Nigel's refugee clawback shows he's just another politician

As the year ends, spare a thought for a group of Britons whose hopes and dreams have been crushed. A group who will continue to be ridiculed, ignored and oppressed, even by those who once promised them Jerusalem itself.

Of course, I'm talking about the poor members of UKIP, who upon hearing of their leader Nigel Farage claim that the UK should 'welcome Syrian refugees', came up in arms (at least on their Keyboards) to denounce the act of treachery.

“You're a shill, just like the rest of 'em” said one man on the party's official Facebook account. “Charity begins at home, let's start here first!” said another. In fact, since Farage made the statement last Sunday, the party's page has been filled with reactions similar to another rattled up member, who eloquently put it: “They can sort out their own shite”.

Admittedly, I was quite impressed by Farage's statement. Perhaps because I'm a liberal Britain hater by UKIP's standards, but the fact that he was able to justify the proposition under the United Nations 1951 declaration on Refugee status illustrated a certain maturity of the party- one that's hard time shaking off negative images of racism and under-informed policy.  

It also said something about Farage's character. Arguably the most charismatic man in modern British politics (with London mayor Boris Johnson a close second), Farage has always been known for his defiant speeches at the European parliament, an unrelenting stance to the European union, and generally achieving what most politicians can't- being rather good on TV. I half expected that the man likely to lead the 2014 elections would have the resilience to do what was morally right, even if a section of his party weren't too chipper about it.

But yesterday, Farage retracted his initial statement, stating that he actually meant Syrian Christians (otherwise known as 'the good ones'). Beyond the sheer offensiveness of the comment- and the inherent implication that religion is an accurate determinant of one's life, it's worth thinking about what this actually says about Farage himself.

Bear in mind that a significant part of the Farage 'brand' lies in marketing himself as an outsider- the 'honest broker' in a land of crooks- something that his supporters often lament in when they talk about 'spineless' politicians. Indeed, just type his name into Youtube, and you'll find plenty of videos attacking the 'LibLabCon' establishment, claiming that the party 'best represents the working class' through addressing its concerns around immigration. Essentially, the Farage brand has been constructed as the antithesis of mainstream politics, accommodating viewpoints that Liberals, Conservatives or Labour could never acceptably get away with.

Farage has been able to get away with this 'free pass' for a while, and it's allowed a great deal of inconsistency in the process. Prior to his statement to help Syrian refugees, he referred to the UK as a 'soft touch' for trickster asylum seekers, while the party's flagship policy, the 5 year immigration freeze, has generally gone unchallenged by the mainstream press.

Meanwhile, its campaigners and supporters seem to pay little attention to its policies outside of immigration and the EU; Indeed, it still confuses me that a party that calls for corporation tax cuts, meanwhile statements made by the party's former economics spokesman, a certain Godfrey Bloom, has been on the record claiming that the unemployed and public sector workers should be 'stripped of their voting rights'.

Perhaps the issue is that we don't really know what Farage stands for. Once a strength, his dream of UKIP becoming a formidable force in British politics is coming with consequences- notably, a greater demand for accountability. That might mean Farage will have to stop playing the political maverick, and act more like a politician.

Whether Farage believes his revised statement, is of course questionable. But what this obvious scaling back does show is that even without a Westminster seat, he knows that he requires a core foundation of votes to even stand a chance in the next election. And being a self-cultivated brand, he might find that defying the congregation is much more difficult.

*An interesting comment piece : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10542611/Does-Nigel-Farage-want-to-join-the-Conservatives.html

The 'gender segregation' debate has ignored Muslim women

It turns out that British Universities are further bowing to Shariah Law (at least according to some bloggers) by 'enabling' gender segregation. The issue comes in light of a recent report by UniversitiesUK (now retracted) suggesting that 'gender separation is not alien to our culture'.

There's been enough columns denouncing forced separation by gender; pretty much every national newspaper, magazine and digital news outlet have argued that such requests are akin to coercion, demean freedom and equality, and may even suggest that religious sensitivities have taken precedence in secular institutions.

Generally I agree with the sentiments; I personally don't believe segregation achieves what it is designed for, nor is it particularly great for the purposes of public intellectual inquiry. I also feel that a lot of Islamic societies across the country will bear the brunt of rash accusations; my own university's Islamic Society (ISOC) didn't do segregation in public debates, and neither did the others I attended as a guest.

But I do believe that Muslim women have been short-changed in this highly publicised debate- particularly when it came to media reporting. For while representatives of LSE's atheist & secular society, Student Rights and IERA were given air time- the opinions of ISOC attendees- particularly Muslim women, were given much less attention. And if we are to seriously have a debate or impose terms like 'patriarchy', 'misogyny' and 'medieval' , then it's probably not the best idea to shut out the people who have been portrayed as the victims in all of this.

I decided to speak to three Muslim women over the weekend. All, who wish to remain anonymous for privacy reasons, are students at London universities, where they play active roles in their Islamic societies.

During the interviews, what surprised me was how they viewed the separation by gender, an Islamic custom that is observed by pretty much all Mosques across the world. Soumaiya, a 20 year-old engineering student said to me : "I'm uncomfortable with the term 'segregation' because it implies force. None of us were forced to sit away from males, it was a choice that we made- one that we're actually more comfortable with."

Over the course of our correspondence, we talked further about Islam and feminism, where she went on to say: "This whole debate is a lot like the issues regarding the Hijab (headscarf) and the Niqab (veil). One the one hand you have a group of people arguing that it supresses women into acceptance and submission. On the other, a growing wave of feminist Muslims are using it to empower themselves, and to build gender identities on their own terms.

"To me this is the same thing. I don't agree that people should be forced to do anything, but if I feel more comfortable sitting alone, or with fellow women, then why should I be told it's wrong? Isn't it all a bit counter-intuitive?"

Halima agrees. A 19 year old Mathematics student and former treasurer of her Islamic society, she says: "A lot of the arguments flung around talk about how sitting separated reinforces patriarchy and male superiority, but no-one really asks what the females think. It's ironic really- they complain that girls in Islam are ignored and unrecognised, and then they completely ignore them when discussing gender rights!"

