Meeting David Lammy: Democracy and Direct Action

As a SOAS student, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture on the relationship between democracy and direct action by the Tottenham Labour MP David Lammy, who I must add also studied at SOAS.


I left this lecturing thinking that we believe here in the West we live in a true democracy, a fair one. Everyone has the right to vote in the representative of their choice and also agree on issues such as is the AV. The recent Arab Spring only embellished our thinking that we have the best political system and it is flawless.


However, as David Lammy explains a democracy as translated from the Greek is the 'rule of the people'. Looking at our current system, it seems to be the rule of the state. I feel as though if David Cameron has decided tuition fees are going to increase then we all have to abide by that. Although, if we live in a true democracy where it is the rule of the people, Parliament should only be allowed to take decisions if the vast majority of people agree with them.

I recognise that is the point of having a system where politicians lay out manifestos and we vote in for the one we believe most appropriate. However, this is not a true democracy. In order to improve our democracy, I believe we should be having referendum on all issues.

I can see, though, that such a system is time consuming, costly and can lead to devastating long-run consequences and am therefore happy to abide by the system we have. What I have a problem is us living under the illusion that we are one perfect democracy - for reasons discussed above we are not - and feeling the need to be a part of the Arab Spring just so that we can influence them to form a political system which is not so perfect but is uniform to us.


As mentioned before I don't particularly agree with David Lammy that our democracy is a problem, I agree it is not ideal or a true one but I think it is suitable and appropriate. This brings me onto another one of Lammy's argument why direct action plays a significant role in our society.


The one drawback about having a not so perfect democracy is that a vast majority of decisions are not made based on the rule of the people but rather the rule of the state which is chosen by us. This leads to frustrations and in a sense an oppressed society. Direct action, by which I refer to protests and strikes, is therefore extremely important in making sure the voice of the people is heard. Examples of this include the Gay Pride protests and more recently the protests against tuition fees rises.

The reason for me to bring up Lammy's point on direct action is because I believe there is a different between direct action and rioting. It is important to note that both direct action and rioting may have just cause for which they are arguing but it is the way they are executed. When students protested against the tuition fees they went inside banks and shops and informed people that because such businesses engage in tax evasion thus students are having to suffer. They do not use their energy to intimidate other people or engage in violence. It is not criminal to participate in direct action that is after all why we have a democracy but to smash shops, steal from other members of the society and take part in violence is criminal. This is the reason why many people fail to understand the message that the recent riots in London were supposed to show. Instead by engaging in such activity they have  just increased state power and control and will soon probably find themselves with a criminal record.


Below are photos from the event :)

David Lammy and I

Where he was speaking

Try to do a close up but my camera wasn't much good!

BBC Panorama: More than just a game...

In this video I just give a few of my thoughts on South Africa and the Panorama report on it. I honestly do not believe after watching the report that the World Cup has/will help South Africa I believe money could have been well spent elsewhere. So if you happen to disagree please let me know your thoughts.

What is Rothmund Thompson Syndrome?

In this video I hope to make a clearer what is RTS. RTS is a rare, congenital and autosomal recessive disorder which is often very misunderstood. This video is created and presented by Komilla Chadha sister of a sufferer Ria Chadha.

As the bull became sluggish, the audience electrified.

This summer I took a trip down to the south of France. I stayed in the breathtaking rural village of Agrimont.

One of the highlights of the trip was visiting the famous town of Arles where Vincent Van Gogh painted. The day was hot and the town had an archaic feel. We started our time here by going to a cafe which had a strong local vibe to it. We ate scrumptious snacks and drank refreshing ice tea. For once in my life I did not have to add extra salt and pepper to the food to enjoy it.

The cafe was opposite the amphitheatre where the romans would take pleasure in watching torture. I was happy that I live in a time when this is considered ethically wrong and actually does not exist. But hey what did I know! The amphitheatre was huge – it could seat almost 10,000 people. I wouldn’t describe it as being anything amazing because for me it was just another amphitheatre – yes it was grand but being an average tourist I could not appreciate the beauty and value of it.

In the evening we made a plan. It wasn’t something that only tourists do – this was big with the locals too.We decided to watch a bull fight. For any of you that have seen one I just want to say none of us had any idea what a bull fight comprises of. In retrospect, we saw it a bit like a circus where men in coloured outfits played with bulls to bouncy music. On the way into the amphitheatre we stocked up on snacks given that the show was two hours (5.30 – 7.30 which was the time we would have eaten some snack). My impatience for the “show” to begin forced me to ask somebody who worked there what exactly is a bull fight. (My french is terrible). He responded passionately saying we kill the bull, sell it to the restaurant and eat it. He then kissed his finger to express how excited he was.I laughed at him and thought just because I was a tourist he was scaring me and besides the amount of children and even babies I saw sitting in the theatre seemed incongruous with what I heard. But I guess you only see and hear what you want to.

