vulnerable people through a shameful confidence trick, it is generally best not to shout about it in the national press. Sadly this ProTip was not passed on to a Mr Carl Cooper of CarSmart in Kent. Mr Cooper’s little scam was to predate on those desperately seeking work, and to pay them at the miserly rate of £50 per week. In case you missed that, that’s for a whole weeks work, it’s not even a daily rate. Its £2.50 an hour, below the legal minimum wage and well below a living wage. Thankfully all his victims had the common sense to tell him where to get off – not one of them turned up.

Mr Cooper is a cruel and selfish individual. He has attempted to take advantage of a high unemployment rate to undermine basic working conditions and to exploit desperate people. You might think it unfair to single him out for criticism; he is just one greedy self-serving individual among many.  Maybe I would have dismissed him if it had been just the confidence trick. One obscure tinpot little company out in the sticks barely registers on the global scale of corporate injustice. But because Mr Cooper was outwitted by seven unemployed people he’d so clearly thought beneath him, he decided to launch a smear campaign.

This is why you may have read about Mr Cooper in the gutter press, in the corrupt Murdoch tabloids, in the hate-soaked columns of the Mail, and on the front page of Friday’s Metro (which presumably no unemployed person is expected to read). Bitter at being outwitted by dole scum, he has decided to add to the drip-drip of hateful propaganda against them. I’m going to look specifically at the Sun, that bastion of working class divide-and-rule. Mr Cooper looks bemused around his soulless office, making awkward half eye contact and sporting one of those ‘70s style striped shirts with plain collars that David Steel used to wear. Apparently the hired staff failed to turn up because of rain, not that any evidence or testimony is given to prove this. In all likelihood Mr Cooper plucked it gracefully from his arse. Then the real slurs begin.

A picture worth taking up darts for.

The general assumption made by Mr Cooper is that the potential employees were “work-shy”. In fact, throw in all the tired clichés you can think of. Draw an elegant but oh so two-dimensional caricature if you please. It’s so much easier than genuine analysis – you don’t even need evidence. To quote “Stunned Carl”: “I cannot believe that these layabouts can have such a pathetic attitude to a day’s labour”. The measured tones of a decent chap, I’m sure you’ll agree. For the real reason why not one of the seven did not turn up, Mr Cooper need only look at the pay he was offering. Did it ever occur to him that it isn’t work, or even the specific type of work that people object to, it’s the insulting poverty pay?

£50 a week is well below the poverty line for a single person. Subtract travel costs and its questionable as to whether anyone could afford to remain alive on such a sum. “Even the basic pay for fulfilling the minimum requirements of the work would be double what they could get on Jobseekers Allowance” is Mr Cooper’s justification. With such an evidently poor grasp of basic maths, I could fear for the financial future of his business, if I cared. For comparison the JSA rate for under 25’s is £56 a week. From experience I can say that it’s certainly a struggle keeping the Koi carp pond stocked on 56 quid. Alternatively it’s “too generous” if you agree with Mr Cooper, which I don’t. People are indeed better off on the dole, but in the way that the ‘flu is better than the Black Death.

Would I rather pay people to stay on the dole? Well yes actually, yes I would. As a taxpayer, I would much rather pay to support someone in looking for work on their own terms; work that will be suited to their talents, complement their general well-being, and ideally be of a credit to wider society. I would favour this even more so if the alternative is to force the desperate into an exploitative working relationship with the Carl Coopers of this world, encouraging a race to the bottom for wages in a sweatshop economy. I would see the end of parasitical businesses like CarSmart. What a beautiful irony it would be if Mr Cooper found himself unemployed; would his Just World philosophy survive? Would he continue to think of himself as superior to “those people” when he’s stacking shelves for free in the Darwinian future he encourages?

“The benefit system rewards people for doing nothing” says Carl. No mate, it protects them from abusive scumbags like yourself.

George Osborne: Right on Charity

by Chris Nash

Never let it be said that I am an unquestioning partisan. George Osborne has attracted a lot of criticism in the past few days for his plans to cap tax relief for charitable donations. Tax relief allows wealthy individuals who donate to registered charities to claim back from the treasury. The Chancellor is proposing to cap the amount of tax-free giving at £50,000, or 25% of a person’s income, whichever figure is the greater. I agree with him.

It is an unusual situation where a Tory chancellor can consider myself as an ally (and the Daily Mail as an enemy). The official reason given by Osborne is that this is a means to reduce tax evasion. If you remember back to the budget, Osborne declared such evasion to be “morally reprehensible”. At the time I expressed deep cynicism about what actions if any would follow such fine words. The charity tax relief cut is a welcome start, even if the limit is still too generous.

What have I got against charity? Consider it like this – under normal circumstances an individual who has been fortunate enough to become a high earner will contribute back to society through taxation. A progressive tax system will endure that the tax rate collects most from those who can most afford it. Revenue raised then goes back into services from which we all individually or collectively benefit. An educated, healthy and contented society then feeds into the entrepreneurs and genuine wealth-creators of the future.

Now consider the tax relief route. The rich individual decides to reduce their tax bill by donating to a registered charity. This could be any such charity of their choice, regardless of size or activity. The charity would be run by its directors and trustees entirely by its own rules and priorities, with little oversight, and no accountability to the general public. Because the donor has claimed tax relief, the funds raised for the treasury are reduced – the state has less to spend on health, education, and other public services. The donor themselves, if wealthy, is probably not affected but the general public will suffer as a result.

