Alter//Native

IN THE WAKE OF HILLARY CLINTON’S DEFEAT, THE SEARCH IS ON FOR...

M

ichelle Bachelet, head of UN Women and former President and Defence Minister of Chile once told the New York Times; “For me, a better democracy is a democracy where women do not only have the right to vote and to elect but to be elected.”. Here, in Scotland, women are at the forefront of politics with three of the six major parties being led by women – Kezia Dugdale for the Scottish Labour Party, Ruth Davidson for the Scottish Conservative Party and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon for the SNP. Theresa May is the British Prime Minister. Angela Merkel is the German Chancellor. And this year America had an opportunity to elect it’s first female President when Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump.

Hillary’s was a campaign that inspired countless people – including Eva Murray, a Scottish student who has just been chosen as the Scottish Labour candidate for the Garscadden/Scotstounhilll ward in the 2017 Glasgow City Council elections. After being inspired by a similar campaign for Barack Obama in 2008, Eva set up the Scotland for Hillary campaign because, as she says; “I think as a woman, it wasn’t just to get a woman into power, it was the idea of a feminist becoming a leader, and not someone just saying she’s a woman for the sake of it. A woman that has a record of fighting for children’s rights, fighting for women’s rights across the word in places that its sometimes a bit taboo, it was things like that, that got me so supportive of Hillary.”

And it wasn’t just Eva who was supportive of Hillary. The results of the election seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Hillary had years of political experience, as the First Lady, as Senator of New York and as Secretary of State, before she became the Democratic Party’s nominee for the 2016 Presidential election. Donald was a reality TV star, known for his outrageous statement and feuds with everyone from Rosie O’Donnell to Kristen Stewart. Hillary received the majority of newspaper endorsements, including some from conservative-leaning papers, while Donald received only 19 endorsements in total. And yet it wasn’t enough.

Although she won the popular vote, Hillary lost after gaining only 239 electoral seats as opposed to Donald’s 306. Donald had a campaign based on scandal, outrageous statements and hate, while being completely free of any actual policies. Hillary had a campaign based on hope – and that private email server which it seems she’ll never be able to escape. So why did Hillary lose the election? Was it her emails?

Her links to the establishment? Her surname? Her gender? Eva thinks it’s a mix of things; “I think Hillary really did lose the working class vote.

We didn’t see her go to places like Michigan where the coal industry has been completely devastated. It is the woman thing as well. I think we saw Trump played up the anti-woman card and Trump riled up these people that had never voted before. These people had always been disengaged with politics, they never had a reason to vote, and Trump gave them this idea of what have you got to lose?” “ The Clinton name, I think, is a huge thing. - we kept seeing her get dragged into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She was the establishment candidate and Trump was an establishment candidate as well. She had a lot of baggage with her, whether that was her emails, whether that was

Benghazi, whether that was her big business partners. But I don’t think Trump was any different than that, I think he has even worse baggage.

But she didn’t play on his whereas we saw Trump play on hers a lot more.”

Although Hillary may have lost her race, there was many female politicians who achieved ground-breaking wins on November 8th.

Kamala Harris became the first black woman elected to Senate in over two decades. Catherine Cortez Masto became the first ever Latina Senator. Ilhan Omar became the first Somali-American Muslim legislator in the House of Representatives. Tammy Duckworth became the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress in Illinois, the first disabled woman elected to the House of Representatives and the first member of Congress to be born in Thailand.

These women, and the others who triumphed on election night, show that there is a future for women in American politics beyond Hillary Clinton. Following the election results there have been calls for everyone from Michelle Obama to Beyonce to run in 2020. Although these women may have the support of the general public they don’t necessarily have the political knowledge, experience, or even desire required for a successful Presidential campaign. However, are there any female politicians right now capable of garnering the same level of support as Hillary managed?

When asked if there’s any female politicians who could inspire her in the same way as Hillary, Eva responds enthusiastically; “I think if Elizabeth Warren ran in 2020, yes I’d definitely be there, same with Kirsten Gillibrand! Having that grassroots element is definitely important for me and think that Gillibrand and Warren are both there, and I look forward to campaigning for them in the future.”

It is clear there’s definitely possibly female candidates out there, but what do they have to do to actually shatter that glass ceiling? What kind of woman is it going to take to become the first female President of the United States of America? What kind of politician is it going to take?

Hillary seemed like a ready-made President, yet she was unable to break that final barrier. So just what is it going to take?

Eva thinks for a while when asked, before finally deciding; “I’m a big believer in standing by your morals and standing by what you believe in, and not having to change to suit people.”

“Just be out there. This election was very unusual and I think if the Democrats had had any candidate they still wouldn’t have won. There just need to be more women in politics in America. There needs to be more saying, you know what, we’re not the minority, we should be up there. We’re more than 50% of the population. We need to be there backing them up and if a woman goes for something, they need to be right there behind them. Not just because she’s a woman but because she’s the best candidate…it has to get away from being a gender issue and being more ‘I’m the best candidate and that’s why I’m running’”.

