Rant-19

The advert ends on the note: "look them in the eyes and tell them you're doing all you can to stop the spread of Covid-19"

WHY??? The vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 do not get seriously ill. Indeed, at least a third never develop any symptoms at all. Yet all are obliged - by law and by force and by threat and by fine - to suffer for a proportionally small minority. And now they add emotional blackmail.

Let's have them, those who are seriously ill, those who have lost loved ones, LOOK THE REST OF THE POPULATION IN THE EYES and say I don't give a fuck for your life, your death, your mental health, your education, your future. Because that's what it boils down to. Sure, if you get covid or lose someone to it that SUCKS but so does cancer or stroke or heart disease or cot death or suicide or any disease under the sun.

Babies are suffering abnormal development and non-existent socialisation. This is the largest involuntary social experiment of all time and may well have lifelong negative consequences. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-babies-toddlers-education-development-school-playgrounds-b1042852.html

Children are losing out on their educations. Disruption in the early years we have known for decades is immensely harmful but we also have kids getting 'results' for exams not sat! IF my daughter graduates this summer it will be from having HALF her time at university stripped away. £9000 per year student debt for NO support, NO services, NO library, NO facilities and precious little by way of education. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1390586/coronavirus-news-university-students-fees-online-learning Will her degree even be respected by employers who'll know she didn't attend lectures?!

We are facing a mental health crisis of unparalleled proportions. From the obvious stresses of those on the 'frontlines' https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/covid-stress-driving-hundreds-of-childcare-workers-to-quit-profession to the parents who're trying to work full-time from home while trying to teach their kids full time; or people like me who are caring for a loved one with no support and no respite. We're told to 'Protect the NHS' but the NHS has an appalling track record for mental health support. I told my GP I was suicidal; he replied "I don't care", it was SIX YEARS between my kid's suicide and the eventual referral to CAHMS. There'll be multi-generational depression, PTSD, social anxiety, eating disorders and substance abuse. TBH my family already had all of this BEFORE so you can only imagine what a mess we'll be afterwards. Then there's postnatal depression https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-18/how-covid-restrictions-are-fuelling-a-postnatal-depression-crisis putting mother & baby's lives at risk. This is not a society but a sham; we are not supporting each other, we're cowering in fear and leaving the most vulnerable exposed.

Businesses are going belly-up at an alarming rate https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/0/job-losses-uk-coronavirus-covid/ the future is a terrifying prospect of unemployment, crushing national debt, devastating poverty, and empty high-streets. Y'all can argue that you can't put a price on people's lives but POVERTY KILLS.

People are suffering and dying of covid alone which is horrific and inhumane https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55725812 but what of the (so far) hundreds of thousands of people who're suffering and dying alone of other causes or the (so far) tens of thousands of people whose cancer diagnoses have been delayed or missed entirely https://www.ajmc.com/view/diagnostic-delays-from-covid19-may-increase-cancerrelated-deaths-uk-studies-say.

Death rites are vitally important for the grieving process but we're severely limiting this crucial rite of passage from denying people contact with their loved ones to preventing funeral attendance. When my cousin Allister was dying of brain cancer his parents did a mercy dash to his bedside; his funeral was attended by hundreds. It was still devastating, especially for his parents, burying a second son in a year and a half, but seeing him one last time, seeing the church at standing-room only must've been some small comfort. To think of people like them being denied that is agonising.

"During the national lockdown, no more than 6 people can attend commemorative events such as stone setting ceremonies, the scattering of ashes or a wake." - www.gov.uk

Six people isn't even the immediate family in many instances!

Telling parents they can't even support each other at the side of their premature and critically ill baby is one of the most horrific, inexcusable things I can imagine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-55840222 unless it's not being able to register and grieve a baby's loss https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-52663205. Or perhaps this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-heartbreak-teenagers-funeral-limited-21741773 to lose a child after a life-long illness; having anticipated a celebration of her life as a means for the parents to cope with her loss only to have to settle for near enough nothing. It's beyond cruel.

Look a child in the eyes and tell them their education and future doesn't matter.

Look a stressed out and desperate single mother in the eyes and tell her that her isolation and trauma don't matter. Say it again over the grave of the baby she smothered when it all got too much.

Look a man who's gone bankrupt in the eyes and tell him that losing his business, his home, his relationship and his self-respect to the lockdowns isn't as important as a stranger's health. Look his widow in the eyes after he dies of suicide and say it again.

Look an old woman in the eyes and tell her she can't say goodbye to her husband at the end of her life. Tell her she can't see the children and grandchildren she now hasn't seen in a YEAR. Tell those children that they can't offer their father comfort at her funeral.

If you can do any one of those things you're a truly horrible person. But we're all sitting in our homes, protecting our own miserable little lives and allowing this to happen. History is not going to judge us kindly. The moment I knew we were beyond salvation was when the churches locked their doors. The faithful ministering to the sick and dying during times of plague is inspiring; this is the opposite. We have withdrawn kindness under the false guise of protecting others.

