(Response to Sue Alexander's email on 10th June as appeared on the Belfast Telegraph website)
Victim blaming (that is, proportioning blame on to the victim of a crime rather than blaming the perpetrator) is coming up again and again in the recent discourse surrounding rape.
Victim blaming is an attempt to place blame for the crime (in particular in a case of rape) on the victim rather than blaming the perpetrator. This happens in ways such as telling women they should not consume too much alcohol, by telling women they should not walk home alone at night (which doesn't make sense, as statistically most rapes are committed by a person known to the victim), by telling women how they should and should not dress and that this is a responsibility of theirs in order not to attract unwanted attention.
Women should never carry any blame or be made to feel in any way responsible for what is a hideous, terrible thing to happen to someone, and the only person who is at fault in a situation of rape is the rapist, never the victim. We need to keep repeating this. You shouldn't have to teach your daughters how to minimalise risks to themselves- we should be teaching our sons not to rape.
Aisling Gallagher
NUS-USI Women's Officer
Monday, 10 June 2013
It's time to put consent on the curriculum.
Tomorrow there will be a vote on an amendment to the Children & Families Bill to include Sex & Relationship Education in the national curriculum. If the amendment is carried, it will go into the bill.
Women's Aid and Brook are supporting the amendment, and are urging people to contact their MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to ensure that it passes.
Why is it so important?
Currently, sex education is compulsory on the national curriculum, but it focuses primarily on the mechanics and biological aspects of sex, as well as focusing on good sexual health. This amendment "puts the R into sex education" - families can and do play a key role in educating children, but high quality sex education delivered to both boys and girls is a vital tool in empowering young people to overcome societal and cultural pressures around sex education and consent. Sex education isn't just about the biology of sex- it is important that young people learn about the societal aspects of sex and sex in relationships, and particularly about consent.
The programme of sex education delivered in schools should be grounded in a zero tolerance approach to violence against women and girls. By including this amendment in the overall bill, it ensures that schools will be given the resources and materials necessary to adequately equip teachers to carry out the education effectively.
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Stella Creasy said that it is essential we teach children about consent- there have been repeated calls for it and still nothing has been done. It's important not only for young people to know about the biological aspect of sex, but to respect one another and have healthy relationships. Essentially, it's time to put consent on the curriculum.
My experience of sex education is probably quite different to that of young people in England and Wales- and unfortunately this bill doesn't extend to Northern Ireland. However, I believe it's essential that we should be pushing MPs to vote for the amendment, regardless of whether or not it affects our own constituency.
The sex education in Northern Ireland is unsurprisingly strongly influenced by the highly conservative, anti-women, anti-LGBT culture we live in. I didn't receive any sex education. Instead, we had 'social education', where at the age of 12 we awkwardly were talked to about periods and where babies come from. I went to an all girls Catholic school- the most adequate education I received about contraception was in my GCSE Biology class (and when my friend first told me about the implant, I thought she was making it up- which is funny now, but at the age of 15 or 16 with the little education I got, it probably isn't that uncommon amongst students in Catholic schools).
This bill won't cover Northern Ireland, which is already a good few steps behind the UK on a number of important issues, but it will introduce the issue of consent into schools in England and Wales and this is a massive, much-needed step forward. It means that, eventually, a similar kind of thing will be introduced into Northern Ireland, despite the fact that it will probably not be for many years.
You can search for your MP here, and contact them ahead of the vote on the amendment tomorrow. It's time to put consent on the curriculum, and tomorrow is an opportunity to do just that.
Monday, 3 June 2013
Special Advisers Bill
NB: This is a personal blog, and I speak about this bill as an individual. I'm not speaking for the Labour Party, nor am I speaking for the SDLP or NUS-USI. I'm speaking as myself, and will be held account as an individual. If you have any problems or concerns with what I have said, talk to me about them- not my political parties. These words do not reflect any political party nor political organisation.
PDF of the final Bill: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Legislation/Bills/Non-Executive%20Bills/Session-2011-12/Civil%20Service%20(Special%20Advisers)%20Bill.pdf
Copy of the Belfast Agreement: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm#rights
The Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill is causing a lot of controversy. In the last fortnight we've seen a lot of immature, childish, and pretty libellous things said about parties and individuals on both sides of the debate. This is a debate that needs to be had with great sensitivity and respect. We're talking about the lives of innocent people who have died during a period of intense conflict- essentially, it was a war.
The Bill stipulates for the appointed "special adviser not to have serious criminal conviction", which means a conviction for which "a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more was imposed" or "a sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed" and applies "whether the person was convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, was convicted before or after the coming into operation of this Act".
"The Department must issue a code governing the appointment of special advisers within 3 months of this section coming into operation" and "the appointment of special advisers must be subject to the same vetting procedures as the appointment of Senior Civil Servants to the Northern Ireland Civil Service".
A number of amendments were proposed by Dominic Bradley & Alban Maginness- all of which were rejected by Jim Allister, the proposer of the bill. Unsurprisingly.
The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 stipulates that "the parties affirm their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community... the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations, the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means... the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity... the right of women to full and equal political participation".
"The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence". "An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society".
If we had a Bill of Rights, like we're supposed to, this Bill wouldn't hold up. Criminal convictions do play a part in some jobs, such as teaching, medicine, etc. And *mostly*, I can see why (though the fact that criminal convictions play a part in whether or not you can work in a certain sector opens up another argument to the validity of the convictions and the processes surrounding them- which is another important argument to have, not not one I'm trying to have here).
But the peace process (if you can call it that) wouldn't have happened if we didn't have political prisoners on side, if they were not sitting at the negotiating table and actively working to end their campaigns of armed resistance. It wouldn't have happened, period. There are many weaknesses to the Good Friday Agreement, but the fact that it actually happened remains a strength.
To shut out those with criminal convictions from becoming special advisers is not fair. We elect them. We work alongside them. If we're going to open the special advisers can of worms, then why don't we focus on their huge salary? Why don't we focus on the fact it is more often than not 'jobs for the boys', rather than the appointment of an expert in the field? To me, that is more concerning. I'd have no problem with a special adviser having had a criminal conviction if they actually knew what they were talking about when they took up the post- many don't, and that's a huge problem that seems to be too often ignored. We seem intent to shut out those with criminal convictions but ignore the fact that so many of those employed (with and without criminal convictions) are in no way qualified for the job. That's the most important issue, to me.
If we had an adequate programme of reconciliation, victims would feel as though their losses have been acknowledged. Recognised and apologised for. And we haven't done that yet. The reason that emotions are running so high amidst this Bill is because we have no process of reconciliation, we have not acknowledged the hurts of the past and it doesn't look like the current Executive in Stormont are getting any further in any kind of strategy. This is a huge problem. And again, the Bill has overtaken this issue as seemingly a more important one.