That's not to say that all Muslim women- or even men- find the current system of segregation to be perfect. Indeed, as young, liberally-educated Muslims go to UK universities, they often have a mindset which is at odds with old-school preachers and culturally dogmatic ways of thinking. Noor, a Chemistry student from my alma mater tells me: "Segregation the way that it's currently done might not work as intended, because the disparity between the Isoc and the outside world are polar opposites.

"How can you be in an environment where you have total separation in Islamic events, and then you're forced to mix and interact with the opposite gender outside? Sitting at the back of a room won't improve the way that anyone interacts with the opposite sex- in some cases it might make it even worse."

Noor also tells me that ISOCs do need to develop in order to address the key issues surrounding gender segregation suggesting that they need to create a space where "boundaries exist, because they are part of a wider principles that we believe in and are embedded within us and not because they are enforced by a sign that says "brothers left and sisters right".

This leaves the question of whether gender segregation is 'legitimate' in British universities. I'd argue that while I don't believe an external speaker should be able to dictate terms of a public event (and this would apply whether it's race, socio-economic disposition or political affiliation) and nor should people be forced into arrangements without their consent, there is also something to be said about respecting choices regardless of how distasteful we might find them. Such is the libertarian position of Legal theorist David Bernstein, who explains in his paper ["Sex Discrimination Laws Versus Civil Liberties”] that "guarding the freedom of choice for men and women is more important than preventing such sex segregation since methods of prevention can often cause more harm than good for both sexes."

To conclude- hastily, I do think that the debate surrounding gender segregation on British campuses, while important, has been poorly debated on. There has been far less discussion, particularly from female viewpoints, on the values of choice, liberty, religious identity and legitimate boundaries of self expression. Instead, we've heard far more misogynistic assumptions from Islamic groups who have been given a platform to speak on gender rights, and commentators that have fallen into the same trap of pushing forward a dogmatic and incorruptible strand of liberalism.

Even if campaigners ultimately succeed in preventing societies from holding events where segregation is permitted, I fear that it will, unfortunately, do little to advance the gender equality of female Muslim students.

How the police and senior management are trampling on student dissent

nus.org.uk

The news that Michael Chessum, president of the University of London Union (ULU) was arrested earlier this week under section 11 of the Public Order Act 1989 is the latest event in a series of efforts to quell dissent on UK university campuses. It further illustrates a worrying trend in the future of student politics as well as the fate of public universities themselves.

Under S.11, the police had every right to arrest Chessum on the grounds that he had failed to give prior notice of the demonstration, held to counter management's continuing plan of dismantling the largest students' union in Europe, opting instead to outsource services and dilute both accessibility and public accountability for its students.

Yet the claim rests on shaky grounds, for several reasons. First, as reported by the London Review of Books,  Chessum was arrested almost immediately after his meeting with a member of senior management, who had previously written to him advising: ‘review your personal and institutional responsibilities and liabilities in leading protesters into physical danger and unlawful action'. While the University of London claim they have nothing to do with the protest, complains from union staffers suggest that the correspondence might amount to a clear threat taken in this context.

There's a bigger issue at hand, however; an ongoing trend in which authorities have actively clamped down on student dissidence in campuses across the country- and have gotten away with it.

Consider that even after the 2010 student protests in London, the metropolitan police continue to taunt students with letters 'reminding' them not to engage in 'disruptive, anti-social behaviour as Farah-Al-Nahda reports.  The crackdown hasn't just been limited to mass protests either. Just a few months ago, another student at the University of London was arrested for a 'chalk protest' highlighting the University's aims at altering levels of pay to outsourced low-wage cleaners.

That isn't all, of course. On the same day that Chessum was arrested, secret footage published by The Guardian showed that the police were attempting to bribe students at Cambridge University into spying on activists on the campus. According to the tapes, the police weren't just searching for activists who may pose a risk to national security, but rather 'union-stuff', as "the things they discuss can have an impact on community issues."

While Chessum has now been released from Holborn police station, he, as have the rest of union members, has been banned from staging any more protests on any of the London campuses until further notice. Meanwhile, the University of London will continue the plans to disband ULU, only this time with little threat of resistance.

Finally- it's worth reading this piece on OpenDemocracy.net. It's an interesting article on the uses and abuses of security services in our universities, and the ways in which other forms of protests- including those against arms manufacturers, are also being trodden on.

What this says about how universities are changing is debatable, though the way I see it, arbitrary arrests, gagging orders and the increased erosion of transparency make it clear that public institutions are becoming more corporate, less accountable to their student bodies and disturbingly, more welcome on campuses.

Some thoughts on Journalism

It’s been a while since I last went on a school trip- especially one that didn’t involve asking middle-aged mums from Kent about parking in their dreary town centers.

As part of the NCTJ course (an accredited journalism training programme) that I’m taking at Lambeth College, I had the opportunity to attend the Society of Editor’s conference, an annual meeting of the industry’s top editorial staff, freedom of information campaigners and veteran journalists, to discuss the most pressing issues that currently faces journalists working in the print medium. The day consisted of panel debates relating to reforms in press regulations, the relationships between journalists and the police as well as the conduct of ‘responsible journalism’- and how to address the balance between reporting and national security.

There’s a collection of really good blogs (most by fellow Lambeth students) here

While I won’t go through each of the debates with a fine comb (the blogs do have more details regarding them anyway)  I thought it might be worth highlighting the key points from the conference, which may help those working in the industry, or others wanting to join it.

 ‘Journalism is changing’
A point that almost everyone knows in theory, but not so much in practice.

Journalism is going through a transition stage at the moment. While the UK still has a very healthy amount of newspapers and magazines in circulation, the medium of mass printing is dying; in other words, people are less likely to spend a large % of their daily income on newspapers.

As the Press Gazette reports here most national printed papers have seen a rapid decline in their readership in less than a decade- in part because of steep increases in price, but more because news is more accessible- and free- online.

Home Secretary Theresa May’s keynote address made this quite clear, stating that the biggest challenges facing the press were that of advertising revenues and monetizing content. At the same time, she said that the challenge of the local press came from larger institutions like the BBC, who could lift local content and broadcast it to a much wider audience. 

In this case, the ‘media’ face a number of problems at once;

(a) To reassert its relevance to local and national democracy.
(b) To build better brands, particularly on digital platforms
(c) To compete against bigger agencies and broadcasters with larger audiences
(d) To find the funding needed to continue journalistic practice.

