Peter Bucklitsch: A voice for the many?

Since posting an open letter (email, in fact) yesterday, I have been trawling my way through threads of comments on largely followed Facebook pages concerning the migrant crisis.

Since I was quick to infer that Bucklitsch does not provide a voice for the masses, I thought I would be greeted by heartwarming humanitarianism; words invoking altruism and care. How wrong I was; some of the comments on these threads boiled my blood, pushing me to share yet another opinionated blog. Sorry.

So, Save the Children shared the following sponsored Facebook post: “Refugee children are fleeing bombs, bullets and torture in warzones like Syria, only to drown in European waters. We must stand together to stop this: donate now.”, followed by a link to donate and an image of a child crying, face in hands.

The responses were repulsively bigoted, and had very little humanity to be extrapolated. Here are some examples of these comments.

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 18.01.00

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 18.01.08

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 18.01.16
Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 18.01.21

So out of these comments, one of them commented on the bigotry of the overall thread (Kudos to you, Cat Hepple!). A few others commented on the charity’s processes of providing aid, and others on the earnings of the charity’s CEO. Overall, however, there is an overwhelming level of hate and anger towards the poor souls fleeing from war-torn Syria.

This made me question: Was the outrage against Peter Bucklitsch really as overwhelming as I originally thought?  Or were people scared to voice their support for him on the mostly-Liberal platform of Twitter? Or even, did those who support this side of the debate not see the tweet? Who knows.

Either way, I almost feel some kind of pity for Bucklitsch; he was voicing these opinions on a soapbox provided by an already-sneered-at political party. I feel as though this kind of opinion hides, cowardly, until they can strike on a large thread of comments and go nigh undetected. Or, wait until surrounded by those who agree with their opinion, and engage in groupthink tactics. Before I go on, I do not feel pity for Bucklitsch for his word choices, or even for his opinion being the opposite of mine. (His subsequent apology suggests he was sorry for himself, and not for those suffering, anyway!) I feel pity for him for being framed as the solo voice of disgust towards the migrant crisis. Maddeningly, and sadly, he is not. Those who support him are just not as vocal as he is.

These folk posting these comments are truly angry and hateful towards the migrants and the Muslim community. They do not feel any empathy, nor do they want them in ‘our’ country. Stick yourselves in these migrants’ shoes, you angry little humans. These migrants are angry little humans too – they too feel they are suffering through no doing of their own! The anger they feel, however, is not one borne of the want to protect what they already have. Instead, their anger comes from the loss of loved ones; the stigma attached to being a migrant; the war they have no part in pushing them out of their own homes. If you found yourself in that position, would you flee, and find your family a better life? Yes. You bloody well would.

The people who are so keen to support closed borders often pull out the WW2 card. Let me argue, that if these kind of bigoted opinions circulated in the 1940s, we would never have risen against Fascism. The hundreds of thousands of Jews that the UK took in as refugees, fleeing the persecution of Nazis, were all in a similar state of terror as the Syrian migrants.

Peter Bucklitsch may not be such a rogue voice afterall. Maybe he has the guts to share his opinions more widely, and several people with public platforms available to them are not as willing to share their similar views; we don’t know. I believe that after seeing these comments on Facebook, maybe the cries for humanitarian aid are louder than the sickeningly dangerous rhetoric, simmering away in the background. I am concerned for the atmosphere the migrants will face once they reach safety in Europe.

Advertisements

An Open Letter to Peter Bucklitsch

This open letter is in response to Bucklitsch’s tweet, regarding Aylan Kurdi (3 years old) who was drowned and washed ashore trying to flee to Europe:

“The little Syrian boy was well clothed & well fed. He died because his parents were greedy for the good life in Europe. Queue jumping costs.” – 3rd September 2015, 1:53pm.

His Twitter account has since been deleted.

Queue jumping costs.jpg-pwrt3

To: peter@wimbledonukip.org
Subject Line: I SUPPORT YOU
—————

Hi Peter.