GEORGINA SMITH

Tammy Duckworth Tammy Duckworth is a Democrat and the Senator-elect for Illinois. She is the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress in Illinois, the first member of Congress born in Thailand and the first disabled woman to be elected to the US house of representatives.

What Does She Stand For? Duckworth supports a woman’s right to privacy to control their own body and has been endorsed by EMILY’s list for prochoice democratic women. She supports equal pay for equal work and pushes for total equality for the LGBT community.

Kamala Harris

Val Demings

Kamala Harris is a Democrat and the Attorney General of California. She is only the second black woman, and the first Indian American, to be elected to US Senate.

Val Demings is a Democrat and the member-elect of the US house of representatives from Florida’s 10th district.

She previously worked in as a police officer, and was the first woman to be made Chief of the Orlando police department.

What Does She Stand For? Harris is a vocal supporter of gun control, leading the NRA to give her only a 7% rating. This is a stark contrast to the 100% rating she received from the pro-choice group NARAL. She has advocated for the strong enforcement of environmental protection laws, and created a special hate crimes unit while serving as the San Francisco DA which focused on hate crimes against LGBT children and teenagers in school.

What Does She Stand For? Demings is committed to protecting Medicare and social security for seniors.

She believes anybody should be able to go to college and enter their chosen profession without having to face student loan debt. During her time as Orlando Chief of Police, the violent crime rate in Orlando was reduced by 40%.

MEET THE

CANDIDATES Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat and the Senior US Senator from Massachussets.

She was on the shortlist for the final five people to be chosen as Clinton’s running mate and is also a prominent scholar, specialising in bankruptcy law.

What Does She Stand For? Warren supports a woman’s right to be able to access safe, legal abortion without restrictions and also the restricting of the second amendment. She advocates for more funding and services for victims of domestic violence and has been endorsed by both EMILY’s list and The Feminist majority, indicating her pro-women’s rights stance.

Amy Klobuchar Amy Klobuchar is a member of the Minnesota-Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party and the Senator for Minnesota. She is the first woman elected to represent Minnesota.

What Does She Stand For? Klobuchar has pushed for access to safe legal abortion and access to and funding for contraception. She has said she wants to invest in homegrown, renewable energy sources and would like to see sensible reforms on gun control, such as enhanced background checks.

ese when I it’s times like th y ll ea R the se animals that st part of all o or th w to e th te y la tl re es n ca Hon of a at you have to had; like instead es n to ts n li F this is the fact th d a mammoth; an out enough text g ke in li p ty ad h e m ey ti th d tap spen e camera es - you’d think at joke where th th e’s er th to fill these box asher with some nice to say the dishw er ov s an p that just filling it d it goes would be enough or something an rd bi placeholder text d you it s right and k, it’s a living,” an w w aw aa “r but it never look ’s e you weep e point where it a little but insid gh u la bothers you to th g y what in the mornin you know exactl se au ec b almost half two are you ting text that let’s s. Like, what else n ea m e h and your up wri ? five people will ith your life now t w ou o d ab t to es g on in h go e b read.

IT’S FAKE NEWS WHAT WON IT J

ust a month after conceding defeat in the presidential election, Hilary Clinton made a rare public appearance to warn against the dangers of what we call fake news. She called it an “epidemic”, stating that it was a “danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly” in a speech to congressional leaders from both the Democrats and Republicans.

She warned that fake news stories could lead to “real world consequences”, pointing out that a gunman had opened fire in the pizzeria that was caught up in the infamous ‘Pizzagate’ scandal- luckily no one was injured.

Pizzagate was a fake news story that circled the internet before the election that claimed that Clinton was running a child sex ring from a pizzeria in Washington DC. Of course it was totally fabricated but the story was shared online thousands of times and even made its way on the mainstream news networks.

Peter Geoghegan, writer for The Ferret, an investigative news website based in Scotland says to address fake news we must firstly understand what fake news is: “I think the blanket term ‘fake news’ needs to be unpicked, what qualifies as fake news or what does fake news mean? Is fake news content that is inaccurate? Is it content that is willfully inaccurate?

“Satire is fake news, if you read the Onion or the Daily Mash- what they are telling you is not true but what they are telling you is not trying to convince you of a truth. What I’m interested in is what does the state media mean when they talk about fake news?”

He adds: “I think it’s important for journalist to understand the differences between these things. Things like content that is factually inaccurate due to poor reporting, content that is consciously factually inaccurate in an attempt to increase readership -controversial things that people will want to read- and also content that is just plain political propaganda that serves a political purpose. I think a lot of what we saw in the American election would fall into the last category, politically motivated propaganda.”

A recent poll showed that 52 per cent of Republican voters believe Donald Trump won the public vote in the November election, when in reality he lost it by nearly three million. This is widely believed to be because fake news websites are spreading false information about the result. So how does the general public address fake news? How are they to differentiate between sources that are trustworthy and those who are not?

