Vegetarianism is BAD for the environment

You wouldn't think it but It was at ‘The Wave’ last year in London, a climate protest coinciding with Copenhagan where I encountered a group of individuals about as detrimental to global efforts to halt climate change as Jeremy Clarkson or the big G Bush. They were parading along the streets of London waving a banner which read ‘You can’t be an environmentalist if you’re not a vegan!’

The labels ‘vegetarian’ and 'veganism' imply a false dichotomy that we either continue, as a society, to carry on eating meat at least once a day or we give it up completely, becoming vegetarians. Now, for as long as we’ve existed for hundreds of thousands of years as humans (and hundreds of thousands of years as mammals before that) we have consumed meat as a key part to our diet. True, we have the choice and we can survive without meat but I’m sure 99% of vegetarians would eat a KFC if stuck on a desert island. So then where do we draw the line? Would a veggie eat a steak if they were guests of someone who would be severely offended if their hospitality was refused? Would they eat a sausage roll if it were going to be chucked out anyway? How about if they were drunk and just really fancied a kebab?

The point I’m trying t make is that no one has the right to draw a line. Apart from when used to describe a religious person who would actually die rather than eat meat, vegetarianism is just another one of those useless arbitrary lines we have in western society dividing the ‘holier than thou’ vegetarians and the rest of us climate changing, barbarous, savage carnivores just in the same way that we are divided into different races, sexualities and maybe even genders.

All these cases are simply manifestations of a culturally ingrained Western obsession with labelling everything and then putting them all in little boxes: The modern pipedream of omniscience, the logical conclusion of which was Soviet Marxism and Free Market Capitalism. We can’t know everything, if you don’t believe me just briefly look over Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it all adds up! So this means no one has the right to define absolute good and absolute bad, black or white, gay or straight, vegetarian and meat eater, between all these imaginary poles there are infinite points upon which we all stand at different places. To use just two categories is to deny our infinite complexity, our beauty and diversity: exactly what make us human.

Bringing it back down to earth, obviously we must all eat less meat, it currently accounts for around 20% of all CO2 emissions, but there is no need to stop eating meat completely. Vegetarianism is a choice restricted to a very small, lucky minority who, by declaring themselves vegetarians, put themselves up on a pedestal driving many away from the environmental movement, making it appear smug.

Grease The Wheels Of Change: Vote Liberal Democrat This Election!

Something must change, so who to vote for? Or is voting for change an oxymoron in itself? I've been going around telling everyone not to vote for Labour just to keep out the Tories as they both subscribe to an agenda that puts profit before people making one as bad as the other. In this way we have been constantly screwed, just in different ways, for far to long now. However, the recent success of the Lib Dems has forced me to reevaluate this position, although fundamentally I expect little more from them than business as usual, they could (just) be the change we so desperately need.

There are many Lib Dem policies that are certainly progressive, the scrapping of trident, anti ID cards and their immigration policy to name but a few. Check out www.voteforpolicies.org.uk for a good idea of party policies. Interestingly (like me) most people prefer Green party policies, more so than those of the Lib Dems or any other party. So, would voting for the Lib Dems just to replace the Tories and Labour be exactly the same, in principle, as voting Labour just to keep the Tories out? Their policies are alright... so let's get them in instead of the Con-Labour nexus that is even worse. NO! We live in democracy and we deserve better, we deserve to be lead according to the principles we believe in, not some watered down compromise!

According to this logic we should all vote green but this may be a little to idealistic. A long term, realistic path to change could start with the Lib Dems for one reason; their support for electoral reform and proportional representation. The very idea of this style of government has whipped up a storm, the media and politicians point to the 'highly relevant' examples of the Wiemar Republic and interwar Italy, associating proportional representation with corruption, endless discussion and nothing 'getting done'. However they fail to mention that 10 of the top 16 countries worldwide who have the Triple-A Financial Stability Rating are run by coalition governments. Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden & Switzerland are just a few examples. Furthermore, top economists have publicly stated that our precious AAA rating will not be damaged by a hung parliament or, by that logic, proportional representation.

Yes, historically proportional representation had been shit in some cases but this was due to the context to which it was applied; fragmented, unequal, divided and corrupt countries with a distinct lack of civil societies. We should, and rightly so, have faith in our relatively stable society. We should have a little more faith in ourselves to rule ourselves democratically under proportional representation. To sum up, in some countries proportional representation may well lead to chaos and intensify corruption and division but in our relatively uncorrupt and stable society an attack against proportional representation almost represents an attack against democracy itself. We are expected to get on with, live with, work with people of differing opinions and values to us every day, all our lives so why should we expect any less of our leaders. If they aren't able to work together under proportional representation/ hung parliament they don't deserve their jobs.

