Metal Reviews

The Lib Dems haven't fucked students over at all (not that violence would be a good response if they have - the sort of people rioting today would have kicked off whatever the provocation)

...circle jerks. *insert V's point of both sides being shit here*

Just caught this. I'll make the theoretical point that if there was an actual public political sphere for these students to participate in then maybe they wouldn't act through violence. The explicit violence of rioting is the underlying effect of a structural violence which has neglected their voice from being heard. Violence didn't become a part of student movements until the '60s when it was a direct backlash against bureaucracy and this violence is just the same ol' retaliation against an impenetrable veil hiding under-the-table circle jerks. *insert V's point of both sides being shit here*

I have no idea which student movements in which countries you are referring to, but violence has - to my knowledge - been a part of student movements since, oh, medieval times? Bureaucracy too, by the way, not just since Marx.

And cathedrals, too.

I'm still going to stick with the claim that those anarchists only turn to violence because they have no other form of being recognized. Even if they are idiots.

I'm still going to stick with the claim that those anarchists only turn to violence because they are idiots.

If I may be allowed to edit that statement:

There is always a better way than violence. Especially when taking into account the trivialities that contemporary anarchists prefer to rant about.

But violence making the media pay attention isn't a moral reason for it to be acceptable! You didn't defend those Russian skinheads when they went on the rampage at that concert - weren't they 'placed in a situation'? Or do you just pick and choose what direct action you find acceptable?

Of course, I'm not sure how the state of tuition fees in Britain is aided by some random American hearing about it, either.

Fridge, have we not just been discussing this very thing? Either there's an increase in fees, or half the universities in the country will have to close - there's no way the Tories (or Labour, let's be honest) would have agreed to abolishing fees and paying universities out of general taxation. What's on the table IS a fairer alternative - a lot of students will end up paying less than under the current system.

By the by, Dr Julian Huppert, who you can see half of there, is currently a very vocal defender of the anti-tuition fee line.

Lecturers' president backs student 'resistance'
The lecturers' union president has signed a statement refusing to condemn protesters who attacked a Conservative party building last week.

Alan Whitaker has joined calls to "rally behind all who were arrested for fighting to defend their education".

A radical students' group has also threatened to target Lib Dem offices and Downing Street next week.

But the UCU union's official spokesman rejected last week's violence as "totally unacceptable".

The lecturers' statement, sub-titled "Great Start and No to Victimisations", has been signed by 24 members of the University and College Union's national executive, including Mr Whitaker, the national president.

The statement calls on university and college staff to "stand with those students who were arrested".

It applauds the protest as "one of the most vibrant and exciting for a decade or more".

The UCU spokesman said the statement supporting the arrested students had been signed in a personal capacity by lecturers and was not the union's official policy.
'Victimisation'

But the scale of support among the union's leadership for this latest statement suggests deep divisions in the response to the outbreak of violence, during a protest march against raising tuition fees.

There are also divisions among student protestors, with student activists set to reject the more moderate strategy of the NUS leadership.

The Education Activist Network has warned that the Liberal Democrat headquarters will be targeted in the next wave of protests, set for 24 November.

The protesters are calling for students and their supporters to stage a walk-out and then to demonstrate outside Liberal Democrat offices and then Downing Street.

The lecturers' statement also highlights students' anger towards the Liberal Democrats - and talks about the protest in terms of an "act of resistance".

"We will not side with those who condemn the violence against windows and property but will not condemn or even name the long-term violence of cuts that will scar the lives of hundreds of thousands by denying them access to the education of their choice," says the statement.

"The victimisation of individuals for acts of resistance is something that our movement has a proud record of opposing," says the statement.
Arrests

There have been more than 50 arrests following the storming of the building.

And there was widespread criticism, including from Downing Street, of lecturers who had appeared to be sympathetic to the occupation of the Millbank building.

