Are feminism and anti-racism two separate battles?

I notice intersectionality is causing quite a stir. Again. And like Helen Lewis I too have been reflecting on the nature and demands of the movement recently.

I personally think Helen’s article is quite well-balanced piece as it happens. It doesn’t appear to be a vitriol fuelled hatchet job like some other people we can name.

But I do still agree that it may have been written from a position of privilege.

It appears to me that the attacks against intersectionality essentially come from people who are privileged enough not to have experienced multiple forms of discrimination on a parallel and accumulative basis in their lives. It comes from a place where you can think about and discuss these things on a theoretical basis and intellectual basis without engaging with what it means in practice.

Or there is engagement with what it means in practice, but only again, from the view of those who enjoy the certain privilege in the first place.

Think about how hard it is for those organisers of meetings. Yeah. Why not instead, first think about how hard it is for those women who go to these meetings.

Everyone has limited time. I agree. I know it takes hard work and sacrifice and balls to organise things and be actually active as opposed to sitting around grumbling but continuing with what you have always done.

But don’t the attendees also have limited time? You want them to be part of your campaign for feminism but you want them to go elsewhere to fight racism and yet somewhere else to fight capitalism and to another meeting to fight transphobia and somewhere else again to fight homophobia. 

Even though we can all agree that actually, all these things are wrong and that in many cases, all these things spring from the same causes and the same oppressors.

Let’s divide and replicate our efforts and fight with one another while we do it. Yeah.

If I am part of an anti-racist campaign group who are overtly sexist, why must I specifically go to a feminist group to fight the sexism of the anti-racist group without being able to demand it of the anti-racist group itself?

Societal injustices that we have grouped into wider theoretical intellectual headings aren’t representative of how they affect real people’s lives. I am not affected by racism and sexism and classism all individually at separate times without them touching upon each other. People don’t discriminate against me (or anyone else) only because I am a woman at one time, and I am brown at another and from a working class background at another. They see me as a whole and discriminate accordingly.

I myself, do not identify as brown, as a woman and as the product of a working class background independently. I don’t section off parts of me and represent each part in isolation. (WHO DOES THAT?)

Especially when identifying as one part and fighting for the rights of what that stands for, means you stand in oppression of what is another essential part of you.

As an individual, I am the sum of all the parts of me, those traditionally oppressed and those which are not. And that is how people see me, that is how society sees me. Well everyone apart from my fellow activists. 

I cannot, as some may ask of me, break down my very self so I can sell my politics to my oppressors so that the “liberators” in respect of each individual aspect of my being can in turn oppress all the other aspects for the oppressing class, thus keeping me oppressed overall.

The idea of forming exclusive niche groups of people who fit my exact description so we can discuss our intersectional issues there is even more laughable as the response to calls for intersectionality. That's essentially saying exclusion is ok. Because you can like totes form your own political circles and engage there outside of our respectable circles because feminism doesn't mean you. And anti-racism doesn't mean you. You can only be affected by one issue at a time to be a part of any of these groups. 

You see, it turns out, that to break the chains of oppression, we do need intersectionality after all.

Why the Prime Minister’s gamble in Sri Lanka is going to fail

All carrots and no sticks regardless of corresponding action is not a system that works.

Many commentators have already written in great length about why David Cameron and William Hague should have boycotted the CHOGM in Sri Lanka next week. I think it is fair to say, having ignored the shadow Foreign Minister, Amnesty International and a whole raft of other eminent names, my call coming when it does, isn’t going to do much to change their minds.

However, even now, there are some things our elected representatives can do to save face. If they choose not to, their plan of “constructive engagement” with Sri Lanka is bound to be a gamble that does not pay off for them. 

Why are David Cameron and entourage actually going to the CHOGM?

As mentioned before, there is staunch opposition to this decision to attend from a wide range of actors in the domestic and international fields. It appears the reasoning behind the opposition has been somewhat accepted by the Government (it has certainly been accepted by the Canadian government who are boycotting) and that reasoning is not what forms the basis of this article [see Channel 4’s no fire zone if you want reasoning].

What does form the basis for this article, is the Government’s response.