Just kidding, I definitely don’t support you; I just really wanted to trick you into reading this email. Please do continue, though! I can’t imagine that, as a man of politics, you won’t face the repercussions of your little twitter escapade earlier today!! Imagine if you just tried to shut down your twitter, for example, and run away from the prospect of being held accountable to your opinions being voiced!!
I’m a human being, who is also a postgraduate in International Crisis Management, so before I proceed with this email, I want to just quickly suggest you don’t waste your time pointing out the ‘practicalities’ and ‘impossibilities’ of providing help to the migrants fleeing to Europe. I already understand this very thoroughly and I also understand there is a lot more that can be done. Please don’t suggest otherwise; I know you’re lying.
I just wanted to write to you about another human being!! A family of them, in fact. These ones doesn’t have a postgraduate degree (that us Westerners know of anyway) but one did lose his entire family, and knows a lot more than you and I about the migrant crisis. You also decided to comment on said human beings. So, just a quick question… which I will preface with my imploring you to watch the video below before you respond:
Guardian interview with Mr Kurdi
My question is: Is this the face of a greedy man?
I’d say, no, not at all.
After watching this, I just want to know… What were you thinking?! Are you a man, struggling with your own demons? If so, maybe consider not voicing your anything-but-compassionate (a light choice of wording) views on such a public platform! Get some help!! If this is the case, cease reading; consider this email almost a flow chart, in fact. Here, use this link, and look no further: http://www.itsgoodtotalk.org.uk/therapists If this is of no use to you, as part of your electorate I request that you please do read on.
If the case is not so (which I suspect, with a heavy heart), I have a second question. Do you truly believe that using the plight of a man (I would say “family” but this family is no more as you so heavy handedly pointed out) who has lost his entire kin in one moment will strengthen the support for leaving the EU? Do you honestly feel like such inhumane words have bettered your own career? (Which I can only imagine is what your aim was! If not, then even more shame on you – I shan’t even delve into the psychological considerations should you not be career chasing at the expense of a dead woman and her children).
Enjoy your privilege of a dinner, a warm bed, clean water, your loved ones, and living in the war-free zone of London. I would hope you maybe have a little cry over Twitter tonight; not because your responses are so angry, but because you have been a downright fool, and realise your repulsive views are not welcomed by the masses, and that you have in fact commented on the deaths of almost an entire family.
I’ll be sure to pop over to see you should you make any public appearances. I’d love to hear you speak. Don’t worry though; I promise not to treat you with the same disrespect you treated this broken family with, e.g. calling out disgusting comments in a public domain. However, as a man running for government, you must be held accountable for your words. Deleting your twitter does not work in shielding you from this democratic function.
I thoroughly look forward to your response.
With respect from one human to another,
Grace
(Also Privileged, MRes, BA Hons, and Just another bloody lefty.)

Are We Losing Ourselves in ‘The Other’?

miliband migration

There are so many people you hear lamenting the “loss of our jobs” to immigrants, who are often just seeking a better life for their selves and their families. Sensationalist headlines, suggesting British cultural traditions are being drowned out by ‘foreign’ celebrations. Word of mouth even, when people are asked, “why did you choose to vote UKIP?”, it will often be down to the want to keep our borders closed, and the ‘Other’ out.

But why? Why is there this fear, or rejection at least, or external cultures? What are people seeking to defend?

There’s a really funny Vice News article on what it is to be British. It’s so accurate of the Inbetweeners generation, and also proves that the patriotism here is often limited to extreme levels, seen in jest, or with concern. Our culture is not a ‘one size fits all’ culture. It’s an amalgamation of various influences; a melting pot of culture. British way of life is one which is built upon immigration. From Notting Hill Carnival to going for a curry and a pint, we are a country built upon the influence of immigration. Since the arrival of the Windrush in 1948, when the first large wave of Caribbean migrants arrived, Britain has been lucky enough to welcome migrants to our shores consistently, and grow from it.

Why should we allow people to come to Britain to seek asylum? This British culture that is feared to be lost or trampled upon by these overbearing cultures… What exactly is it? I can’t think of one British cultural tradition which runs deeply throughout the nation; especially one which is disappearing. I cannot think of one uniting understanding that holds together the British peoples.

Except one. Tolerance. We are a country of tolerance and pluralism. You could argue: ‘But this blog post suggests otherwise!’. This is not what I want to convey. I want to argue that we, Brits, are a lucky group of people, who are free and should be thankful we live in a place that people run to to be free. Our British culture is that of tolerance; we do not suppress women, with laws stopping them from driving, or forcing them to wear certain clothes. We do not prevent people from worshipping their god of choice. We do not restrict what language is spoken. We do not prevent families from having more than one child. We have a free press. We can travel the world. We are not at risk of state-enforced violence, or martial law. We have the freedom of movement throughout Europe. We have the freedom to vote who we wish to vote for. The list is extensive.

So I would like to argue – no. We are not losing ourselves in ‘The Other’. This may sound preach-y, but I fear sometimes we lose sight of the bigger picture and the global perspective is overshadowed by Daily Mail-esque scaremongering. We are instead growing, learning and adapting to live together. We are tolerant and respectful of individual rights. What we reject, is the loss of this freedom and plurality; not ‘foreign’ beliefs. Instead of rejecting ‘The Other’, we should encourage the understanding and tolerance that this country has begun to develop, since decolonising in the 1950-60s onwards. There obviously is still an awful lot more to be done; the West in general needs to enhance its understanding of other cultures, and that West isn’t Best. But in terms of the UK?