It's a plaster covering a wound that needs properly dressed and a much bigger bandage than the one currently being offered. It'll help for a bit, but in the end, will prove futile in both the reconciliation process and any kind of attempt to foster a tolerant and just society.
PDF of the final Bill: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Legislation/Bills/Non-Executive%20Bills/Session-2011-12/Civil%20Service%20(Special%20Advisers)%20Bill.pdf
Copy of the Belfast Agreement: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm#rights
The Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill is causing a lot of controversy. In the last fortnight we've seen a lot of immature, childish, and pretty libellous things said about parties and individuals on both sides of the debate. This is a debate that needs to be had with great sensitivity and respect. We're talking about the lives of innocent people who have died during a period of intense conflict- essentially, it was a war.
The Bill stipulates for the appointed "special adviser not to have serious criminal conviction", which means a conviction for which "a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more was imposed" or "a sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed" and applies "whether the person was convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, was convicted before or after the coming into operation of this Act".
"The Department must issue a code governing the appointment of special advisers within 3 months of this section coming into operation" and "the appointment of special advisers must be subject to the same vetting procedures as the appointment of Senior Civil Servants to the Northern Ireland Civil Service".
A number of amendments were proposed by Dominic Bradley & Alban Maginness- all of which were rejected by Jim Allister, the proposer of the bill. Unsurprisingly.
The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 stipulates that "the parties affirm their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community... the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations, the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means... the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity... the right of women to full and equal political participation".
"The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence". "An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society".
If we had a Bill of Rights, like we're supposed to, this Bill wouldn't hold up. Criminal convictions do play a part in some jobs, such as teaching, medicine, etc. And *mostly*, I can see why (though the fact that criminal convictions play a part in whether or not you can work in a certain sector opens up another argument to the validity of the convictions and the processes surrounding them- which is another important argument to have, not not one I'm trying to have here).
But the peace process (if you can call it that) wouldn't have happened if we didn't have political prisoners on side, if they were not sitting at the negotiating table and actively working to end their campaigns of armed resistance. It wouldn't have happened, period. There are many weaknesses to the Good Friday Agreement, but the fact that it actually happened remains a strength.
To shut out those with criminal convictions from becoming special advisers is not fair. We elect them. We work alongside them. If we're going to open the special advisers can of worms, then why don't we focus on their huge salary? Why don't we focus on the fact it is more often than not 'jobs for the boys', rather than the appointment of an expert in the field? To me, that is more concerning. I'd have no problem with a special adviser having had a criminal conviction if they actually knew what they were talking about when they took up the post- many don't, and that's a huge problem that seems to be too often ignored. We seem intent to shut out those with criminal convictions but ignore the fact that so many of those employed (with and without criminal convictions) are in no way qualified for the job. That's the most important issue, to me.
If we had an adequate programme of reconciliation, victims would feel as though their losses have been acknowledged. Recognised and apologised for. And we haven't done that yet. The reason that emotions are running so high amidst this Bill is because we have no process of reconciliation, we have not acknowledged the hurts of the past and it doesn't look like the current Executive in Stormont are getting any further in any kind of strategy. This is a huge problem. And again, the Bill has overtaken this issue as seemingly a more important one.
It's a plaster covering a wound that needs properly dressed and a much bigger bandage than the one currently being offered. It'll help for a bit, but in the end, will prove futile in both the reconciliation process and any kind of attempt to foster a tolerant and just society.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Conference-gate; what next?
In March, I was thrown out of USI Congress by my union delegation (Queen's University Students' Union) for voting in a few that contradicted my students' union policy. I wrote about it at the time, and if you're reading this having not heard about what's happened, I'd advise you to read it only so we're on a similar page for the rest of the post.
When we got back, there was some clarity needed on how I was going to be 'punished'. Again, I wrote about it at the time, and again, I'd recommend you read that post before reading the rest of this.
Last night, the President of QUBSU proposed two motions at the Annual Business Meeting of QUBSU Council (our last meeting of the academic year) to ban me from standing as a QUBSU delegate for national conferences. One would ban me for standing next year, and the second, for the following year (amusingly, I'll have left university by then, but no matter).
The vote was cast by secret ballot, with the President and I both given the chance to make two statements each. No one else was allowed to speak on the proposed motion.
The QUBSU Council voted down the motion to ban me for the year 2014/2015 (29 votes against, 24 votes in favour) and voted in favour of the motion to ban me for the year 2013/2014 (31 votes in favour, 23 votes against). They've told me that I now cannot stand as a QUBSU national conference delegate for next year.
They can't do this.
In our union's constitution, it stipulates that delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus ballot as in the Council elections (page 38). It also states that any student may offer themselves as a candidate in any Executive Management Committee Election provided that they complete a Nomination Form and return it in person to the Returning Officer before the close of nominations for the Executive Management Committee Election (page 35). The elections for conference delegations are held in a similar way to elections for Council and elections for the Executive Management Committee (ie, the sabbatical officers).
10. CONFERENCE DELEGATION ELECTIONS
National Union of Students (NUS) and Union of Students in Ireland (USI)
10.1 Delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus
ballot as in the Council Elections.
10.2 One delegate to NUS Conference and two delegates to USI Congress may be
appointed ex-officio.
10.3 All Election materials shall be regulated as in the Council Elections (see Rule 2,
Section 7).
10.4 Nomination Forms shall be of similar format to those used in Executive Management
Committee Elections and must be accompanied with a deposit of £40, which will be
refunded after attendance at Conference. (2007 is the base year for this amount
which will increase annually by the rate of RPI).
10.5 The Returning Officer shall post on authorised noticeboards at least 14 days before
the date on which the Delegation Election is to be held a notice declaring:-
10.5.1 the number of delegates to be elected;
10.5.2 the dates and times for closure of nominations;
10.5.3 the dates and times of polling.
10.6 Nominations shall close on the eighth day before the date on which the relevant
Election is to be held.
The equality and diversity policy of the union (page 77) states that the SU seeks to provide equality to all, irrespective of political opinion, and that the policy applies to all members of the students' union. There is also a mention of a complaints procedure (but nothing saying what it actually is) for those who feel that they have suffered any form of discrimination through the use of the union's representation services (page 79). Rule 4, Appendix 1 of the constitution stipulates that elected student officers (ie. the President and the other sabbaticals) shall be bound by the University’s Student Conduct Regulations, the Equality and Diversity Statement and other Equality Policies of the University and Students’ Union (page 50).
Secondly, there is no process in the constitution to punish someone for voting against live policy at national conferences. No process. No mention of it. And considering it takes a special meeting and a 2/3 majority of student councillors or EMC members to remove an elected officer from their position (page 54), the move taken last night was unfounded, without precedent, and unconstitutional.