The charity tax relief system is effectively a system for the subsidy of charities at the expense of public services. Public services face an immense amount of scrutiny, and they are always accountable to us through our elected representatives. Even the largest and best known charities carry out their activities in relative secrecy. Some charities do nominally “good” work, such as running hostels or after-school tuition. Yet what logic can there be in the treasury subsidising a charity to support a public service, when that same public service only needs support due to treasury spending cuts?

Philanthropy is also strongly anti-democratic.  A donor decides which causes they believe are worthy. They also decide how much to donate and when. Where a charity has a few large donors it has to dance to their tune, to beg. To quote Toynbee and Walker in Unjust Rewards (2008):

we suggested to a major donor that paying more tax might be a better way for the wealthy to pay their dues than random gift-giving. He answered that the state could never spend his money as well as he could. If he gives he can direct it exactly where he wants and oversee what happens to it. Follow this recipe to its natural conclusion and anarchy and plutocracy result.

Charity tax relief allows the wealthy to take money from the tax system – from all of us – and spend it on their private causes; be they decent state substitutes, the idols of privilege, or just delusional make-believe. I applaud Osborne for cutting it.

Will the relief cut seriously reduce donations? That only depends on the true motives of the donors. From the Independent:

Why are charities so fearful that a limit on how much donors can offset against tax will reduce their income? This will only happen if the tax concessions of the past constituted a major – the major? – motivation to give. No limit is being placed on how much anyone may donate, only on what draws tax relief. If big donors are sufficiently committed to their cause, there is nothing to prevent them giving as before. If they don’t, does that not suggest that the tax break was, if not being abused, at least a persuasive consideration?

I am not against charity in itself, but it must never be a substitute for the consistent and equal provision of essential services. Services that only the state can provide fairly and free at point-of-use to all of its citizens. The welfare state was founded by Liberal and Labour governments precisely because the threadbare safety net of charitable provision was never good enough. Cutting the tax relief threshold could mean an actual spending increase for our public services, and in that I agree with George.

The Future of LGBT Labour

by maxattacks

I joined the Labour Party in 2008. This was before I was prepared to accept my sexuality. I have now come to realise that it was joining the Labour Party, and learning of all of Labour’s achievements in Government in striving for sexual equality that helped me on my way in accepting myself. Being proudly gay and proudly a member of the Labour Party can and should be mutually reinforcing. I will always be thankful to Labour for this.

Whilst we can look back proudly on all Labour achieved in equality – and there is no need to list these here – ending legislative homophobia is not the same as ending homophobia engrained in society. Top-down measures can only work so far. Greater acceptance of homosexuality as being ‘equal but different’ to heterosexuality can only be achieved through increased exposure of what it is to be gay, i.e., being capable of loving someone of the same sex. At its most basic this can include couples walking down the street holding hands. Unfortunately, we are not yet at a stage where this simple statement of homosexuality is uncontroversial. There is still a need for gay couples to act as pioneers. I can speak from experience that some members of society are not ready to witness such sights.

Labour is at its best when fighting for the rights of minorities within society, championing the fundamental need for equality. However, whilst I am well aware that homophobia remains an issue, the greatest issue of inequality relates to income. The lack of equal opportunity in the world of work adversely affects women, the BME community and disabled people more than it does the LGBT community. With this in mind, the LGBT Labour needs to rally round and support those who also fall under the umbrella term ‘minority’. Liberation Campaigns and caucuses are vital in recognising and celebrating our differences (note the very discourse of the word ‘Pride’ in our annual Pride Marches, and the rightful presence of Labour at these marches), but our shared difficulties and experiences need to be at the forefront of our campaigns.

This is, I believe, should be the next step of LGBT Labour in Britain, standing up for the voiceless in society, speaking for those adversely affected by the Government’s draconian and ill-balanced cuts. Even if we do not self-define as members of a particular caucus, Labour needs to unite and continue the fight for equal opportunity for all.

By Dan Harrison, Outgoing BULS Chair

An Englishman’s Home is… beyond his wildest dreams

by labourluke

For some reason, going back into the mists of time, the British people have an obsession with private home ownership, even though most of us should technically never be able to afford one without borrowing. In Continental Europe, people are far more satisfied to rent, either from private landlords or more ‘trustworthy’ institutions – maybe there is some correlation between these statistics and the lower levels of stress and dissatisfaction there compared to the UK.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and there is no going back on the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1981 however much we might want to reverse it (indeed, many of us may actually agree with it, being as it was extremely popular with the low paid, who for the first time had a stake in their council homes and some sense of freedom, however delusional). What we have now is a housing crisis coming at the worst possible time, during a dire economic climate caused by sub-prime mortgages themselves.

Tensions over housing and its’ availability have an effect on many areas of life, including levels of antagonism towards immigrants, the environment, growth, inequality in our cities, personal debt, and of course the Daily Mail and Daily Express front pages. We need to deal with this timebomb if we are to stem a rise in far-right politics and avoid a lost generation of young people. However, worryingly this government is going about it completely the wrong way.

Not only has it made squatting illegal when there are more empty properties than there are homeless people in this country, but it has appallingly placed a cap on housing benefit, effectively pricing the poor out of our capital city and entire swathes of the country – those parts of the country which have job vacancies. The government is slashing the public sector and saddling young people who go to university with ever higher debt, meaning their chances of even being able to look forward to putting down a deposit are negligible.

