Violence, one might argue, is the last resort of the contented, and the first resort of the desperate. In the recent protests in London against the raising of tuition fees for university students, there were undoubtedly some protesters just out looking for a bit of anarchy. But what is equally certain is that the violence that did erupt is in part a reflection of the genuine depth of passion felt by current and future students in the UK. Is it right to dismiss the carnage that occurred as the dangerous machinations of a cynical few? Or are deeper questions of democracy and the individual’s relationship to the State at stake?

The rights and wrongs of raising tuition fees are, for the most part, a matter of money. University education is expansive, more people are applying, and someone has to pay. The Government has decided that for the time being, students should bare more of the brunt. Whilst strong arguments can be made for and against, the question remains as to why this particular policy are stoked such passion. Is it simply a case of not wanting to pay?

Yes and no. Payment is a key issue, but what is more contentious is that one half of the UK’s Coalition Government (the Liberal Democrats) ran an election campaign with a pledge against raising tuition as one of its central tenets. Less than a year after having successfully exercised their democratic right to support a clear and unambiguous policy, students find themselves facing the exact opposite. As the weaker partner, the Lib Dems are not entirely to blame. But what can surely not elude any of those watching that this appears to be an egregious trammelling of the democratic potency of those supposedly involved in the political process.

Of course, few would expect governments to stick to their manifestos. And “tough economic times” make such u-turns all the more possible and likely. But the lesson to draw is that, for students at least, representative voting does not give full effect to their collective voice.

It is within this context that we see the organisation of peaceful, large-scale protests in Central London. Democracy in action, their voices heard, the students can all go home and no doubt hit the books. But here again, we see the impotency of those who adhere to state-authorised forms of democratic involvement. In short, nothing happened.

Whilst it would be wrong to condone any form violence, it does nevertheless seem to be more effective at ensuring political voices are heard. That is not to say that it is more effective at securing certain outcomes - the vote passed, and any successful future challenge is most likely to come through the legal system, not violent protest. But what it does demonstrate is that, in the face of a failure of representative democracy to truly represent for its people, its people will look to other means. This is not only true of students, but any group or affiliation whose voices go unheeded within the halls of any Power that holds itself out as democratic yet fails to live up to the lofty ideal.

Could an argument be made for using violence as a method of achieving or protecting Democracy in whatever form it may take? Does true Democracy hold at least the potential for violence? Successive US (and UK) Administrations have ironically shown little compunction is using the D word as rationale for invading other countries. Israel achieved its democratic independence through a sustained campaign of terror. Apartheid came to an end in part due to the violence of its opponents. But equally, the liberation of India from the British Raj succeeded without resort to violent action; the non-violent Suffragists were arguably more effective than their militant Suffragette sisters; and the “General Strikes” so popular in Mainland Europe seem to work at least some of the time.  The relationship between violence and Democracy is clearly a complex one, and we would be naïve to think that they are either polar opposites or inevitable bed-fellows.

Although violence is by no means a solution, it is nevertheless a genuine response to a real or perceived failure of alternative means - even within a democratic context. It should not be dismissed out of hand. We must not condone violent action, but nor should we be blind to its causes.

One letter writer to the Times spoke of being much underwhelmed by the information. For sure, though the leaks gave us specifics it taught us very little more than what is already known. The gulf Arabs hate Iran. That is not new; it has been evident on the world stage ever since King Abdullah put forward his specious claim of a Shia Crescent (a direct parallel to the Axis of Evil). The US is too involved in Pakistani politics and knows that it is heading for a collision; again nothing in that proposition educates us much further than what we knew already - excepting the minor details: General Kayani was considering a coup and sought US permission, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was perhaps too keen to swear allegiance to the Stars and Stripes as indeed was Fazl ul-Rehman the leader of a pro-Taliban grouping. Following the US invasion, Afghanistan is awash with corruption. Can you honestly tell me that that is surprising? Information as regards these shores was truly unimpressive. As for Prince Andrew who cares? Can we really consider his jingoism as newsworthy. The same goes for Mervyn King’s comments on Cameron and Osborne. More intriguing were the revelations about the suggestions of the close friendship of Putin and Berlesconi. Putin took grave exception to allegations that Russia was a mafia state, chest beating on Larry King and we seem to be reverting to Cold war positions. Given that anyone with a sleepy eye gazing lazily over international affairs could have deduced that such would come to pass, Wikileaks has not done anything but accelerate the process.

