The Archbishop of Pressure

In my head, I always confuse Rowan Williams with Rowan Atkinson. It has quite amusing consequences. Anyway, this blog is about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Atkinson... I mean Rowan Williams (I definitely mean Rowan Williams now). He is due to step down within the coming months, but the decision of who will follow him into the post is taking a while, as many things do in the Church. So, who can take on the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury? With our often ethnocentric view of the globe, we often don't see Anglican Christianity anywhere beyond our pebbly shores. However, Christianity is practised in many parts of the world, extending far beyond Europe and the Americas. Rowan Williams has been an active Archbishop, straddling the sometimes uneasy line between science and religion, theology and politics. It's not an easy job. Advancements in technology, science and culture have been so rapid during the last half a century that any proactive and passionate religious head is definitely destined to struggle with their public position.

Ye Olde BBC has conducted a poll of 2500 people asking their opinion on Rowan Williams as the Archbishop, most thought that he had been a good leader, however one quarter didn't think he'd done enough to keep the church relevant in Britain. This task is far harder than it sounds. Nigeria has approximately 18 million Anglican Christians, all of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury is in charge of. The decisions and changes made in Britain touch Nigeria exactly the same, which is one of the main conundrums facing the Anglican church. How can an Archbishop keep the church relevant in Britain, and simultaneously keep Nigerian followers, when the two cultures are so completely different? Nigeria is just one example of a vastly different culture sharing the same religious banner as the U.K. If keeping the church relevant in Britain means elevating women's status within religious bodies and allowing gay and lesbian theologists into the church, Nigerian Christians face alienation.

Even having to deal with differing opinions in the British Isles is like walking on egg shells for an Archbishop of Canterbury. When asked about whether creationism should be taught in schools as a scientific theory alongside that of Darwin's theory of evolution, Williams gave a pained and reluctant answer:

Rowan WILLIAMS, like if Robin Williams and Rowan Atkinson had a baby.

 "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake as if the Bible were a theory like other theories... so if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's – there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about." When the interviewer said "So it shouldn't be taught?" he responded "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying–different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is–is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Poor guy. You can virtually hear the beads of sweat forming on his brow. 

Practised all over the world, Anglicanism is one of the most popular religions.

Therefore, being the Archbishop of Canterbury is an impossible task, dealt with only by sticking to your guns. Religion is not something to hop in and out of, to chop and change from, so if international Anglican Christians find themselves disagreeing with policies born in Canterbury, perhaps more local roles should be created to ensure that each nation and culture's religious needs are met. Religion can evolve (well, let's say grow), but it cannot have many completely different faces under the same sect banner, otherwise what about the British Anglican Church resembles the three Anglican Churches in Russia? Local, specific growth and modernisation is good, polar opposite official church opinions on homosexuals and science are bad.

Boo. Hoo.

I wonder what Eric Cantona would be like as Prime Minister. I don't think he'd go far wrong... like with his football career, he would quit whilst ahead, he wouldn't take any bullshit, he wouldn't tolerate racism and he wouldn't be a man, he would be Cantona. Oh, to only have a charismatic, transparent yet strong prime minister like Cantona. The party and their policies would be irrelevant alongside the joy of having some beacon to take the country blindly and ignorantly through the rough terrain of a global economic crisis.

Instead, we have Davick Cameclegg. Clegg recently posted a video on the Lib Dem's youtube site apologising, not for raising tuition fees, but for making the promise that he wouldn't. It is rather cleverly done, as he doesn't backdown on the actual decision to triple fees. His online apology is, I suppose, refreshing. I say it reluctantly though, because the main impressions it left me with were nausea at his puppy eyed vulnerability, and feeling slightly patronised. Then again, I do find everything patronising. Mary Ann Sieghart, writer for the Independent, reckons our Nick can still make a graceful exit after having 'shown that the Lib Dems can be taken seriously as a party of government, not just protest'. Has he really? I didn't think that. I thought all everybody had been doing since the election was criticising the party and Cleggy to shreds. One apology doesn't change the facts, although admittedly, he does state that in the video. Here is the video