To sum up, the constitution of QUBSU, and in particular:
1. The combination of Rule 2 10.8 (which says that delegate elections will be held in the same manner as elections for the Executive Management Committee(; Rule 2 10.4 (which says that nominations for delegate elections are like those for EMC); and Rule 2 9.6.1 (which says that anyone can run in an election for EMC);
2. Chapter 1 8.2 (which says that the government of the union shall be based on the democratic principle that every ordinary member shall have the fullest opportunity to participate in union affairs);
3. Rule 10 2.2.4 (which says that political belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality & Diversity Policy;
4. Chapter 1 3.2, 3.9.2 & 3.9.4 (which states the aims of QUBSU as supporting equality of opportunity, freedom to participate in union elections, and the freedom of expression);
they had no grounds to do what they did, and I'll be happily handing in my nomination forms next year when nominations open for delegate elections to national conferences.
When we got back, there was some clarity needed on how I was going to be 'punished'. Again, I wrote about it at the time, and again, I'd recommend you read that post before reading the rest of this.
Last night, the President of QUBSU proposed two motions at the Annual Business Meeting of QUBSU Council (our last meeting of the academic year) to ban me from standing as a QUBSU delegate for national conferences. One would ban me for standing next year, and the second, for the following year (amusingly, I'll have left university by then, but no matter).
The vote was cast by secret ballot, with the President and I both given the chance to make two statements each. No one else was allowed to speak on the proposed motion.
The QUBSU Council voted down the motion to ban me for the year 2014/2015 (29 votes against, 24 votes in favour) and voted in favour of the motion to ban me for the year 2013/2014 (31 votes in favour, 23 votes against). They've told me that I now cannot stand as a QUBSU national conference delegate for next year.
They can't do this.
In our union's constitution, it stipulates that delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus ballot as in the Council elections (page 38). It also states that any student may offer themselves as a candidate in any Executive Management Committee Election provided that they complete a Nomination Form and return it in person to the Returning Officer before the close of nominations for the Executive Management Committee Election (page 35). The elections for conference delegations are held in a similar way to elections for Council and elections for the Executive Management Committee (ie, the sabbatical officers).
10. CONFERENCE DELEGATION ELECTIONS
National Union of Students (NUS) and Union of Students in Ireland (USI)
10.1 Delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus
ballot as in the Council Elections.
10.2 One delegate to NUS Conference and two delegates to USI Congress may be
appointed ex-officio.
10.3 All Election materials shall be regulated as in the Council Elections (see Rule 2,
Section 7).
10.4 Nomination Forms shall be of similar format to those used in Executive Management
Committee Elections and must be accompanied with a deposit of £40, which will be
refunded after attendance at Conference. (2007 is the base year for this amount
which will increase annually by the rate of RPI).
10.5 The Returning Officer shall post on authorised noticeboards at least 14 days before
the date on which the Delegation Election is to be held a notice declaring:-
10.5.1 the number of delegates to be elected;
10.5.2 the dates and times for closure of nominations;
10.5.3 the dates and times of polling.
10.6 Nominations shall close on the eighth day before the date on which the relevant
Election is to be held.
The equality and diversity policy of the union (page 77) states that the SU seeks to provide equality to all, irrespective of political opinion, and that the policy applies to all members of the students' union. There is also a mention of a complaints procedure (but nothing saying what it actually is) for those who feel that they have suffered any form of discrimination through the use of the union's representation services (page 79). Rule 4, Appendix 1 of the constitution stipulates that elected student officers (ie. the President and the other sabbaticals) shall be bound by the University’s Student Conduct Regulations, the Equality and Diversity Statement and other Equality Policies of the University and Students’ Union (page 50).
Secondly, there is no process in the constitution to punish someone for voting against live policy at national conferences. No process. No mention of it. And considering it takes a special meeting and a 2/3 majority of student councillors or EMC members to remove an elected officer from their position (page 54), the move taken last night was unfounded, without precedent, and unconstitutional.
To sum up, the constitution of QUBSU, and in particular:
1. The combination of Rule 2 10.8 (which says that delegate elections will be held in the same manner as elections for the Executive Management Committee(; Rule 2 10.4 (which says that nominations for delegate elections are like those for EMC); and Rule 2 9.6.1 (which says that anyone can run in an election for EMC);
2. Chapter 1 8.2 (which says that the government of the union shall be based on the democratic principle that every ordinary member shall have the fullest opportunity to participate in union affairs);
3. Rule 10 2.2.4 (which says that political belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality & Diversity Policy;
4. Chapter 1 3.2, 3.9.2 & 3.9.4 (which states the aims of QUBSU as supporting equality of opportunity, freedom to participate in union elections, and the freedom of expression);
they had no grounds to do what they did, and I'll be happily handing in my nomination forms next year when nominations open for delegate elections to national conferences.
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Congress-gate..
About a month ago, I was thrown out of USI Congress. I've written about the specific details over what happened (which are quite important to read beforehand so you have an idea of what's going on!) on another blog post here.
Anyway, since I've been home, a number of things have happened. Firstly, the EMC of QUBSU (made up of sabbatical officers and union management) asked me to go to a meeting to decide what would happen to me, essentially. They'd been telling the press and anyone who asked that QUBSU Council would 'decide my punishment', but then tried to change their minds. Below are the emails that were sent:
Anyway, since I've been home, a number of things have happened. Firstly, the EMC of QUBSU (made up of sabbatical officers and union management) asked me to go to a meeting to decide what would happen to me, essentially. They'd been telling the press and anyone who asked that QUBSU Council would 'decide my punishment', but then tried to change their minds. Below are the emails that were sent:
"CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Aisling,
A Special Meeting of the Executive Management Committee is to be convened to consider the recent events at the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) Congress.
I have been asked to ascertain whether or not you would be available to attend such a meeting at some point between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Friday 26 April 2013.
If the above scheduling is unsuitable, can you please indicate those dates and times when you would be available during the week beginning Monday 29 April 2013?
Regards..."
Hi,
I'm a little confused. Why am I being asked to go to a meeting with only the executive rather than in front of council?
Thanks
Aisling
"Hi Aisling,
The Executive Management Committee will consider the matter initially.
If that Committee takes a decision that you wish to appeal, the Council will consider your appeal and make a final determination.
Best wishes..."
I then said that going a meeting where the people who decided to throw me out would decide my punishment was beyond ridiculous and undemocratic.
"Hi Aisling,
If you are invited to attend a Special Meeting of EMC to consider this matter and you choose not to attend, this is your right but the meeting is likely to proceed in your absence.
If you are unhappy with any decision that is taken at this Special Meeting, you may appeal to the Council.
I would strongly recommend that you take advantage of all of the possible opportunities to put your side of things but, ultimately, this will be a matter for yourself to decide.
Best wishes..."