“I think it is really difficult, I grew up in an era where you had trusted news brands and sources and then you had a smaller

sub-set of non-trustworthy or farcical sources like the Daily Sport and the National Inquirer. They published what was quite clearly dubious content, it was clear to see what was a proper newspaper and what wasn’t” says Geoghegan.

“Now it is far more difficult for the general public to tell the difference. I’m just back from covering the American election and there is a huge number of fake news websites that look like proper publications -one being the The Detroit Times- you would click on these sites, see all the content and information and it looked like a reputable publication. So for people who aren’t well versed in this kind of thing it’s very difficult to tell what’s real and what is not”.

But why is it the general public are falling foul to fake news websites and how can it those producing online news content tackle the issue?

“I think part of the problem is that for too long journalists have been opaque as to how journalism is made, how it is produced, how it is sourced and for a lot of the general public the business of journalism is very much shrouded in mystery. So when they go onto a website like The Detroit Times, that’s just words on a screen, if they go onto the Washington Post that’s also just words on a screen and for a worryingly large portion of the general public there is no difference.

“For us in the media industry we can tell the difference quite easily and I think that is the job for journalists now to help the public understand the difference, to help them think critically and show them how journalism is produced. Help them realise when they click on these stories that there is no credible sources or when they go to click on the data there is nothing there.

“But that’s a much bigger job for the reader than that of traditional journalism, where someone would go to a trusted news source and have a reasonably high expectation that it was accurate.”

Many feel that part of the problem with the rise of fake news is Facebook.

Facebook is now one of the biggest publishers of news- along side Google and it is claimed that the social media website’s lack of action to tackle the issue could have sway the result in Donald Trump’s favour.

Mark Zuckerberg, head and founder of Facebook originally denied any wrong-doing, stating that “hoax” stories only made up around one percent of the websites content and could not sway the election one way or another.

However a recent study showed that around 6 in 10 Americans relied on Facebook for their news content and Zuckerberg has just announced that the company will now invest in a new fact checking organisations to help tackle fake news. So does this show that Zuckerberg is back-peddling?

“I think Zuckerberg can have his cake and eat it because he is so powerful.

He can fund these fact checking organisations because he has the money to do so once he realises there is a problem. But because Facebook is now one of the biggest publishers in the world -much bigger than the BBC or any newspaper- how he decides to showcase news is probably the biggest editorial decision in the world and it’s not being made by journalists and that’s very much part of the problem with fake news”.

And while these measures may be sufficient in curbing the torrent of fake news potentially being produced, it does little to address the numerous lies and deceptions that platforms such as Facebook have given audience to, and does nothing in the face of questions raised about why these deceptions. Leaving free reign to spread to spread this epidemic unchecked and unchallenged.

T

he streets of Britain are watched by four million electric eyes. Almost everywhere, every move of every citizen is constantly monitored. In a time where everything can be tracked, traced or otherwise be used to spy on an unsuspecting populace, it can seem difficult to avoid plummeting into an Orwellian existential crises.

To this end, those looking to break free of these incorporeal watchful eyes turn to the one place they can be sure no state has free domain; the internet.

The vast expanse of cyberspace is an attractive prospect to anyone looking to escape observance; the online world is one where the only identity a user is bound to is the one they create for themselves, where the only records kept are those agreed to willingly. The online word is one that answers to no patriarch or parliament, and commits to the law of no country. For better or for worse, the world routinely logged on is one free of traditional surveillance.

This online utopia may soon be a thing of the past.

The biggest threat comes in the form of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, more commonly known as the IP Bill, a controversial piece of legislation that became law on the 29 November. The law grants the government a sweeping range of surveillance powers; ranging from demanding that broadband providers keep so-called ‘internet records’ detailing sites visited by customers for up to year, to granting law enforcement agencies the ability to force companies such as Apple or Google to remove security on devices seized for investigation.

David Elston is a member and former Deputy Leader of the Pirate Party UK, an alternative political party that claims to “believe in putting digital rights, personal freedoms and holding government to account at the heart of politics where they belong.” In many respects the party seems to be microcosm of a particular subsection of the internet; proud to exist on the fringe and even prouder of the moniker of pirate, purposefully reclaimed here as a badge of honour by those who boast that they stand against an increasingly corrupt system.

As a member of party which dedicates itself to the pursuit of increased digital rights, it seems only fitting that he has some ill will toward the Bill; “We’ve been a loud and precise opposition to this bill for years since it was dreamt up in fact.

“Theresa May has been pushing this Bill for many years and it has consistently been knocked back. Back then we dubbed it the Snooper’s Charter and it has been described as “the zombie bill that just won’t die.”

live in a country that watches everyone, and one where we are treated like suspects, not citizens.”

To declare everyone a target seems at first seems hyperbolic, even dangerously close to attempting to stir up needless fear and panic. This would be true, if not for one of the Bill’s most controversial aspects, which concerns the holding of ‘internet records.’

The Bill states that internet providers, such as Sky, BT and Virgin must now keep records of sites visited by every customer, and must hold on to these records for at least a year. The Bill also contains a list of agencies that can access these records, which includes those one would expect; all of the UK’s major police forces, the Ministries of Justice and Defence – but it also includes seemingly unrelated agencies, as it gives entities such as the Gambling Commission and the Department of Health access to a wealth of personal information.