The only damaging allegation of substance as regrds America seems to be Secretary of State Clinton’s ordering of spying. Yet this is America, a world power, to some extent these matters are excusable given that international affairs is indeed international affairs. However commentators have missed something that is far more important. It is true that the leaks spans several years but the most contemporary information is fairly mild. What seems to have happened is that this Presidency radiates a sense of American purpose in the very best of ways. Leaks before spoke of mistreatment at Guantanamo, rendition, the sins of the American war machine and civilian deaths as well as abused intelligence stacked to come to a sham conclusion on WMD. The previous administration delighted in forcing open fraudulent moral questions to make the definition of torture narrower, play with the applicability of the Geneva convention and do violence to the instituitionality of the UN. In truth it may take far longer than anyone realises for the US’s reputation to recover and this too is contingent on Obama’s politics remaining palatable to the US electorate, a formidable task given that the mid terms show a shift to Republicanism. However tawdry and sullied image of the last decade in foreign affairs, the ghosts of America’s recent follies are being exorcised under a competent and straight forward administration.

There is of-course another way to read the leaks. Ahmedenejad has suggested that they are part of the very grandest of conspiracies, deliberately put into circulation by the States to cause division in the Middle East. I wonder why he does not opt to tell his people the obvious; many amongst the Arabs hate them and they need to be wary. But such is the fiction he concocts to remain in power. Ahmedenejad for the new Bush, anybody?

Refreshingly, the discussion started with a unanimous agreement on the importance and urgency of climate change, and the resultant energy crisis we find ourselves in, dependent on coal. From there the entire normative discourse on nuclear power was covered, from the dangers of waste and the threat of terrorism, to the urgency of action, in light of the inefficiency of small scale renewable technologies.

I won’t try to cover the breadth of arguments presented here, as there are numerous resources available on this topic. However, what I found most interesting about the evening was the degree to which the discussion seemed to circulate around the deification of scientific evidence, and yet there seemed to be such little agreement on such basic ideas as the true danger of nuclear fallout. What emerged from the discussion was a series of meta-discourses, about the direction and purpose of the environmental movement, the practicalities of policy making, and the role that the UK and EU play in defining the world’s energy future. And whilst the discussion seemed on the face of things to be characterised by exchanges of scientific references, it became evident that each intertwining discourse had a distinctively affective quality.

To be sure, the idea of balancing the world’s energy demands with the realities of runaway climate change is likely to induce a somatic response in any event. But it was the contradiction of clear uncertainty over fundamental data on the potential benefits and risks of nuclear, and the visceral nature of the arguments put forward that seemed to undermine the fervent emphasis on scientific evidence within the discussion. Instead what emerged was how different individuals negotiated their own lack of complete understanding over the key issues. On the one side there were those that deemed themselves to be practically minded and in touch with the everyday man, keen to express the importance of a normative solution, whilst on the other there were strong calls for an entire re-education of energy usage amongst the populous. Most striking of all, and what stood out for me as by far the most memorably affective moment of the evening, was the humbling, understated remark from John Holmes that, despite all his research, his pro-nuclear stance and his industry experience: ‘I just don’t trust it’.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tt423/Americana_19_09_2010/

Certainly the Punjab Government has a lot to answer for. Headed by Shabaz Sharif, brother of the former two-time Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who remains head of their party PML-N, the provincial government contains a number of shady characters. Chief among them is Rana Sanaullah who has a record of openly courting the leader of the banned militant organisation Sipah al-Sahaba to ensure votes. The PML-N also houses Sajid Mir, the leader of the political wing of the Ahle Hadis sect who last month, a few days after the cold blooded murder of 86 Ahmadis at two of their mosques patronised a hate conference directed against them. The political situation is rapidly spiraling out of control.

