Sara Malm and the need to say why

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has never been more relevant for a Miss Sara Malm. Her opinion piece on the Indy has been ruthlessly torn to shreds by an angry readership, who see her view on teacher strikes as "ignorant", "nasty" and "delusional" among other adjectives. 

First of all, a note to some readers. I quoted Voltaire in the intro to this post, because it sums up the hate-storm that Malm has weathered in the past few days. It is fair to disagree with her opinions but plainly insulting her, labelling as a "twit", "idiot" and "imbecile" is stupid. Some argue that Malm needs to understand her history, to understand that workers unions are a product of an effective democracy but guess what else is? Pluralism. 

A diversity of views informs debate and strengthens democracy, by saying "this is how I feel, but others disagree and this is why". By all means, it is your right to disagree with Malm. I disagree too, for reasons that will likely be a follow-up to this post in the next few days. But for some readers to ignore the issues in favour of hateful responses, even going so far as to find her blog and trash it, is not how democracy should be. People fought in blood and sweat for the right to strike, to exercise their power to give us a clean, safe environment in which to work. However it was our ancestors who fought for the freedom of speech. It was those people who gave Malm the opportunity to speak, and for the readers to insult the course she studies, as well as the people on that course (which, by the way, would include me).

I will finish this by saying that not all of the commentators on Malm's piece are the subject of this post. Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic that act as an effective counter to Malm's views. Some people even agreed with her, commending her opinion and the way in which she articulated it. But their voices have been drowned out by those who rush in to call her "the new Samantha Brick" and then leave again without saying why. Just say why and then we can take it from there.

Local journalism: a gallery of oddballs

So I have spent a week at the Medway Messenger, a regional newspaper in the South East. And my first thought is this: you meet some very strange characters.

In my first week, with another to come, I have had what one reporter has described as an "interesting one". I have been to/covered a suicide inquest, two fires, a multiple shooting, Medway residents on board the Titanic in 1912 and a man who looks like George Michael who met George Michael. Before I went to the Messenger, I was warned it had a reputation as a crime paper. To be fair, that presumption was not off the mark.

But the stories I have done, the people I have spoken to do and the countless calls made have given me an epiphany. It may be fun to hear someone talk about their dog or their resurrected hamster called Jesus but it is these people that I want to hear about. I understand that local journalism has its place as a local champion, acting as a check on those in power and scrutinising local figures and institutions. This does happen and it is effective. Yet those characters who call in, the gallery of oddballs, are what makes local journalism so damn fun. Some of their stories are heartbreaking, but some are just laugh out loud funny.

It is their stories that local journalism should not be afraid to publish. At a time when the local press is criticised for being too light-hearted, I do not think there is anything wrong with that. A regional newspaper is the representation of a community and the people of that community should be celebrated. Their triumphs, their failures, their passions should be the centrepiece of any local newspaper, because they are not only your readers, but your neighbours. If they have a worthy story to tell, let them tell it.

Next week: fuck knows. I will probably end up interviewing a three-eyed fish-man thing who made it through to the next round of The Voice.

Boris vs Ken: the political Hell in a Cell

The London mayoral election has been something of a political Hell in a Cell, with two men delivering verbal chair shots and sledgehammers to the skull. They even went nose-to-nose in a lift, whilst Boris shouted at Ken: "You are a fucking liar!"

It made me think that whilst politics should be a case of substance over style, I cannot help but enjoy a bloody political grudge match. Politicians go to all kinds of trouble to seem kind and good-natured and respectful of everyone and everything. They shake hands with commoners in the street, kiss babies on the forehead, or eat a sausage roll in Greggs. Even when they lose, they say how disappointed they are, but how happy they were to lose to a candidate of such remarkable stature. Boris and Ken are not immune to this. Whilst they faced each other down in the lift journey from hell for Lib Dem candidate, Brian Paddick, they were en-route to a photo opportunity on a sixth floor terrace. No doubt they shook hands and tightened their grip to make the other squirm through their toothy, false smiles.

If a politician does not like another, we tend to know already. So why do they hide it? Out of fear of losing voters? In the past, there have been times when a politician losing their rag has helped them. When Gordon Brown was revealed to have some "anger issues" in 2010, his approval ratings actually increased. When John Prescott punched a man who egged him in the face, people liked him more. Now I am not saying that Cameron in the face of depressing polls should Hulk up and boot-stomp the closest protester. As fun as that would be to watch, it is a tad over the top.

The point is at a time when the million dollar question in politics is "how do we look more human," the answer is not look awkward in a Greggs, whilst Ed Balls, with his jacket over his shoulder, buys the guys some pasties. Politicians should not be so afraid to look naturally human. They should not worry about making sure their tie matches their mood ring, out of fear that the Daily Mail reports on it (you can imagine the headline now: HYPOCRITE CLEGG WEARS CALM BLUE TIE WHEN RING SHOWS MODERATE ANGER).