So why despite this opposition and sound reasoning, are our prime minister, foreign minister and a royal still intent on attending? These have been some of the quoted reasons:

1. “shine a light on what is going on in the country, either highlighting progress made or drawing attention to the lack of it” – I think it is fair to say it’s become pretty much unanimous that there is no progress, only decline. This unanimity of opinion seems to suggest light is already shining and DC’s presence, although I am sure will radiate light as always, is not necessary as such to instigate something that is already happening. 

Besides, if the government were serious, there are other steps they can take to this end. You know what will really shine a light on Sri Lanka’s progress? An independent international investigation.

2. Promised to be very clear about those aspects of the human rights record in Sri Lanka that we are not happy with – erm..

A. Why can you not do that from England? Communication has become so much easier, we have mass media, phones and emails and all kinds of new technologies not to mention an embassy in Sri Lanka who can communicate on our behalf and a Sri Lankan embassy here who we can communicate with on their behalf.

B. Is it on the agenda though?

3. First foreign leader to visit the Northern Province – now now have Ofsted inspections and hospital inspections and the whole host of other inspections we have domestically taught us nothing? When have these things actually worked? We all know how people being inspected selectively choose what you see and who you speak to and besides how much are you really going to learn in like a day? Especially as a foreign leader who is not really even an inspector.

Besides many people have already visited, including people whose judgement the Prime Minister should have learnt to trust by now (Ban Ki Moon and Navi Pillay). Why not save on the airfare in this time of austerity and just ask them? Or if one was really keen, why not visit another time when you’ve gone specifically to highlight human rights concerns and not to bask in Sri Lankan glory when they are hosting CHOGM?

4. CHOGM too important to be set aside because of location – why? Is it because of the famed “Commonwealth Values” because there is much to be said about that.  The Commonwealth purports to be about "democracy, human rights and the rule of law" – clearly Sri Lanka is our leading example of these values and letting Sri Lanka host the CHOGM where they discuss things like international peace, human rights, good governance and democracy makes sense. 

Decisions like this one, adds weight to the arguments from some sides that the Commonwealth is just an extension of colonialism, racism, and a trampling of rights in general. Indeed it goes further than the commonwealth itself – it touches on all our international relations. Why do we not apply our principles of things like human rights uniformly across the board- actually proving they are principles and not matters of foreign policy when we can pick and choose when they apply? Syria bombs citizens, lets bomb them. Sri Lanka bombs citizens, host the commonwealth!  The differentiation in treatment of countries does seem a bit sinister with no further explanation. 

The Gamble

The gamble the government has chosen to take, as I see it, is such: 

It is worth tolerating a number of given risks associated with attendance to “constructively engage” with the Sri Lankan government. 

Now I do not want to associate any hoodies with the Sri Lankan government, it is an insult to all hoodies (myself included) and if the Sri Lankan government’s biggest crime was to wear a hoodie, these would be happy days, but this seems remarkably like the “hug a hoodie” rhetoric.

As David Cameron himself has probably found out by now, simply hugging anyone (least of all Sri Lanka) isn’t going to do much for anyone. Indeed the dominant government discourse appears to be that hugging hoodies have led to riots.

The underlying core of constructive engagement is compromise. One party gives a bit and takes a bit and the other does so too in retaliation. Here Britain is giving it all: aid, weapons in the past, international recognition and rehabilitation and Sri Lanka is taking it all. What is the Sri Lankan government giving in return? An increasingly appalling human rights record is the first thing that comes to mind. 

I’m sure the FCO and No 10 know what they’re doing but this plan of seemingly giving Sri Lanka endless carrots when they haven’t even performed the action that the carrot should be dependent on, and never using the stick, even though the stick should have been deployed ages ago for many of Sri Lanka’s actions, doesn’t seem like a foolproof one to me.

It seems Sri Lanka will eat all the carrots and carry on emboldened. We've basically just been rewarding them for very bad behaviour.

The cynic’s gamble

Maybe we were never after a change of behaviour in Sri Lanka from the word go. Maybe we were after something else. If so, what else does Britain stand to gain from this decision to attend the CHOGM? The only thing I can think of is business deals.