Proposed regulations aren't ideal- but it might be better than the alternatives

 I’ve blogged previously on why the Royal Charter would dilute the roles and responsibilities of the press- something I still believe. But the conference did hold a terrific debate on how journalists might work under the new system.

The panel discussion- which featured  the Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti and Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke, highlighted the difficulty for British journalists in acquiring information. One example given related to the difficulty she had in getting information relating to MPs expenses- which the Telegraph eventually broke thanks to a whistleblower. Brooke said: “Information that should be in the public domain t is suppressed and it creates a sort of black market”

Chakrabarti said she had no desire for ‘absolute transparency’, acknowledging that secrecy was essential for a state to protect its national interests, but also argued that there was a need for oversight and public accountability, saying that in our current state, security services “wanted no secrecy for us, and no accountability for them.”

The question is, under a new regulatory model, how free are journalists to do investigative work?

As editor of the Press Gazette Dominic Ponsford argues, the Press Complaints Commission’s new incarnation, the Indepdendent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) may be the ‘best worst solution’ on the table. The stick behind the PCC’s replacement is coercion to the newspapers, which comes from harsh pay-outs by newspapers in libel cases. However, as many of the oversight bodies will only really change in name, and publishers will still oversee the conduct of journalism, there are some who argue that this is far more desirable than a Royal Charter.

That said, the Media Standards Trust aren’t too happy, as Gordon Ramsay, researcher at the LSE media project shows.

 Monetising media is still uncharted territory

Paywalls, re-branding, going digital etc. Lots of ideas on how to make journalism pay (important for budding reporters), no real agreements on how to do it. A panel debate featuring the Sun’s new editor David Dinsmore and Peter Barron, former editor of  BBC Newsnight, argued their methods of making journalism pay.

I won’t go into this as it’s quite long winded, but my personal opinion would be that paywalls are likely to become the default setting of most media outlets. The debate will then shift from one of ‘how to pay journalists’ to a more diverse one on the balance between monetizing content and easing access to information for the public.

The Royal Charter has killed the Fourth Estate

It is said that in 1787, the polemicist and prominent Whig Edmund Burke first made reference to the "illustrious nativity of the Fourth Estate" in a speech to the House of Commons. Though in context to our debates surrounding the place of journalism in British society, it is perhaps best to turn to Burke's contemporary Thomas Macaulay, who in reviewing Hallam's Constitutional History first made the case for the press as a system of accountability, stating: "The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm."

Fast forward to 2013, and we have seen the most remarkable of transformations, as an institution whose modus operandi rests on independence becomes further compromised by the power of politics. As the Privy Council grants its royal charter on press regulation, accompanied by the Queen's seal of approval, the press will now have to face new obstacles when going about reporting.

The Sun's political columnist Trevor Kavanaugh has said of the new regulatory system: "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig", illustrating quite voraciously the difference in narrative between politicians and newspaper journalists. The former describe the Royal Charter as the 'best possible outcome' in abiding by Lord Leveson's recommendations which followed the Leveson Inquiry. The latter see it as sneaking statute, designed to give the political class more influence over the press, as Toby Young blogs on the Telegraph.

Both claims are exaggerated, but there still exists a potent danger. Indeed, the new system of regulation remains voluntary, but the fangs of the new regulatory model lie in the detail- in particular, the methods in which media organisations would be coerced into signing up to the Charter. In particular, this relates to the Crime and Courts act 2013 , which stipulates different treatments of media outlets depending on an 'approved regulator'. The snippet can be found in section 42, but I've posted the relevant segment here:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (2), a body is “recognised” as a regulator of relevant publishers if it is so recognised by any body established by Royal Charter (whether established before or after the coming into force of this section) with the purpose of carrying on activities relating to the recognition of independent regulators of relevant publishers.

(4)“Relevant claim” means a civil claim made in respect of any of the following—
(a)libel;
(b)slander;
(c)breach of confidence;
(d)misuse of private information;
(e)malicious falsehood;
(f)harassment.

The press have also suggested the charter is coercive on the basis that those who do not wish to join, such as Private Eye magazine, risk higher legal costs and exemplary pay-outs to claimants in the event that they are taken to court.

At the same time, the creeping authority of the charter is embedded in more discreet ways. Consider section 17 of schedule 3 under the stipulations of the charter:

17. The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time although (in its discretion) it should be able to offer a service of advice to editors of subscribing publications relating to code compliance.

And when we consider in recent days that a number of high profile politicians, including the Prime Minister in which he posed a thinly vieled threat to The Guardian over it's NSA surveillance reporting, there is definitely a legitimate fear that politicians- and their interested affiliates, will be able to steer journalism at their own will.

A first reading of the charter illustrates not only the diminishing of the 'fourth estate' in its present state, but also the re-definition of journalism itself. What started as a legitimate inquiry into phone hacking and unethical practice- as well as legitimate debates regarding the strength of the Editor's code has instead become a battleground in which journalism is defined by the most powerful in society. Whether the press play by these new rules, or abstain completely is something we'll see in the coming few months, but I fear if they that satirical cover of Private Eye may instead become a haunting reality.

ULU were right to ban officials from remembrance day ceremonies

stephen_gunby via flickr.com

There's one image that remains prevalent from the now 'infamous' student riots of 2011.  
Charlie Gilmour, a Cambridge history undergraduate was snapped swinging from the Cenotaph-an act deemed of such disrespect that he was given a jail sentence of 16 months. Yet the message that the photograph conveyed was not simply a student's disregard for 'the glorious dead', but rather the underlining irreverence that student unions supposedly harbour toward Britain's military history.
 
The news that University of London Union (ULU) senate have voted to ban any staff attending remembrance day in their 'official capacity' has brought this sentiment up once more. Already, members of the Twitterati have resurrected Mcarthyist claims of universities controlled by Marxists. Even London MP Stella Creasy has got involved in the issue, tweeting: “As a former student, this decision by ULU to ban officers from participating in Remembrance Sunday makes me ashamed.”

Firstly, its important to note that the tweet significantly misrepresents the actuality of the situation; Officers of the ULU are allowed to attend ceremonies as individuals, but not in their official roles. Certainly, this is far from a blanket ban, never mind an exertion of hostility toward the armed forces. With that in mind, we should really be focusing on actual issue- whether it was right for ULU to ban any official representation. 

By and large, I feel that ULU got it right. 