Also in direly ironic fashion, as David notes, the measures may make the data easier to access for cyber terrorists; “What the Bill will do is actually decrease security; it’s going to create a hacker’s paradise with all our information in one nicely collected space, potentially inviting even more attacks. It’s also massively impractical for our ISPs to store so much data, which could make them more vulnerable. There is also the possibility that these measures could end up actually increasing the price of getting online as ISPs struggle to create the resources to store all these records.”

Censorship of the internet is not a new concept, especially not from an international perspective; China has its own set of similar measures, which have been branded ‘the Great Firewall of China,’ the notoriously anti-free speech North Korea has even gone so far as to develop its own separate, locked-down version of the internet.

What is of note here is the scope and severity of the powers – several high profile layers claimed earlier in the year that the Bill would Britons the most spied on Western democracy in the world.

These are fears that David echoes; “Our legislation dwarfs similar measures in most countries, certainly those closest to us in Europe. Internationally speaking, we are already beginning to censor websites, like China does, only we’re doing with about as much accuracy as an email spam filter and we are seeing the bad effects; is it breaking the Internet.

Often completely innocent sites are being censored from view.

However now our government not only wants to inaccurately limit our access but wants to monitor the remaining access we have.”

“Regrettably, the Conservatives finally got a majority and were able to pass this bill on their own.”

David also states that these measures could have a wider political fallout, as other states and nations look at Britain now as a country seemingly willing to sacrifice personal freedoms for potentially ineffective security.

To describe the journey of the Bill to law as taking “many years,” while seemingly unbelievable, is in fact to honest truth; the story in fact begins in 2012, with a separate piece of legislation, known as the Draft Communications Data Bill. It was this Bill that was the first to earn the unfortunate nickname of the ‘Snooper’s Charter,’ and was only stopped on its way to become law by timely intervention by former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who withdrew support of his Liberal Democrats over concerns that the Bill would infringe on people’s privacy.

“Mass surveillance is, sadly, increasing globally, but when speaking with our international friends and allies, they see things like the extreme measures enacted with the IP Bill, or the fact that in this country, online piracy can carry the same prison sentence as manslaughter and they saddened and concerned. We have quickly lost our reputation of being a democratic and free nation to the rest of the world. Even the established political parties have no interest in restoring trust in democracy, as the bill was backed by both Labour and the Conservatives.

Despite these setbacks, May has been relentless in her championing of the Bill, which she describes as a necessity against ‘cyber terrorism.’ To David, this is but an excuse – and a hollow one at that;

“Our international allies see the measures as hugely disproportionate and inevitably conclude, as we have, that the powers granted would be ineffective against the supposed cyber terrorist threat.”

“This bill does absolutely nothing to solve cyber-terrorism, as those involved in such a thing would very much be able to take various precautions that would prevent their data being recorded accurately. The only data that would be accurate would be of the general and innocent public. The claim that this bill makes us safer is a claim that has been made without evidence - and it can be equally dismissed without evidence.”

And despite these glaring issues, these seemingly unavoidable flaws, the Bill has become law – the only additional provision added has ensured that the only group invisible to the gaze of these electronic eyes is MPs themselves. This would to all accounts spell the end of the internet’s golden age of anonymity as even the last great domain is slowly but surely lost to a sea of spying eyes.

To the Pirate Party and other likeminded individuals, this a common theme in the Bill; that rather than exist as a means to combat cyber terrorism or other internet based threats, it represents an almost conspiratorial move by the powers that be to gain further access into individual’s private dealings. As David articulates;

But David encourages citizens to stand against this.

“What the Bill actually does is that it increases the power of the surveillance state: it reduces our basic civil liberties, like the right to be forgotten. It also sets a very dangerous precedent; we now

“This is why I became a pirate – and I would urge others to do the same.”

“We can fight this bill in our daily lives, at all levels of government, by fighting for the principles of freedom of expression, and to keep demands for free speech and the end of mass surveillance at the core of our protests.

SHAW ROONEY

NEW MEDIA T

HE ALL consuming hunger for news and information will never be abated and as the world progresses and develops online so to must media and politics. One way in which both have become intwined in this battle to keep up with the break neck speeds of the digital evolution is through new media.

With the world usage of social media going up an average 10% every year and more prominently the rise of mobile phone users up 4% it is safe to say that the world is more connected and involved in every aspect of news than ever before.

One area in which the digital age has caused drastic changes is the political landscape and the way in which it is being reported on by the media, new media especially has gone from strength to strength. This is especially evident in British politics as online based outlets such as The Canary, Bella Caledonia and Common Space have blown up in readership due to their insight

into the political chaos in the United Kingdom in the last two years.

Speaking to Angela Haggerty the editor of Common Space we get an insight into the demanding and every changing world of online news and why it has become such a powerhouse in not only the political sector but media as a whole.