What our housing market needs is a Keynesian-style investment in house building and construction; not only would this lower house prices for first-time buyers, but it would also ease tensions in the community and increase demand in the economy generally, leading to growth and the beginning of the end of the deficit that the ConDems love to remind us about so much. As a bonus, it would even lead to a return of Location Location Location to our TV screens. Gordon Brown’s plan before the proverbial shit hit the fan in 2007 was to build 3 million new homes – we need this sort of commitment now, coupled with a healthy proliferation of 1940s-inspired New Towns (hopefully better designed than the likes of Milton Keynes) and more social housing. Today’s announcement from Cameron and Clegg about guaranteeing 95% mortgages may look like a repetition of exactly what went wrong in the first place, but should not be dismissed entirely, as it is the taxpayer, not the banks, helping first-time buyers, and there is real potential for an increase in demand as a result.

However it goes nowhere near far enough. If we can’t get people to fall out of love with the owner-occupier dream, then we need to build, build, build, spending more money in the short term to get us out of the mess in the long term.

9/11 Ten Years On, Coalition Politics and Blood Donation

by labourluke

9/11 – A Warning from Recent History

For someone of the age of the current crop of Labour Students, it is particularly difficult to believe that it is ten years tomorrow since the lives of millions were changed forever on September 11th, 2001. Most of us were still in primary school at the time, and it is perhaps apt that our generation – one that was constantly told we were growing up too fast – had our innocence of the world around us robbed so suddenly on that bright Tuesday morning. Hearing and seeing the images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center still transfixes all of us, and as much as we might want to look away having seen enough, we can’t quite bring ourselves to stop watching.

However it is our generation – the 9/11 generation – who will be the politicians and headline-makers of the coming years, and if anything good can come of the last decade, it is surely the lesson  that those in power have a responsibility not to overreact when faced with such onslaughts. Our party’s most successful leader (in electoral terms) no doubt had good intentions, but made the grave error of marching the troops gung-ho into an unplanned and illegal war, probably creating a whole new generation of terrorists in the process, while at home him and those around him were complicit in eroding many of the freedoms we were meant to be protecting, including detention without charge and freedom from torture. If the horror of terrorism reaches us again, we must pause and assess the causes before acting. The same rule should apply for other crises, like the riots this summer.

Backbench Tories Have Nothing To Worry About

Today is the final day of the Plaid Cymru autumn conference in Llandudno, north Wales. The outgoing leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, made his final conference speech yesterday after an electoral drubbing for the nationalist party in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. Unlike in Scotland, where the SNP have been successful, he argued that coalition government in Cardiff Bay (of which Plaid was the junior party) meant Plaid’s achievements in government were smothered by Labour, and that the party was punished by voters for not claiming credit for them.

Aside from the fact that Plaid achieved very little in government in a time of economic turmoil other than a referendum with poor turnout which managed to bore even political anoraks, their experience in coalition should serve as a lesson to Westminster politics. This week Tory backbenchers, angry over law and order, Europe and abortion, moaned that the Lib Dem ‘tail’ was wagging the Tory ‘dog’ and that Nick Clegg was being given too many concessions by the Prime Minister. However come the election in 2015, the Tories will have nothing to worry about, as the voters are likely to give them sole credit for any successes – particularly if the economy picks up (not a given considering Osborne’s slash-and-burn approach) – and they will certainly not be looking to make some sort of permanent alliance with the Lib Dems, contrary to what some commentators are predicting. The coalition dog will probably have his tail docked when the voters are next given a choice.

About Bloody Time

This week the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood for life in Britain was finally overturned (although you’d be forgiven for not noticing the leap forward because the BBC thought Strictly Come Dancing was more important on the news bulletins that night). This is a triumph that equality campaigners have been working tirelessly for for years, and at last gay men will be able to save lives and help tackle the urgent need for more donors. No more will the official policy imply that gay men cannot be trusted to practice safe sex and ‘probably have HIV’.

Although the ban was only replaced with a one-year time lag since a donor’s last encounter, it is still progress, and puts us more in line with the situation in similar countries.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

by labourluke

There’s been a tsunami wave of comment and opinion about ignorance and what to do about the riots in the last week, most of which has been speculative and, in some cases, downright prejudiced (I am of course referring to David Starkey). However what I want to shed some light on is the ignorance that I see every day surrounding disability and conditions that inflict millions of people.

I was on a bus this week where an elderly lady got on with a walking stick and was clearly unsteady on her feet. When she struggled to find her bus pass and got into bother, the bus driver continued to harass her, demanding that she either produce her card, pay or get off the bus. There was tutting and sighing from other passengers, and I even heard the word ‘drunk’ whispered by several people. It was 10.30 in the morning, and although regrettably some people do start drinking early in the day in areas like mine when they’d be better off doing something constructive, I think this woman would have had a tough job getting plastered this quickly.

The lady was not drunk as it turned out, but she had Huntington’s Disease, as another lady pointed out to me as she helped her with her heavy bags. Huntington’s Disease is an hereditary neurodegenerative disorder affecting muscle control which only begins to take effect in middle age, and leads eventually to dementia and in many cases untimely death. The bus driver in question was not a bad man, and was only in his twenties; he was probably concerned about losing his job if someone got away with not having their pass. However it struck me that this lady, who had a perfectly intelligent and coherent conversation with another passenger before she struggled off the bus, undoubtedly has to put up with this ordeal every time she leaves the house, with people commenting and assuming and speculating whenever she goes shopping or to visit relatives.