"Hi Dominic,
I've gone away and thought about some stuff and I'd like to know in advance before the meeting:
- A copy of the written procedures governing this and how a session like this should be run
- Whether they're planning to run the session with the sabbs who took the original decision participating (other than as witnesses), seeing as they're the ones who took the decision in the first place
- A specific wording of charges I'm specifically being asked to answer or offence I'm being asked to respond to
- Who will be participating on EMC
- If something were to be brought to a disciplinary committee or appeal within the university, then a book of evidence, containing details of all relevant evidence and procedures, has to be provided to the student and all members of the panel - everyone should get the same material, so I think it is reasonable to request this.
Cheers,
Aisling"
He then said he'd forward on my comments to the union president (sent on 18th April).
On 26th April, I received this:
"Dear Aisling,
I have been asked to inform you that, after due deliberations, the Executive Management Committee has decided to refer this matter directly to Council to be discussed at the Annual Business Meeting on Tuesday 7 May 2013.
The Council will be asked to consider the following propositions:
On Monday 25 March 2013, at the Annual Congress of the Union of Students’ In Ireland, Aisling Gallagher, acting solely in her capacity as a delegate of Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union, cast a vote that opposed live Queen’s Students’ Union policy when voting on a motion entitled “Engaging with the Abortion Rights Campaign”.
On Tuesday 26 March 2013, at the Annual Congress of the Union of Students’ In Ireland, Aisling Gallagher, acting solely in her capacity as a delegate of Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union, cast a vote that opposed live Queen’s Students’ Union policy when voting on a motion entitled “Crisis Pregnancy Agencies”.
At Council the Union President will outline the case against you. You will then have the opportunity to state your case. Following this there will be another opportunity for both you and the Union President to speak on this matter. Subsequent to this Council will be given two motions to vote on, detailing potential sanctions for your actions. The two options will be as follows:
1. To bar you from attending any conference organised by a national union as a QUB SU delegate for the 2013/14 Academic Year.
2. To bar you from attending any conference organised by a national union as a QUB SU delegate for the 2014/15 Academic Year.
We feel that it would be inappropriate for Council to take a decision in relation to your deposit for attending USI Congress. You can therefore collect this from the general office on the 2nd floor of the SU at your convenience.
If you seek any further guidance please get in touch.
Regards..."
So, essentially, QUBSU Council gets to vote on whether or not I'm to be banned from going to any more conferences (amusingly, next year will be the last year of my degree- but it appears they think I'm planning to stay on once I'm done).
Thing is, can they actually do this? There's nothing in the constitution about this (or about any of the mandate stuff that caused the problem, either), and I don't exactly see how they can stop students standing in elections to be delegates. I mean, regardless of whether the motions pass or fail, I don't see how they can just DO this.. and it seems a lot of other QUBSU students don't understand it either.
The meeting will take place in the Space in QUBSU at 6pm on Tuesday 7th May (as far as I'm aware), so any support in the form of people coming to the meeting would be great (and there's free pizza, too).
The thing that gets me is that they're bringing up rules that are literally pulled from thin air. Plus, I already spent three days of a conference in a hotel room following the twitter feed when I should've been on Congress floor representing the students who sent me there- isn't that punishment enough?
Thursday, 18 April 2013
A lot of Thoughts.
This will not be an easy post to write. I have some music playing in the background, and a glass of wine beside me. I can already feel my eyes tearing up. Mostly because I've never told anyone this before, and I never thought much about it until recently.
I didn't think about it again until recently because I never thought it was odd. Or rather, I didn't see any significance in it, if that makes sense. I'm finding it difficult to get words out, they are in a mixed up mess with a lot of feelings and thoughts and I'm not quite sure how to talk about this, or where to start.
When I was about 7, I wanted to be a boy.
It feels very strange to have those words staring up at me. I have thought and thought and thought about them in the past few weeks, but I haven't said them. I wanted to be a boy. My friends were boys, I played with boys at break time, I liked the girls I was friends with, but I identified with the boys more. And so I told my friends I was deciding to be a boy. And told them to call me Ash instead of Aisling. And thought this wasn't unreasonable at all.
And of course, in a typical seven-year-old way, nobody else thought this was the most normal thing in the world (I've never directly talked to my parents about this sort of stuff, but I know that they have been instrumental in me becoming who I am. Although this sort of thing I find difficult to talk about with anyone, I know that they love me entirely and have been so wonderful at making my sisters and I the open minded people we are today. My mum always tells a story - TANGENT, SOZ - about how when I was about four, I was in my Granda's car when he was bringing us somewhere or other, and he asked why I only had two of my girl Barbies with me rather than bringing one of the boy ones, and I told him not to be silly, Granda, they're lesbians. And he had no idea how I knew what lesbians were. I have no idea how I knew either, but that's not the point. The point is that this sort of stuff was never odd to me, at all. And I have my parents to thank for that). The girls told me I couldn't play with them any more and that I wasn't allowed in the girls' toilets either. The boys' toilets terrified me. I'm not quite sure why. It was maybe the fear of not knowing what they were like behind the door. I don't really know.
And then I dropped it. I didn't want to be left out, I was seven years old. I dropped it and I remember feeling annoyed that people had laughed and didn't think that it was perfectly reasonable, but I got over it. But it was one of those memories that you remember, clearly. I have a picture in my head, I can remember how I felt. I didn't think about it too much. Except the times, as I grew up, when I'd be told my hair was a mess when I was playing rounders, and I told them I didn't care. When I felt pressured to shave my legs at the age of twelve, as if there was something wrong with the hair that was on them.
What would have happened if, when I was seven years old, it had been fine? It had been fine to suddenly announce to your classmates that you wanted to be a boy, and that they just better get used to it. We didn't even get to wear trousers in primary school, never mind secondary school. I wore a pinafore in secondary school.
This is upsetting, but the kind of upsetting that needed to come out, at some time or other. What I would give to tell the seven-year-old me that there was nothing wrong with wanting to be a boy, to tell the twelve-year-old me that taking out my self-hatred on myself wouldn't make the problems go away, to tell fifteen-year-old me that I didn't need to wear make up if I didn't want to, to tell seventeen-year-old me to stop thinking about how seemingly huge I looked in my formal dress and to just try and enjoy your night.
I don't know how to tell myself now that the problems constantly circling around my head are, often, the result of the society I live in. It is not acceptable to be different. Especially in Northern Ireland, but it obviously isn't a problem only here. It is lonely and isolating to live in a place where your Health Minister thinks that blood from a gay man is dirty, where you rarely say the words "I AM QUEER" because you know that most people will either laugh or look confused.
This is upsetting to write and upsetting to think about, because I usually don't let myself do so. The anger at the injustice usually wins out- which is great, because it shows, for the most part, my mental health isn't being too badly affected (in the past it has been very badly affected by this kind of stuff). The anger at the sheer ridiculousness of the lack of equality always wins out. I don't let myself think about how upsetting it is when someone thinks that you don't deserve something that they take for granted everyday. When something is core to your being, to have it dismissed, again and again, is very difficult to deal with. Of course, you all know this. You're maybe nodding your head- even if we're talking about different things in terms of the specifics, we all understand what I'm talking about. Whether it's equal marriage or the right to choose or the right to hold your partner's hand on the street without getting abuse hurled at you, it's all the same. We fight because it is how we deal with these things, and we don't let ourselves feel the hurt. We don't because we can't let them win. We can't give up, because they will have won. We can't give up because we will be on the right side of history and they will not. We can't give up because it is the fucking right thing to do.