One person's life or death is not more important than another's; the many should not be sacrificed for the few.

Humans are mortal; we're all going to die. Diseases are normal and natural, especially one like this that kills the elderly and the chronically ill - the reason the 1918 flu pandemic was so horrifying was that it killed the young and otherwise healthy. Yet in 2009 when the Swine Flu pandemic killed children and pregnant women NOTHING closed, nothing changed. My kid had it - she wasn't tested or seen by a doctor; her school didn't close or even do a deep clean. She survived, 392 others didn't... but at the time of the first lockdown only 400 or so people had died in the UK. How come nothing was done on the back of nearly 400 YOUNG deaths when the entire country was shut for just over 400 primarily OLD people?! Sure, a lot more have died now but thousands die in every seasonal flu outbreak but we go on as usual. Our population is aged and unhealthy, people have been dying at proportionally slower rates for decades. The population crisis has been under discussion for years - we NEED a pandemic to redress the balance and, for the survival of the species, this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

In 1900 the world population was approx. 1.6 billion; now it's nearly 7.8 billion and that's with two World Wars (WWI 15-22,000,000 dead; WWII 20-85,000,000 dead), the 1918 pandemic 17-100,000,000 dead), HIV/AIDS (32,700,000 dead), and the advent of birth control! More than quadrupled in 120 years with HUGE losses. Covid's currently at 2,230,000. The death toll, taken alone or in proportion to population, just doesn't warrant the devastation the INTERVENTIONS are wreaking.

I'm not afraid of covid; of dying myself or losing loved ones to it. I'm afraid of surviving this hell and trying to rebuild. People dying is sad but IMHO people who wrap themselves in cotton wool and leave the rest of 'society' to rot aren't worth saving.

On a teenage mother who has seriously f*ck*d up

Never one to shy away from the controversial this opinionated potato is now contemplating the Shamima Begum case...here's a few sources to get started:

• Plea for return: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47260916
• Block return: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-bride-latest-uk-return-home-secretary-sajid-javid-syria-a8780401.html
• Could face prosecution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47237051
• Has given birth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/17/shamima-begum-who-fled-uk-to-join-isis-has-given-birth-say-family

Quick summary: Shamima Begum is a 19 year old British national who, 

having been indoctrinated, ran off (age 15) to support IS in Syria 

(as a jihadi bride). At 9 months pregnant with her third child

(her older two having recently died) she made headlines

for wanting to come home...despite still holding IS sympathies.

This has understandably provoked strong negative reactions.

But lets have a proper look at this, shall we?

First of all, does the UK even have the right or power to strip a citizen of that status? 

Begum is believed to be a British-born citizen, which in the past would have prevented the Government from stripping her of her nationality.
Only dual-nationals or those who had become British citizens— known as “naturalisation” — could be hit with “deprivation orders” removing their UK status.

It emerged the legal test to exclude the wife of an ISIS fighter from the UK is whether she is eligible to claim citizenship elsewhere. Her parents are from Bangladesh — raising the bar to re-entry here.

(Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8431345/jihadi-bride-exclusion-british-citizenship/)

I am decidedly dubious about this. Just because someone could potentially claim citizenship elsewhere doesn't mean that they should be obliged to...or that the other nation is obliged to take them surely? It can't be right to deliberately render someone stateless.
If Shamima's parents are indeed Bangladeshi she might've been entitled to automatic citizenship as a child...but she is not a child now. And are the parents STILL Bangladeshi or did they surrender their citizenship? Can Bangladesh be forced to take her? And does Shamima even have any links to the country?! There's also the point that her husband is a Dutch national; surely THAT claim would supersede her parents origins. 
One of the most disgusting things about deportation and 'repatriation' is the idea that someone can just go live in a country because they (or in this case their parents) were born there like they necessarily know anything about the language or the law or the culture of that place. We've found this 'logic' abhorrent in terms of the Windrush scandal. If anything we belong to the place(s) we were raised, the places we know - this idea of belonging to your ancestral nation smacks of the racist phrase "go back where you came from", whether anyone likes it or not she came from the UK.

Secondly the use of emotive and prejudicial language: a line in The Sun article cited above (about her desire to return to the UK) starts "shameless Shamima Begum whined..." EXCUSE ME? There's not even an effort toward impartiality here. Shameless? Right or wrong should she be obliged to express shame for her beliefs? Obviously I'm not gonna defend IS but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - it all just depends on your viewpoint. 
Condemning people on their actions is one thing but condemning them on their ideologies just increases feelings of disenfranchisement and people feeling marginalised and oppressed leads inevitably to more crime, civil unrest and violence.
Are sympathisers inherently evil? I don't think so. Every conflict in history has sympathisers on both sides. Also, she hasn't even undergone any de-radicalisation as yet. Whining? She's a bereaved young woman who has been through more in the last 4 years than most of us will endure in a lifetime. And we whine when the wifi is slow. A bit of perspective here would go a long way.