Why are we not educated about conditions such as this? Why do people with diseases or conditions that are not self-inflicted have to put up with social stigma and embarrassment every day by people who are not discriminatory, but are completely oblivious to the existence of the disease they cannot escape? It’ll never happen in the current climate of cuts, but I believe we should make our children attend compulsory awareness classes, not in school as the curriculum is already stretched, but outside, perhaps in the summer holidays, alongside first aid and financial management tutorials. Ideally it would inform people of ‘invisible’ conditions such as autism and tackle the taboos surrounding common illnesses like cancer. Perhaps then people’s lives would be less of a struggle and allowances would be made for the disabled by other members of the public. If the classes were to take place at 16 it would probably be more of a benefit for society as a whole than national service or leaving young people on the street; it may also encourage more volunteering, which will go some way towards creating a big society and boost young people’s employability at the same time.

The civil rights movement of our time

by maxattacks

Just a quick blog this morning, another will be done on the pension reforms, hopefully, this evening. But anyway, I’m sure you’re probably aware of New York legalising same-sex marriages. Now this is nothing less than a triumph against the forces of bigotry, especially since this had to be pushed through a Republican state Senate but also New York is the third largest American state, so you can tell this was a big target set by the gay rights movements.

You only have to look at what was being spouted out by anti-equality campaigners such as National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) to see that what they were saying was nothing less than vile. While NOM has been veiling its true views behind a smokescreen of claims about the “Government redefinition of marriage”. At the very least, their grass-roots have portrayed the movements true views upon the lines of the usual “it’s wrong and an affront to the family” and simply spouting religious lines and hatred. It’s the sad truth that the NOM is primarily made up Roman Catholics and Christian Evangelicals both of whom spout such vile and hate. And it’s always the case that the establishment, particularly the establishment of bigotry which stands in the way of true justice and equality, throughout history. And this is what is happening in the USA today.

This is why I believe gay rights is the USA’s civil rights movement of our time. But this is a massive step in the right direction and who knows, at this rate Martin Luther King’s dream may come true one day.

Max

They Just Don’t Get It

by labourluke

I’ve now returned to Birmingham after a week in which the Coalition managed to look incompetent and shambolic as well as cruel. We’ve had Willetts admitting he is content to see poorer students having to settle for a degree at their local sixth form, rather than enjoying the full university experience; Norman Tebbit joining the near-univeral coalition against the NHS transformation; U-turns on defence spending and health to add to the growing list which includes school sports and buildings, forests, and even the Downing Street cat; and of course Nick Clegg. When he hasn’t been complaining that he is the nation’s ‘punchbag’ or facing criticism from his own son, he has been making some interesting comments about social mobility.

I am not going to slam the Deputy Prime Minister for having had a leg-up from his neighbour (a peer of the realm) in order to get an internship at a bank (it had to be a bank), because I challenge anyone reading this – assuming I have a readership – not to have seized the opportunity in the same way if they were in Nick’s position. A Labour party which wants social justice and equality of opportunity from birth should not be blaming someone for a background thay had no control over, and that even includes Cameron who had someone put a word in from Buck House. However, Clegg’s attempts at addressing the age-old problem of the ‘It’s who you know’ culture were embarrassing, coming at the same time this government is slashing Sure Start centres, EMA, univeristy budgets and allowing socially divisive ’free’ schools to blossom up and down the country.

I spoke to people this week in the valleys who have Masters’ degrees who have spent over a year unemployed – young people with ambition, drive and what should be a promising career ahead of them. I overheard sixth form students on the bus complaining that they had not been accepted for any of their UCAS choices, despite the prediction of 4 As at A-level. I have personally had difficulty finding summer placements when I am not lucky enough to be able to work unpaid for six months in central London. Nick Clegg’s diagnosis was correct, but there is far more to it than setting an example to almost-bankrupt businesses by paying interns at Lib Dem HQ.

We need a new cultural shift in this country, brought about by government, where the disadvantaged are caught as soon as possible and at every stage of their lives are helped to gain the same opportunities as the better off. This should not involve positive discrimination or handouts, but should involve investment in our young people which other European countries manage while they bail out their neighbours, but we seem to think is unaffordable. A national internship scheme or national bursary programme, complementing investment in careers education (which at the moment is dire) to inform young people that they are just as talented and ambitious as the more privileged, and what opportunities are out there for the taking, is desperately needed. The underlying factors, such as affordable transport, need to be subsidised so someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with no ‘contacts’ can get work experience in a city near them.

There are important elections coming up in the devolved nations and local councils in England. Young people should be demanding better from the government and their local councils at the ballot box, and should express their dissatisfaction with the Coalition, which just doesn’t get it.

The Last Chapter for Libraries?

by labourluke

It was reported this week that our dear PM performed yet another U-turn (to add to the ever-growing list, which includes forests, school sports and even getting Larry the Cat) on the proposal to close a local library in his Witney constituency by Oxfordshire County Council, as reported in this week’s Independent on Sunday.

Not only is this flagrant hypocrisy given the closure of libraries on which local communities depend up and down the country, it is also ‘pork-barrelling’ of the lowest kind and an example that we are not in fact “all in this together”. The prospect of libraries being closed by local authorities who are facing savage cuts is deeply depressing – I, like so many other young people, relied on my local library for computer access growing up, but more importantly I was regularly able to borrow up to ten books at a time (some regrettably I forgot to return), discovering chuldren’s favourites like Jacqueline Wilson, Roald Dahl and Mark Twain in the process, alongside history books and encyclopaedias.