As one of the largest unions in the country representing over 120,000 students, ULU has a unique pressure to reflect the vicarious diversity of its organisation. With that remit comes responsibilities, especially in decisions that assume collective representation. For the most part, such actions are implemented when the welfare or rights of students are under direct threat, a principle that forms the framework of the controversial 'No Platform' policy, as well as other initiatives designed to represent minority groups such as LGBT networks. In such situations, unions like ULU are justified in taking stances, particularly as they are bound to them by constitutional mandates and democratic accountability.

The obligation of collective representation cannot be said about events like remembrance day, especially if we are to accept ULU's duty as a democratically elected body. After all, considering the diversity of opinion surrounding war, the armed forces and memorialising across the country, should ULU be taking a stance in ample disregard of important- albeit smaller- clusters of student opinion? And if this is a valid precedent, then would we similarly support ULU if it claimed to represent its entire student body on national issues relating to Royal ceremonies, or the death of former Prime Ministers?
 
Here lies the real dilemma: While it's all well and good for self-aggrandised 'patriots' tacitly telling students that they should be forced to participate, collective representation actually dilutes the value of commemoration itself. Whether one chooses to commemorate in an official ceremony, a secular gathering or to abstain, acknowledging history should be left as an individual enterprise, instead of a predetermined action. If ULU president Michael Chessum wants to commemorate this weekend by “fighting for peace and challenging the policies of governments” he has every right to do so, in the same way that others can attend a memorial service, observe a two minute silence or not do anything at all.

Why ULU's decision- which strikes me as refreshingly democratic, has come under such intense scrutiny is quite confusing. Far from all the sensationalism and rhetoric, the vote conveys enacts the principle that no union staff member has the right to represent London's entire student body on issues where there are clear divides of opinion across the spectrum. In that case we should see ULU's decision not as deliberate way to antagonise, but rather a positive step forward in allowing students to choose how they remember the nation's darkest moments.

Delusions of the Party Conference

Where do you find cheap slogans, poor merchandise and sleazy men in expensive suits? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this years' party conference season.

bbc.co.uk

As the Lib Dems kick off the season (The Greens started before, admittedly) I'm wondering: what's the point of it all?

The data first; to put it bluntly, membership rates across the three largest parties is in terminal decline.  The graphs below show the declining trend in political party membership, sourced from polling figures held in the House of Commons library:

  Unfortunately, comprehensive data was only available until 2008, but according to the most recent available figures compiled by the government (pdf)  Tory party revenue from subscriptions has decline by over 70% since Cameron became leader, Labour's coffers have risen by around 6% on average since the last election and the Lib Dems- as expected, have seen a phenomenal 90% decline in subscription revenues since 2010. As a proportion, all the major political parties, even during 'peak seasons' lack the same political attraction as they once did just a few decades ago.

That's what makes the conference season interesting- in my opinion, it's no longer a way to refresh party spirits, or even a forum to exchange ideas. Rather, it seems to be a time in which political parties can assure themselves they're still relevant and necessary. It's very much like any trade show or team-building weekend away : surround yourself with enough people who believe in the franchise, and you'll easily be convinced it will succeed.

No doubt that politicians (and especially student politicians) won't think the same, but I think it might be worth looking at this blog written by LSE's Ingrid Van Biezen, which attempts to display trends in Political party membership across Europe.

Biezen's data presents some interesting findings. First, that regardless of how new, or 'established' a democracy is, subscriptions to party models are still in decline - so low that they fail to actually indicate the "organisational capacity" of such political entities- by extension, that makes it quite difficult to make election predictions in the long run, or asess electoral moods.
Using Electoral Commission data, the website Unlock Democracy have shown how donations to political parties have changed since 2001.  You can read the paper here, and I've shown the graph of total donations below:



 Sourced at unlockdemocracy.co.uk : unlockdemocracy.co.uk

 

 

 

 

The graph shows a break down of donors for the major political parties, based on recorded data available. Interestingly, which most of the graph is relatively consistent in terms of breaking down donors, the real dip in individual donations to political parties across the spectrum comes between 2011-12, where the latter figure barely reaches £5,000, 000.

What explains the sudden drop?  For starters, its a lack of faith in party leaders, shown in YouGov's leadership approval poll. The poll shows that party leaders across the spectrum have been consistently polling at negative figures with David Cameron leading both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, probably indicating wider public dissaproval about the main 3 parties as a whole.


Second- and more important, is the means in which people see themselves adequately represented. Professor Tony Wright argues that the decline is representative of the new ways people are identified and represenented. Further, he suggests that social media, particularly in relation to elections and conferences, provide a better platform for participation that is taking the place of party membership and traditional politicking.

Regardless, Political Parties are likely to continue being strapped for cash in the years to come until the system begins 'working for them'. An empty phrase I know, but if one of the party leaders can coherently define that term, they might be in a good chance of succeeding sooner than they think. 

 

The Paradox of Pro-Palestine Demonstrations

“The British and Americans are just doing what Israel tells them. They are nothing more than sheep”.

This was an argument- or rather a statement, posed by a young Muslim I was speaking to a few weeks ago, when discussing the Syrian crisis. I didn't think much of it at the time, but after reading Dominic Lawson's column in the Independent last week, the conversation makes me wonder whether Muslim communities- particularly in the West, use the Israel-Palestine conflict to rather disingenuous ends.

We've seen them before; passionate young Muslims who proudly boast Keffiyeh, wear 'Free Palestine' t-shirts and frequent social media with articles about more shootings, fighting and settlement building in disputed areas. Vociferous and enthralling- they denounce the selling of Israeli produce, and now in the latest brand of political protest, advocate the disassociation of Israeli universities in academic discourse.

Don't get me wrong- I believe that engagement with human rights activism should be applauded. The issue I have with Pro-Palestine demonstrations, and the rhetoric that surrounds it, is that it's far more suited to convey external grievances, preoccupied more by an assertion of identity than liberation and independence. And if that's the case, then regardless of how many meetings and protests Muslim students attend, little is really achieved in the way of Palestinian rights and representation.

In my opinion, much of this  boils down to organisation- simply put, there's no clear objective as to what 'pro-Palestinian' activists actually want.