Now, the Lib Dems certainly don't represent a long term solution. As it has been said, it is very easy for them to make big promises when there is little chance of them getting into power. Furthermore, as they also subscribe to (although to a lesser extent)a growth over people paradigm there is nothing to say that power will not corrupt them and turn them into a yellow version of Labour / Conservative. Their patchy record in local government stands testament to this. However, we may get a few untainted, truly progressive months / years out of them which should be enough to push through some meaningful electoral reform as well as to make some progress on other issues such as trident.

With proportional representation, support for the Labour - Conservative Nexus may continue to be undermined as their main source of power is the feeling amongst the electorate that they have no other choice. This was exemplified when both parties support was seriously undermined simply by the presentation of Nick Clegg as a viable alternative to two parties neither of whom deserve to be in power.

In sum, proportional representation may be just the grease the gears of change need to start moving and that's why, with my most sincere apologies to the Green Party, I'll be voting Lib Dem... for now anyway. Even if you live in a constituency which is a safe seat, a vote for the Lib Dems will bolster their legitimacy and power in a hung parliament, and anyway, what are your alternatives? Labour, Conservative or Apathy, all the same things in essence.

An open letter to the BNP.

With the upcoming UK elections I thought I would focus this post closer to home. We are currently facing a bit of a crisis in British politics and could even be facing a hung parliament; a parliament in which no one party holds an absolute majority of seats. The only other times we have had a hung parliament were in 1929 against a background of rising unemployment, interwar crisis and memories of the 1926 general strike and 1974 during the oil crisis and three day working week This election follows the same trend, the incompetence of the incumbent party is clear for all to see yet the opposition still fails to offer an alternative. This is because in times of crisis the alternative is systematic change to such an extent that no mainstream party is willing to accept, or even able to comprehend. What did the 1929 crisis end up in? WW2. What did the oil crisis end up in? The delinking of the dollar to gold and 40 years of economic globalization dictated by the whims of international capital, if the 60s and 70s were the ‘golden age’ of development it abruptly ground to a halt, development indicators stagnated and in many places regressed.

So what does today’s crisis represent? The expenses and lobbying scandals as well as immigration, public services and bankers' bonuses all reflect the inequality which is rife throughout our society and is reaching untenable levels. Far to many MPs graduate from university and slot straight into the political machine completely detached from reality and the people they are supposed to represent, the only links they have with the outside world are those within their political clique or with corporate interests. This was represented perfectly by David Cameron himself when he attempted to justify his reason for not supporting reform on the lobbying system by claiming MPs needed these contacts, that is, with corporate interests, not with the actual voting populous of course!

Immigration and multiculturalism is another area where the vast gap between the governing class and regular working people is reflected. Unfortunately, the leftist approach to the issue only aggravates the situation. Labour’s open immigration policy is covered with a vale of ethics and fairness which the radical left find very difficult to criticize. However, we must approach the issue from a realistic perspective, not the idealist open boarders approach all too common to the radical left and yet another indicator of the inequalities of in the UK. Is it really ethical to, not just allow but, to actively encourage immigration whilst neglecting job and training provision to working class areas? Why negotiate with unions when you can bring in cheap labor from Eastern Europe? Why train doctors here when we can let India train them and then let the come here to work? Furthermore, all new immigrants generally go to poor inner city areas where public services and housing are already over stretched, a sure recipe for conflict.

From this position it is easy to attribute many of the problems of the white working classes to immigration, only, however, if we fail to take into account the bigger picture. A long peddled argument from the left is that immigrants are good the economy, their cheap skilled labor is valued by business, employment is high and training costs are low as they are generally already educated before coming here and the impact of immigration on real wages is minimal. However, due to our unequal system these benefits are only reaped by those at the top. For those at the bottom immigration simply represents increased competition for jobs and a squeeze on inadequate public services. This is exacerbated by the perceived threat to British culture that many see from immigration. The truth is that most of this is media scaremongering pandering to nut jobs like Islam Choudary and Abu Hamza who simply want publicity to serve their divisive agendas in exchange for big headlines. The media justify themselves with the abstract principle of free speech without any reference to what is actually being said or who it will effect, but in any case they need not worry about this as it wont be the windows of their country houses that will get bricks thrown through them. Then there are those instances when British culture is actually repressed, usually by over zealous white beurocrats for whom it is more important to tick their multicultural boxes and to meet government agenda than actually represent those they are supposed to govern. The fact is that most immigrants respect British culture and this is a big reason for many of the coming here.

