Tag: murder

Boris Johnson’s Dystopian New Jerusalem

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

As Boris Johnson talks about building a ‘New Jerusalem’ I remind myself of any dystopian story I have ever read. I’m not sure I want to be part of his New Jerusalem. Anyone professing to be the architect of a new society makes me instinctively cautious. Someone with his track record for incompetence and general indifference to the wellbeing of the populace is someone whose Jerusalem reeks of inevitable failure. These are the type of people who will hoard the lifejackets as the ship sinks, or who in actuality are already hoarding the lifejackets as the system sinks.

I haven’t been getting caught up in cries of fascism and autocracy by the state but this lot in power at the moment are not playing by the rules of old. If they were anarchists decentralising and creating community I would be fine with it but when they’re right wing wannabe despots in the making it is more concerning. Teachers can’t teach about anti-capitalism anymore. The police have been given draconian powers to enforce their will on the people. Powers are rarely given up once they’ve been received. The opposition exists in name only. There are real and concerning things going on in the UK at present. Once we leave the EU this power grab will only be intensified.

Talking of the ‘opposition’, only twenty of them, one of whom was Jeremy Corbyn, voted against the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill. Officially this “authorise(s) conduct by officials and agents of the security and intelligence services, law enforcement, and certain other public authorities, which would otherwise constitute criminality”. In layman’s terms the state and it’s enforcers are now above the law. Effectively this allows the government a license to kill whoever it deems a danger to it’s existence. The US and Canada have similar laws but they specifically exclude certain crimes like murder and torture. This one rushed through Parliament omits such exclusions. Remarkably the bill extends these powers to various government bodies such as The Competition and Markets Authority, The Environment Agency, The Financial Conduct Authority, The Food Standards Agency and The Gambling Commission.

The bill allows for state actors to break the law in three scenarios – in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder and in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. What is clear from this though is the ambiguity involved. ‘Preventing disorder’ seems as all encompassing as ‘breach of the peace’, what exactly is classed as disorder? And someone can be killed to protect the economic interests of the UK. Does this mean I can sign up for the police and kill the leaders of Brexit? But seriously if we think of the new teaching rules on sugar coating capitalism and then this, it’s clear who and what this mob represent.

Former Tory leader and Brexit Minister David Davis and former Tory Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell have even called the government out on there being a “whole series of weaknesses in (the bill), which at the end of the day will impinge on innocent people” and on the dangers of “granting such powers in a free society” respectively. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Unions such as Unite have also heavily cautioned about the dangers involved with passing such legislation. As ever the media have been silent. Not even a mention of Keir Starmer whipping his MPs into abstaining against the vote. Love or loath Corbyn, at least he was a man of integrity and one who actually acted as a real opposition. Like I said, I don’t usually get caught up in genuine despotic outcries but this is concerning and this is a system looking increasingly less capable of maintaining and standing up for itself by the day.

BR#9 – Accidental Death Of An Anarchist

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

Another new playwright has crossed my path. Dario Fo wrote Accidental Death Of An Anarchist in response to the 1969 death of an anarchist in police custody Milan. He had been accused of the bombing of the Agricultural Bank which had resulted in the deaths of sixteen people. While in custody he, according to the official account at the time, committed suicide by jumping out of the window on the fourth floor of the police headquarters. Ten years later three fascists were convicted of the crime, some of whom were agents of the secret police, and in court proceedings it was determined that the major actors behind the bombing had been senior ministers and Generals who were condemned before being acquitted. The state once more protected it’s own while allowing those at the bottom who actually committed the act itself to go down for it. The play was written prior to this final outcome and was partly in response to a dearth of reporting from both sides of the political spectrum, the right-wing for obvious reasons and the Communists because they’re little more than power hungry political stooges themselves.