Not only is it divisive and running directly against the government’s intentions to mend our apparently ‘broken’ society, it is morally wrong to target the cuts on the poorest, the elderly and most importantly children, who have no vote and no say in how resources are allocated. Priorities have to be made, but library closures cannot even be justified on crude market terms, because they are still being used widely and are a lifeline for so many. It seems that the local lending library could be nearing its epilogue if we do nothing about it, with disastrous consequences for childhood literacy and social mobility.

Luke

Rumblings in the NUS

by suzannahrobinson

Click photo for the source

The University of Kent has tonight voted down a suggestion to abolish the Men’s Officer on the Union’s strong team.

The official NUS women’s movement has a problem with this.

The point of liberation positions is that those who are normally under-represented get a chance to be heard. In the case of women’s officer it’s also about promoting sexual equality, disproving stereotypes and encouraging a post-structuralist view of gender. It’s an issue of mutual respect.

Men’s Unions formed within the NUS have typically been reactionary irreverent organisations, including one that included “playing pool and drinking beer” among its written aims.

With LGBTQ organisations doing a brilliant job at representing the gay, bisexual and transgender men out there, it seems unnecessary to require a separate men’s officer. All we can hope is that the elected man will work with the women’s officer to promote gender equality.

Suzy

“eyes up ladies!”

by suzannahrobinson

Disclaimer: this blog relates only to the *look but don’t touch* principle. Men, women, the media or juries seeking to excuse abuse by claiming that the victim was “asking for it” by their choice of clothing reaches beyond the realm of fairness, freedom and human common sense, thus I will not address it here, where my readers are comrades in liberality and moderate views.

Objectification. It’s an interesting word.

Last week I took part in the annual Birmingham University Dance Society show; two fun hours of a variety of dances performed by 95% women pulled together by narrators and a brilliant tech and lighting team. “I rated each dance for sexiness, number 3 got 8 out of 10 for slutty costumes” said one male observer, and “there were definitely some whales in that last one. They really shouldn’t be wearing hotpants” said a female.

6 male dancers took part in a topless ballet dance in the second act. The eyes of everyone in the vicinity were drawn to their chests, and an outraged man was heard to say “Ladies, please! My face is up here!”

Nudity sells to men and women. I saw two men modeling underwear in a shop window in London a couple of weeks ago, and the crowd was enormous.

Sisters, let’s not victimise ourselves. The harshest criticisms and greediest glances come from heterosexual women. Neither the Burka nor “forehead tittaes” are strictly necessary. Let’s get a couple more guys to walk around scantily clad and redress the balance by giving as good as you get.  Oh wait – summer’s on the way!

Suzy

International Women’s Day

by suzannahrobinson

“Equal rights, equal opportunities: Progress for all” – the theme for 201o

I’m proud to be a Labour woman, in the mighty tradition of Caroline Selina Ganley (1879-1966) and the Rt Hon Margaret Bondfield (1873 – 1953).

Child tax credit, Sure Start centres, National Childcare Strategy, the Equality Act, Civil Partnerships, increasing the number of women in parliament, Minimum Wage, support for flexible working, pension reforms and an increase in Maternity and Paternity Leave show us that Labour is still dedicated to equality and liberation.

Go fourth!

Suzy

“oh, i don’t really *get* the news, can’t we watch britain’s next top model?”

by suzannahrobinson

In the same way that Young Money’s inclusion one female rapper in “Bed Rock” does not prevent the overall tone from being misogynist, the inclusion of 126 women MPs in parliament has, according to Caroline Flint at least, not done a great deal to shake up the status quo.

If the main political parties fail to catch the attention of young women they are at risk of losing them, not to the BNP or UKIP, but to ostensibly “private” rather than “public” organisations such as the fashion and beauty industry.

Like female rappers, female politicians worldwide are pioneers. In a country in which all-male shortlists have been the norm for a very long time, our Labour Party is imposing all-women shortlists on many secure seats in the Midlands. These will ensure greater representation in two ways: firstly having women actually present in parliament is a step towards equality, and secondly: women who are willing to be included in all female shortlists are more likely to be feminist sympathisers who really want to serve other women.

The idea of greater merit is often used to justify successful selection for PPC, but it is naïve to suggest that merit is the sole factor involved. If the woman PPC selected is incompetent the electorate will soon let us know!

Suzy

Equality and religion in Britain

by maxattacks
Pope Benedict XVI has attacked the Government’s Equalities Bill and has urged all Catholic Bishops in England and Wales to oppose it with “Missionary zeal.” The Pontiff told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: “Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”
It is thought that part 5 is the part of the bill which the Vatican most vehemently opposes as they place restrictions on employers and public bodies from discriminating against applicants on the basis of race, faith, sex, age or disability. The Pope is worried that Catholic Churches will be forced to appoint staff (such as cleaners) who are homosexual or even may be forced to accept gay clergy. Part 3 also prevents the harassing or victimisation of a person for any of the categories outlined, which Catholics argue may stop them being able to preach that homosexuality is wrong.
Now, personally having read the details of the bill, I think that it is on the mark. Due and sensible exceptions are made to allow exceptions to the law for issues related to national security, educational appointments and charitable bequests and donations in part 14. The Bill makes no specific mention to religious institutions let alone the Catholic Church.

