Albert Camus

Approaching my Theatre Studies devised examination, wherein I am tasked with devising, writing and analysing my own piece of theatre, I have decided to study the Theatre of the Absurd. This style of theatre is most well known for plays such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard, or perhaps more prominently Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. In fact, it was a performance of Waiting for Godot (featuring Hugo Weaving of Elrond fame) that I watched last year for my birthday that initiated my love of absurd theatre.

A keystone text in approaching Theatre of the Absurd is Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus", allegorising the Greek parable of hubris to the search for meaning in life. In this Greek tale, Sisyphus is condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill, only to watch it fall down again, for the rest of his life. Camus states that the Sisyphian situation is akin to the human situation: we are condemned to perpetually fulfilling a task (it may be any task, even the task of living) in the full knowledge that, as we are unable to comprehend any superior meaning to life, the efforts put into the task are futile. This may, on the surface appear a somewhat bleak and macabre point for Camus to make, leading to a nihilistic approach that life is meaningless, and that there is and will only ever be nothing. It is the dark points like these that philosophers make that put a lot of people off of philosophy, me included - I have no time whatsoever for people who woefully bemoan the meaningless of life. However, this is where Camus stands out.

Instead of conceding to the meaninglessness of life in nihilistic despair, Camus embraces what he refers to as 'the absurd' acknowledging the freedom it bestows upon oneself. Camus essentially states that in a world without meaning, mankind is completely free to create his or her own meaning - and what a wonderful gift this is! Having read some of his work, I feel so in tune with this philosophy. Whilst reading The Plague I found myself exclaiming gasps of realisation at the certain moments when Camus so eloquently portrays the absurdity of the absurd. Having built my knowledge and understanding of the absurd through wider research and reading - when it came to The Outsider I could not help myself bursting out with sympathy and approval of the somewhat macabre Meursault. I was hooked, and, despite it's bleak overtones, I found the underlying message so empowering and enlightening. I feel that it is so necessary to expose this side of existentialism - a school of thought that often seems bleak and dark, and now I can see that this are completely undeserved labels!

Facing one of the fundamental questions in philosophical though, albeit at a fairly low level, but at an extremely important time in my life, I cannot stress how important an influence Camus has been on me. I feel it is all to easy, for someone like me at my age, to get too bogged down in these deep questions, and get fairly upset about the situation we find ourselves in, and on the whole that these situations are often quite unhelpful. On the contrary, Camus has been brilliant for me, and what's more, truly life changing.

2016

It's been quite a long time since I've written anything for the blog. This has mainly been due to being busy with school and other commitments, but there's something else that has held me back from writing. Since I last posted, global politics and affairs has taken a sharp and somewhat shocking turn for the worst. Partly out of sheer amazement and despair, I felt unable to make any comments or evaluations on the things being presented on the news. Now as we enter 2016, I feel it is right to reflect on that troublesome end to the year and outline what I wish to see happen in 2016

At the forefront of the last year's events, we have the Paris attacks and the subsequent decision to carry out drone strikes on key targets in an attempt to thwart so-called IS. This was an extremely troubling news story for me to handle. The sheer scale of the attacks in Paris, was obscene and quite frankly frightening for me. What shocked me even more however, was how the aftermath of these events saw society lapse into vitriolic Islamophobia and refugee blaming. I was appalled to see people react in the way they did, blaming migration policy and admonishing Muslims and refugees. Events like these are not at all an excuse to express any form of partisan sympathies, and I find it disgraceful how readily people began to do so. Events like these are a time for solidarity and clear-headed thinking in the face of an extremely relevant threat. Which brings me neatly to the subject of the air strikes. Naturally, I am completely opposed to the barbaric air strikes, and the somewhat Orwellian feeling of a constant war is a real boot to the face. The strikes seemed to me the result of bellicose MPs seeking the apparently easiest way to deal with a situation, not bearing in mind the full consequences of their actions. However, it is with some regret that I say that I also can not condone or attack the decision to go ahead with air strikes. Primarily, I'm not in any relevant position of authority for my voice to matter, but the air strike vote was a wake up call for me, highlighting the genuinely difficult decisions MPs have to make in times of crises, and it would be completely unfair for me to accuse them. So-called IS are a barbaric, fascistic force, that must be stopped, and I only hope, that the air strikes that have been so ardently defended by so many people, are successful in putting an end to the threat they pose. I also ask, plea even, to those who defend them that they acknowledge the consequences of such strikes, such as the threat to civilian life, and the displacement of thousands from their homes, that they do not turn their noses up at refugees when it is the instability accentuated by these strikes that have led them to seek refuge here, and that they accept their fault if the strikes do not succeed.