The play is set one week after the event and Fo uses the character titled Maniac to highlight the ridiculous nature of the police account of events, their incompetence and as a vehicle to get his political message across. I’m sure there’s a name for this type of character in a play but I forget what I learnt in school. While serious and dry approaches to storytelling always have their place, there is a particular way satire manages to express an idea and create an understanding in the audience. It is more accessible, despite it being on a serious topic comedy allows people to take it in without feeling they need to immediately react in a serious manner. Fo does this expertly and through his use of the Maniac manages to create a situation in which the police expose their own corruption and the left wing reporter her own hypocrisy.

To quote the Maniac in one of his more lucid moments;

“Why not ask yourself, Miss Feletti, what sort of democracy requires the services of dogs such as these? I’ll tell you. Bourgeois democracy which wears a thin skin of human rights to keep out the cold, but when things hot up, when the rotten plots of the ruling class fail to silence ours demands, when they have put the population on the dole queue and squeezed the other half dry with wage cuts to keep themselves in profit, when they have run out of promises, and you reformists have failed to keep the masses in order for them; well then they shed their skins and dump you, as they did in Chile*, and set their wildest dogs loose on us all”

*While events in Chile happened after the original was written, the text I read from was translated and adapted in the 1980s hence the reference.

BR#8 – One For The Road

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

I still refer to these as book reviews when if we’re all honest they’re probably something else. What they actually are I’ll leave to the annuls of history to decide but in the meantime and for the sake of form they’ll continue to be book reviews. I am reviewing plays seemingly more regularly than books too, although a play is still arguably a book, but with One For The Road by Harold Pinter being a one act play, only sixteen pages long, it’s more of a pamphlet than anything else. It’s so short in fact that when I finished reading it I decided to read it again, just because, well, why not.

One For The Road is set in what I assume is some kind of headquarters of the secret police under a totalitarian regime. The man in charge refers to patriots so you can imagine nationalism plays a role but he refers to god more often which makes me believe this is some Christian fundamentalist regime on par with Margaret Atwood‘s The Handmaid’s Tale. That probably just exposes my ignorance of a better relatable example and a sign of my being lazy. It also ignores the general complicity of the Church in right wing totalitarian states in our history so it could just be a simple case of something along those lines.

The story revolves around what can be classed as interviews between someone of importance, potentially the head of the secret police, and individually the three members of a family taken in for interrogation. The father / husband, wife / mother and their son. The man is beaten and while he challenges his interrogator slightly he generally remains silent and passive. It is likely they have all been arrested because of his political activity. The woman talks more, although there are more direct questions and it is revealed she is being repeatedly raped. Her father is also revealed to be a national hero, a heroic soldier who fought and died in some war that presumably led to the establishment of this state. While the boy who is only seven we discover spat at and kicked the arresting soldiers when they came to his house. At the end he is referred to in the past tense. The interrogator is constantly pouring himself drinks and suggesting it’s one for the road but the implications are more that this will be one for the road before they are released. This of course doesn’t come and there is something chilling in this psychological torture too. That is basically the story, which I’ve now given away but in such a crude manner I’ve not gone near to doing it justice.

I know very little about Harold Pinter beyond his name. I did study Drama for my A-Levels at school but like everything was left incredibly unimpressed by any teachings provided, although my lack of effort and involvement mustn’t be discounted. It is only now as I get older that I start to understand that these things can actually be enjoyable. It is short and I would be curious how and in what circumstances the play would be performed. There are a lot of pauses so potentially they would make better use of them than I did but it was a good introduction to his work. I look forward to reading some more, maybe even a full length one next time. He certainly appears to be someone I could get into.

“Quotes”

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

“Of all sexual perversions, chastity is the strangest” said Anatole France the French writer. Someone said similar on a podcast a few days ago, incorrectly attempting to quote him. He may have said the wrong words but it was close enough to perk my attention and do a little research of old Monsieur France. He appears to be another of these intellectuals living around the turn of the nineteenth century. Involved in the societal issues of the day, he took on the state a few times, especially in regards the Dreyfus Affair. This was an incident when nationalistic and anti-Semitic elements of the French army made a scapegoat of a Jewish soldier and had him wrongly convicted of murder. France though seems to be an infinitely quotable person and while I was drawn in with the one above it is only apt to throw a few more in.