But the spokesman for the latest lecturers' statement, Tom Hickey, says it is "pure hypocrisy" for lecturers to be expected to either condemn or condone the occupation last week.

He says demonstrators were provoked by the government's decision to "privatise" higher education, without any mandate from voters.

Mr Hickey, who lectures at the University of Brighton, says he expects the lecturers' union to back a campaign for the defence of those who were arrested during the demonstration.

Moral reason? Not really. I find it hard to describe material circumstances in terms of morality. Just? Possibly. I'm not super on top of the issue to determine that.

I didn't defend the Russians' violence but I didn't condemn them. I kinda fucking hate the lot of 'em but (what was it racist or just unnecessary?) their attitude toward others and their propensity to be violent isn't quite their fault; they are a victim of their environment. Their choice to act that way they are to blame for and it was repugnant. The conditions of nurture don't remove guilt from someone but it goes a fathom to explain it. I think there is a difference between brutalizing someone unnecessarily and busting some glass and spray painting. That's where I pick and choose, the difference between the destruction of private property and the beating of another human being.

Swiss Right Wins Vote on Deportation of Criminals


GENEVA — After heated debate and a campaign utilizing controversial “black sheep” posters, Switzerland’s far-right party won voters’ support in a referendum Sunday that calls for the automatic deportation of foreigners who are convicted of serious crimes.

Voters also rejected an initiative to set a minimum national tax rate for the wealthy that opponents asserted would have dimmed Switzerland’s allure as a tax oasis for rich foreigners and would have prompted an exodus by many wealthy Swiss and foreigners alike.

Final results of the poll showed that 52.9 percent of voters and a majority of Switzerland’s cantons supported the rightist Swiss People’s Party initiative calling for the expulsion of foreigners convicted of crimes ranging from murder and rape to drug dealing and social security fraud.

Legal experts have warned that automatic deportation could violate a 1999 agreement between Switzerland and the European Union that provides for freedom of movement in the Continent. The government also expressed concern that the measure would breach Switzerland’s obligation not to return people to countries that practice torture.

But those arguments evidently made little impression on voters uneasy over a large immigrant population.

A counter-proposal by the government and center-right parties opposed to the People’s Party initiative that was also put to the vote in the referendum failed to garner a majority in any of the cantons and won support from only 46 percent of voters. The counter-proposal also would have toughened provisions for deporting foreigners, but it would have allowed a judge to review each case.

Initial analysis of the results, however, suggested that many supporters of center-right parties voted for the People’s Party initiative, said Lukas Golder of the political and social research institute Gfs.Bern.

What resonated with voters were contentions that foreigners accounted for a disproportionate share of Swiss crime. Christian Blocher, the People’s Party leader, asserted at a debate at Geneva University during the campaign that foreigners make up 22 percent of the resident population but account for 54 percent of convictions for grievous bodily harm and 62 percent of robbery convictions. “Prisons do not stop crimes,” he said. “The only way to go about it is to force them to leave the country.

Last year the People’s Party backed a ban on building minarets alongside mosques, stirring outrage among Muslims and others around the world.

And in the campaign for the referendum on Sunday the party resurrected its controversial posters for a 2007 election that depicted a white sheep kicking a black sheep off a flag of Switzerland. The United Nations and human rights groups condemned the posters as racist.

The People’s Party has prospered by taking a tough line on immigration and law and order.

It emerged from the 2007 election as Switzerland’s largest political party, with 29 percent of the popular vote. It appears to have used the campaign for the Sunday referendum to bolster its appeal and to test its organization and resources ahead of a general election due next year, said Mr. Golder of Gfs.Bern.

The proposal, meanwhile, by the leftist Social Democrat party to introduce a minimum tax across all Switzerland’s cantons was rejected by 58 percent of voters. Early enthusiasm for the initiative faded in the face of arguments by business organizations and threats to leave the country issued by some of Switzerland’s prominent rich.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/europe/29iht-swiss.html