Apologising for making promises that the party could not keep

I suppose all of the Lib Dem's broken promises are a demonstration of how unlikely they thought it was that they'd ever be in any position of power. I mean, come on... 'End tuition fees', 'No increase in VAT', 'Cap banker's bonuses'... the Lib Dem future promised was really only ever a dream. During the last election, to me- and most other students- the Lib Dems were certainly the most attractive prospect. They were fresh, charismatic, and bursting with shiny, albeit far-fetched, promises. One thing we can learn from the 2010 election, asides from how coalitions are fundamentally useless, is the sheer, undeniable power of PR. This lesson is something Labour seriously needs to learn before the next election. The Conservatives put effort into their PR, so much so that what their policies specifically were became irrelevant amongst all the moving publicity about having a 'fresh', 'new' government who will magically 'transform' the UK economy, pulling jobs our of their arses and sending immigrants a'packing. The Conservatives adopted fantastic PR methods, and it shone particularly brightly next to Labour's stuffy efforts, the face of which being Gordon Brown.

I just... I just want to think he's right for the job... but this is just awkward, I'm sorry

What Labour needs is a total overhaul of image because, unfortunately, that is what elections are all about. The only way most of the population is even going to vote is if they think it is interesting. In a world where the most reverred people have usually appeared on some form of reality TV, or worn some form of meat product on their derriere, politicians need to clock up some serious entertainment points if they dream of their party ever being elected. Ed Miliband is undoubtedly a nice guy but this doesn't mean he is right to drive Labour into government during the next election.
Watch these two funny posh lads say it better than I do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg4PORfEDQY

Expenses are... Expensive

You remember the 2008 expenses scandal? Of course you do, a jolly olde time! Access to who had spent what, on what was clouded and, when the mist did clear, we didn't like what we saw. MPs had claimed our shiny tax pennies for everything from costly rent to treating dry rot. It became apparent that, being an MP meant mo' money, mo' greed. In reality, every day of our lives sees an occasion where we get ripped off. Overpriced goods mean that corporate big tits enjoy a soy, double shot, vanilla machiato on us, daily. However, we know that corporations are in it for the money over our welfare, and we can make financial and purchase choices which benefit nice people if we want to. The government's business however, is our welfare, technically, so how atrocious that they rob us.

Hmm. Relatable.

I know what you're thinking 'yeah, yeah, that was years ago', and we all think it's solved now. I, at least, thought it was corrected. How can MPs have been exposed as so shameless and then be left to continue with the same policies of expenses? Well... they have. In reality, the only thing that's changed is we can now see how our taxes are being squandered.

Manchester City Council has revealed their 2011/2012 annual expenses total, which is a whopping £4.5million! It has cost Manchester MPs a grand total of £4.5million just to do their jobs, oh in addition to their salaries. Furthermore, MPs are allowed to employ family members/ partners, an opportunity which five of Greater Manchester's MPs have taken advantage of. Just because an MP's family member may be interested in tagging along, it does not mean that said family member is qualified to do the job. Perhaps they should advertise some vacancies via job centre plus, although perhaps the touch of a thoroughbred Eton lass/lad is needed to file MPs' paperwork.

In ONE YEAR, Greater Manchester MP Michael Meacher claimed £163,860.83 in expenses! If that's his 'extra' costs, what on earth is the man's salary. How can a person spend £163,860 in one year. He must be booking his trains last minute, and whilst on these trains he must be eating veal sprinkled caviar served on a bed of £50 notes. Yes, transport costs to a business trip halfway across the country should be reimbursed, but surely it is wrong for us to fund their elaborate eating and drinking habits when some of us (me) live off a diet of cereal and butter sandwiches.

She's on the right side of the law, but she's still claimed £147,973.91 between 2011 and 2012

It is safe to conclude that MPs are still robbing us blind, but now they tell us about it afterwards and rub salt in our shallow little pockets. For more information about what Manchester locals have spent, have a look at the MEN website.

Harry the Prince of Party

Oh, Harry, Harry, Harry.
He's only third in line for the throne, so he may aswell be first to get his wang out? You only live once? Between him famously dressing as a Nazi desert soldier, complete with swastika (*facepalm*) and, more recently, flashing his crown jewels in Vegas, what is our verdict on the ginger prince?
Aged twelve, Prince Harry lost his mother. His mother who was philanthropic and emotional. His mother who, also, left his father and was unhappy in their relationship. Left to be raised by his rigid, collected father, the question of who he would more resemble in his character is still undecided.