“Until one has loved an animal a part of one’s soul remains unawakened“

“If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing“

“It is human nature to think wisely and act in an absurd fashion“

Quotes are great things. It takes a tiny snapshot of a thought and imprints it forever. There is an intensity to them that allows people to feel they understand a whole concept or person with nothing but a short sentence. We use them to justify opinions of a person, to discredit a lifetimes worth of work with one passing comment, to immortalise a version of someone. I have wanted to tattoo a million moments of wisdom all over my body despite knowing better. I finally succumbed a few years ago in my own way and have “estas como una cabra” on my arm. It is a Spanish expression which translates as “you’re like a goat” and is intentionally the antithesis of tattooed wisdom. Yet we keep on coming back to quotes.

I used one recently when writing a piece on here bashing Winston Churchill. His quote was from 1937 and I used it to justify my accusation of racism. Yet I would be curious to hear his opinion in 1945 after the horrors of murderous racism became real to the world. Does that mean we form an opinion of his character at the end of his life, at a certain point in his life or try to balance out an impression of his character from squashing everything he ever said and did into one little box. We evolve over time in who we are and how we think but quotes freeze a moment in our lives and are used to define us for eternity. I suspect there won’t be many academics pouring over this body of work at any point but were they to I don’t doubt they could find enough ridiculous things I’ve said to justify creating an impression that I am three or four different versions of myself and morality. But then we live so many versions of ourselves in our lives that this must surely be inevitable. How then when quotes are everything can we ever let these parts of ourselves go.

“All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another” – Anatole France

When There Is No Choice

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

It seems like everything is coming one after another at the moment. We’ve been obsessing about virus’ and pandemics for the last few months and now America is burning. I’m sure there was another crisis facing our health, happiness and prosperity before coronavirus came along too and not just another Tory election victory. Although that may just be a physical representation of the British peoples misdirected anger. I see the riots in America as quite a good thing although I am not entirely sure how I feel about the approach. I remember a few years ago getting involved in a little ‘comments’ argument with someone on a friends social media post about achieving things through violence. I took the stand that people always have the choice, they can choose to be peaceful and they can choose to be violent, violence just leads to further violence as well as giving the mainstream media the chance to take away any moral high ground you may have. I was told I was viewing this from a very privileged position and that if my own existence was constantly under attack and my life was in danger then it’s unlikely I would still have the same opinion or see it as a choice. I think that was the crux of the argument at least but it was a few years ago and memories change events.

I had no argument when I was challenged with that and really I still don’t. I still stand by people having a choice but I am painfully aware I come at it from an incredibly privileged position. I also imagine that constantly being attacked violently leads you to not really see non-violence as an option, it just becomes about defence. If we’re attacked we can defend ourselves. Ultimately I have no idea what is going on in black communities in Britain let alone in America, I don’t live with the daily institutional attacks upon my own self-determination and life. How can I possibly cast judgment on people for either being violent or not being violent. Like I said though I think it’s a good thing to see the state get a little back. It’s good to see them burn. Whether it’ll change anything is anyone guess but it’s interesting so many people around the world are uniting over this, even footballers are getting in on the act and they’re dangerously neutral to anything. I would be curious to see their responses had the police officer not been charged with murder though, had it been the same outcome but also the same old cover-up. I’m an ex-naive idealist who now sees the world through skeptical and slightly deflated eyes, but it’s always nice to get a little hope that something may come from all of this. I imagine at the very least a little less racism in the police force. What a sentence to still need to write in the twenty-first century.

An Ignorant Act of War

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

What is it that goes through peoples minds when they act in a way which will inevitably have a detrimental affect upon other people. I ask this because all over the news today is the assassination of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the United States. In the UK the coverage is generally subtly supportive or cautious but without ever condemning, which is predictable given the geopolitical framework in which this incident exists. The caution comes from the clear retributive dangers of inevitable actions by the Iranian government. There have been calls from across the world wide spectrum of governance about the dangers of this and calls for the deescalation of further violence. Were this to have happened in reverse the US would have already dropped the bombs in retaliation. This is an act of war and by those same rules the Iranians can justifiably fight back. The question then is that given the consequences whether this is exactly what this current US administration want, and judging by their behaviour since coming to power the answer seems pretty obvious. The Iranians have vowed revenge of equal measure, which would mean killing America’s most powerful General, or Israel’s.