“Its access to a platform that people haven’t had before so in traditional media there was a clear line, social and online media has fundamentally changed the way in which we now absorb and interact with news” The recent big political debates and votes that have occurred in Britain over the last two years have created a nation more in touch and involved in the political sphere.

Publication like Common Space and Bella Caledonia have reaped the rewards of this new found general interest in areas such as the

independence referendum with Bella Caledonia readership going from 40,000 people daily to 500,000 a month hitting a million in the August just before the vote was cast. English based online publications such as The Canary also seen similar fruition due to the recent Brexit campaigns and outcome.

Life as an online presence is tough going and not without its highs and lows, those working online both politically and through news face scrutiny and examination unprecedented in any other form of media be that television, radio etc., this constant walking on eggshells has created a whole new style of communication, that of not rocking the boat and having your feet firmly planted in the middle.

“We try to keep our content very straight down the line and informative, we don’t back sides such as political parties. People don’t tend to back something that doesn’t exactly wave a flag for them and that is something that can hurt us.”

ON THE RISE The volatile nature of the internet means that some publication online revel in the staunch passion that is shown and others shy away from it in order to appeal to a wider audience and not to be pidgin holed by political agendas, yet still no amount of change in the approach to reporting can set up those online for the daunting task of leaving the shadow of the media giants.

“When your online your still on the sidelines right now and you’re waiting for the traditional outlets to pick it up because they still have this prestige associated with them” Another increasing worry is the shift in power from journalist to the very wealth platform owners like Facebooks Mark Zuckerburg who’s first interest is that of the profit that can be made rather than edifying journalism, the effect this can have on users through politically motivated stories and ideas that aren’t checked and secured through the algorithms that run sites like Facebook.

“There’s a big responsibility in tech and Facebook, Google, Twitter are going to have to

step up to that, they don’t want to be political but their platforms are having a political influence and they have to address that” This mudding of this the waters has led to a bond being felt at least from the public’s side towards celebrities, public figures but most of all politicians who have throughout history been accused of having a disconnect with the public. Yet this closeness brought on by having someone just a click away isn’t always beneficial to those in the news producing world as Angela points out:

“The idea that you feel close to your President, First Minister or Prime Minister because you can tweet them has a novelty feel that hasn’t quite worn off because it is new but people realise that journalist still serve a purpose in between that interaction” Changes are part and parcel of the journalism and political scene and this is never more evident than online with journalist constantly tweaking and refining their skills in order to keep up with

the digital world.

“The problem faced with reporting something like tweets is that people already have access to them so we aren’t seen as the messengers anymore, the role that should be played is for us to scrutinize what is being said which is part of our role as journalists” While the fate of new media might not wholeheartedly rest on the broad and restless shoulders of politics it has undoubtedly helped publications in Britain and Scotland especially get their foot into the door of the fortress of traditional media and with the increasing political unrest all around the world only gaining momentum year after year those in the know like Angela will have plenty to sink their teeth into and cut out a space for themselves on the creaking and crowded shelf that is multimedia journalism.

TRADEGY BECOMES FARCE NEIL DALLIMORE

A

partheid South Africa saw brutality and racism visited on black South Africans that was as calculated as it was heinous. Going beyond simple words, they were segregated, banned from interracial marriage, forcibly moved out of white areas and barred from voting. The current state of affairs in Palestine has subtle differences, but the Israeli government uses the same tactics for largely the same reason; separating Palestinians from Jewish people.

Palestinians are blocked by a wall from visiting relatives (long waits at checkpoints are a norm for simple journeys), from visiting doctors and hospitals for cancer treatments, denied work, water and even their food has been calculated and limited to the minimum calorific intake needed for an individual to survive.

Steadily Israel expands, condemned by the international community (with notable exceptions including the UK and US), by way of illegal settlements and life on the Gaza strip can mean three minute warnings to clear a blast zone that would require much longer before Israeli bombs fall. For South Africa a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement began and was adopted worldwide by communities that cut ties with South Africa in protest of the government’s treatment of its people: boycotting goods produced there, divesting from companies based there or with ties and sanctioning the government. Palestine also has this in common

with apartheid era South Africa, with a BDS effort in place worldwide and many activists in the UK. Like South Africa at that time, the Palestiniansupporting BDS movement is condemned by the British government.

Aside from drafting a law which bans publicly funded bodies from boycotting Israel in any way, current Prime Minister Theresa May told a conference of the Conservative Friends of Israel, to standing ovation, that the BDS movement was “wrong” and “unacceptable” and her government now intends to reshape anti-semitism laws to include any criticism of Israel. An observer needn’t look too closely to see the parallels to May’s counterpart, Margaret Thatcher, who similarly condemned the BDS movement against the South African government, while praising the regime.

Such tactics are all too familiar for activists like Mick Napier of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) who’s constantly fighting against accusations of anti-semitism as he campaigns for Palestinian rights.

“If you pass a law against something, it’s telling you that there’s a real problem.” says Mick, “You can’t fight against slavery or for women’s rights or against apartheid South Africa, without facing some degree of repression. We’re gratified that that Israel very worried about BDS and sees it as a strategic threat.”