To me, the battle for London is one of the most exciting elections of the past decade. It has people talking about it which is always a good thing. Even if they are talking about a bust-up in a lift, it inevitably leads to discussion about why they had the bust-up and that leads to the issues, the substance over the style. Not every election should be modelled in the same way as this one, because democracy would suffer from the negativity and personal nature of this politics, especially when two candidates have a genuine respect for each other. But if the opportunity arose for David Cameron and Ed Miliband to settle the next general election in a steel cage, it would take an unfortunate collision with a bus to stop me from watching.

Budget 2012: The Conservatives' Frankenstein moment

Tax cuts for the top 1%, freezing the minimum wage for people aged under 21, a health bill that GP's do not want and the Granny Tax: are this government trying to make people hate them?

Yesterday's Budget has made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The papers tore into the "same old Tory party" for the removal of the personal allowance for pensioners, but cutting the 50p rate of income tax for people earning over £150,000. Within an hour of the Budget, "granny tax" was trending on Twitter and six years of Conservative modernising has been damaged.

Modernisation was the challenge for Conservatives in the last decade. Their attempts to "detoxify" the brand from a right-wing party for the rich fiercely divided party members. Modernisation gave David Cameron the leadership. Modernisation paved the way for an influx of young, energetic members. It even inspired the change in party logo: from a burning torch in an iron grip to a tree that looks like broccoli.

Today that work is not completely undone but it will require a solid defence. I imagine Conservatives in government have cold sweats at night about headlines such as "Osbourne picks the pockets of pensioners" or "Chancellor clobbers ordinary Brits." The next few days will likely see a flurry of facts and figures and statistics from think-tanks and pollsters, a defence mounted on the economic benefit of a fiscally neutral Budget.

Heads will also turn to the Labour party response. This is what they have been waiting for. It is an opposition's dream to be handed ammunition from the government's own policy. Up to now, Labour have been a weak opposition marred by a lack of direction, an inability to capitalise on unpopular Conservative policy and in-fighting between Team Ed and Team Dave. The polls said it all: an ICM poll for the Guardian on Monday 19 March found that the Tories had a three point lead, despite the passage of the health bill and the leak of the cut in 50p tax.

Labour must take this opportunity and show themselves to be a strong force for scrutiny and opposition. Yesterday was a fine start: Ed Miliband made a good speech, which included a fantastic quip at the Conservative front bench (albeit childish and a bit overdone.)     

The work begins today for Labour as a true champion for the jobless, penniless lower classes. You can picture the campaign adverts now. Images of a pensioner, cold and sad, because she is losing more money under the Coalition. It is raining outside and she stares through her window with a glum face. Cut to what she is looking at: a mansion on the hillside, bright with colour and noise, as the top 1% celebrate their savings of nearly £45,000 by having a money fight ("Look Gideon, flying notes!") 

This is exactly what the Conservatives feared and it is what they will try desperately to avoid. But it might be too late and when it does happen, Tories will have Tories to blame. This was truly a Frankenstein moment. 

Budget 2012: Osbourne's American education

In January 2011, Barack Obama made his second State of the Union address to the House of Representatives. Obama's focus was education and innovation, encouraging investment in science and infrastructure. Today, George Osbourne set out his third Budget as Chancellor. He too made the idea of innovation a recurring theme in his plans.

Osbourne encouraged Britain "to earn its way in the world." This may seem like a soundbyte that will never stick but the message behind this is more important. This Budget has placed focus on young people starting their own businesses, backed by more generous loans for start-ups, tax cuts and government assistance in management structures for young businessowners. What Osbourne is encouraging is people getting out there and working their way out of economic gloom, to push Britain to surpass the BRIC countries. He promotes a society that will roll its sleeves up, get stuck in and lift us out of the rut we currently find ourselves in. . a bit like a country called America.

Founded upon the idea of the American Dream, where if you work you succeed, Osbourne's holiday in the U.S. seems to have openly influenced his Budget. His focus on small business and working families are empowering them as the economy's way out of hardship. There was a time when government would simply increase its safety net, the welfare state, and support those in trouble to ride the storm out. But this time sees a different approach.

Moreover, Osbourne's hope that Britain will become "Europe's technology centre" by giving tax credits for the video game, animation and TV industries draws further parallels with Obama. The Budget 2012 will no doubt make headlines for the cut in the 50p rate of income tax, but less attention will be paid to this: the digital Budget. When Osbourne challenged the universities and the innovators to turn Britain into a hub for technological brilliance. More games, more episodes of Downton Abbey, will play a major part in building our economy. This is Osbourne's American education and time will tell if it was more worthwhile than an Etonian one. 