Which leads to Israel. It seems the current US administration have been doing all they can since coming to power to support Israel – recognising the capital as Jerusalem, recognising the illegal settlements in Palestine as legitimate, Trump kissing some holy wall and then licking the soles of Netanyahu’s feet. The Israelis have been desperate to take on Iran for years and successive US governments have always held back from doing so. They’ve finally got what they want. If I was a betting man, the attack from Iran will not be directed at any Americans but straight at the heart of Israel. I just hope that whatever happens civilians are not caught up in it because the only constant of war is that innocent people suffer. If they take out a few Israeli generals well then so be it, they signed up for it and already have the blood of innocents on their own hands.

It is scary though. But is it scary for those making the decisions. And when they make the decisions what do they feel. It is very easy to look through the polarised lenses of good and bad, unfortunately this seems to be all that current rhetoric is made up of. The Iranians are the bad guys, they should die. The Americans and Brits the good guys, they should be applauded for their heroism in defending freedom. I’m making assumptions but I suspect those making these decisions to pull triggers do not think that what they are doing is wrong in any sense of the word. We view these people as evil in some ways but they’re not, they are just trying to make the world, or maybe more precisely their own world, a better place. I think it is important to remember that ultimately in everything people do they just want to be happy. Nobody acts in ways counter to that, not consciously at least, and he might be a cunt, but Trump just wants to be happy. The problem is though that he is going about it in such an immoral and mistaken way that there is no happiness coming for anyone out of this, least of all the innocent civilians who will inevitably bear the brunt of such monumental ignorance.

A Three Point Piece

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

I suspect I’m going to attempt to talk about too many things in this piece, three to be precise, but I’ll try anyway. I should probably stop wasting words telling you this though. To start with I feel it necessary to be critical of yesterdays piece. My issue is that there seems to be a certain immaturity to how I write about politics, and most likely when I talk about it too. This is evidenced I feel by an excessive amount of rhetoric and the danger with this is that not only is it, in my eyes at least, a sign of immaturity but is also a sign of a bad argument, a lack of understand an argument suitably in depth and also perhaps a sign of being a bit of an idiot. I hope I’m not an idiot but I know theres a good chance I would accuse others of such things were they to write in such a manner. Ultimately I’m not happy with it. I could have written it better, made better points and made them in a more evolved way. The problem with not publishing these yet is that I am unable to get your (constructive) feedback, but if anyone ever reads back on these I would love to know what you have to think.

The second thing and third actually were inspired by my avoiding writing this and procrastinating on facebook. Greece is burning again and having lived there for three years, give or take, on and off, I feel a connection to it and a sadness at the continuing trauma that is the Greek tragedy. I may have lived in Exarchia, the anarchist run neighbourhood in the centre of Athens, but it truth I never really integrated and always lived fairly anonymously within it. The new right-wing government has seemingly followed through on it’s threats and has spent the last six months closing down squats. Tonight is the eleventh anniversary of the murder of a 15 year old boy by a police officer, who was coincidentally let out of prison a couple of months back, so expect the streets to be a war zone once more. I love Greece but it’s run by dangerous morons, who are elected by scared morons. Nations seem to repeat events and behaviours throughout their history, Greeks have spent the last hundred years killing and suppressing each other. I said Greek tragedy, but perhaps it’s more of a black comedy. Just not for any of those involved.

And finally, a meme I quite like and thought worth mentioning. Quote ‘The deer isn’t crossing the road, the road is crossing the forest’. It is all about perspective and until we change our perspectives on how we view each other, the world around us and the natural world we are a part of we are going to continue missing the point. Missing the point of our own existence and dragging down the remnants of the harmony that we not only stopped seeing but refuse to see and seemingly have lost the ability to even comprehend anymore or ever again.

That is all.