This has gone off into a bit of a tangent. But I don't care. I used to write a lot when I was young. Stories, poems, songs, I did it all. I was that kid in school who went over the word limit by seven pages with a massive story that I just had to get out because it would be too unreasonable to stick to the three page word limit. I used to use words to just get it all out and I've only started to do it again, publicly, in the last while. I wrote my post about identifying as Queer on this blog. I suppose one thing it definitely shows is how much my generation are babies of the technological age, but you know what I mean. I don't feel the need to 'announce' it to anyone, but I feel the need to recognise it. This is who I am and this is how I feel and that is okay, even if it wasn't okay for so many years.
I'm in tears, and I don't know if they're happy tears or sad tears, or need-to-define-them-at-all tears, but they're there and that's okay. I wish I could be at LGBT Conference right now. I am so happy that my union finally sent someone (and I know he will have an incredible time! I've been tagging him in a million tweets all week introducing him to people I want him to meet). At Women's Conference, once I got over the anxiety and stuff that I'd been feeling, I don't think I'd ever felt more accepted in a group of people before. You didn't have to explain, you didn't have to validate why you were there or how you felt or anything, and it was great. It was so, so great.
The fact that I can acknowledge this, whatever this is, is both overwhelming and wonderful. The reason I can is because of a few people.
I first met Hel on NUS Women's Committee this year. And Hel is a fucking genius. Literally, a fountain of wisdom. But not only that, Hel is the nicest person in the entire world. I don't think I've ever met someone with more patience, ever. Always willing and ready to answer any questions, write you up a blog post, facilitate a workshop- anyone who knows Hel knows what I'm talking about. It is the combination of Hel's way with words (link to the blog), immense and unending kindness and willingness to approach every single little thing with the best of attitudes and the most positive of outlooks. I can't express, really, how much knowing Hel has made me feel able to talk about these kinds of things. At all.
When I first got involved in NUS-USI (which, realistically, has been pretty life changing) Adrianne was there to pick up the pieces and show me what to do. Show me how to get through, show me what to avoid, educate me, lead me, tell me just how much of a fucking right I had to be there with the men. Adrianne was the catalyst to me being able to come to terms with and discover a hell of a lot of things about myself and I will never forget that. Ever. THIS HAS TURNED INTO A BLOG ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE PEOPLE. I think I've just accepted that it is a medley of thoughts..
And Sky. Sky, Sky, Sky. I don't really have the words, but anyone who knows Sky knows what I'm talking about without me even having to say it. In so many ways, Sky has done so much without even realising it. And a lot consciously, too. To have someone who is so unequivocally themselves is the best thing I can see, as someone who is really confused and not sure what the hell is going on, ever. I'm almost sure I'm not the only one who thinks this, but to have Sky as one of the leaders of our LGBT campaign in terms of NUS, is one of the best things I have been privileged to witness this year and I literally don't want to think about when Sky leaves.
It obviously hasn't been just these people, the support and love from people like Kelley and Maryam will never go unnoticed. They have all been mentors and comforters and supporters and leaders and fucking good friends, people like this inspire me every single day and it is one of the reasons I am so thankful for getting involved the way I have this year. Without it, I wouldn't be helping people. Without it, I would probably be as screwed up as I was a few years ago. I am determined to make 2013 a year with no hospital stays, with no dips that last for months, I will not let myself stop trying to accept myself, even when it is hard. These people are the reason that I can remember to keep going on.
This has been a post composed of a lot of things. But I am ending on a happy note. These people have helped me realise and accept things about myself that I never could have dreamed I could accept, things I didn't know existed until an embarrassingly short time ago. And for that, I am eternally grateful. This is why we do what we do. For people like this.
I didn't think about it again until recently because I never thought it was odd. Or rather, I didn't see any significance in it, if that makes sense. I'm finding it difficult to get words out, they are in a mixed up mess with a lot of feelings and thoughts and I'm not quite sure how to talk about this, or where to start.
When I was about 7, I wanted to be a boy.
It feels very strange to have those words staring up at me. I have thought and thought and thought about them in the past few weeks, but I haven't said them. I wanted to be a boy. My friends were boys, I played with boys at break time, I liked the girls I was friends with, but I identified with the boys more. And so I told my friends I was deciding to be a boy. And told them to call me Ash instead of Aisling. And thought this wasn't unreasonable at all.
And of course, in a typical seven-year-old way, nobody else thought this was the most normal thing in the world (I've never directly talked to my parents about this sort of stuff, but I know that they have been instrumental in me becoming who I am. Although this sort of thing I find difficult to talk about with anyone, I know that they love me entirely and have been so wonderful at making my sisters and I the open minded people we are today. My mum always tells a story - TANGENT, SOZ - about how when I was about four, I was in my Granda's car when he was bringing us somewhere or other, and he asked why I only had two of my girl Barbies with me rather than bringing one of the boy ones, and I told him not to be silly, Granda, they're lesbians. And he had no idea how I knew what lesbians were. I have no idea how I knew either, but that's not the point. The point is that this sort of stuff was never odd to me, at all. And I have my parents to thank for that). The girls told me I couldn't play with them any more and that I wasn't allowed in the girls' toilets either. The boys' toilets terrified me. I'm not quite sure why. It was maybe the fear of not knowing what they were like behind the door. I don't really know.
And then I dropped it. I didn't want to be left out, I was seven years old. I dropped it and I remember feeling annoyed that people had laughed and didn't think that it was perfectly reasonable, but I got over it. But it was one of those memories that you remember, clearly. I have a picture in my head, I can remember how I felt. I didn't think about it too much. Except the times, as I grew up, when I'd be told my hair was a mess when I was playing rounders, and I told them I didn't care. When I felt pressured to shave my legs at the age of twelve, as if there was something wrong with the hair that was on them.
What would have happened if, when I was seven years old, it had been fine? It had been fine to suddenly announce to your classmates that you wanted to be a boy, and that they just better get used to it. We didn't even get to wear trousers in primary school, never mind secondary school. I wore a pinafore in secondary school.
This is upsetting, but the kind of upsetting that needed to come out, at some time or other. What I would give to tell the seven-year-old me that there was nothing wrong with wanting to be a boy, to tell the twelve-year-old me that taking out my self-hatred on myself wouldn't make the problems go away, to tell fifteen-year-old me that I didn't need to wear make up if I didn't want to, to tell seventeen-year-old me to stop thinking about how seemingly huge I looked in my formal dress and to just try and enjoy your night.