What does worry me, and at the risk of sounding unpopular on this blog, is that the furore generated by the media regarding this bill (its placement of the Pope vs the British Government) is the latest attempt at generating anti-Christian feeling inherrent within some parts of the public domain. I myself am absolutely not a Catholic, nor am I particularly religious. I briefly flirted with atheism, but have since come round to realise that in my eyes, thing are far from certain. If push came to shove, I would probably call myself a very lapsed Christian, bordering on agnostic. I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. I am a keen advocate of the disestablishment of the Church of England, the removal of Bishops and all clergy from the House of Lords as well as, naturally, being inclined towards harmony and toleration among and between the very diverse elements within British society. I also agreed with Nick Clegg when he said that publicly funded state schools should not be allowed to preach messages which are contrary to maintenance of public order and good. He was targetting Catholic schools preaching that homosexuality is wrong in particular. Yet I remain worried about the extent to which the established authorities, and many people advocate policies which are secular to the point of anti-religion. The case of the British Airways worker who was dismissed for wearing a cross, the renaming of Christmas to Winterval by certain local authorities are two other examples where secularism has, in my view, gone too far. As much as I admire the intellectual brilliance of Richard Dawkins, I find his bleeting about loud and forceful Christian preachers extremely hypocritical, considering the fact that he has paid for buses to advertise “There is no God” on their advertising boards. Militant atheism is, to me, as bad as militant fundamentalist preaching. How can attempting to force people to not believe something be considered any better than attempting to force people to believe something?

Unlike the United States, the overwhelming majority of Christians (of all denominations) are moderate, sensible and do not cause the establishment any trouble. If one will draw a comparison with Islam. Again the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, moderate and seek only to live a peaceful life. Yet it seems that because terrorist attacks have been seemingly, however falsely, made in the name of Islam people in the public arena seem to bounce between outright hostility to Islam and being scared of it. I am thus concerned that Christians are considered an easy target for people who criticise religion, because there is not the shame cloud of fear over Christians as currently permeates around Islam, it seems to me that many people including Mr Dawkins, treat Christianity as something that can be routinely and constantly castigated, and the religion’s followers can be looked down upon with scorn and disregard because they do not make a fuss. That in my eyes is discriminating people by their faith, because you are treating them differently.

Of course religions should be open to scrutiny. We would not be where we are now if people did not question what was taught to them by the clerics. Religious people should be able to accept thorough and detailed questioning of their faith. And people should be allowed to believe what they like, including in there being no God, or a giant turtle carrying elephants carrying disc shaped world if they like. But it should also be seen by atheists and others who I believe take secularism too far, that in the same way one cannot be forced to believe in God, someone should not be forced to NOT believe in it either. Sometimes hearing people very loudly and very violently shouting about the fact that there is no God, can be just as uncomfortable as hearing someone preaching that there is a deity. In conclusion, let us all believe what we like to believe and not worry about other people. To me, that is how British people, truly are.

By Sean Woodcock, BULS member

My fellow Americans…

by maxattacks

Barack Obama delivers speech

Last night saw President Obama give his first State of the Union speech to Congress. His main emphasis was upon tackling the unemployment figures which have now reached around 10% (at least 2.5% higher than here in the UK), but, three sentences some up to me personally Obama’s first year in Office and the condition of the financial crisis worldwide, “If we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.”.

 One area that certainly caught my attention was that of Obama saying “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”. It is such a shame that a law discriminative has been able to stay in force in country that is prided on its tolerance and now progressivism will hopefully win through against conservative dogma.

 Max

Why haven’t we done that yet?

by maxattacks

It was in today’s Gaurdian that same-sex marriages are soon to be legalised in Portugal, a deeply Catholic country. Now what gets me is that not only Portugal but South Africa, Spain, Holland, several South American countries and six US states have also done the same, why are we not joining them already?! Granted Civil Partnerships was a great start, but more is needed, we are the party for progress and equality after all.

Max

Ban on Islamic Minarets

by chrisblewitt

It looks like the Swiss voters have decided to ban Islamic Minarets with 57% of voters in the referendum voting in favour of the ban, seeming to parallel a widespread insecurity over immigration in our country which led to there being BNP MEPs elected into Europe. This ban on minarets seems unashamedly discriminative towards the Islamic population within Switzerland, for me this is totally unacceptable and openly seems to want to condemn Islamic culture in their country. Just a thought…surely if they are going to ban minarets shouldn’t they ban church spires as well?

Chris Blewitt, Former Website Editor

Queen’s Speech

by maxattacks

I think the policies outlined in the Queen’s Speech are a real indication of which party really cares about the people of this country.

For the financially disadvantaged: – a savings gateway

For young people: – the ambitious aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020 will be enshrined in law, in order to force the incoming government to protect Britain’s youth at all costs.
                          – the widening of access to apprenticships
                          – early action for poorly performing schools

For minorities: – representation and respect for example through kosher and halal options of meals on wheels
                      – increase in positive action and closing the gender pay gap

For the sick: – further improvements to Labour’s NHS

For us all: – greater access and openess through strengthening local governments, constitutional reform and increasing the transparency of party donations
               – security from the whims of banking elites through greater government control

I know who I’ll be voting for.