In his small, blink and you’ll miss it, Edinburgh office off Rose Street, decorated with posters of

the BDS campaign (which he notes was begun

by Palestine society as a cry for help just like in South Africa) and of remembrances to tragedies in Palestine, Mick recounts the many times he has faced down court trials, all thrown out, on charges of racially aggravated conduct among others.

“Our [BDS activists] challenge now is to prove that we are consistent democrats. The procurator fiscal had five of us on trial.” Mick remembers, “One day in open court the procurator fiscal said ‘It is racist to say the words “end the siege on Gaza” it is racist to say the words “genocide in Gaza” and if you repeat it, even at a public demonstration, it is racist.’ The court just gasped and then the sheriff came back a week later and said ‘Ridiculous, throw this out.’”

Successes so far included the removal of water coolers by an Israeli Settler company, Eden Springs, from university campuses including Strathclyde and Glasgow; Scottish Minister John Swinney, after claims of damage to profits, granted two hundred thousand pounds of tax payer’s money to compensate Eden Springs, despite their public claims the BDS effort had no effect. A week of action for the movement just took place at the end of November, going mostly unnoticed in the mainstream media, and was important to raise the profile of the campaign according to one of its biggest Scottish supporters, West Dunbartonshire councillor Jim Bollan.

BDS AS THE VILLAIN “History tells us, looking at South Africa, that BDS works. “ says Jim “It’s important in Britain that we widen the net, because it’s having an effect, the Israeli government is feeling an effect.”

Jim Bollan stands tall within the movement in Scotland and within politics in general, being the only elected Scottish Socialist politician.

Unassuming in his jeans and fleece jacket, wearing his working-class accent and vernacular as proudly, Jim is at odds both in image and in actions with most all of his counterparts; where most councillors in West Dunbartonshire hold one or two surgeries a month for constituents, Bollan has twelve and has been asked by those he represents to forget retiring next election and has brought BDS to his council.

“We were the first local authority in Scotland to pass a BDS motion and we then followed that up when the Israelis boarded the peace ship and killed nine activists.” Jim says, remembering the Gaza flotilla raid of 2010, which was found to be “disproportionate” and “betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality” by the United Nations Human Rights Council, again describing the blockade of Gaza by Israel as illegal.

beyond combatting atrocities perpetrated on the Palestinians and addresses wider issues in the world.

“It’s one of the biggest issues in the world in how we deal with capitalism and neoliberalism and the grip it’s got on the world. I think Israel, backed by America, is one of the keys to attack capitalism to, if not destroy it, certainly disarm it.”

It’s a thought echoed by journalist Nathaniel Williams of Commonspace, a grassroots news site known for going against the grain of mainstream media reporting on the issues of BDS and Palestine. Initially skeptical of the movement, fearing more aggression by Israel in response, Nathaniel now supports economic levers.

“The situation has steadily declined so much for the Palestinians, in terms of what’s happening in the Gaza strip, especially after 2009, with the continued blockade and interference into West Bank politics, it’s an absolute imperative.” says Nathaniel. “The Israeli state, in the way it’s constituted, is the driver behind settlements, road blocks and persecution of Palestinians. In the absence of state pressure, to actually make the Israeli government consider a peace settlement The council passed a motion to condemn the and a viable Palestinian state, there has to be Israeli government and went on to set another first economic pressure.” for a council in Scotland by flying the Palestinian flag. And on the back of such successes a proFor all it’s efforts, the BDS movement might see Palestine group has been created and has taken less of an effect, not just through accusations of BDS to local businesses, including big stores anti-semitism, but because it is otherwise little like Asda and Morrisons, protesting the sale known by the wider public and with it’s success of Israeli goods. For Jim, the BDS efforts goes comes a sober realism from those involved in the

movement.

“In the bigger wider political picture, the levels of poverty and unemployment and class distinctions, people are fighting to survive on a daily basis in their own family network.” Jim says of attempts to educate and recruit, “They’ve not got the time or energy or wherewithal to get involved in campaigns, which the media portray as being away across the other side of the world and don’t affect us.”

Such limitations are accepted readily by Mick Napier. “Our campaign is a small campaign, a few hundred people, so we don’t aim for the general public.” Mick admits, “In Edinburgh, city of half a million, if we were to get one person in a thousand to join us, we’d have five hundred people here; it’s not going to happen. Anybody who starts off aiming for the general public is going to break their teeth, they’ll be demoralised.”

Noting the small numbers achievable at any given time, Jim Bollan is optimistic and philosophical in his outlook, using the example of a Marks & Spencer’s store and convincing one person in a thousand not to shop there because it sells Israeli goods.

“I focus on what I can change. That’s what the BDS movement is. If we can convince one person?

That’s a victory! People are disillusioned because they feel powerless, but as individuals we can make change happen and we can do it in the BDS movement.”