Spotlight: The soldiers without a safety catch by Giles Fraser

A piece by Giles Fraser in Tuesday 13 March 2012's edition of the Guardian is worthy of a mention on this blog, which I hope to use more often as a way of promoting good, thought-provoking and engaging journalism.

Fraser focuses on the idea that soldiers are "dehumanised" to make them more efficient as killing machines in battle. Elements of their training are scrutinised by Fraser to explore this idea. For example, using realistic figures for shooting practice and the use of violent games and films to remove any sensitivity towards killing.

The piece is a topical one. It comes after the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a lone American soldier has sent shockwaves across the world. And personally, Fraser has touched on an area that I have particular interest in. My ambitions to be a war reporter are no secret; I dedicated a post to this after the death of Marie Colvin. The idea of dehumanised soldiers waging a brutal campaign against opponents, with no emotional or moral attachments sounds like the stuff of a grizzly, Orwellian novel. However like most Orwellian-style novels, the reality is a lot closer to the fiction than you think.

I am not suggesting that soldiers have no moral compass. After all they fight because they have morals. The coalition is fighting a war in Afghanistan because they believe in the right for people to live in a fair, free democracy. My criticism of military training is similar to Fraser's: the removal of the "inbuilt safety catch" harms progress in the battlefield, as opposed to aiding it. But the opinions that the Afghan people currently have of our forces tell the story here. After the aforementioned killings in Kandahar, the people asked why a soldier sworn to defend them would murder them. Yes, this was an isolated incident as the politicians and officials keep stressing. But it cannot be denied that there is a vicious undercurrent of brutality against Afghan citizens that threatens to undermine the good.

It is this good that interests me as a journalist. The dynamic between a peacekeeper and those people who they are keeping the peace for is an interesting one. This relationship has been damaged though. Whether this is because of one man with brain damage or a training programme that removes the human element from people and crafts them into soldiers, is a debate to be had. And when that debate does come, Giles Fraser's piece is a great way to get informed.

Do you have a right to end your life?

Tony Nicklinson describes his life as "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable." This is because he suffers from locked-in syndrome, a condition that has left him paralysed, incapable of speech or movement. He is currently in the midst of a legal battle that has made headlines and news bulletins across the world today. Mr Nicklinson wants the right to die and the High Court have ruled that his case will be heard, despite opposition from the Ministry of Justice. It has brought this question back into society: do you have a right to end your life?

No, is the simple answer. The 1961 Suicide Act states it is illegal for a person to aid or carry out the suicide of another person, no matter the circumstances. In fact, it carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. And this is what Mr Nicklinson is fighting in the courts: he wants to ensure that when his time comes, and he wants to end his life, the person responsible will not be punished. 

The debate around euthanasia is one of the most dividing and passionate in society. Those against it believe life is too sacred to be ended on demand. We, human beings, faced incredible odds to even exist in the first place and the argument is we should "waste" this opportunity. Despite being fully paralysed, Mr Nicklinson has a functioning mind, capable of intelligent thought and killing an intelligent being is an act of murder. This is the point that the Ministry of Justice were seeking to make in court today.

Another argument against assisted dying involves doctors themselves. It is argued that doctors should not have the power to "play God" and kill a man or woman. But don't doctors make this decision everyday, when they ask a family of an ill patient to allow a non-resuscitation order? Is this not a similar situation? Euthanasia is an incredibly serious issue but doctors make decisions based on the medical situation of a patient. Again, this is what will be the next development in the case of Mr Nicklinson: a full hearing in the courts, featuring evidence from medical experts.

The third argument against euthanasia is the "slippery slope." The anti-euthanasia lobby call it "legalised killing" and believe it would set a dangerous precedent. For example, a doctor could kill a patient and say they wanted to die, as a defence. It has even been suggested as (rather sickingly) a cost-cutting measure. A study in 1998 found that doctors, who are conscious of costs would be more likely to give lethal medicine to a terminally-ill patient. At a time of cuts and job losses, as well as a lack of hospital beds and resources, is it too far-fetched to say that euthanasia would be used to curb costs and save the pennies? Not to the critics, no.

The case of Mr Nicklinson has brought this debate back into mainstream media, a good thing in my view. I am personally pro-euthanasia. In a society that promotes the rights of the individual, that argues that human beings have choice over every aspect of their life, whether that is their career, their home, their lifestyle, even their gender, should they not be given the right to control their greatest aspect? Should they not be given that choice? It is your opinion. But as Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane said:

"I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today."

The forum has been opened and let the debate begin.