If the BNP really do want justice for the working class then they are barking up the wrong tree with their fervent anti-immigration stance. Immigrant bashing is never going to make us feel proud to be British, it is not going to significantly improve employment or public services. It’s a step away from building a Britain we can be proud of which to do so we must tackle those factors that make immigration appear to be such a negative thing. If the wealthy actually paid taxes rather than hiding in loopholes or offshore tax havens there would be far more funds for public services and it wouldn’t be a question of they get it or we get it. If we bridged the gap between the government and the people we wouldn’t go into illegal wars that cost the public billions. We wouldn’t support corruption in the developing world that keeps them locked in a perpetual state of underdevelopment making economic migration to the West far more attractive. We wouldn’t sell arms to war mongers around the world driving thousands more to our shores as asylum seekers. Most immigrants that come here are forced to by an unequal global system; why else would you leave your friends and family, travelling thousands of miles, risking your life to come to our rainy little island? It is this unequal system that we must bring down together and No, this system doesn’t benefit us at all, it only benefits the corporate and political elite of Britain who want to keep it that way.

Let’s bring some figures into play to bring all this into perspective. The Daily Mail cry that asylum seekers, as they are prohibited by law from working (so if they work they are stealing our jobs but if they don’t they are leaching), cost the UK economy ‘73 million per year!’. Wow! That’s a lot of millions, but not as any as the 990 million that British Tax payers pay to subsidize our arms export industry, or the 4.5billion (that’s 4500 millions!) annual cost of the Iraq / Afghan wars, or finally, the 850 billion pound cost of the bankers bailout this year. Who pays these taxes? Well it certainly isn’t the corporations and wealthy individuals with their legal loopholes and tax havens but it is certainly them who reap the profits.

The change we need will probably not come in time for the next election but a hung parliament will represent the inability of the established parties to effectively tackle the inequality and social division that scourge our society. If you are of the lefty persuasion don’t think you are keeping the BNP out by voting for Labour because you are simply voting for a party that has abandoned its working class base and hence pushes more and more people towards the BNP. Likewise, those on the radical left must approach immigration realistically; immigration is an effect of an unequal world system and you must put yourself in the shoes of those suffering the worst effects of this system – those in developing countries where there is a shortage of young skilled workers (the UK enjoys 166 doctors per 100000 patients and Zimbabwe makes do with 5.7 while Zimbabwean doctors are recruited here) and those here having to compete for jobs and public services at the bottom of the pile. They must desist in building a fairy tale multicultural society of their own devise, Condemning as ignorant racists all those who oppose the idea. Finally, If your thinking of voting BNP, instead of scapegoating asylum seekers, or fearing those who appear different, just take a little time, make a little effort, to work out who your real enemy is. Once you’ve done this then maybe we can all get along with changing things for the better; Building an equal, free and just Britain, one that we can all be proud of.

Poor of the World Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Debt!

It seems that not only Haiti, but the whole world, has been shaken up by this month's catastrophic earthquake that struck the island nation. It is clear that Haitians were rocked to their core, but has the the rest of world of the world been shaken up sufficiently? Western politicians are pledging 100% solidarity with Haiti but where was this solidarity before when they imposed a crippling trade regime and stifling debt?

Well at least now people in the west are calling for a cancellation of this debt, we may have done wrong in past but at least now we are doing something to rectify this, no? not quite; I would like to ask, why can't Haiti cancel their own debt?

After all, it was accrued in the name of the Haitian people, but in name only. In reality it was given to corrupt leaders who, at best, spent it on 'development' projects of which sole purpose was to consolidate the power of a wealthy elite willing to slot Haiti conveniently into a bottom rung of a global trade regime based on inequality and exploitation. At worst it was spent on self aggrandizment or stashed away in swiss bank accounts.

Wester doners were complicit in this process. It is impossible for them to plead ignorance of Haiti's democratic deficit. Democracy functions far from perfectly in 'developed' countries, let alone in Haiti, which is hardly an anomaly in the developing world.

With this in mind, how is it fair that the Haitian people should be made to pay a debt which is simply none of their business? If donors want their money back they should go after the people they actually lent it to. Although repayment by these individuals isn't very likely this is a risk that donors should have taken into account when lending money to 'Haiti'; banking IS risk!