GIRL POWER How two Scottish feminist organisations are fighting for political gender equality

H

illary Clinton conceding the US presidential election to Donald Trump is a political moment, along with many others, that is very memorable. Despite not becoming the first female president, there was determination in her voice that someday, someone will. She urged people, young women and little girls alike, not to be despondent and to still aim high, in all aspects of their lives.

Breaking this highest glass ceiling is what will contribute to ending inequality and sexism, particularly in politics. But until then and from a Scottish perspective, what is being done to encourage women to aim high in politics? And why are female politicians not as advanced in terms of equality as we thought?

Women have come a long way since being given the right to vote in 1918, as a result of political protesting for women’s suffrage.

The electoral successes range from Margaret Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister, taking office in May 1979, Theresa May the second female Prime Minister, taking office in July 2016 and the current three out of five main political parties in Scotland run by women: the SNP led by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Conservatives led by Ruth Davidson and Scottish Labour led by Kezia Dugdale. These are significant moments for women to be inspired by. But more could still be done.

Engender is a feminist organisation in Scotland fighting for men and women to have equal opportunities on life, across a broad spectrum of areas including political, economic, social and cultural equality. Their work includes producing reports, running events, lobbying the government and other decision makers, and collaborating with other women’s organisations on projects.

They want to end the centuries-old stereotyping and gender bias towards women that includes the assumption that women are less politically able than men.

The team behind their work campaign tirelessly for gender parity in Scotland, including Ceris Aston, Communications and Administrative Assistant at Engender. She is responsible for the online communications side of the organisation as well as dealing with their membership systems. Aston thinks that the current situation faced by female MSPs is unrepresentative. She says that “while it is fantastic to see the main parties in Scotland led by women” it is still not enough.

“Once again a Holyrood election left us with still only around 35% of women MSPs, and no women of colour as MSPs, while the picture at a local council level is even worse. This is undemocratic and bad for gender equality,” says Aston.

It is important that the Scottish Parliament is encouraging more diverse representation. Aston says that the government and all of the political parties need to “introduce effective measures to redress the overrepresentation of men in parliament”. She mentions Engender’s report ‘Equal Voice Equal Power: the case for gender quotas in Scotland’, which emphasises the need for electoral law to

KIRSTY MORRISON be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which would be followed by the setting of gender quotas for public boards at 50%.

The US election results could be seen as a setback to women’s political progress towards gender equality. Hillary Clinton being defeated by Donald Trump, who was repeatedly called a misogynist, sexist and racist during the political campaign could be seen as a deterrent in female political advancement. Trump notoriously revealed his plans to build a wall along the US-Mexican border to stop illegal immigrants from entering the US. And who can forget the recent Access Hollywood video showing the president-elect making lewd and inappropriate comments about women.

Aston and Engender think that sexism and misogyny becoming more politically mainstream is linked to centuries-old behaviour.

“We are dismayed that a man who has shown such disregard for women is now the president-elect. There’s no doubt that gender played a big part in the election, with sexism and misogyny becoming part of the mainstream political and media rhetoric in a way that seemed to take us back a century earlier,” she says.

This dismay is echoed by another feminist organisation. YWCA Scotland is the Young Women’s Movement and is part of a global movement of women campaigning for change. Through projects and resources, they offer tools to get involved and for women’s voices to be represented at all levels of decision making. Jemma Tracey is Digital Media Officer at the organisation, responsible for the social media and organisational aspects. Both Tracey and her colleague Caroline Crawford, Enterprise and Engagement Officer, whose role involves stakeholder development and engaging young women in the movement, are obviously disappointed in the election result. They say that having Clinton elected along with other women as leaders “would have set an exciting precedent for young women”. This would have perhaps spurred more women on to enter politics.

On the other hand, Tracey and Crawford do not think the US election results will directly impact female representation in Scottish politics. In YWCA Scotland’s ‘Status of Young Women in Scotland’ report, it was revealed that lack of representation leads to young women feeling discouraged from entering politics, citing examples of sexism, personal attacks and being scrutinised.

However, Tracey and Crawford also share similar views to Aston and Engender in that Scotland should be uplifted by the fact that three out of the five main political parties are led by women.

“We feel that Scotland, in this respect, is a positive role model.

However, we need to take strides towards more diverse representation of women in politics,” says Tracey and Crawford.

No one can be entirely sure what the future holds for female politicians in Scotland. But destroying the gender stereotyping and the unfair treatment women experience on a daily basis is what will contribute to a fairer and more representative society.

W

ORLDWIDE demonstrations are being carried out in support of civil disobedience action in Sudan.

Members of the Sudanese community in Glasgow have come together with help from The Unity Centre to hold demonstrations in the city centre on the Buchanan Street steps.

Ahmed Almokashfy from Sudan graduated from the University of Khartoum in 2007 and moved to Glasgow three years ago. He was also a member of the Sudanese Communist Party. He said: “There will be civil disobedience action against the austerity measures in Khartoum on December 18th this it will be the second one.”