We can’t militantly argue that we are losing our Britishness, when really, it is a collective identity, formed by international movement and heritage. What is our own, and what should be defended, however, is our freedom and tolerance; we should be proud to be a place of asylum for those suffering elsewhere. We should embrace it and we should protect those who come to be safe. We are made up of ‘The Other’. There is no longer a binary argument surrounding this. Our overarching and sweeping culture is liberating and understanding.

We are not losing ourselves; we are gaining.

Burglar Bashing: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em…

On the 9th of October, the Minister of Justice, Chris Grayling, announced the proposal to change law which stops homeowners being able to attack burglars, or those breaking and entering into their home. In 1999, the farmer, Tony Martin, was prosecuted for shooting a burglar dead who was aiming to intrude Martin’s home. The Conservative cabinet reshuffle has brought Grayling into a promoted position to Minister of Justice, replacing Kenneth Clarke; Grayling is said to be bringing a harder stance into the role than Clarke, but how tough is too tough?

“Grossly disproportionate”. That is the phrase Grayling is throwing around, saying that a homeowner can only use force to remove an intruder as long as it is not to a “grossly disproportionate” level, which to my mind already sets off alarm bells. Should this law come into place, and this term be used as a part of enforcing said law, what is seen as “grossly disproportionate” to one person may well be changeable for another. If the judge who is ruling the case has been burgled him or herself, then this could lead to subtle cues being subconsciously fed into the judge’s decision making. They could press in favour of the homeowner more so than the burglar than, say, a judge who has never first hand experienced an intruder in their home. The risk for me, in this situation, is that there is far too much room for interpretation within this phrase, and whether the burglar has rounded up the family and held them at knife-point (as in the Minir Hussain case, 2009) or has simply broken in and nicked a camera, could change the decision as to what degree the burglar was intruding. Isn’t intrusion intrusion; black and white, illegal, end of story? Or is the mindless torture that an elderly woman with boiling water and brute force worse than someone smashing a window, and stealing something to sell on? This is where the line becomes blurred.

Let me say now: I am never in favour of harming another human being. I am against death penalty; I am against corporal punishment; I even was offended by people celebrating the death of another human being, even if it was Saddam Hussain. However, I am in favour of family’s being able to protect their homes, individuals being able to look after their belongings and loved ones, and private property remaining a safe, and enclosed area where someone can feel safe. I think the notion of ‘home’ should never be undermined, and as seen in the latest burglar alarm advert (I’m a sucker for marketing) – it’s not always what is taken, but what is left behind. Intrusion can cause huge amounts of psychological damage upon the victim, and I do not believe that anybody should be subjected to that kind of fear in their own home.

Let’s look at it another way: when a pedestrian runs out in front of an approaching car, even when the red man is shown, the driver is automatically prosecuted for dangerous driving if they are even a smidge over the speed limit. The pedestrian acting foolishly is automatically not to blame, and it is seen as should the driver have been driving at the limit, the collision may not or would not have happened. So, why should a homeowner be prosecuted for chasing a burglar out of their house with the use of force when the intruder was the one who initially broke the law? When the burglar walked into the house, they were aware of the risk of the homeowner being there to force them out physically/the driver was aware when speeding that they were putting others on the road at risk. The dilemma stands as this: a homeowner is protecting their home from an intruder, but they are prosecuted for attacking the law-breaking burglar. “No! That is unfair! They are keeping a criminal out of their home!” some may argue. However, does the law turning a blind eye to violence mean that the government is saying one wrong cancels out a consequential wrong-doing? Doesn’t this mean that, actually, beating another human being is okay, as long as they’re a burglar? Hm. Something doesn’t fit here for me.

This potential law is far too swamped in Gray(ling) (sorry) area for my mind. Yes, batter somebody who comes into your house. Does it mean it’s okay to end somebody’s life, or harm them through force just because they’ve entered your house illegally? That person has a family, friends, maybe a spouse and children; maybe money is so tough that crime is what they’ve been pushed to, or they’ve ended up in a bad group, turned to gang crimes, and have been coerced into breaking and entering. But then again, maybe they’re just thoughtless yobs, pinching stuff from your grandmother’s dresser. Yes – protect your house and family. What I really feel is, by this law coming into place however, is that a whole new gateway will be opened in which people will say that their actions in “the heat of the moment” need to be lawfully protected as well, and a floodgate will open, and unprecedented issues will arise. Human rights will be invoked, and homeowners will maybe begin to argue harassment is the same level of intrusion in terms of psychological harm to their family.