Harry in Lesotho where he and William established a charity in 2008

He really is two sides of a royal coin. His charitable work in Lesotho with HIV affected children is an image of his mother, but his swastika- brandishing leaves somewhat to be desired. Recently, it appears the prince partied damn hard in Vegas with like-minded ruffians. They had a jolly olde time and he flashed his bits, something I regularly witness medical students doing down Oxford Road. However, unlike the medical students who can just squint through the hangover, untag themselves on facebook and swear it won't happen again (until the next time), Harry has to contend with national newspapers circling around him like the morning alcoholics in Wetherspoons.

The Sun published an image of him in the nuddy and titled the front cover:
'Heir it is!'
'Pic of naked Harry you've already seen on the internet'

Never has their been more interest in a 20-odd year old stripping off. The Sun claims that the people of Britain had the right to know what the man third in line to the throne had been doing. They also claimed that they believed it wrong that the press shouldn't be free to publish the images. Indeed they should be free to do it, the press should be unaffected by the Royal Family's wishes and information should be free to share. However, we already knew what had happened, because the Sun had already told us, they didn't necessarily need to show us. It's right that they should be able to show the images, but they didn't have to show them. It is in the public's interest to know what Harry is doing, but publishing the images is in the Sun's unique style of bad taste. 

Harry is the Mayor of Funkytown

As far as the Sun 'morally' defending the right's of free press, Murdoch has a warped view on the matter, seeing as hacking and tapping do not constitute 'moral' methods of freeing information to the press. I am not a royalist, and it doesn't bother me what Harry gets up to in Vegas. He could marry a naughty nun, a confused King or gamble with a giant Mexican and, yes, it might be good to know, but freedom of press doesn't always necessarily mean brandishing the images. The Sun has received numerous complaints about their publication of the image, not from the Royal Family, but from readers. Some may have complained believing it was wrong of the Sun to publish the image, and some may just not have enjoyed choking on their cornflakes over Harry's starkers body. Although it may be in the public's interest to know of Royal Vegas parties, the public is not necessarily interested.

Supernatural Wombs? Bad Sexual Etiquette? Would you Like me to be the Cat?

I believe one of the main problems with the 'rape question' is that it is viewed as some form of surreal, abstract mental offence, rather than a physical offence. It is a physical crime. A punch is a punch, theft is theft, rape is rape. Rape has nothing to do with relationship problems, or who's a slut and who's not- it really is very simple. Rape can be defined by a sexual act performed without the consent of one of the parties.

If a woman is asleep, she is not consenting. If she is unconscious, she is not consenting. Just because she is wearing a red mini skirt, this does not mean that she is consenting.

Considering the current case of Julian Assange, most of the controvercy originates from what people actually constitute as rape. Who knows what really happened in the beds that Assange and the two plaintiffs shared, but if events unfolded as the women described, it is more than 'bad sexual etiquette'. Yes, George Galloway has really delivered us a golden line. He has worked on the assumption that, when a woman invites a man to her bed once, he has a green light to have sex with her whilst she sleeps. Husbands can rape wives, the relationship is irrelevant. This is a fact that George Galloway has carelessly ignored.

Another offender: Todd Akin claims that in cases of 'legitimate' rape, the female body has ways of preventing pregnancy.  Experts have confirmed that rape does not change the female reproductive system.

"Would you like me to be the cat?"

What on earth does an old, Scottish bloke know about 'sexual etiquette'? How can he possibly be an authority on rape or women's bodies? If, in a different circumstance, a man was the victim of rape, perhaps George Galloway would find the topic too close to home, and wouldn't have spoken out. This is the man who cosied up to Saddam Hussein, the man who went on Celebrity Big Brother, the man who, whilst on this show, donned a catsuit and imitated a cat. I am NOT going to consider his 'sexual etiquette' as one to be followed.
Regardless of the specific case of Julian Assange and the sexual assaults alledged to have happened in Sweden, we should be clear on rape. Maybe more women should be involved in the legal and social analysis of sexual assaults against women, rather than ignorant blokes like Galloway.

Shafilea- Who is Implicated?

Shafilea was only 17 when she was murdered.

