To mask or not to mask, that is the question

I was pretty insensed when I read Martha Gill's blog article, "Anonymous have been exposed as hypocrites. Watch them try to wriggle out of it", via The Telegraph website today. It was a dreadful attempt to pick any little hole possible with the movement by arguing that anons buying Fawksian masks to attend protests somehow contributes to misery in the 3rd world. I immediately responded in the comments section below her article:

"Slimey establishment spin from the Teleguff. What a surprise. Interestingly boycotting these factories would make these people considerably worse off. The right thing to do is to support their fight for better conditions. Furthermore it is establishment corporations in the West keeping these third world workers so oppressed. Establishment corporations that the Telegraph supports and receives advertising revenues from and whom pay Martha for her 'journalism'. But you wont read that in the Telegraph. Wriggle out of that Martha! Frankly you disgust me"

Martha could have done a little investigation into how Western corporations lobbying politicians put in place the kinds of international trade agreements that perpetuate and exploit the poverty and hardships of people living in the third world, for profit. She could have gone further to point out how these same corporations are driving down working conditions and dismantling the welfare state in the UK to create worker insecurity thus enabling corporations to stagnate workers wages against a back drop of inflation, effectively meaning wage cuts. All the while corporate executives and shareholders are getting fatter and richer. She could have talked about how Western corporations are using 3rd world workers as wage 'competition' against UK workers, putting many workers out of work or pushing them into zero hour contracts. But no, she didn't do this. She managed to spin anonymous, perhaps many unwittingly, keeping third world workers in work, into some kind of story about anonymous perpetuating their hardships. That takes at least one of two things; an unacceptable degree of ignorance for a journalist and a calculated cynical establishment hit on a people's movement.

Such smears will be little surprise to anons of course, having watched the media go to town on the likes of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in recent years. Her article does however illustrate establishment ideology at work beautifully. They will try to find any little thing they can to bring down people's movements for justice. No matter how flawed their argument is, it doesn't matter. They're the establishment media. They decide what people should believe.

Martha very likely considers herself an independent minded journalist. What she almost certainly doesn't consider is that she has grown up in the downpour of establishment propaganda, as did her parents, 'educated' in the establishment run/controlled education/indoctrination system, selected by an editor because of her views, who himself/herself was selected for their views by the establishment owners/executives. This is how the hierarchy conspires to narrow the range of views presented to the public. This is totalitarianism in action. Martha will be completely unable to see it or herself for what is/she is. Nonetheless she is a tool of corporate/fascist totalitarianism.

One thing this whole issue does however do is make the waters of boycotting unethical businesses a little muddy. There are times when boycotting is the right thing to do, but this would not be one of them. Boycotting Israeli products for instance is a good idea as this puts economic pressure on Israel to end it's vile and murderous oppression of Palestinians. So what is the defining criteria for ethical boycotting? Well Israel is a prosperous state, and no small part due to its occupation of other people's territories, so a boycott is unlikely to put Israeli workers into the kind of abject poverty being inflicted upon Palestinians, whereas profits will be hurt. So we have to think about who we are helping and who we are hurting, and evaluate each case on its merits. I wish I could be more cut and dry, but this is the best I can come up with for now. I will be interested to hear your views on the matter, so please comment below.

So what of the mask? Is it a good idea to where the mask? Author and former war correspondent Chris Hedges argues that it isn't [1]. I agree mostly with Chris's point that hiding behind a mask of some kind is a gift to the establishment. The reason being that the sleeping masses will see this veil as the mark of criminality rather than legitimacy. If you are not a criminal then why are you hiding your identity? I know, I know, it's a horribly flawed rationale, but that is where they are at, and if we want to win them over we ought to avoid alienating them. That aside I do think that the Fawkesian mask carries with it tremendously important symbolism and of course a novel visual tool for drawing attention to the movement. I can't and don't want to tell others how to protest or dress but I can tell you what I will do and why I will do it and hope that others see what I perceive as the wisdom of it. I don't want to hide. I am happy for people to see my face when protesting. Why shouldn't I show my face? I'm proud to be standing for a cause. I will however continue to carry the mask and wear it for brief periods because of its symbolism and power to draw attention. But I will lift the mask from now on to talk to passers by who express an interest. This is just the same as taking off your sun glasses when talking to someone. Standing in front of someone with a mask covering your identity whilst talking to them suggests that you do not trust them, whether true or not, and that is not a smart way to go about bringing them on board. I want to meet them face to face. I want to smile at them and win them over with my humanity and my argument, and the mask can be a tremendous barrier to that. So if I had any advice to give on the matter I would say use the mask wisely and thoughtfully. Don't let it be your down fall.

References/Citations
[1] Chris Hedges and Occupy Debate "Black Bloc" tactics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoXWuQPrrI

Article short URL: http://tinyurl.com/phcmms6

National Service legislation for 18-25 year olds in progress

 A legislative bill to force national service on 18 to 25 year olds is currently making its way along the legislative conveyor belt in UK Parliament. The bill, titled 'National Service Bill 2013-14'[1], making it an offence to have reached the age of 26 without having performed national service, currently at the committee stage, will force young people to serve the armed forces or one of a number of other activities. Whether these alternate activities could be chosen from by young people in service is not defined suggesting that young people might be able to specify a preference but with government ultimately deciding the nature of their service for them. This leaves open the possibility of unofficial allocation of service by social class, school history or other capricious allocations.

The bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering), contains provisions for the following service content:

• forced re-education for young people who have not attained qualification in mathematics or English reading/writing
• a forced physical fitness regime, personal appearance and discipline
• life skills (cooking and so forth) and time keeping

This is not the complete list. The provisions also include what are likely to be regarded as socially beneficial elements.

The duration of service proposed is for one year for which young people on the program will be paid at the national minimum wage rate. Young people with severe physical or mental disabilities will be exempt from the program.

No official rationale for the bill is presented but it is not hard to see what it is trying to achieve. Governments have regularly created schemes for reducing unemployment figures without creating new employment. However it has been a long time since national service was in force suggesting that other motives may also be at work. The economic situation has certainly not improved for the majority of people in the country, with young people being worst affected, the government's unwillingness to tackle the big banks on activities that led to the 2008 crash, the shenanigans that have left the majority with increased work loads and pressure for the same pay, the economy is set to continue having problems and perhaps crash again. The bankers and corporate CEOs will not have missed the uprisings in Greece, Spain and elsewhere, and will be keen to see rebellion against their policies contained or stamped out. A national service program would indeed reduce the number of people with time on their hands who might be prepared to protest whilst simultaneously creating extra forces for controlling outrage and dissent by those worst hit.

If you have concerns about this bill then please express your concerns to your MP, whose contact details and email address can be found at the 'find your MP' page on the Parliament website. Additionally you may wish to share this article with friends and family in order to spread awareness since the establishment media are not so far covering this bill.

 

References

[1] National Service Bill 2013-14, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

--------------------------------
Edit (13/09/2013):  I should have noted that this is a private members' bill, and as such has a lower likelihood of becoming law than a bill introduced by a minister.