For example, if we wish to advocate for greater rights for Palestinian Arabs, then what groups do we actually want to denounce? The young student's response to this was “Israel”.  I agree that Israeli government policy should be protested against (particularly in areas such as settlements, welfare and higher education) but should we not also be denouncing Hamas, who according to a report by Amnesty International, continues the practice of torture, ill treatment of detainees and public executions? Indeed, if we are to protest for the right of Palestinian self determination and dignity, then why not publically denounce Gaza police denying young men the right of self expression in what they choose to wear? . Certainly, if we are to advocate greater rights for Palestinians, our focus cannot be so narrowly defined and reduced to simplistic tales of good vs evil.

And for those who advocate the need for a legitimate Palestinian state (like myself), we also face  complicated questions; Yes, Palestinians do deserve a state in which collective identity must be recognised, and the same should hold true for Israelis. “But the Palestinians were there first. The land belongs to them!” the student responds. A good point - and one that I originally endorsed. But unfortunately, it disregards the wider histories of the region. 

Having had the privilege to write my university dissertation on the history of the Palestine prior to the establishment of British Mandate, in which much of my time was spent in the archives of the British Museum and other Middle Eastern institutes, it seemed evident that the land had been inhabited by a vicarious array of peoples prior to the First World War, including the Early Israelites, Romans and Arabs- all of whom remain woven into the fabric of the Levant. So if the claim to legitimate ownership rests on a historical foundation- as such assertions suggest, then both Palestine and Israel posses legitimate claims to their existence within the borders.

To ignore the complexity of the Israel-Palestine conflict- on both sides of the equation- does little but reduce the decades-old conflict to meaningless, and in many ways, condescending slogans. Spending a few hours on a Saturday afternoon chanting “Free,Free Palestine” may do wonders to soothe the moral conscience, but without a much broader understanding of both regular life of Palestinian families, or indeed an intimate knowledge of their history, how can we truly say that we are “speaking for the voiceless”? Should we honestly be part of a struggle in which real human suffering is reduced to ideological point scoring? 

On The Syria Vote and its Post Mortem

Haaretz.com

Last night, Members of Parliament rejected the Prime Minister's proposal for British involvement in Syria. It's important to note that this wasn't a proposal to directly intervene in Syria (as there was a general consensus that an official UN report had to first be published), but rather a vote on the principle of military intervention. In any case, the proposal was defeated by Labour and a handful of Lib Dems/Conservatives, with the final tally at 272-285. A replay of the debate itself can be found here.

During the debate, a BBC Panorama team in Syria reported a napalm-like attack launched by a fighter plane in Allepo, Northern Syria. The gruesome images and video make for very disturbing viewing, and is probably the reason why we're hearing a lot of voices stating how 'disgraceful' members of Parliament have been. This morning on Radio 4's Today Programme (link up soon), former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said:

"our country is a hugely diminished country - I've never felt more depressed or ashamed"


In the aftermath of the vote, I think there are several things that should be clarified;

1. Does David Cameron need to resign before the next election?

No Prime Minister has been defeating in the commons on an issue relating to war and peace since 1782. Further, various government sources also suggested that while a number of Conservative MPs were willing to support the PM on the motion as a principle, they would be less inclined to vote in favour of intervention at the second vote- which had been due on Tuesday.

I find it hard to believe that any leader- regardless of oratory skill- would have been able to convince the HoC to support intervention. Especially considering that less than 10% of Britons would support full military intervention according to the polling site, YouGov. The shadow of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan still loom, while the supposed successes of British intervention in 'Libya' are certainly questionable. The history of military intervention in the Middle East is filled with failure, which no MP could deny; which is why little has been written about concerning the technicalities of intervention and its aftermath compared to emotionally-driven polemic, not least today by Telegraph columnist (and former Labour man) Dan Hodges.

Does this indicate the PM's weakness? In the short term, yes- but that all depends on how successful any other intervention might actually be. Writing in The Telegraph, Fraser Nelson says:

"But he [Cameron] has spent the last few days talking as if Britain’s identity and place in the world were at stake – and last night, Parliament rejected his vision of the country, and where its interests lie."

So while this was a remarkable "Foreign Policy flop" for Cameron, I'd be hesitant in suggesting we'd see a resignation soon. In fact, depending on how effective any type of intervention might be, he might find himself handsomely rewarded- particularly if post-intervention scenarios make the situation worse, as is the most probable outcome.


2. This wasn't a Miliband Win

While Miliband didn't rule out intervention (a point he repeated on a number of occasions throughout the debate), Labour did present some last minute amendments. The general changes called for a greater role played by the United Nations, referred to ambiguously as the "roadmap". But as a whole, it didn't differ that much from the government's position- only emphasizing higher burdens of proof (something difficult to attain in practice) and authorisation by the UN security council- a move that would be considerably difficult considering the positions held by Russia and China. Regardless this amendment was also defeated in the Commons.

Beyond practical measures, Labour didn't argue their position through any principled route- poor, considering that the party still haven't defined themselves coming up to the election.


3.This was the right call

Some have seen the will of Parliament not as a measured response, but rather shameless politicking- letting Syrians die in order to retain votes. This argument is particularly potent when we see the horrific images coming out of Syria, especially of children.

It's a hard call, but staying out militarily is the best option as a whole; that's because Syria definitely isn't Iraq, and in this current state, there are too many rebel faction groups in opposition to "Assad forces" and their affiliates. Providing military support to 'rebels' isn't clear cut, especially as such groups are also receiving support from Arab states within the region. Being directly involved in Syria isn't a matter of fighting Assad and providing grounds for peace- it's being embroiled in a war whereby the mastery of the region is effectively being determined. Britain doesn't need to be involved in another Middle Eastern war, especially if it's effectively being used as a proxy.

Second, as Slate's Matthew Yglesias shows, military intervention often leads to more civilian casualties than lives saved. :







The authors of the paper (Wood et al.) Conclude their study by stating:

"Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences of countering murderous groups."

Considering how ruthless we've seen Assad be towards rebel uprising, a proposal arguing intervention on the grounds of 'saving lives' should take this into account- regardless of how well meaning such actions might be.

The Jamie Oliver School of Economics

The habit of reducing complicated economic problems into simple- and unfortunately, rather venemous- observational analysis, is something most people have found themselves doing at least once in their lifetime.