Onto the somewhat lighter matter of how completely deceiving and disingenuous our government is, an almost haven of subject matter for me. The tax credits cuts debacle truly displays how the next 4 years of Tory rule will play out, deceiving lies seeking to punish the poor under the pretence of bringing them salvation. I find it so utterly despicable that a government can so arrogantly go against a campaign promise, a promise made to a citizen on a public debate, although, quite frankly, I am not at all surprised. What I am surprised about is how people did not see an event like this coming. The only positive to take from this is that the House of Lords finally got it's act together and acted in preventing these cuts for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, however, it seems that the shortfalls of the Conservatives have been short lived in the eyes of the media and public, and attention has been shifted back towards Mr. Marmite: Jeremy Corbyn. It seems that every since he's been elected there has been a reason for his position to be in dispute, week by week they are becoming more and more tiresome and boring to talk about. Fortunately, in the past week we have seen the arrival of some real news. The scrutiny of the cabinet reshuffle has actually been fairly interesting, giving an insight into how Corbyn plans to react to his unruly party and furthermore to see where the Labour party may be headed. For some, the signs are not looking good, and I can perfectly understand any current pessimism, but personally I am not too down hearted about it all. I think that 2016 will be an exciting, if not challenging, year for the Labour party, and it will be very interesting to see if many more people resign, quit, reject position offers, and if so how many. Personally, I think, and hope it won't be that many. I feel (and hope again!) that, once the media gossip humdrum dies down, and Corbyn begins directing more initiatives, such as the new focus on rail fares, there will be a  greater acceptance of JC as a leader, putting the fuddy-duddy Trot caricature behind them. With coherent and appealing initiatives there will hopefully come a realisation that the Labour party needs to consistently oppose and scrutinise the Conservatives on the real issues that need to be faced, gaining more unity and understanding within the party, and leaving behind the childish squabbling that has been distracting from the focus of the opposition party.

I hope that throughout this new year I will be able to write about a lot more than just political affairs that take my interest, which seemed to be the main focus for last year. During last summer I began to read a whole lot more than I had been. I read quite a few brilliant books and have revitalised my love for an enjoyable page-turner. In the following year I will be recording the books that I've read on a page on the blog, forming a sort of personal book shelf , as well as introducing the 'currently reading' section. This will be in order to construct an end of year review for 2016, commenting on the best things about that year for myself, and hopefully to recommend - rather than gloomily focusing on how angry the news makes me.

why I've voted Jeremy Corbyn

As the end of the school year and the summer holidays approached, I decided I'd take a short hiatus from writing, as a way of winding down from what's been a fairly arduous year. Even though I've seen things in the news that have made me want to write, I've also found it very difficult to find the time to sit down and write a piece. Fortunately, this short break has given me the chance to accrue a lot more content to write about. As you may have guessed from the title, this will be about the Labour Leadership debacle - sorry, I meant debate...

On Saturday 12th September, the Labour party announced Jeremy Corbyn as their new leader. The run up to this announcement has seen one of the most entertaining political debates in recent years that has been taken up by all and sundry. For some, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the messiah, and for others, the antichrist. As a member of the Labour party, I did get a vote in this election, and I did use it to vote for the marmite politico that is Mr. Corbyn, and I would like to say why.

In July, the government passed the Welfare Reform and Work bill which would see welfare spending cut by £12bn, and subsequently affect thousands of families across the UK, primarily for the worse. The bill could only be passed if it won a majority vote from all MPs. For this vote, Labour MPs were asked by their Chief Whip to abstain. Not oppose and vote against, as opposition parties usually do, but abstain. A bill that defies the welfare state that Labour supposedly stands for, that will affect families that Labour supposedly represent, and they were asked to sit back and let it happen.

After the general election, I signed up to the Labour party because I felt it would represent me, and a vast portion of society, to oppose the vicious implications of Conservative politics that we have seen over the past five years, and in its first opportunity to do so, the party chose to abstain. No matter how much of a cliché it sounds, the party weren't just letting me down, they were letting themselves down. After the crushing defeat in May, it was clear that they needed to rebuild, needed to find themselves, and most importantly, distinguish themselves against the Tories, and this is the first action they take to do so? Instead of standing up to Iain Duncan Smith's reign of terror, they remained passive. Their 'opposition' to the bill was so much so that it led an SNP MP to ask for the Speaker to change the seating arrangements to represent who the real opposition party was. Labour MP Diane Abbott, who went against the Whips orders and actually voted against the bill, accurately retorted: "We weren't sent to Parliament to abstain."