This in itself is wrought with risks:

•  Do you want to paint yourselves as people who would sell their own granny for business deals? Compromising on human rights just for a bit of extra money seems like this and maybe we do want to seem like this, in which case the second question is more pertinent:
• What makes us think a country which has no problems flouting every international law we have, killing with impunity etc is going to feel bound by a contract to buy and sell? Surely from what they’ve been led to expect, any more bad behaviour on their part will only win them the right to host the next Olympics or something. (And if they do actually choose not to renegade then we are back to risk one)

What our prime minister and foreign minister should (and could) do:

1.  Actually get human rights on the agenda
2. Openly speak out about the abuses when here, there and everywhere
3. Put in place a process of sanctions for when Sri Lanka disobey everything regarding human rights, even after CHOGM – which they will.
4. Push for an independent international investigation – and give it teeth – what happens when the investigation returns with grotesque findings?

This is just the beginning - I am sure there are many other actions, many more people can think of. The question remains, will our government take heed? It appears too risky not to. 

Beginning of an Era: Tamil Occupation of Parliament Square

06.04.2013

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the Tamil Occupation of Parliament Square in protest against the actions (or lack of any action) of the Sri Lankan government, the UK government and other key international actors at the time. For those who do not know why this was warranted, a quick summary: Sri Lanka, led by what is now widely regarded as a despot government and its armed forces launched a massive offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) committing numerous war crimes against both Tamil cadres and civilians along the way, culminating in a showdown in a specifically designated “no fire zone” killing tens of thousands. No one asked them to stop or slow down or reconsider. For further details and perhaps a more accurate picture, I suggest Googling “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” as a starting point.

Anyway, I thought it was apt to start my first blog post on the event that really first politicised me as a young British Tamil. Having said that, this post is more about the personal than the political- although there was no shortage of politics involved in the protest, its origins and its aftermath, both within the Tamil community internally and with the many external forces involved.

Today for me is a day to be celebrated. It marks the coming of age for not only me but a whole generation of Tamil activists. It is a testament to the power of collective action, creating a voice in the public space for the previously voiceless, opening up dialogue and raising awareness.  For me, it honours the unity of a community that had previously stood isolated and what the force of that unity can achieve. It was the beginning of a new era, although we did not entirely know it then. It set in motion of wheels for a new political age for the liberation struggle for Tamils in Sri Lanka. Although many believe it was a wasted effort, and certainly what followed soon after was definitely not something to be celebrated- the death of at least 40,000 Tamils by conservative estimates, the protest in itself is.

The occupation lasted from April 6^th 2009 until June 17^th 2009- a total of 72 days despite numerous attempts by the police, various MPs and Westminster City Council, amongst others, to move us on. Led entirely by the youth and replicated pretty soon with mass protests in other countries with large Tamil Diaspora populations, it was certainly a phenomenon. One that in our haste and excitement and inexperience we did not document near as well as we should have done- yet that is remediable.

Most of us who populated Parliament Square for those 72 days were not seasoned activists- we were young and perhaps largely apathetic to general politics. We had some aims which in retrospect appear a bit unrealistic, somewhat vague and not very well thought out. If my memory serves me right, someone wrote it down on a spare bit of paper on the first night very quickly and how they eventually crystallised into “the aims” remains a bit of a mystery. We certainly did not have a strategy- it was all a bit play it by the ear. We had Facebook- the age of Twitter had not yet dawned. And we had a lot of anger. We also had a lot of hope- perhaps the most dangerous element. Anger can be spent quite rapidly- hope has a habit of living on.

The occupation itself clearly did not rapidly die out. Perhaps the reason for this lay in its nature- it was definitely not just a passive sit-in. It was dynamic and fluid and characterised by a wide range of innovative, anger-fuelled actions. Yes, we slept in Parliament Square all night with the beating of drums and chants to accompany us. We would wake up in the day and organise, talk to media, talk to politicians and generally agitate. But there was more.

There were roadblocks, including an overspill onto Westminster Bridge the very first day. Starting at 3pm, we were able to secure the bridge and stay until around 7am the next day when we were brutally beaten off by riot police and kettled into Parliament Square, where we were to remain. There were numerous roadblocks since that point in time, normally fuelled by anger and desperation as news from Vanni filtered in- there had been a phosphorus attack, there has been a report of an artillery attack on a makeshift hospital and other reports of a similar nature.

There were hunger strikes, some longer than others and some garnering more media attention than others.

On the first night a fellow student jumped off Westminster Bridge in desperation. When I tell some people this now, they find it funny. What was his purpose they ask? Did he think he would really die? I don’t know about his purpose. I don’t know if even he knew what his purpose was. What I do know is that even I did things at that time that were not led by strategic concerns or an identifiable purpose. Many people did. This was a movement first spurred by emotion and by urgency and only later morphing into an organised campaign.