TV chef Jamie Oliver found himself in the firing line, after claiming that many people from poor/ low-income families often turn to 'convenience' foods over healthy, natural options. But to quote his statement in the Radio Times;

"I’m not judgmental but I’ve spent a lot of time in poor communities and I find it quite hard to talk about modern-day poverty,’ the 38-year-old said.

‘You might remember that scene in Ministry Of Food [his television show], with the mum and kid eating chips and cheese out of Styrofoam containers and behind them is a massive f***ing TV. It just didn’t weigh up."


The gist of the statement actually poses an economic problem, regarding income and expenditure:

why do people on low incomes spend higher % of weekly earning on prepared, or convenience foods with high premiums?

Jamie Oliver is right in his general argument- healthy diet options do work out cheaper in the long term compared to convenience diets in real terms. This paper presents quite an interesting model that accounts value in terms of cost per calorie, estimating that the cost of convenience food diets are 52% higher than healthy options.

But as a whole, this isn't too different from aggregate consumption patterns. The government's own statistics via the Family Food Survey 2012 indicate that while families had increased their food consumption by 1.5%, this didn't necessarily translate into buying more food, than it did the price of basic ingredients rising. But as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted- the rise in expenditure for low income families went from 15.2- 16.6%; some of which went to 'trading down' ; ie. Spending more on lower quality, prepared foods over higher priced fruits and vegetables.

The second point- something which many commentators often forget, is that the means in which people purchase and consume food isn't black and white. Statements such as "if you're poor, then why buy expensive foods?", while being convenient to ask, don't hold a lot of weight in the real world because it ignores the reason why people eat in the first place. It sounds pretty obvious, but when eating, we make choices before, during and after- and much of that is rooted in ideas beyond models of economic rationality.

The health economists Drewnowski and Specter (2004) posit a hypothesis arguing that health inequalities are directly linked to disparities in terms of both education and income. they argue that in purchasing food there is:

"an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost (US dollars/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer"

While no such study seems to be available in Britain, it's not unfeasible that we'd probably see a similar pattern; ie. fully broken down, junk foods with high energy do work out to be more cost-effective in the long term. In families with few resources, making these types of consumption decisions might be more likely on the basis that high-energy foods (such as ready meals) market themselves as instant sources of good nourishment- making the additional costs added onto the meals appear more valuable. 

Dr.Burns' hypothesis of 'food anxiety' is also important here- consuming food isn't just an economic process- it's a visual one too. So when we ask ourselves about the relationship between obesity and low income, the idea of 'food anxiety' is quite a powerful concept- not least because it conveys psychological states. One part of the argument suggests that ready meal/fast food options also give off the image that longer-lasting produce such as vegetables, fruits and staple foods can be saved for later, presenting the idea that this arrangement is more cost-effective in the long term.

The literature review attached to Burns' paper indicates that obesity does have a link to poverty through decisions made while in a state of 'food anxiety'. So while Oliver might be right in a numerically, the fact that most consumers don't purchase their groceries with only efficiency in mind makes the argument a bit disingenuous, especially when branding a section of the population.

In that sense, I do believe that Oliver's efforts- to show that good food can be made easily, at a low cost, are commendable. It's just a shame he had to fire crass generalisations beforehand.

Data, David Miranda and What We Should Be Asking

There are three questions I think all journalists should ask when looking at the ongoing case between David Miranda, The Guardian and the various intelligence agencies in both the UK and US;

1. In the digital age, what 'defines' a journalist- who can be classified as a journalist?
2. Does the work of journalists threaten national security?
3.What is the role of journalists today?

The questions come in light of continuing controversy over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald initially argued that his partner had gone to visit their mutual friend, and therefore was an ordinary civilian; the detainment of Mr.Miranda- and the questioning he received by UK security services in regard to future leaks by his partner were therefore uncalled for, and potentially illegal.

Yet reluctantly, I think Louise Mensch (the former Tory MP turned....something in the US) actually makes some good observations in her blog. Of course, while there is a bit too much praise of UK security services, she has a point that Mr.Miranda was meeting Laura Poitras- the film maker assisting Greenwald. Further, Miranda's flights were paid for by The Guardian, and the flash drives he held are said to have encrypted data on them- presumably related to his husband's continuing work.

In that case- does that make him a journalist?

On the one hand, yes- after all, he's carrying data with the intent of publication, and depending on how you 'define' journalism, carrying data can be seen as part of the gathering process (much like the process of gathering photos/interviews and then process of  physically taking it back to a newsroom). The question that remains in this case, is whether Miranda actually knew what was on the flash drives; if they were encrypted, and he's not involved in the journalistic side of the NSA files, then perhaps he should be considered a courier?

Professor Richard Sambrook of Cardiff University's school of Journalism likens this to a proxy- whereby Miranda was being used as a means of transferring data offline- essentially part of the journalistic practice. Those who are defending UK security services argue that much like drug mules, holding Miranda can be justified on this basis- especially if the data he's carrying could be used by terrorist organisations or individuals with other vested interests.

Here's the real problem at hand; The law hasn't actually accommodated a coherent legal framework for the management and distribution of data.

This isn't just important for investigative journalists, but for all of us as what we engage in more digital mediums. Consider the problems that occur via peer-to-peer networks, often accused of causing media companies to lose money due to copyright infringement. The Digital Economy Act 2010 adresses this problem (ineffectively) through encouraging ISPs to block transmissions of data to a particular computer.

But surely this is different for public data concerning the state, particularly in light of open government license? - so what about the means of transmission? I'd hesitate in arguing that the data Mr.Miranda was carrying was subject to any form of private ownership or subject to a form of copyright that would fit into the model posited by the DEA 2010. Regardless of what capacity Miranda was working in, carrying the data on flash drives didn't overtly breach any existing laws, and while elaborate, is a staple component of investigative journalism, particularly with information we are unable to gain under the existing Freedom of Information act. The only plausible defence the security services might have, would be if there was a significant threat to the U.K- a fact of which there is little evidence to back up.

This isn't to say the security services were totally in the wrong- I'd just argue that it was focused in the wrong place. How was this data actually found? Who are the other sources that leaked the information- and what is the process by which Greenwald and the Guardian are selecting and editing cables?

I think these are far more interesting questions, which are much more relevant to journalism and public accountability.