Fortunately there were 47 other Labour MPs alongside Diane Abbott. Out of these 48, the only leadership candidate was Jeremy Corbyn. This made it clear to me, that it was imperative I voted for Jeremy Corbyn, as he was the only candidate that did not succumb to the cowardly demand of the Whip, and was willing to stand by his principles. It seemed that this was not just a turning point for me either as in the following weeks, 'Corbynmania' ensued...

Thousands cramming city halls to hear him speak, young and old. Youths climbing onto window ledges to see him. The support increasing day by day. Naturally, along with support, came the media vitriol. Fanatical headlines stating how Corbyn would ruin and isolate the party, how he was going to debase the party to something not too dissimilar from Stalin’s central committee. Despite, the disdain, there was a much more serious debate at heart - a debate that has been present since Tony Blair’s decision to revise clause IV in 1995. 

This revision was a paradigm shift in the history of the Labour party; a (successful) attempt at catching up with the Conservative party by drifting from its socialist roots. Many believe that this was a good move, and I do not question that, it was an effective response to capture the interest of society at the time and return the party to prominence. However, due to various unfortunate circumstances, it has also eventually led to a resurgence in quasi Thatcherism in the form of David Cameron. I believe it was this ‘pragmatic’ approach led the Labour party to fall at the last election - most people could not understand the Labour party, or what they stood for, and therefore based their decision on sandwich eating skills.

It is now time for a response from the Labour party, another shift, similar to that of 1997, which is where Jeremy Corbyn comes in. Initially, this man was not supposed to be the victor of the contest, but was merely supposed to remind members of the party of their roots - and perhaps as a little joke for snide Conservatives. However, in the wake of events such as the Welfare Reform Bill, we have found that this is not a time for pragmatism, but in fact for a return to a more left stance in the Labour party to represent those who will suffer and to call out these actions. Jeremy Corbyn will certainly define the somewhat dubious position of the Labour party, and distinguish them from their opposition. Many people believe that this return to the left will isolate them further, but considering Westminster’s current position on the political spectrum, where else is there for the party to go? Moving further right will only aggravate the crisis of the disillusioned youth and working classes who have gravitated towards UKIP or Conservative. If Corbyn directs them more left it will help to challenge this view of the Eton mess, and provide a solid voice for people like me, as well as attracting Green voters who have effectively stood unrepresented in previous years. For me Corbyn is a beacon of hope, to fight for a portion of society who have suffered over the years, and bring about true democracy to the Commons. 

the "F" word

My school is a strong advocate of setting up societies to represent the interests of its students. One of the most recently formed societies is "The Feminist Forum", who meet to discuss and debate prominent issues regarding feminism today. Yesterday, the school held its annual "Freshers Fair", where all of the societies make stalls and advertise their group to the prospective sixth-form students. As a member of the feminist forum, I was asked to write a short article for it's flyer about the relevance of feminism to me as a male in the hope of encouraging more people to join the forum. I thought it might be nice to share it.



Today we live in a world where society wrongly vilifies feminism with images and news of radical ‘feminists’. Men decide that they do not agree with feminism because it is just another word for man hating, and the very nature of the name excludes them. Worst of all is when you find women who feel that they don’t need feminism, because they can live their lives happily without discomfort and fear. All across the world women live in constant fear of genital mutilation, discrimination in the workplace, forced marriages, sexual trafficking, rape and objectification. Why then, is feminism such a divisive issue?

We need to eradicate the social consensus that man haters and “feminists” are synonymous because it could not be more wrong. The sole principle of feminism is equality of the sexes - men included! Stokely Carmichael, and Malcom X were not associated with the civil rights movement because of their black supremacist motives, so why do we not take this same stance with feminism? Instead we carry on incorrectly branding feminists as misandrists and vice versa!

When I see a man disagree with feminism because the name excludes him, I can only respond in one way, and that is by quoting actress Ellen Page: “could it be any more obvious that we live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word?” To me, the constant need to find an argument against feminism is such blatant proof of why feminism is needed, as Page says. What’s more, the arguments that feminism exclude men, are just wrong! The United Nations “He For She” campaign is a perfect example of this! This solidarity movement shows how important it is for men to stand up for women’s rights, for the common goal of equality of the sexes. Feminism is just as representative of male issues as it is female, and the true sentiment of this movement today, is solidarity.

If you eat, does that mean that famine does not exist? No it doesn’t. But people still adopt this parochial view that because the grave issues I have previously mentioned do not affect them, they do not need to stand for the cause against them! What a shocking indictment of the society we live in!