The departure of General Musharraf has led to a worsening law and order situation. At the very end of his reign, electricity supply in the country became erratic, something initially blamed on the populace rioting and destroying electrical connections in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s murder. There is now a gas shortage in the country – boding ill for the winter. A looming water crisis may force a confrontation with India – potentially catastrophic given that both are nuclear states. The price of basic commodities continues to soar, all the more worrying given that 17.2% of this 180 million strong country live below the poverty line. Yet nothing stirs the average citizen of Pakistan more than the issue of religion. A right wing media and a parliament built on the twin principle s of pliancy and expediency, provide optimum conditions for the spread of misinformation. The War on Terror charged religious sentiment and inadvertently reawakened Pakistan’s sectarian divide (never quite dormant). At its foundation in 1947, Pakistan’s leadership prided itself on its secular values. Not any more. Gone too are the values of love and brotherhood that characterized the life of Ali Hajweri.

How on earth does this study - or any study - come up with a figure for piracy-related losses? When they’re hijacking ships in the Gulf of Aden, I imagine the calculation is quite straight forward. But digital is somewhat different.

The first question we need ask is: How many cinema visits or DVDs etc. do consumers not buy because they watched it online instead? It is not sufficient to say how many films are watched online and then extrapolate backwards - clearly ‘consumers’ would be willing to watch a movie for free that they  wouldn’t be willing to pay for. How then can the numbers of visits/purchases/rentals forgone be calculated?

It might have been a simple calculation if the cinema industry was making less money, but, as always, the sky has not fallen and profits continue to increase. Cinema attendance is on the up. DVD sales are booming.  But are they increasing at a slower rate? Shockingly, information that might allow us to answer this question is hard to come by. If anyone does have the inside scoop, please do let us know. In any case, how could a study separate out the influence of piracy from, say, the recession, the position of celestial bodies, or the impact of making terrible films like SATC2?

I’m not the first to say it, and I wont be the last, but the Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the music industry, which has finally stopped kicking and screaming like a spoilt, ugly child and embraced digital distribution. Its shocking, really, that it took so long for high-powered executives to realise that there’s money to be made in giving consumers what they want rather than trying to force them into buying obsolete media or treating them like pirates when they don’t.

The movie industry should grow up, adapt, and get with the programme, since the pirates are obviously leagues ahead.

Click here for an excellent article giving a deeper look at piracy issues.

]]> http://www.affectjournal.co.uk/blog/?feed=rss2&p=176 http://www.affectjournal.co.uk/blog/?p=173 http://www.affectjournal.co.uk/blog/?p=173#comments Sun, 30 May 2010 18:08:44 +0000 TariqSami http://www.affectjournal.co.uk/blog/?p=173 TO: Anne Milton, MP
The House of Commons
Westminster
London

29th May 2010

Re: Situation of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan
Recent terrorist atrocity in Lahore leaving over 80 dead

Dear Mrs. Milton,

I hope this letter finds you well and congratulations for you recent election victories both locally and as a party.

You may remember that I had written to you as a constituent in 2005 about the situation of Ahmadis and other minority communities in both Pakistan and Indonesia. I recall that you had been kind enough to pass on my concerns to the secretary of state and had forwarded me the very detailed response. I am thankful for this. I remember I had had some comments to make on the response but given the earthquake in Pakistan which occurred around the same time I had felt it prudent not to push further international criticism of Pakistan at a time when the country was self-evidently in need of massive international aid. I note that you attended the Peace Symposia in the Bait-ul-Futuh mosque amongst other events and are therefore reasonably aware of the Ahmadi community.

In Lahore yesterday two Ahmadi mosques were attacked by suicide bombs, grenades and shooting and leaving over 80 dead and approximately 150 injured. This was an attack on a peaceful community during their worship. At this stage the Pakistan Taliban have laid claim to this action.

The Ahmadi Community has often been particularly targeted but throughout Pakistan terrorism is reaching alarming levels. This is the latest in a series of long standing atrocities in Pakistan. In Lahore there has been an increase in terrorist incidents with over 265 people killed in nine incidents over the last year. Other main cities of Peshawer and Karachi have also seen alarming levels of violence. There is the incident of the “Red Mosque” in Islamabad in 2007 leading to a stand off between police and a girl’s madrassa armed with guns leaving hundreds dead. The Sri Lankan Cricket team has been attacked when visiting the country. Benazir Bhutto was targeted and killed. Other minority communities also come under attack. Christians have been attacked in Gojra Pakistan leaving eight dead in August 2009, in Mansehra “World Vision”, a Christian NGO was targeted leaving six employees dead. There are literally hundreds of incidents. One of the key factors behind all of these incidents is the atmosphere of hate and resentment which has been inculcated and spread by religious clerics for their own political means amongst certain extremist Muslim communities.