Dispatch from Gaza : An Interview with Harry Fear

Harry Fear is an English activist, journalist and reporter who has lived in the Gaza Strip since 2008. He made his name posting his work onto Youtube, and last year live-streamed Operation Pillar of Cloud- Israel’s eight day Ariel attack on Gaza. Hussein Kesvani speaks to the film maker:

What’s your background? Why did you want to report from Gaza?

I started producing documentaries on injustices in 2010.  I had decided that it was vital to use the medium of video to combat social and global injustices. These mediums are particularly potent in awakening individual conscience and erasing apathy in viewers, necessary steps for movement towards a better world.

Actually, I was always drawn to visit Gaza since I was young-I followed heroic journalist John Pilger’s articles in the New Statesman  on the Israel-Palestine situation.I’ve developed my personal knowledge, outrage and action on the injustice over the last few years.

My first time in Gaza was only last summer in May 2012. Since then my life has oriented here, as I’ve been increasingly drawn into the opportunities to do meaningful change-making media work in Palestine.

 Would you classify yourself as a citizen journalist or activist?

Every time I release a video, make a media appearance or give a lecture, I ask myself: how can I explain my work and my title to people? I see myself as an independent campaigning journalist. I suppose you could call me a media activist, or a citizen journalist involved in advocacy journalism. Why hold a placard and picket the Israeli embassy in London, I asked myself, when I can support the protesters by documenting and delivering their activism to thousands around the world? In a way I see myself as a technical practitioner of today’s modern technologies, exploiting them to generate media power for a cause of justice, dabbling in guerrilla film-making, for example. On other days I see myself as an artist, moving from one genre of journalism to another, for maximal impact — usually taking a clear and robust stand on a cause and capturing embedded empathy.

You’ve been covering events in Gaza for quite a long time. How did you start off, and was it difficult to produce content to begin with?

At one level it was hard to produce content in Gaza. I’ve found that ones’ understanding of the situation changes dramatically on seeing the facts on the ground and spending time in the Strip. My terms of reference have changed much more than I’d have expected. I certainly continue on a path of increasing my understanding and journalistic evolution as I continue my work. As I’ve produced content in Gaza I’ve never worked with career fixers or translators, quite deliberately. My desire has always been to understand un-commercially-compromised Palestinian perspectives, ingest them, and then do what I can to communicate stories of suffering and important perspectives to the Western world.

On the last point- how did the language barrier affect you?

The language barrier still affect me a great deal, although my Arabic has improved. I am not fluent in Arabic, and rely on translators for production. I’ve found that I can now predict what subjects are saying and interpret body language, intonation and keywords, so that I’m decreasingly reliant on word-for-word translation assistance. I recently initiated a project with one of Gaza’s (several) universities to setup an online database of Palestinian fixers and translators, for foreign media workers, to decrease journalistic barriers to entry in covering Gaza.

Most of us in the UK only hear snippets of what really goes on in Gaza and the Middle East region- it can create some quite polarising and distorted narratives. Have your experiences changed your attitude to the conflict and what would you say are the biggest misconceptions we have?

The fundamental problem is that we’ve historically had a Western media narrative that’s dehumanised Palestinians, reducing them to ‘terrorists’, ‘Islamists’, irrational actors, aggressors, and peace-rejecting — that’s not just a misconception- it’s explicitly dangerous.

However, this is slowly breaking down as people start to see a truer realistic image of the ‘conflict’ as Israel’s reputation depreciates, following milestones like 2006’s Lebanon War, 2008-09’s Gaza War, 2010’s Gaza Aid Flotilla Raid, recent continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, and November’s Gaza war. In relation to Gaza , the armed resistance groups and Hamas are probably most misunderstood by Britons. Although, I can’t apologise for illegal indiscriminate retaliatory rocket fire, I condemn the mainstream media’s ignoring of the desperate context in which the rocket fire emanates.

It’s been a fatal media flaw to only pay attention to the Israeli military’s narrative. The Hamas movement is not a terrorist organisation anymore than the British Labour Party or Conservative Party are terrorist organisations. The Hamas movement or Hamas’ politburo are not the same as the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ paramilitary wing). The simplified categorisation of the whole movement as a terrorist organisation is an intellectual failure. Hamas continues to govern Gaza under a seven-year-old mandate, while it maintains continued  support. Another important misconception is that Palestinians in Gaza need humanitarian support as a priority. Our priority should be political support to end the illegal siege that starves a resourceful and brilliant people into poverty and punishing imprisonment.

How has a Hamas government affected life for ordinary Palestinians?
Hamas has very limited political options to respond to Israeli occupation. Their official policy is that armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from occupation. It’s true that diplomatic attempts have failed because Israel is unwilling to justly settle the conflict, even with a long-term ceasefire deal on the 1967 lines — the Palestine Papers prove that. Palestinians don’t really have a partner for peace with the Israeli state. The main thing afflicting Gazans is the siege, which there is little Hamas can do to solve, other than facilitate the underground smuggling system with Egypt.

 Palestine recently was awarded ‘observer’ status by the United Nations. Do you think that this is a good starting point for proper negotiations, or another obstacle?

Actually this could prove a spark (among others) towards proper negotiations, because it would force Israel to recognise the need for a Palestinian state to be established sooner rather than later, as the international community’s temperature of intolerance towards Israeli occupation increases. However, UN pressure would not constitute sufficient pressure to force Israel to make concessions to negotiate. Israel would have to freeze settlement expansion proper and recognise all Palestinian factions including Hamas, for instance.

 How have things been since OPD last November? Was it a challenge covering what was going on- including the aftermath of the war?

The families mourn, meanwhile there is more reconstruction to effect. Since the war, five Palestinians have been killed, including one militant by an airstrike. That’s much less bloody than before OPD. In this sense, Gaza is now a relatively safer place than it was a year ago, if Palestinians stay away from the land borders and Israeli navy. So what remains is a relatively suffocating economic siege that drains opportunity and prosperity from Palestinians.                      

For me, covering the war was a spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical test of strength, steadfastness and security. I’m certainly left deeply-affected by my experiences during those bloody 8-days. Palestinians say that Israel’s 8-day bombardment campaign was unprecedentedly ferocious in aerial force, terrorising civilians to new limits. I am grateful that I was in Gaza during the war and was able to do something hopefully constructive in having tried reduce Israel’s media impunity.

What do you think the West can and should be doing to help the Gazans from this point- particularly considering their support for Israel?