Karl Marx said, “social progression can be measured by the equality of the sexes” and I believe it is this one quote that should encourage you to advocate feminism. How are we to face the greater issues in the world such as climate change, and racial hatred when we cannot live simply together as man and woman? How wrong is it that society spends the majority of its time discussing the semantics of feminism, rather than focusing on the great work it has done, or where it is most needed in society! What we need, is to cut the arguments and actually work together for this great and powerful cause.

double standards

Previously, I have only written in angry reaction to somewhat local political issues. Today I plan to look at something not local at all, but still inspired by sheer anger and disgust.

On June 18th Dylann Roof shot 9 people in a black church in Charleston. Upon hearing this news I was absolutely disgusted. This racially motivated attack drew many questions to my head. How could someone carry out such a depraved attack on innocent people in a place of worship? Why does America still have legislature that allows these kind of mass shootings? Why does America still have such an issue with racism? But my main question following this attack is: why isn't Dylann Roof considered a terrorist? 

With some thought and reading about this event, I have noticed that the issue is not just America's racist attitudes, but its sheer ignorance to emphasise the white man is guilty for his crimes. The press hardly ever feels the need to clarify ethnicity in an attack by a white man, but as soon as a black person is involved in an attack it is imperative to clarify he is black. It is also imperative to question the leadership of the "black community", and malign the "black community", thus accentuating racist attitudes. Not only do they draw attention to the guilty party's ethnicity, they use adjectives such as "thugs" "animalstic" and "wild". This obvious racism occurs even if the black man is the victim. For example: Mike Brown, shot dead in Ferguson by police, was referred to as "no angel" because he smoked, drank and - now this is the best bit - rapped. Why is this behaviour acceptable? 

Why is the same not said for white perpetrators? The "white community" is never brought under the mass media microscope. No, instead we are offered excuses and consolations for the white criminal. Apparently, Dylann Roof had become a loner in recent years! Oh no, poor him! Roof as also been described as "quiet and soft-spoken"! That's absolutely fine then! They also feel the need also to inform us that Dylann Roof "went over the edge when a girl he liked started dating a black guy". Damn. Go on, let him free guys, that's fair enough. Amongst all these pitiful consollations, absolutely nowhere do we see him branded a terrorist. Why is this? Do we need to clarify the definition of terrorist? 

Ah no, Dylann was just a quiet, loner with girl troubles, I  guess that means he isn't a terrorist, fair enough... Wait... What's this? "Roof's roommate Dalton Tyler has said 'he was big on segregation, and wanted to start a civil war'". Here we see concrete evidence that Dylann Roof is in fact a terrorist - so why is it not being reported this way? Imagine if a Muslim had committed the crime Dylann Roof just has, would they be treated the same way? I highly doubt it. Mass Islamophobia would be rife. Religious leaders would be called into question, their whole religion vilified and scrutinised. 

This kind of behaviour is just unacceptable in today's supposed "developed" world. The media must, refer to Dylann Roof, and others as what they truly are - terrorists. Mainstream news circuits, newspapers, magazines and blogs hold such a strong position of influence today, and if we are being exposed to such blatant and obscene dsicrimination, people will carry on thinking that this is an acceptable way to carry on. White media privilege must be stopped. 

the human rights act

As I have previously mentioned, upon the news of the crushing tory majority, I set out to read the Conservative manifesto in a desperate attempt to feel more positive about the next 5 years. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Whilst skimming through the pdf I stumbled upon the Tories plan to abolish the Human Rights Act (HRA), and my heart immediately sank. The manifesto stated that it would abolish the HRA in favour of a 'British Bill of Rights'. Even though it is unknown as to what exactly this alternative entails, I strongly believe that repealing the HRA would be devastating for Britain. 

Firstly, lets just establish what exactly the HRA is. After the second world war, nations gathered together to take measures to avoid the atrocities they had let happen in Germany. They set up the United Nations, and a list of  universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR would first be incorporated on a continental level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which would then be given legal effect in every country. In Britain's case, the Labour government introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998. The rights a citizen is entitled to under this act are things like: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. In recent years, the HRA has succeeded in giving a voice and bringing justice to the most endangered in society such as women suffering domestic and sexual abuse, child trafficking victims and those with disabilities - no wonder the Tories want to scrap it. I jest, but honestly, there is a need to be concerned. So if the HRA is such a benefit, then why do they wish to abolish it? 

Many people use the HRA as an argument for Euroscepticism. As I have explained, the ECHR does influence the HRA, which many interpret as one of the many ways that we are shackled by the EU. However, this argument disintegrates twofold. Firstly, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgements of the European court, and does not directly control them. Secondly, the HRA is not the legislature that asks the UK courts to take into account the European court judgements, it is Article 46 of the ECHR. So basically, repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the effect the EU has on Britain. 