I don't know how to tell myself now that the problems constantly circling around my head are, often, the result of the society I live in. It is not acceptable to be different. Especially in Northern Ireland, but it obviously isn't a problem only here. It is lonely and isolating to live in a place where your Health Minister thinks that blood from a gay man is dirty, where you rarely say the words "I AM QUEER" because you know that most people will either laugh or look confused.
This is upsetting to write and upsetting to think about, because I usually don't let myself do so. The anger at the injustice usually wins out- which is great, because it shows, for the most part, my mental health isn't being too badly affected (in the past it has been very badly affected by this kind of stuff). The anger at the sheer ridiculousness of the lack of equality always wins out. I don't let myself think about how upsetting it is when someone thinks that you don't deserve something that they take for granted everyday. When something is core to your being, to have it dismissed, again and again, is very difficult to deal with. Of course, you all know this. You're maybe nodding your head- even if we're talking about different things in terms of the specifics, we all understand what I'm talking about. Whether it's equal marriage or the right to choose or the right to hold your partner's hand on the street without getting abuse hurled at you, it's all the same. We fight because it is how we deal with these things, and we don't let ourselves feel the hurt. We don't because we can't let them win. We can't give up, because they will have won. We can't give up because we will be on the right side of history and they will not. We can't give up because it is the fucking right thing to do.
This has gone off into a bit of a tangent. But I don't care. I used to write a lot when I was young. Stories, poems, songs, I did it all. I was that kid in school who went over the word limit by seven pages with a massive story that I just had to get out because it would be too unreasonable to stick to the three page word limit. I used to use words to just get it all out and I've only started to do it again, publicly, in the last while. I wrote my post about identifying as Queer on this blog. I suppose one thing it definitely shows is how much my generation are babies of the technological age, but you know what I mean. I don't feel the need to 'announce' it to anyone, but I feel the need to recognise it. This is who I am and this is how I feel and that is okay, even if it wasn't okay for so many years.
I'm in tears, and I don't know if they're happy tears or sad tears, or need-to-define-them-at-all tears, but they're there and that's okay. I wish I could be at LGBT Conference right now. I am so happy that my union finally sent someone (and I know he will have an incredible time! I've been tagging him in a million tweets all week introducing him to people I want him to meet). At Women's Conference, once I got over the anxiety and stuff that I'd been feeling, I don't think I'd ever felt more accepted in a group of people before. You didn't have to explain, you didn't have to validate why you were there or how you felt or anything, and it was great. It was so, so great.
The fact that I can acknowledge this, whatever this is, is both overwhelming and wonderful. The reason I can is because of a few people.
I first met Hel on NUS Women's Committee this year. And Hel is a fucking genius. Literally, a fountain of wisdom. But not only that, Hel is the nicest person in the entire world. I don't think I've ever met someone with more patience, ever. Always willing and ready to answer any questions, write you up a blog post, facilitate a workshop- anyone who knows Hel knows what I'm talking about. It is the combination of Hel's way with words (link to the blog), immense and unending kindness and willingness to approach every single little thing with the best of attitudes and the most positive of outlooks. I can't express, really, how much knowing Hel has made me feel able to talk about these kinds of things. At all.
When I first got involved in NUS-USI (which, realistically, has been pretty life changing) Adrianne was there to pick up the pieces and show me what to do. Show me how to get through, show me what to avoid, educate me, lead me, tell me just how much of a fucking right I had to be there with the men. Adrianne was the catalyst to me being able to come to terms with and discover a hell of a lot of things about myself and I will never forget that. Ever. THIS HAS TURNED INTO A BLOG ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE PEOPLE. I think I've just accepted that it is a medley of thoughts..
And Sky. Sky, Sky, Sky. I don't really have the words, but anyone who knows Sky knows what I'm talking about without me even having to say it. In so many ways, Sky has done so much without even realising it. And a lot consciously, too. To have someone who is so unequivocally themselves is the best thing I can see, as someone who is really confused and not sure what the hell is going on, ever. I'm almost sure I'm not the only one who thinks this, but to have Sky as one of the leaders of our LGBT campaign in terms of NUS, is one of the best things I have been privileged to witness this year and I literally don't want to think about when Sky leaves.
It obviously hasn't been just these people, the support and love from people like Kelley and Maryam will never go unnoticed. They have all been mentors and comforters and supporters and leaders and fucking good friends, people like this inspire me every single day and it is one of the reasons I am so thankful for getting involved the way I have this year. Without it, I wouldn't be helping people. Without it, I would probably be as screwed up as I was a few years ago. I am determined to make 2013 a year with no hospital stays, with no dips that last for months, I will not let myself stop trying to accept myself, even when it is hard. These people are the reason that I can remember to keep going on.
This has been a post composed of a lot of things. But I am ending on a happy note. These people have helped me realise and accept things about myself that I never could have dreamed I could accept, things I didn't know existed until an embarrassingly short time ago. And for that, I am eternally grateful. This is why we do what we do. For people like this.
Friday, 12 April 2013
NUS Conference 2013
Trigger warning for frank discussion of rape apologists and mental health.
This year was my first NUS Conference. I was a QUBSU delegate, along with five other people- four students and two sabbatical officers. NUS wasn't what I thought it would be. At all. In some ways in was better and it some ways worse.
I'll begin by talking about one of the things I was most proud of. A mass walkout occurred twice, when a known rape apologist and SWP member took to the stage (first for an election speech for one of the FTO positions, and then for Block). Obviously some people could not walk out due to access issues/the fact they were candidates, but I was immensely proud of the fact that we did this. It was cross-party, cross-faction, cross-political persuasion, but I am very proud that one thing we could agree on. NUS made it pretty clear- we don't have time, nor do we have respect, for those who are rape apologists. They have no place in our organisation, and rightly so. I am proud of us.
Another thing I was immensely proud of was the vigil that was held for Steven Simpson. Organised at the last minute by Rosie Huzzard, Sky Yarlett and Finn McGoldrick (the NUS LGBT Officers) spoke at the vigil, as did two members of the Disabled Students' Committee. There was a lot of anger, and there were a lot of tears. It was incredibly moving, incredibly emotional and I'm very proud that it was held.
Now, unfortunately, to talk about the things that disappointed me during conference.
First off, accessibility. My first NUS conference was NUS Women's Conference 2013, and at it, though I found some problems with accessibility, a few members of Women's Committee worked really hard to draft and propose a motion on improving accessibility, and I definitely think that next year Women's Conference will be even more accessible. But NUS Conference was not, in any sense of the word. There were access breaks, thankfully, but the days were very long. I missed debates on motions that I really wanted to be at, simply because I just couldn't do it. The unavailability of water, the fact that there were no reserved seats at the end of rows to facilitate those who feel they will probably have to run in and out for whatever reason, the endless, endless whooping and cheering, even though this was rightly called out by chairs numerous times, was so disappointing. It was also very disappointing to see the leadership actively do this numerous times. I understand people make mistakes, but at Women's Conference, it was noticeable that any time someone whooped, they usually ended up covering their mouth and you could see them telling themselves to try not to do it- at least people were trying. I'm not entirely innocent on this either, and I'm annoyed at myself. A conscious effort by all is definitely needed if we are to improve on this- and not improving on this would be a disgrace.