From the Ahmadi point of view there has been unrest been based on a systematic campaign of declaring Ahmadis as non Muslim and ‘Wajib-ul-Qatl’ (liable for death). Infact in a programme which was even aired in the UK on Geo TV a certain Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain on 7th September 2008 declared Ahmadis to be ‘Wajib-ul-Qatl’. Two days later two Ahmadis were gunned down, one a doctor in a clinic and another a gentleman on his way to prayers (I attach a report on the subject). Similarly a recent programme aired on Ummah Channel called “Khatme Nabuwat‘’ in April 2010 was a particularly inciteful programme. A similar programme aired by the same channel was called “Friends of Allah” in an interview of the Pir of Golra Sharif. These programmes may escape the UK authorities attention as they are predominantly in the Urdu language but nonetheless they create an atmosphere of hate and resentment in Muslim communities based upon sectarian differences. There has been a mushroom growth of such TV channels over the last few years including “Ummah TV”; “Peace TV”; “Hidaya TV”; “Noor TV” and “Iqra TV” and the government should issue firm guidance as to what is and what is not acceptable and take action against the channels as necessary when the boundries have been crossed. Those who make such statements publically on TV Channels such as this should be persona non grata in this country whether they are broadcasting from the UK, Dubai or Pakistan.

In this regard I would hope that you would firstly condemn the incident in the strongest terms but also consider if there is anything that can be done to stop the proliferation of extremism using this country’s airwaves.

With Kind Regards

Dr M. Sami
A constituent
(Guildford)

If you are confused now, you needn’t worry. So, it seems, was most of the electorate for most of the election. On rights Cameron looked the easy winner. He had an unpopular Prime Minister trumpeting nothing more than a dying brand of new Labour. The Murdoch empire swung behind him with such enthusiasm that watching the later Campbell-Boulton verbally fisticuffs just underlined the embarrassingly over-involvement of the media within our politics. Yet our now Prime Minister still failed, at least in conventional terms. Why?

Hold on to that question. First let us recall that, despite the temper tantrums, Brown was no wronged Othello. At times his attempts to cling on to power just looked plain desperate. Remember the YouTube videos. Whose idea was it for Prime Minister to grin inanely from ear to ear? We are British. We prefer our Ministers with deep furrowed brows.

But if Brown could be thin on the ground, perhaps we shouldn’t expect much more from our new Prime Minister – liberal, perhaps, only in the manner of his appointment. And here we return to the failure of Cameron to win a convincing mandate. It is not that the Conservatives could not have developed a convincing strategy. Labour’s big government and over-regulation in almost every industry and sector should have been attacked. The failure to deliver an equitable distribution within the welfare state (perhaps a failure of the welfare state itself – perhaps a failure of mismanagement – the debate should go on…) needed to be addressed. The failure to resolve not only the deficit but also private household borrowing had to be tackled. So we had Labour failures. But what were the Conservative answers? Nimbyism on Immigration and the vacuous idea of “The Big Society” - the idea that government would be replaced by a sense of the best of British imbuing everybody with a sense of civic duty so that suddenly the public would flock to community town halls, the charitable spirit would return to these isles and the sky would once again be blue. Non-implementable, irrelevant waffle of no worth to the worries and woes of modern society – the idea was always a non-starter. Yet our Prime Minister thought it had enough intellectual weight to win him an election. Surely, it is enough to make one wonder if this man is really and truly capable?

So we are off to a bad start. A not-to-bright but ambitious chap as leader – winning by a slim margin – presiding over a coalition that is (lets admit it) ideologically 180 degrees apart, spouting a single ideology that neither of the two member parties truly and fully believe in. But why be so gloomy? Remember the 1997 Labour poster song? Things can only get better….? Too bad that was before an election.