Suzy

Madonna’s shopping trip doesn’t go to plan…

by chrisblewitt

Madonna failed to adopt an orphan from Malawi today after being turned down by the Malawi court on the grounds of not having stayed in Malawi long enough before adopting. In my opinion this was quite right, as it does seem a little bit sickening to go into an African orphanage with several hundred million pounds and choose just the one you like the most. Lets face it, would you see a 50 year old single mother being able to adopt in the UK? No, of course you wouldn’t. She should continue investing in Malawi’s schools and orphanages (and encourage her rich pals to follow suit), although I think I would prefer it if she treated the adoption process a little less like going for a nice afternoon walk down Oxford Street. After all, there are many children in the UK crying out to be adopted, but I’m sure its far ‘cooler’ these days to adopt African children (I mean if Brad and Angelina can do it…)

“If I could say one thing to Prime Minister Brown, President Obama and the G20…”

by Eriic

If you haven’t seen this yet, here it is.  It’s all taken from www.labour.org.uk:

What would you say to Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and the G20?

On 2 April 2009, world leaders from the G20 countries – representing 85% of the world’s output – will meet in London. They will meet against the backdrop of the worst international banking crisis in generations.

The London Summit will take place against the backdrop of exceptionally challenging economic circumstances. But, just as after the Second World War visionary leaders laid the groundwork for 30 years of prosperity and growth, built on international economic cooperation, this crisis is also an opportunity.

The world’s leading economies can come together and lay the foundations not just for a sustainable economic recovery, but also for a genuinely new era of international economic partnership – a global deal, in which all countries have a part to play and all will see the benefits.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says
“At the G20 we will be discussing ideas to lead the world from recession to recovery, and I want people to feel not just that they have a stake in those discussions, but that they also have a say”.

So tell us what you want to say to the G20 world leaders before the summit and we’ll make sure we pass on as many of your comments as possible.

Why I’ve given up non-fairtrade chocolate for lent

by chrisblewitt

Last week I went to a talk from a friend of mine on the ‘Stop The Traffik’ campaign. The aim of this organisation is to pull together all the different anti-trafficking charities from around the world to put an end to slavery around the world. As well as working with Eastern European migrants in the UK who have been forced to work in factories and brothels against their will, it also fights against slave labour in cocoa bean production in Africa, particularly the Cote d’Ivoire (where 40% of the world’s cocoa beans are grown).

Many of the children found by this organisation had been taken away from their families to do un-paid labour in atrocious conditions. The cocoa beans they pick on these plantations supply many of the large chocolate making firms in our country and across the world. In turns out that although ‘Stop The Traffik’ are working on an equivalent logo to ‘fairtrade’ for ‘slave free’ goods, it hasn’t been released yet and is only on a few goods as a trial. Therefore the only way to know your chocolate is ‘slave free’ is to buy Fairtrade, as there is much greater regulation on the production of their chocolate.

I don’t want to keep funding those who use slaves to make their goods, so I am only going to eat fairtrade chocolate during lent – and hopefully afterwards (although probably with slip ups!).

Also, just as a thought, maybe we should all make an effort to buy fairtrade Easter eggs this year? I certainly will be doing so.

Is having more than two kids selfish?

by chrisblewitt

After an impromptu meeting with our vice-chair elect in the library the other day, I was left wondering whether we should actually feel guilty about having more than two children in our families. I also noticed earlier,  the report that came out from some ‘green’ organisation that it was in fact selfish to have more than two children and more of us should consider having no children at all because of their carbon footprints.

I come from a family of three children, and upon pondering this idea it struck me that if the authors of this report had their way I would not have the younger brother I adore today. What is worth more, him or his carbon footprint? It strikes me as odd that these people would value human life purely in terms of tonnes of prospective CO2 emissions, surely we are worth more than that as humans?

How could this plan be implemented? If it were voluntary surely no-one would follow it unless they valued the environment (in a very tenuous way I might add) more than the life of another child that they could have if they so felt inclined? Would this be an enforced law saying ‘you are not allowed any more children’, through which we lose benefits for children, or get fined, or even more extremely like in China have forced abortions? I would hate to be part of any Neo-Marxist state that implented any of the latter.

It is not the West that are causing world wide population issues, it is developing nations in Africa, South America and parts of Asia. These people rely on their children to support their families, as it is poverty that causes population pressures, not the ‘irresponsible’ people of Western nations choosing out of emotion, not neccessity to have children. The only way to relieve population pressure on the environment is to provide economic support to the people of developing nations so that the people do not need to have so many children, and eventually to aid their development for the prosperity of all.

Positive(?) Discrimination

by daveborland

Sahars recent contribution regarding BULS liberation officers appears to have stirred up much passion and debate over whether such a position is positive or negative toward the general well-being of a society. There are a lot of pertinent issues which have emanated from this debate, one being that of positive discrimination.

So do we have a legal, moral or societal duty to redress historical imbalances that have been perpetuated over time owing to discrimination of one sort or another and how should we go about doing this? Or is this history of racial, class, gender and other such forms of discrimination a thing of the past and we all end up where we are destined to be based on how hard we work?

Most would probably agree that our society is far from perfect, workplace discrimination still occurs, nepotism is rife in many industries and we still see drastic inequalities between sexes, ethnicities and classes that are statistically significant. However, broad categories perhaps simplify the problem and many post-modernist I’m sure will alert us to the interconnection between these, leading us to ask such questions as: do we give preference to the black, straight, middle class woman over an white, gay, working class man? These are not easy issues to overcome, when we start giving preference to one group over the other it will not only stir up animosity but it may not guarantee that we are even targeting those worst off.