Similar support has been seen outside of Glasgow in countries internationally. Almokashfy explains: “This is a movement from Sudanese people all over the world supporting the civil disobedience. The movement has spread widely all over the world. The

people in Scotland are helpful and here in Glasgow, we have a big support from The Unity Centre.”

Thousands of people in Sudan took part in the civil disobedience days that ran from the 27th to the 29th of November with the next one planned to take place next week.

This action comes in response cuts to fuel and electricity subsidies by the government which will cause the cost of living for Sudanese people rise dramatically.

These cuts were planned to help tackle the country’s fiscal deficit which has grown even further after South Sudan gained independence and took most of the country’s oil revenue with it.

There were streets in Sudan's capital Khartoum left looking empty after last month’s days of civil disobedience and despite attempts from the government to ensure that there was no media reporting on the action, activists say that the movement is only going to gain more traction.

TRUMPED UP...

SOCIAL MEDIA is on the rise in the political landscape and politicians are wising up to it.

This is has never been more pertinent than in US Presidential race of 2016.

Professor David McGillivray, who is the Chair in Event and Digital Cultures, School of Media, Culture and Society at UWS discusses Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s pivotal use of Twitter and Facebook in the battle for the White House.

Speaking on the influence that social media has had on the election and its progression from the fringes of broadcast into the main sphere of media, Professor McGillivray commented: “Social media is inseparable to how politicians go about campaigning, this is the first time that social media has become the medium of choice for politicians furthering their goals” Therefore implementing that social media as a whole is becoming a powerhouse in the political agenda.

Donald Trump has been a controversial figure ever since he announced his intentions to become the Republican candidate in the election, his head on and in your face personality has raised many political and public eyebrows but Professor McGillivray says there is method to the madness.

McGillivray said: “Donald Trump is extremely successful at using social media whether we agreed with the comments that he makes is almost irrelevant because what he has done is create a whole lot of noise” He added: “So he can talk about a variety of issues such as gun control and immigration and

SHAW ROONEY

fit them all into one tweet and it generates a huge amount of activity from that” Trumps dominance in the social media battlefield has been evident from the start, as his personal touch to his tweets has shown Hillary Clinton’s tweets to seem cold and strategic in response.

The simple fact that Mr Trump now has more traditional outlets of media such as T.V structuring their political debates around his tweets shows the power behind the online politician and what having a platform to speak from 24/7 has done to the relationship between the voters and candidates.

Yet what is evident from the Twitter battle between Trump and Clinton is that as Professor McGillivray points out both candidates realise the importance of the publics interaction online: “Both candidates have realised that social media is the most influential place to camping and that is a massive change from five years ago to go from the secondary to the primary space” The debate will rage on for many years to come on just how Donald Trump managed to pull off the biggest political upset in American history but the idea of social media and an online presence at the heart of it all seemed so far fetched when the campaigns slowly gained traction almost three years ago.

Yet looking back on Trumps meteoric rise to the hottest seat in the free world it is evident that some Twitter know-how might just have one a celebrity the golden ticket.

President-elect Donald Trump should be a different president from the candidate he was during the US election campaign, according to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

diplomatic statement and I think a lot of us were deeply concerned and continued to be deeply concerned by the behaviour of the presidentelect.”

Speaking during First Minister’s Questions on 10 November, Sturgeon emphasised that he should also aim to connect more with the people who felt victimised by his campaign rhetoric.

During the presidential campaign, Trump was notorious for using his platform to make controversial statements.

Ms Sturgeon said: “It is important today that…we hope that president-elect Trump turns out to be a president who is very different from the kind of candidate that he was and that he reaches out to those who felt vilified by his campaign.”

The First Minister found Trump’s comments to be “deeply abhorrent” and made clear her refusal to be silent in the face of these attitudes.

She also reinforced the importance of people who believe in a fairer society to let their voices be heard amid attitudes of intolerance. “…I am not ever prepared to be a politician who maintains a diplomatic silence in the face of attitudes of racism, sexism, misogyny or intolerance of any kind,” said Ms Sturgeon.

“People of progressive opinion the world over have to stand up for those values of tolerance and respect for diversity and difference,” she added.

The First Minister’s statements were called “very diplomatic” by a professor at the University of Strathclyde.

He wants to build a wall along the US-Mexican border to ban immigrants from entering the US and has called Mexicans ‘drug dealers’ and ‘rapists’, among other controversies.

The professor added that he hopes the president-elect has “a change of tone and a change of course” and is willing to be more professional and presidential.

He said: “It’s one thing to be a different sort of a president. It’s another thing to behave in an erratic way that I believe can have damaging security implications for the United States and indeed the rest of the world.

“He needs to stop targeting people who disagree with him on political stances with personal insults and to understand that policy-making takes a lot of compromise and discussion even though his party holds the majorities in the legislature,” added Professor Scotto.

Trump won the election by 290 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 electoral votes.

A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidential election.

Professor Thomas Scotto, Professor of Government and Politics, said: “I think it’s a very

KIRSTY MORRISON

...TAKEN DOWN

FOR MORE ON THESE STORIES

“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.�

thomas jefferson