Western states should simply enforce international law, including United Nations resolutions. It really is that simple, but that’s going to be hard because the US, UK et al. have flagrantly flouted and manipulated international law in recent history. Western states should at least stop ideologically, diplomatically, economically and militarily supporting Israel.

How do you think things might change in line with the paradigm shifts going on in the wider Middle East ? For example, considering what’s going on in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, do you think the Palestinian issue occupies a lesser importance, or a new strategic importance?

Firstly, from a media agenda perspective, any distraction away from the story of solving the Israel-Palestine injustice is strategically beneficial for Israel, as it gobbles up more Palestinian land and resources. Israel is worried about Syria, Lebanon and Iran; the Gaza prison is containable, as is the West Bank, as things stand. I’m pessimistic in this regard. The supposed increased democracy in Egypt, for instance, hasn’t yet borne any fruit for the

What’s the greatest challenge being a citizen reporter in such an unstable region?

The greatest difficulty is getting an audience to pay attention to a region and narratives that are not necessarily ‘hot’ or ‘sexy’, and to which they don’t naturally feel a necessity to follow. To properly report I rely on economic independence, and so it’s also difficult to sustain myself financially as I work full-time doing this work. I have to rely on viewer donations, which can’t be taken for granted.

Where do you see yourself going in a few years? Will you want to remain in Gaza, or report other conflicts?

Gaza will always remain closest in my heart, however I hope to be covering other injustice zones (not just armed conflicts) in the coming years.

 Considering the restart of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, do you think there is hope for a lasting peace in the form of a two-state solution? How do you think the Gaza Strip might change in the next few years?

There are incredibly significant political and practical obstacles to the realisation of two-state solution. Yet, although a two-state solution (presumably with land-swaps) is not practically impossible,  I don't see how it would solve the fundamental issues of the 'conflict'.

How could a two-state solution really lead to a lasting peace?, I ask myself frequently and rhetorically. I don't see how a two-state solution would satisfy Israel's rational security fears. Most likely, 'terrorism' would emanate from the new Palestinan state, aimed at Israel, aimed at recovering access to Historic Palestine, from groups like the Islamic Jihad movement. Frankly, a two-state solution is the dealing with replacement of one historic injustice with a 21st century injustice, codified and ever-egregious. Let's be clear: a two-state solution for the Palestinians means a massive loss. A loss that I don't detect most Palestinians in Gaza are willing to make. It's all very elementary, one just has to look at the Disappearing Land of Palestine image with milestone maps since the beginning of the 20th century, to see the dynamic of the conflict and what it's all about, and to see the real context of a two-state solution.

The practical situation looks bleak for the fast-growing population of Gaza. Foreseeably, instability in Egypt will remain for the coming weeks (or even months) and will impact heavily on Gaza's economy and will also prohibiting Palestinians in Gaza from travelling to further afield. The Israeli side of the siege does not look like it's going to loosen any time soon. There's no real hope that there will be a refreshing of Palestinan representation with democratic elections any time soon.

Despite this, every day in Gaza I see a widespread commitment to faith and conscious steadfastness.

David Miranda Is One of Many

 Big news topic today was David Miranda's arrest at Heathrow Airport, under the Terrorism Act of 2006 (original in 2000). Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who uncovered the secret NSA files, which has prompted a re-examination of cyber and national security.

However, Miranda isn't the only one who's been a victim of the Terrorist Act. Using a sample of Government data from gov.co.uk, I made a very simple bar graph illustrating the number of total arrests made, against the proportion of 'charges' made under the act. At every level, significantly more arrests have been made compared to charges or convictions.

Other areas of interest could include racial disparities (brown skinned men are most likely to be arrested under the act), regional difference or what aspect of the act was used to make the charges (to look at peaks and troughs).

In any case, the graph vividly indicates the limitatons of the act, not least by means of stop and search measures.

An Interview From Egypt

I recently had the opportunity to speak to a young demonstrator in Egypt, concerning the current violent protests and military action that has engulfed Egypt over the past week. Thank you to both Soumaia and everyone else involved. Can you tell me about yourself?
I am Soumaia Hashad. An AUC undergraduate Actuarial Science student, junior year. 
What's the situation in Egypt at the moment on the ground? For more than 7 hours, the police and military have been killing the peaceful protestors in Rabaa and Nahda. The Nahda sit-in have been cleared and we don't know how many martyrs are on the grounds there and how many injuries since the police arrests or kills anyone who tries to approach the square. In Cairo University, in the engineering faculty, there is a number of protestors that are locked in the building, some of them are injured, unable to leave the building because they might get shot any minute. Nahda protestors were able to sit-in in Mostafa Mahmoud square, and the police forces are using tear gas and fire bullets to clear the sit-in, but the numbers are high. 20 martyrs or more from Mostafa Mahmoud sit-in. 

As for Rabaa, there are more than 300 martyrs and 2000 injured. The military and police threw tear gas at the sit-ins using helicopters as well as snipers in helicopters too. 
How did this all start? 3. Sissi knows that his end is near if our wills win against his. The old corrupted regime is aware of the fact that if we win, they die. But they are fools, and they still believe that they can win against the people. Their foolishness is causing the bloodshes. But again, this is freedom's price tag. 
Were you part of the revolution that took down Mubarak? (would you consider yourself part of that generation?)- further, did you support the MB or Mursi? 4. Yes I was part of the revolution since 25th January. I was against the MB's policies when it came to the parlaiment and other political issues before that; however, I supported Morsi since the first round of elections since I believed that he was the best candidate out there then. 
How are the liberals/anti-MB reacting? Do they support Sissi + the military? 5. There are some respectful liberals that are anti-Morsi who respect their humanity and minds, who believe that Military rule is an unacceptable rule and those people are down in the streets with us. Other liberals are blinded by their hate for the MB, that they forgot their humanity. And I don't consider them liberals, I call them inhumane. 
Do you think this will be resolved soon? If not, how long do you think the conflicts will be going on for- and will the military succeed? 6. No. Even if Morsi is back, we will stay in the streets demanding justice and clearing the old regime from any political position. We will stay in the streets to demand clearing the minister of interior affairs and military and court of justice. We are so sure inshaAllah, that we will succeed with Allah's help; the military sucks at politics and will always be, their foolishness will bring them down.