The shocking reality of Shafilea Ahmed's murder is difficult to convey, and perhaps strangest is that condolences can't be offered to her parents- because she is dead because of them. We speculate as to the reasons why she was killed, but realistically all we can do is guess at a look through such a closed community. What brings a parent to kill their own child? How can such an unnatural act be explained? On the night of Shafilea's murder, the argument began because she had come home from work wearing trousers, a t-shirt and a hooded cardigan. Hardly rebellious in Britain, but I understand how the outfit differs from traditional muslim dress. Yet, how could they raise their children in Warrington and expect them not to be influenced by their peers at school? Shafilea's dreams were to study at university and become a lawyer- again, hardly disgraceful. Plenty of parents would be full of pride if that was their daughter's aspiration.

Yet, the Ahmed's killed their daughter. Farzana Ahmed was seen preparing sheets of linen and rolls of tape earlier in the day, and her husband stuffed their eldest daughter's mouth with a plastic bag after Farzana said that they should finish it there. All their other children bore witness as Shafilea's eyes widened in shock and her legs stopped kicking. Her father, Iftikhar Ahmed, then drove her body deep into the Lake District where it wasn't found until February 2004, around 5 months after her murder.

Murder shouldn't be a matter of the home, but it seems that in the Ahmed's case it was exclusively so. The thing that is so difficult to determine is whether Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed are just killers and chose their daughter, or if, had Shafilea never pushed their religious and cultural boundaries, the Ahmeds would never have killed. I lean more towards thinking that the Ahmeds would not have killed unless under this circumstance. So, how could their own misconstrued sense of community and 'honour' be more powerful than the love of their own child? Iftikhar himself had previously been married to a Danish woman and had a child with her, his marriage to Farzana was his very own arranged marriage. Described by one of the nurses who treated Shafilea after she had drank bleach as a cry for help in 2003, the family was 'loveless'. Perhaps Iftikhar and Farzana saw their children as a mere extension of their unhappy marriage and thought the only way they could make them happier was by bringing them 'honour' in their community.

It has taken almost ten years for Shafilea's parents' conviction

 The entire topic lays an egg shell floor. Her murder goes hand in hand with her community. Or does it? Is it just the parents or is it the religion? How can we know when we are afraid to even ask the question? I'm sure many muslim families would be deeply offended at the suggestion that they could kill their children in the name of warped community reputations. Yet, why else did the Ahmeds kill their daughter if not for that very reason. As one Guardian article claims, this is a crime meshed in migration and modernity- but unlike the article proceeds, Britain cannot be implicated. Farzana and Iftikhar hate all 'western' concepts- how can you build on or interfere with that? They live in and raised their children in a country they despise- and that is why Shafilea was murdered. How can they have expected to have everything? To live in better conditions in the 'west', yet demand their daughters followed the archaic rituals of arranged marriage and housewifeship? Their failings as loving, understanding, caring parents are glaringly obvious, regardless of their religion/ culture, yet their crime was because of their religion and culture.

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"- Chris Brown, 'Don't Lie'

If an ordinary man, let's call him John Smith, savagely beat a woman and was convicted in court of the offence, his criminal record would be tarred forever. If, in future, he applied for a job, our John Smith would frankly not be given a chance. The large majority of employers wouldn't give his job application a second glance if he had a criminal record- particularly considering the offence.

Yet Chris Brown enjoys a net worth of over $24 million (therichest.org) and is topping the charts. As I have previously written, immediately after the crime was commited, Brown was publicly abhorred and many radio stations refused to play his music. However the only things that have changed since then is; time has passed, and Chris Brown has done some token community service.

Indeed!

In the media the entire affair is treated like a standard 'choose your celeb' Hollywood feud. Remember when Brad and Jennifer split? Did you pick a side? Brennifer or Brangelina? Well, this isn't like that. Rihanna was a victim of domestic abuse and Chris Brown commited a legal and moral crime. As far as separating the man from the music- this just isn't possible, particularly in a music genre which is based solely on image rather than musical capability. The man is the music. George Osborne is his policies, Joey Barton is his football, Chris Brown is his music. Artists the likes of Marilyn Manson are unjustifiably heckled for being bad role models, whilst Brown is hailed. Chris Brown sets a good example to neither boys or girls. Boys learn that beating a woman doesn't prevent you from being surrounded by them and from making millions singing about how well you treat them. Girls learn that men who abuse women still deserve to have their music danced to and receive sexual favours.