Secondly, the conscious and visible control that the leadership tried to have over the conference as a whole was not a secret. There were numerous attempts to stifle debate, and specific members of the leadership got up to publicly insult individuals, which I feel is an abuse of the platform. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the specific views that were expressed, just that I think it was an abuse of the platform and was extremely disappointing as a first time delegate to see, especially because it was people who I have had a lot of respect for doing so.
The control shown by the leadership translated into policy debates that resulted in policy being voted/agreed on that I was surprised by. I thought NUS Conference would be considerably more left wing. I would say that for the most part (at least, this is what I thought), within NUS it is an argument between the centre, the left, and the further left, but when a Tory is cheered and whooped at, repeatedly, it begs the question as to what our common aims are. We might not as a conference agree on free education (which frankly makes me shudder), we might not agree on gender balancing, we may not agree on a lot of things, but I thought the one thing we did agree on is that the current coalition is systemically destroying the UK as we know it. But we cheered and clapped for a candidate getting up and insulting other members, and seemed to forget that he is a member of the party who is taking down everything we stand for. Just an observation- though I feel it is an important one.
Another thing is that I didn't necessarily agree with everything 'the left' did, either. I don't think it was conducive to anyone to stand up and call all of NUS 'scabs'. That said, as a whole I think this person made a great speech and I was very proud of her- but I wouldn't be being honest, which is what I'm trying to do here, if I pretended I was comfortable with that word being used. Similarly, I thought the Carbon Rod stuff was funny- but there were a few things in the speech that made me feel uncomfortable, specifically the bit about access. I agree with much of the speech about the demo and its failings, but I don't agree that the leadership pointing out how horrendous the access stuff was when the scuffle happened in the park after the main demo was point scoring, or anything but genuine anger and concern. But of course- some will disagree with me on that. [NOTE: I've talked to people since writing this post, and I realise it was a misunderstanding. They weren't getting at what I thought they were getting at in terms of the access stuff- which is good, because I was shocked at the time, and it makes a little more sense now. I mean, they might not like the leadership and they may criticise NUS but they're also not assholes, which is why I was surprised in the first place.]
I've always thought that within NUS we respected difference, to an extent. The people I have worked with (generally) respect when we differ on things- whether it be policy or campaigns or whatever. We disagree and we put it behind us- in terms of those who are my friends, our friendship is not changed, and in terms of those who are primarily my colleagues, our professional relationship is not changed. But this wasn't the case at this years conference. Insults were thrown about, publicly, on the platform, and that was horrendous to see. I do understand that people will not respect those who do not respect them- I used to be like that. Now, for the most part, I feel sorry for those people (as in, those who do not feel that I am owed respect). I am angry initially, of course, but thankfully I have learnt to let go of the anger because I know that the only person it's hurting is myself. I think that learning to do this is vital if you're going to survive in the NUS/student politics environment, simply because if you didn't, you would have a breakdown- keeping hold of that much anger is too much for any person to do. I feel sorry for people who do not respect things that are fundamental to my existence in that they cannot extend the courtesy to others that others extend to them, I feel sorry that they are so caught up in their own lives that they feel their homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist (or whatever the disagreement may be on) views are fine, even though they compromise and insult the very core of the people they are disagreeing with. I have learnt to let go of the anger, for the most part, I hold towards people like this because if I didn't, I couldn't survive.
Thankfully, I'll end on a positive note. I met a lot of incredible people at this conference, people I would not have met otherwise. Sometimes we met because we were both furious at something that had just been said or passed, sometimes we met because we just happened to be in the same place at the same time. But there were so many people in that room who are fucking incredible, so many people who work incredibly hard in their students' unions and who I would give anything to have working within my own students' union. Vonnie's speech about remembering most of our members are FE and that any attempt for our leadership to push through policy without debate being unacceptable, Stacey and Naomi's speeches about our utter commitment to giving rape apologists the back door, Thais constantly reminding us about accessibility and how important it was, Rosie's speech about remembering our trade union links, Vicki's leaving speech- her unapologetic honesty, her passion and her drive, constantly reminding us that underneath each set of political views is a person, and that no person deserves to be treated the way many people within the leadership were treated this year.
I wouldn't have gotten through the past few days if it weren't for people like Sky and Rosie and Rebecca. They were extremely tough, both in terms of my drive to keep fighting and my own mental and physical health. I want to come back, though. I want to keep working and keep fighting and keep debating and disagreeing and I want other people to want to do the same. But I don't want to see the lack of basic respect again. I'm a member of political parties and anti-cuts groups, but the most important thing in writing this, for me, is my honesty- I am proud of and disappointed in different 'sides' in equal measure, and whilst people may disagree (and they have the right to do so, and I respect that), the least we can do is respect the fact that we have differing opinions. We're not going to get anything done if we don't accept the fact we disagree on some things, and work positively to try and change the minds of others. We bloody love democracy, we do- but I also bloody love respect and common courtesy, of which this conference was lacking entirely.
I am hoping that next year will be better, I am. At the end of the day, I am hopelessly optimistic, and probably have a little too much faith in people. But it is who I am, and I'm unapologetic for that. We need an NUS Conference that is accessible, welcoming, inclusive, and respectful. The vigil on Tuesday night definitely put everything into perspective- and I think many would agree with me on that. At the end of the day, we are all human. And I hope we can respect that. You don't convince anyone you're right when you're spending your time yelling down other people, and you don't make yourself or your opinions look great when you spend most of your time throwing insults.
I am a first time delegate, and this was my experience. By all means, leave comments- but if you disagree, please be respectful. The last thing we need is for the poisonous atmosphere within conference to extend any further.
This year was my first NUS Conference. I was a QUBSU delegate, along with five other people- four students and two sabbatical officers. NUS wasn't what I thought it would be. At all. In some ways in was better and it some ways worse.
I'll begin by talking about one of the things I was most proud of. A mass walkout occurred twice, when a known rape apologist and SWP member took to the stage (first for an election speech for one of the FTO positions, and then for Block). Obviously some people could not walk out due to access issues/the fact they were candidates, but I was immensely proud of the fact that we did this. It was cross-party, cross-faction, cross-political persuasion, but I am very proud that one thing we could agree on. NUS made it pretty clear- we don't have time, nor do we have respect, for those who are rape apologists. They have no place in our organisation, and rightly so. I am proud of us.
Another thing I was immensely proud of was the vigil that was held for Steven Simpson. Organised at the last minute by Rosie Huzzard, Sky Yarlett and Finn McGoldrick (the NUS LGBT Officers) spoke at the vigil, as did two members of the Disabled Students' Committee. There was a lot of anger, and there were a lot of tears. It was incredibly moving, incredibly emotional and I'm very proud that it was held.