And I know he definitely thought he was going to die. While manning the lines that night (there were 3 vital points we could be attacked by the police from- we had to ensure a steady stream of young fit men and women were holding these lines against the police at all times) – I remember standing at the one closest to the river, when the aforementioned student remarked to another friend “Look after my family” (presumably in the event of his death) and ran so fast and jumped so quickly that even the riot police were not fast enough to catch him. [Luckily, a boat below was to pick him up out of the water. After a very brief stint in hospital to check he hadn’t contracted any illnesses, he was declared completely healthy and discharged.]

People were arrested- even on that first night, and many more over the course of the campaign.  Many were injured, mostly at the other end of a police baton. And people went on to do all kinds of weird and wonderful things. A rather large group went and handed themselves into the police claiming they were members of the LTTE (they were not. I don’t even believe the police knew what to do with them). There was a “balloon protest” where huge balloons with various slogans were floated into the sky. There was a day set aside for small school children to boycott school for the day and come and stand in solidarity with those of their age who were dying back home. There were meetings. And many of them. With MPs, with David Milliband, with various party political and non-party political figures. There was media. Everywhere. Which is strange because prior to taking such drastic steps, no one appeared to be interested.

There was a lot of hand wringing and soul searching about identity. It was clear that the vast majority of us, at that protest anyway, could not identify with not only the Sri Lankan government, but the entity of Sri Lanka as a whole anymore. We had rejected them like they had rejected us, our culture and our politics. Many people criticised the waving of LTTE flags at the occupation- and at consequent Tamil protests since. Whatever the merits of what people perceive as the flag of the LTTE- it is actually supposed to represent the nation of Tamil Eelam and not the organisation LTTE- that deserves another post altogether, the presence of so many flags (which no one tried to police apart from the police themselves- this being a spontaneous, grassroots led protest with no enforced hierarchy) showed to me, the rejection of the Sri Lankan state and identity itself.

For me personally, the identity crisis went beyond that. Having been born and brought up in the UK, with no personal experience of Sri Lanka myself (something Sri Lankans frequently contest as giving people such as myself no right to comment- this also being worthy of another post soon), I had always identified with Britain as my home and as my country. And all of a sudden there was a clash. “My” country was not helping “my” people. But my people were not of my country and my country was not for my people- not the way I identified each at that point. What made it worse was that Britain’s reasons explaining its reluctance were not adding up in my 18 year old brain. Was this not the Great Britain who liberated the world having fought the fascists in 1945? Had my history lessons lied to me?

Moreover, having just lost a family member to a completely unrelated incident, death was very close to my heart at the time. And so many people were dying. People not in comfort, or surrounded by their family or loved ones or in peace. But in anguish, in fear, in pain. Needlessly. As the campaign progressed, I found many parallels in my personal life to that in the political life of this protest and of the Eelam struggle. And as it grows still, my consciousness of all the aspects of both my personal and political lives continues to grow too. I, like many others although I can only speak for myself, feel the campaign has opened my eyes to wider injustice, to power struggles, to oppression- in many forms, not just that of Sri Lanka against the Tamils. And although I came out of it battleworn, I came out of it at least a little wiser.

Yes I questioned everything I had ever known- and it was good for me. It helped form me into the person I am today.  

Much has happened since the end of those protests- both in the Tamil community in the UK, in Sri Lanka and in terms of international movement on the issues in question. Sri Lanka, instead of calming down as many probably predicted, has upped its ante. It seeks other minorities to persecute while all the while continuing (what I and many others perceive as) its genocide against the Tamils on its island. There has been a lot of international interest since- there have been big documentaries by big media organisations, there have been UN resolutions- but as of yet, no solution. Not even a situation close to a solution. 

Currently as I write about one student led mass protest, there is another taking place in Tamil Nadu, India in relation to the same issue.

For all our disillusionment, sense of betrayal and loss of hope, it appears hope is flourishing again. There may still be anger- there will be until at least there is an acceptable solution and an end to the problems Tamil still face. But it is the hope that is dangerous. Four years or forty- hope has a habit of living on.

*

Were you at the Westminster protests in 2009? As a Tamil or otherwise? I want to hear about your experiences- Get in touch!