Thirdly, her age. She was 15 when she ran away, lots of 15 year olds run away from home. If they turned up again four years later how would we judge parents who did not welcome them home with open arms? Here we talking about a nation refusing to allow her home to her family. IF she is tried for crimes she will have to face charges as a minor - unless they can prove any of her actions since turning 18 was criminal.
The lack of understanding that she is a young woman who, whatever she may have done, was still legally a child when this situation started and she has had little chance to address. Frankly I'm astonished - can people not remember the shit they got up to in their teens? Can they not imagine having a teenage daughter they'd want treated fairly but with sympathy? I'm not one for fuzzy maternal feelings - if my kid got up to no good I'd expect them to face the consequences...but not this mob mentality.

Fourthly, the assumption of criminality. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall British citizens being ousted for having sympathies with the IRA in the not-so-distant past. If people are to be persecuted for their politics it at least ought to apply equally to all terrorist organisations.
Shamima left the UK to be a jihadi BRIDE, not (so far as anyone seems to have any evidence of as yet) to take part in any terrorist activities. Perhaps she can be charged as an accessory but that requires due process, courts, a war crimes tribunal perhaps. Stripping her citizenship is at the very least premature if she has not been convicted of anything.

Fifthly the rights of her child and her concerns as a parent.
One of the stupidest claims I saw argued (before her new son was born) was that she wanted to come back to give birth on the NHS. How dumb are people?! At nine months pregnant that was NEVER an option. She could neither have flown nor endured an overland journey.
A woman who has lost two children is going to be quite reasonably terrified for the wellbeing of her child. If she will risk coming home and facing prosecution and / or being stripped of custody of that child in order to ensure it's survival why should that be frowned upon?!
The child is born of a British mother and a Dutch father - he is an EU citizen, not a Syrian. Should he not have a right to life regardless of his parentage? There is enough criticism of EU nations not taking in Syrian refugee children - rejecting a child who has every right to be here is beyond the pale.

Shamima's second child, her son Jarah, died aged 8 months in December 2018 of malnutrition; her elder child, daughter Sarayah, died in January 2019 aged 21 months. Losing a child is generally held to be one of the worst things that can happen to you; losing two so closely together must be beyond words. Losing your existing children when you are pregnant with another must be terrifying. Losing your children when you are little more than a child yourself...well, I would have imagined that people could stretch to a little more empathy.

I shouldn't be astonished at how judgmental people are...humans are, in my humble opinion, bloody awful. Maybe Shamima Begum is an exceptionally awful person but everyone deserves a fair hearing and the chance of redemption. It says a lot about a society that we seem to be collectively willing to condemn her without trial...and to leave her child in danger. Perhaps there would be a security risk allowing her home but we have procedures in place for that. Even if she'd been a mature adult when she went out there she is just as deserving of justice through due process as anyone else; the child should not suffer for his parents mistakes.

UPDATE
Predictably Bangladesh denied she had any right to citizenship and the Netherlands (her husband's nation) blocked her too. This means that the UK had indeed made her illegally stateless - in all honesty, revoking someone's citizenship BEFORE an alternative citizenship has been set up is always going to be wrong.

On March 8th news broke that Shamima's third child - a two week old son named Jarrah after her firstborn - had died.
Given the predominant public opinion of her case I expected comments condemning her, calling it 'karma', maybe even saying her kid was better off dead than with her as a mother...
THREE CHILDREN DEAD is beyond anything most of us can imagine, and in three separate incidents in the space of three months is just too awful contemplate. No mother deserves that; no child deserves to die.
I was fully gearing up to unfollow people for the comments I expected to see, given the opinions expressed earlier in the case.
Actually, public opinion has swung about and the gov't - especially Sajid Javid - Home Secretary (Conservative) who took the decision - are now being heavily criticised for their harsh action. This only annoys me more because this was a predictable outcome. It was a bad call before a child died, and he may have died anyway, but the failure to see Shamima FROM THE OUTSET as a vulnerable young woman who needs help, rehabilitation and justice - for what she has done and what has been done to her - utterly appals me.

A tweet from Anna Soubry - MP for Broxtowe (Liberal Party):

"It was wrong to take away Shamima Begum's British citizenship

in the first place @sajidjavid must now restore it

& she must be able to come home.

Shamima Begum is our responsibility

whatever she may or may not have done

however abhorrent her views"

A tweet from Twitter user @0Calamity:

"I don't care how unpopular this will make me.

Shamima Begum was groomed as a 15 yr old,

and after, effectively, being a sex-slave, has now lost her third child. And our govt.'s response is to persecute her

instead of seeking to rehabilitate her. Hard to find words."

The top listed response to this (from @MickDavies1968) reads:

"It shows the sorry state of this country

that you felt the need to include your first sentence."

And that is absolutely it - where the hell are we if the perceived unpopular opinion is one of compassion and the hope of redemption??? Why did it take the death of her third child to change public opinion?!