Now, unfortunately, to talk about the things that disappointed me during conference.
First off, accessibility. My first NUS conference was NUS Women's Conference 2013, and at it, though I found some problems with accessibility, a few members of Women's Committee worked really hard to draft and propose a motion on improving accessibility, and I definitely think that next year Women's Conference will be even more accessible. But NUS Conference was not, in any sense of the word. There were access breaks, thankfully, but the days were very long. I missed debates on motions that I really wanted to be at, simply because I just couldn't do it. The unavailability of water, the fact that there were no reserved seats at the end of rows to facilitate those who feel they will probably have to run in and out for whatever reason, the endless, endless whooping and cheering, even though this was rightly called out by chairs numerous times, was so disappointing. It was also very disappointing to see the leadership actively do this numerous times. I understand people make mistakes, but at Women's Conference, it was noticeable that any time someone whooped, they usually ended up covering their mouth and you could see them telling themselves to try not to do it- at least people were trying. I'm not entirely innocent on this either, and I'm annoyed at myself. A conscious effort by all is definitely needed if we are to improve on this- and not improving on this would be a disgrace.
Secondly, the conscious and visible control that the leadership tried to have over the conference as a whole was not a secret. There were numerous attempts to stifle debate, and specific members of the leadership got up to publicly insult individuals, which I feel is an abuse of the platform. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the specific views that were expressed, just that I think it was an abuse of the platform and was extremely disappointing as a first time delegate to see, especially because it was people who I have had a lot of respect for doing so.
The control shown by the leadership translated into policy debates that resulted in policy being voted/agreed on that I was surprised by. I thought NUS Conference would be considerably more left wing. I would say that for the most part (at least, this is what I thought), within NUS it is an argument between the centre, the left, and the further left, but when a Tory is cheered and whooped at, repeatedly, it begs the question as to what our common aims are. We might not as a conference agree on free education (which frankly makes me shudder), we might not agree on gender balancing, we may not agree on a lot of things, but I thought the one thing we did agree on is that the current coalition is systemically destroying the UK as we know it. But we cheered and clapped for a candidate getting up and insulting other members, and seemed to forget that he is a member of the party who is taking down everything we stand for. Just an observation- though I feel it is an important one.
Another thing is that I didn't necessarily agree with everything 'the left' did, either. I don't think it was conducive to anyone to stand up and call all of NUS 'scabs'. That said, as a whole I think this person made a great speech and I was very proud of her- but I wouldn't be being honest, which is what I'm trying to do here, if I pretended I was comfortable with that word being used. Similarly, I thought the Carbon Rod stuff was funny- but there were a few things in the speech that made me feel uncomfortable, specifically the bit about access. I agree with much of the speech about the demo and its failings, but I don't agree that the leadership pointing out how horrendous the access stuff was when the scuffle happened in the park after the main demo was point scoring, or anything but genuine anger and concern. But of course- some will disagree with me on that. [NOTE: I've talked to people since writing this post, and I realise it was a misunderstanding. They weren't getting at what I thought they were getting at in terms of the access stuff- which is good, because I was shocked at the time, and it makes a little more sense now. I mean, they might not like the leadership and they may criticise NUS but they're also not assholes, which is why I was surprised in the first place.]
I've always thought that within NUS we respected difference, to an extent. The people I have worked with (generally) respect when we differ on things- whether it be policy or campaigns or whatever. We disagree and we put it behind us- in terms of those who are my friends, our friendship is not changed, and in terms of those who are primarily my colleagues, our professional relationship is not changed. But this wasn't the case at this years conference. Insults were thrown about, publicly, on the platform, and that was horrendous to see. I do understand that people will not respect those who do not respect them- I used to be like that. Now, for the most part, I feel sorry for those people (as in, those who do not feel that I am owed respect). I am angry initially, of course, but thankfully I have learnt to let go of the anger because I know that the only person it's hurting is myself. I think that learning to do this is vital if you're going to survive in the NUS/student politics environment, simply because if you didn't, you would have a breakdown- keeping hold of that much anger is too much for any person to do. I feel sorry for people who do not respect things that are fundamental to my existence in that they cannot extend the courtesy to others that others extend to them, I feel sorry that they are so caught up in their own lives that they feel their homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist (or whatever the disagreement may be on) views are fine, even though they compromise and insult the very core of the people they are disagreeing with. I have learnt to let go of the anger, for the most part, I hold towards people like this because if I didn't, I couldn't survive.
Thankfully, I'll end on a positive note. I met a lot of incredible people at this conference, people I would not have met otherwise. Sometimes we met because we were both furious at something that had just been said or passed, sometimes we met because we just happened to be in the same place at the same time. But there were so many people in that room who are fucking incredible, so many people who work incredibly hard in their students' unions and who I would give anything to have working within my own students' union. Vonnie's speech about remembering most of our members are FE and that any attempt for our leadership to push through policy without debate being unacceptable, Stacey and Naomi's speeches about our utter commitment to giving rape apologists the back door, Thais constantly reminding us about accessibility and how important it was, Rosie's speech about remembering our trade union links, Vicki's leaving speech- her unapologetic honesty, her passion and her drive, constantly reminding us that underneath each set of political views is a person, and that no person deserves to be treated the way many people within the leadership were treated this year.
I wouldn't have gotten through the past few days if it weren't for people like Sky and Rosie and Rebecca. They were extremely tough, both in terms of my drive to keep fighting and my own mental and physical health. I want to come back, though. I want to keep working and keep fighting and keep debating and disagreeing and I want other people to want to do the same. But I don't want to see the lack of basic respect again. I'm a member of political parties and anti-cuts groups, but the most important thing in writing this, for me, is my honesty- I am proud of and disappointed in different 'sides' in equal measure, and whilst people may disagree (and they have the right to do so, and I respect that), the least we can do is respect the fact that we have differing opinions. We're not going to get anything done if we don't accept the fact we disagree on some things, and work positively to try and change the minds of others. We bloody love democracy, we do- but I also bloody love respect and common courtesy, of which this conference was lacking entirely.
I am hoping that next year will be better, I am. At the end of the day, I am hopelessly optimistic, and probably have a little too much faith in people. But it is who I am, and I'm unapologetic for that. We need an NUS Conference that is accessible, welcoming, inclusive, and respectful. The vigil on Tuesday night definitely put everything into perspective- and I think many would agree with me on that. At the end of the day, we are all human. And I hope we can respect that. You don't convince anyone you're right when you're spending your time yelling down other people, and you don't make yourself or your opinions look great when you spend most of your time throwing insults.
I am a first time delegate, and this was my experience. By all means, leave comments- but if you disagree, please be respectful. The last thing we need is for the poisonous atmosphere within conference to extend any further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)