However, it is highly unlikly that Lenders will accept this argument and approach to Third World debt. Declaring a indefinite moratorium on debt will get any country ostracized from the international community and cut off from any flows of international credit, regardless of the type of debt or how it was accrued. This invalidates debt cancellation as a development tool for any single developing country as, although not essential, credit is certainly desirable.

This impies a need for concerted action by poor countries to fight for justice, equality and democracy through the collective renouncment of an unjust and profoundly undemocratic debt. I'm not quite sure this is what is implied by the UN's millennium development goal 8; 'develop a global partnership for development', but it certainly does 'address the special needs of the least developed countries'.

If this is to happen peoples' movements must take power in developing countries, denouncing those corrupt leaders implicit in the accumulation of suffocating debt.

There have been a lot of ifs in this article so I'll finish with just one more. If we truly want real development, equality and justice for all, we must support real democracy which may very well entail a reduction in profits for big business and GDP in the short term as so much of this is based on the exploitation of poor countries that would never be accepted if they were real democracies.

It is generally accepted that the debt crisis is crippling the developing world, click here for an idea of the scale we are talking about, but if we fail to get to the root of the problem - a severe deficit in democracy for the majority of the worlds population - then debt cancellation will simply represent the continuity of a patronizing Western approach to development that ensures real structural change is avoided and a 'manageable poverty' persists, pseudo-democracies flourish and the flow of resources from periphery to center persists. Development will not come from a charitable cancellation of debt but from a proud refusal of those suffering under the debt to recognize it as, in any way, either legitimate or just.

Israel / Palestine: Winners and Losers

We all know the Israel / Palestine situation is an awful one, the conflict and suffering there is an affront to humanity as well as an inflammatory, divisive issue the world over. Many, believing or claiming to be fighting for the Palestinian cause, may be doing more harm than good. Wearing a Kuffiya and shouting anti-Israeli slogans with a raised fist may be fashionable, exciting and sexy but it is the Palestinian poor as well as ordinary Israelis who suffer as thoughtless aggression simply fuels the conflict.

There are two ways the Palestinian people can hope for liberation; by winning the conflict, or resolving it. Aggression is a useful tool for winning a conflict but, as it turns the situation into a zero-sum game, it actively undermines any attempts to resolve it. Even if the Palestinians were to win the conflict with Israel against the overwhelming odds what would the outcome be? Do we really expect regular Israelis to anticipate mercy and justice from victorious Arab armies? In a zero-sum game the stakes are high; survival itself is on the table and atrocities become justifiable.

Instead, the key to resolving the conflict is understanding. This doesn't imply a blind faith in Human goodness, but does stem from the assumption that the majority of people have good intentions the majority of the time. If this were the case, however, why does such a destructive, pointless conflict cease to abate? Do the Palestinians benefit? of course not! Do the Israelis benefit? No, who wants to live in constant fear, always fighting? So who does benefit? well, there are certainly powerful Israeli business interests, benefiting from stolen Palestinian territory and settlement building while happily insulated from the conflict by their wealth. There also exists a powerful military-political-religious elite who control the Israeli population and international public opinion through fear. Furthermore, we can't ignore the presence of such an elite in the Palestinian territories, living in nice houses while the rest of their people suffer in rubble. World Leaders from all over the globe also shamelessly use the conflict to bolster their public support.

A conflict is about winners and losers, once we identify these players and understand the mindsets of both parties, only then can we begin the make progress towards conflict resolution. Inversely, we could simply dismiss Israelis (especially settlers) as racist, cruel people without making any effort to understand the fear they live in. When those supporting the Palestinian cause call for the elimination of the state of Israel, or fire quassam rockets, they are playing directly into the hands of a small Israeli elite who benefit from the conflict using Israeli fear and Western post-holocaust guilt to legitimize the subjugation of the Palestinian people.

In this way, any anti-Israeli hostility will fuel the conflict to a certain extent; this does not imply a pacifist, 'turn the other cheek' approach but rather that, although less sexy and exciting, for anyone fighting for the liberation of the Palestinians, understanding and empathy make far better weapons than bombs or bullets. Be we Palestinian, Israeli, British, French or American we all laugh, cry, fight, make love, we're all human, so when fighting for something you believe in remember this.

In the words of Sun Tzu 'know your enemy'; a minority elite representing the greedy, selfish part of human nature.