I am sooo not pro-burglar. I think that they should have all their stuff taken, or their house trashed, and see how they feel. However, I do not know still, how I feel about the legalisation of so-called ‘burglar bashing’, especially with such a loosely phrased T&C attached. My head is saying it’s fine, but my heart is saying, doesn’t this mean that the homeowner could be just as bad as the burglar? I could just be overly brain-washed by my slightly eccentric father, or I could be a child of the ‘Politically Correct’ Age. Or a total Leftie?

Maybe I need to invest in a guard dog to do my dirty work for me…

Britain: A-pathetic level of political interest

As a self-proclaimed nerd,  follower of current affairs, and newspaper trawler, I like to think I have a high level of interest in the world around me and the politics that comes with that. I definitely couldn’t name all the ministers in the paper, like one girl could in my A-Level politics class – she knew Alex Salmond’s birthday even. I’m not that keen, although I probably should be with my degree. I simply like to understand why things are the way they are, and then in turn, I feel I can moan about them without feeling like a moron, making blind statements like “I think the BNP should be the Prime Minister because of them Polish people getting our jobs”. Okay – a slight overstretch of the extent of apathy. Or is it?

I attended a family party a few weeks ago, and my cousin brought his girlfriend along for us all to meet (and my overly protective grandmother to judge – I digress). She asked me what degree I was taking, and my cousin then jumped at this chance to highlight how little his girlfriend knew of British politics. “Go on, who’s the PM?”, he smugly asked her. “Err.. Labour?”, she asked me, bemused. “See! She knows nothing!” he gloated gleefully. This led me to feel extremely disheartened that our future governments would be voted in by people who don’t know the difference between a Party and a Prime Minister; it also upset me that my cousin found it not distressing, but amusing, that his girlfriend was so blissfully ignorant, and unashamedly clueless about how this country is run.

You’d be surprised at how little people tend to know about the British government. Often, people who state regularly “don’t like them politicians, I hate them, I don’t trust none of ’em” could tell you no more than David Cameron’s name, and not actually name a policy that caused such distrust.

Worryingly, I found out that whilst at Sixth Form, the level of political awareness rose when people were let down by the government. Nick Clegg’s terrible mistake re:university fees made all of us much more aware of what the Coalition were planning, and not achieving. My school pushed for a mock election throughout all the year groups to try and get people interested in what each of the three parties could offer voters; people bunked from any assembly to do it, and even the politics students who were running for this campaign dreaded doing it because it was so difficult to stir up any enthusiasm from anyone. The problem was brought to my attention more so, however, when everyone seemed to jump at the opportunity to attend the protests organised by NUS when our headmaster permitted everyone the day off to attend. Nobody seemed interested in the positives beforehand, or even the prospect of free education at university; the real interest grew when that wretched fellow in the Lib Dems had lied to us!!

The general consensus is that all the Parties are the same. When my age group got our first vote, we mostly opted for the Green Party, because they’re the only ones who seemed to stand out and you can’t bash ’em for wanting to save the planet, really, can ya?! Maybe what needs to be done is not a lame promotion attempt by the government, of ‘DJ Dave and Nick the Nuttah’ rapping their policies and slating ‘that Ed Ball(sack) LOL!’ in an awful attempt to get today’s youth onside with the use of hoodies and talk from the ‘hood. No. What is needed is a genuine appeal from the MPs to not only the younger generation, but people who maybe find politics dull and overwhelming, to create bitesize nuggets of information, digestible by the masses. Question and Answer sessions where politicians don’t claim to listen to views, but instead actually listen, and then take these suggestions through to the Commons where people can see evidence that their voice is heard – an adjusted Question Time even!

Enough rambling and avoiding of questions – people hate you more than parking attendants when you’re a politician. Get to the point, accept that actually, sometimes, the masses (or ‘plebs’ – no names mentioned) can actually have some ideas worth listening to. Politicians are representatives – not paternal carers for the nation as a whole. Yes, they’re elected because they are more in the know than most about the workings of government. However, they are there to put across the wants of the people: henceforth, low and behold, democracy (another issue in itself… maybe another time).

Maybe apathy could be avoided, if the Government and Opposition approached the people more readily; doing a meet’n’greet in Asda in New Malden isn’t enough nowadays. People shine to Boris Johnson because, despite his Oxbridge background, he seems accessible and a ‘great guy’. No lofty, unapproachable air about him – just him, his mop of hair, and a zipwire. Conclusively, I reach the point that British interest in politics is waning, and in a big way. Let’s just stick Boris Johnson into Downing Street, and maybe we will recapture a little interest. Either that, or actually get Mr You-Can-Call-Me-Dave and his spineless henchman, Clegg, to re-think how the people should be listened to, and how their mishaps tarnish all other politicians reputations, putting them out of, to use a Ben Stiller related concept, ‘The Circle of Trust’. Actually, maybe we should just forget Stiller, and link it to De Niro.