And yet still we are left in a society that broadly speaking, we all wish to be a meritocracy, but is not. If not affirmative action than what? warm words and a reliance on current failing legislation? We still do not live in a nation where everybody is given comparable opportunities to succeed, which damages our moral standing, our economy and our social cohesion. Until a time when everybody is afforded an equal opportunity to succeed in life, the debate will carry on.

Labour MP joins call for cheaper halls fees!

by Birmingham University Labour Students

BULS Guild correspondent Hollie Jones has provided us with the inside scoop that our good friend Steve McCabe MP has joined us students in our quest for affordable halls accommodation. In a letter to our very own Vice Chancellor Prof. Michael Sterling, he says

“Providing high quality accommodation in Halls of Residence is commendable but it is important that this accommodation is affordable for the whole student population and that there is maximum consultation with the students to ensure that what’s on offer is meeting their needs.”

BULS salutes Steve for showing solidarity in the good fight!

At least Clarkson isn’t as stupid as Dale

by chrisblewitt

It is good news that Clarkson had the guts to apologise after his ‘One eyed Scottish idiot’ remark when filming in Australia. I assume becuase the Brand/Ross affair got completely out of hand, after a certain newspaper decided to get all high and mighty, he made the correct decision to retract his statement, fair play to him.

On the other hand, Iain Dale is a completely different kettle of fish. I am sure that most of us agree, even the Tories among us, that his defence of Carol (daren’t mention her surname) was completely unnecassary. Surely it must be time for him to say ‘sorry I was wrong, lets just get over this’? No-one can defend the use of the term ‘golliwog’ no matter what the context, it is wholely derogatory and bigoted to even consider this an acceptable term in today’s British society.

Tales from the dancefloor

by Brigidjones

So this weekend I went up to spend a night in London with an old friend at his mates birthday party. We had a great time; we went to some overpriced club, wore smart clothes, and drank overpriced drinks that we couldn’t really afford. But for all that, I felt like I was in some grotty club back home; the same music, the same dance moves, the same atmosphere. The same men.

So this guy has been talking to me a bit and asks me if I want a drink. I find him a bit creepy so I tell him he can buy me one if he likes, but he’d better know I’m not going to sleep with him. He laughs, buys me a drink and starts putting his arm around me and getting a bit too friendly. So I introduce him to my (male) friend and leg it to the toilets to get away from him. I leave the toilets a bit later hoping I can slip off to some other area of the club and avoid him, but he has apparently brought my friend a drink and is waiting for me at the bar right outside the toilet door. He says, come with me, and pulls me into the men’s. Before he can get to a cubicle a security guard has us both pinned up against the sinks and is calling into his tannoy for back up.

I plead with the security guard to let me go, telling him how I don’t know the man, he dragged me in and I don’t want to be in here with him. More guards turns up, they let me go and I go back to my friend, a bit shaken. Within two minutes the man is back behind me apologising and asking for my number, and he keeps bugging me for my number until we leave.

Why the hell was a man who tried to drag a drunk girl into a toilet cubicle against her will not thrown out of the bloody club? What on Earth did he say to the (male) security guards in those two minutes when I wasn’t there? And what the hell would have happened to me if the security guard wasn’t there?

The whole incident left me beyond angry. He’s not the first guy to try this on with me or any other girl and he won’t be the last; there is a certain breed of male who won’t take no for an answer, who thinks “no” is an invitation to feel a girl up and who just won’t go away no matter what happens, who think its OK to have that kind of guy in your club and not to throw him out. And this sort of male needs to learn.

A helpful coincidence

by Tom Guise

My dissertation is going to be studying inequality in the workplace, and the nature of the modern day division of labour.  So it was incredibly helpful to see that our Harriet has launched a scathing attack on working inequality by publishing the new Equality Bill.

There are currently nine major pieces of discrimination legislation and over 100 statutory instruments setting out connected rules and regulations.  This amounts to more than 2500 pages of guidance and statutory codes of practice.  The Equality Bill will replace all the tangled web of confusion, so that those who benefit from the law, and those who need to comply with it, can really see its meaning.

But, let’s look at what is really contained within the Bill.  It will introduce a new Equality Duty upon the public sector.  At present, there are three equality duties which have required public authorities to tackle discrimination and promote equality for race, disability and gender.  The new duty will bring together those three and extend it to cover gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief.  (So when my Sainsbury’s line-manager criticises my socialism, I’ll be able to cite the new equality duty!)

However, equality cannot be properly tackled if it remains hidden.  Public bodies will comply with the equality duty by reporting on, gender pay, ethnic minority employment and disability employment.  Secrecy clauses, banning people discussing their own pay, will be banned themselves.  A new “kite-mark” will be introduced to demonstrate the effectiveness of equal pay audits in closing the gender pay gap.

What has hit the headlines recently, has been moves to further positive action.  This means that employers will now be forced to take into account the under-representation of certain groups in their sector, when looking at like-for-like candidates.  The use of all-women shortlists in Parliamentary selections is also being extended to 2030, something Brigid Jones may have something to say about.

What this Bill has done already is prove, once again, that Labour is the party of equality, from challenging disability discrimination and to tackling the pay gap, to fighting racism and introducing civil partnerships – Labour has always been at the forefront of progress.  I for one, if you’ve not already guessed, am really excited about this particular piece of legislation.