What do we know about what is to come, when the act is repealed? The Conservative manifesto says that the new bill will 'break the formal link between British courts and the European Courts of Human Rights'. Theresa May said that Britain could leave the ECHR if British courts did not gain the right to overrule the decisions of the European courts based in Strasbourg, but there have also been comments from 'senior government sources' stating that Britain will not leave the ECHR. So which will it be? If we do leave the ECHR, it will make it severely difficult for people making human rights cases under the ECHR as they would have to travel to Strasbourg for them rather than being able to take them to courts in their own country, thus putting the most vulnerable that I have previously mentioned in more danger. This ECHR hokey cokey, whether we will stay in or out of the ECHR may eventually be dictated by the intentions of this new bill of rights. Theresa May's call for increasing British courts influence may not be compatible with membership of the ECHR because it states that the ECHR ultimately decides cases. Moreover, the development of the new bill of rights is being overseen by Michael Gove, our infamous cabinet minister who thinks we should bring back hanging! which, might I just add, is against the ECHR. 

At the moment, the new Conservative proposal just seems very scary, but primarily because it is unclear what is going to happen. The HRA has created great benefits for many, and acts as an effective reminder to this day of how countries joined together in solidarity to prevent the rise of vicious dictatorships, so why is there a need to repeal it? Like I mentioned in my 'patronage' post, this may be another one of Cameron's steps towards making it easier new radical demands. 

patronage

Patronage is defined as "the support given by a patron". In politics, patronage can refer to a leader appointing "yes men" to support a power base, surrounding yourself with people who share your beliefs and will remain loyal to you. Sounds pretty simple and harmless right? It can also be used as a very cunning ploy. Patronage was a very effective tool used by a certain Josef Stalin in his plight for power, and he used it effectively to deceptively outmanoeuvre his opponents who had seemingly better credentials for being leader of the USSR.The reason why I bring this up is in relation to David Cameron's cabinet reshuffle. I know this seems an instant exaggeration, something like Godwin's law where any bad thing will eventually find its way being compared to Hitler, but hear me out.

This reshuffle is the first pure Tory cabinet in 18 years and has some interesting members. Before going into details, let's give an overview of the 21 men and women Cameron has appointed. Half of these men and women went to Oxbridge, two thirds of the cabinet, are male and 1/3 voted against gay marriage.

Now onto individuals:

• Justin Tomlinslon: new disabilities minister. Voted against protecting benefits for disabled children and cancer patients, but voted in favour of the bedroom tax. In his new job, Tomlinson has unprecedented access to the access to work fund which aims to help disabled people enter work. So it seems the future of the disabled is in safe hands...
• Justice Secretary Michael Gove. Gove has declared that it was wrong to abolish hanging in the 1960s, and the abolition of the noose has led to a 'corruption of our criminal system' and  the 'erosion of all of our freedoms'. Justice secretary. Just let that sink in. 
• John Wittingdale, Culture Secretary. This position will see over how the BBC is run. Wittingdale is openly critical of the licence fee, and if his concessions were made, our BBC would be gravely damaged. Oh, and also, he has voted against gay marriage and has 'voted moderately against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
• Caroline Dineage has been appointed Minister for Equalities and will work with Education Secretary Nicky Morgan. Both of these women have also voted against gay marriage. Once more, a certain sense of irony in Cameron appointing someone opposed to gay marriage as Equalities minister.
• Iain Duncan Smith is Work and Pensions Secretary- he's the man who we'll blame for overseeing the £12bn welfare cuts. 
• Jeremy Hunt has remained as health secretary which means he will be in charge of the NHS. As I said in my previous post, his views that the NHS should be abolished are not a very good omen, Another example of irony in Cameron's appointments. 

Whilst the comparison of the role patronage played in Stalin's power struggle of 1924 is a bit of an exaggeration, I think that patronage is an extremely important concept to consider when looking at Cameron's cabinet reshuffle. Whilst uncle Joe used patronage to establish a power base and then execute his population, Cameron has established power through a 'majority' vote, and now his use of patronage is to assure his decisions are executed efficiently. It appears to me that he has appointed these members because they hold the views that he is too afriad to admit to, the effect of this being that when he issues these laws and cuts- there will be no opposition and will be passed swiftly. Cameron must be delighted to have rid himself of the coalition cabinet where Lib Dem ministers blocked many Conservative propositions being passed. Unfortunately those coalition days have passed, and I reckon that once we see the motions carried by this new cabinet, we will realise how fortunate we were to have  the Liberal Democrats moderating the Tory delegation.