I sat on the crusty wood seats which had splinters coming out of them (and I chose this day too wear my favourite dress!) and waited for the “fight” to commence…

It started; I saw men in bright coloured outfits which had the most stunning sequence on them. They stood gracefully as the bull was let onto the “stage”. It was fine they teased the bull and the bull got angry and thats how far it should have gone but it didn’t. As the portugese bull fighter gradually put sharp hooks in the bull; the bull bled and the audience cheered. As the bull become sluggish, the audience electrified. It was distgusting.

Now a sabre type of bladed weapon was used to brutally execute the poor bull. He became weaker and the claps became stronger. One turn at a time they put the weapon into the animal and took it out. At one point the bull tried to fight back and another handful of bull fighters came out to kill the bull. The army slowly killed the bull. In his last breaths he made excruciating sounds and bowed in front of the fighters with his grey tongue hanging out.

It was all over in half an hour. We were not able to take the cruelty we left in distgust with all the tourists but the locals remained cheering on the bull fighters which had another four bulls to slay.

HOW CAN WE HUMANS PUT UP WITH THIS! BULL FIGHTING MUST STOP BECAUSE ITS NOT A FIGHT ITS MURDER WHERE BEFORE HAND THE FUTURE OF THE BULL IS WRITTEN. AND SINCE WHEN IS IT FAIR TO HAVE A “FIGHT” 9 AGAINST 1. WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE UNCIVILISED ROMAN SOCITY. WE ARE SOPHISTICATED CITIZENS OF CLASS LETS PUT A STOP TO THIS.

Gaia - Taking Ethics Higher

James Lovelock, a chemist who believes to understand the planet fully we must combine philosophy with science, has put a remarkable and revolutionary environmental ethical theory forward.


At the age of fourteen Lovelock had become obsessed with astronomical science. This passion, enthusiasm and hunger to learn landed him as a consultant for NASA space centre. Not only did he analyse finding from the Apollo mission, he invented scientific instruments to help gather more data about space. He developed the Gaia hypothesis in the 1960s and this has had many ethical implication for us as human beings.


His argument starts off similar to that of the Fine Tuning argument. Lovelock begins by appreciating how perfect and flawless our world is. He said that when he examines the atmosphere of any planet, they are barren. However, when anyone just sees how complex the Earth’s atmosphere is – it has the right amount of elements like nitrogen which react with one another at the right levels – he says it shouts out that life exists here.


From here he looked into why this was. Lovelock concludes that this is the effect of life itself. Without life this spectacular organisation of the Earth wouldn’t exists.


For Lovelock, we all play a role of equal importance whether we are a bacterium or a human. He says that any damage or destruction of a species can have massive effects. It is usually suggested that the effects are butterfly effects and some suggest the proof for this can be seen in today’s world. For example, we are destroying wildlife and greenery in Western countries and polluting our planet but the people who suffer are those in developing countries where droughts, flooding etc. has become a norm. Gaia theory supports would say that this is happening because we are not fulfilling our role and recognising that even the smallest species plays a fundamental role in the organisation of our world.


So what is our role as humans? Well if we imagine the planet to be like an organism then our role can be described as the central nervous system. To sense things and to react quickly. So with the recent phenomena of climate change it is our moral responsibility to identify it and react on it.


The ethical implication of this theory is that we must care for Gaia (our planet) not because we are stewards but rather because we are fundamental part of an organism and if we don’t care for the planet and then the world will cease to exists as we know it. It also specifies that taking care of the planet does not just refer to looking after lions or deciduous trees but rather every single living thing on earth even the smallest of the smallest organisms.


I really love this theory because I find it explains everything accurately and simply. It is our moral responsibility to care for the environment not just ourself!

Sir Terry Leahy - A symbol of hope for the future...

Following an article in the Economist, I researched into Sir Terry Leahy former Cheif Exec of Tesco and was most intrigued by him. For me he is a symbol of all hope for our youth hence I created this video on this.

The Economist article that inspired me was  ’A grocer goes’ in the 12-18th June 2010 issue.

Book Review: The Immigrant by Manju Kapur

Manju Kapur is my favourite author and I just finished her fourth book a few days ago and was disappointed. In this video I explain why I was disappointed and who would I recommend this book too.