Skip to main content

Day: 28 September 2015

Historical hangovers threaten Northern Ireland’s peace

Written by Isaac Atwal on . Posted in Opinion.

Over the past few months, Northern Ireland has seen increasing levels of political turmoil with the power sharing deal that was a product of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement coming under increasing strain. A recent upsurge in dissident republican activity, with the deaths of two former IRA hitmen being the most high profile, has brought about accusations from unionist politicians and others that the IRA is still active. This claim has been refuted by Sinn Féin, who maintain that the IRA does not exist anymore and is not orchestrating violence. The IRA ordered a formal halt to its armed campaign in 2005.

Disagreements have arisen in the fallout of the murders and have plunged Northern Ireland’s Stormont Assembly into crisis, with the Democratic Unionist Party’s (DUP) First Minister Peter Robinson stepping down in protest against what the DUP claim is the prospect of the IRA still being active. This comes after deadlock in the Northern Ireland Assembly over the implementation of welfare reform that has been blocked by Sinn Féin, who are opposed to changes, despite initially approving them in March.

Theresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland secretary, had previously said that if a solution could not be found to the deadlock then the Westminster government was prepared to step in and suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly and rule from London as a “last resort.” This is something that the DUP isn’t entirely adverse to. With Northern Ireland Assembly elections to be held next year, a suspension now, with a view to restoring power sharing next year, could give the opportunity for a renegotiation of the power sharing agreement that would yield more favourable terms and to tar Sinn Féin with the dissident brush.

Since the start of the year there have been five bombs found in Northern Ireland. Of these, one exploded outside a probation office in April, and two partially exploded near an army reserve centre in Londonderry in May. This time the devices were placed close to residential houses.

These are not an immediate assessment of the IRA or the Provisional IRA; dissident republican action has continued in dribs and drabs since the end of the Troubles. However, the shootings of two ex-IRA hitmen in four months has called into question the continued existence of the Provisional IRA from unionist politicians. After the murder of Kevin McGuigan in August—who was one of the suspects in the murder of Gerard Jock Davison, a fellow ex-IRA man killed only three months earlier—First Minister Peter Robinson stepped aside after the police claimed that there may have been Provisional IRA involvement in McGuigan’s death.

Robinson remarked when stepping aside and leaving one DUP minister to remain First Minister that he was taking this action “to ensure that nationalists and republicans are not able to take financial and other decisions that might be detrimental to Northern Ireland.” However, Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has said that the IRA has “gone and is not coming back.”

In addition to this, the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), George Hamilton, said that the Provisional IRA still exists with respect to command structures and that some of its members were involved in the murder. However, Hamilton stated that there was no evidence of the murder being sanctioned by the group. He also added that the organisation’s purpose had “radically changed.” He stated that the police assessment was that the Provisional IRA remains committed to politics and is not engaged in violence. Instead he placed blame for the murders on a fall out within parts of the republican community involved in “personal gain or personal agendas.”

Now, there seems to be confusion over whether the IRA or any associated organisations are still in existence and functioning, or if the recent spate of violence is being committed by people who used to be involved in these organisations during the troubles, but are now settling personal scores.

Indeed, a look into Kevin McGuigan’s past shows that, having worked previously as a hitman with Gerard Jock Davison, the man he was suspected of the killing of months earlier, the murders may have more to do with personal rivalries than a revival of republican violence. These two men were part of a campaign group, Direct Action Against Drugs, an assassination unit consisting of ex-IRA members that would target alleged drug dealers in Northern Ireland who had fallen foul of the IRA.

A catalogue of violent incidents attributed to McGuigan in these years eventually came to a head when his volatile nature ended in a dispute that required the IRA’s internal discipline unit to be called in. McGuigan’s sentence was a “six-pack” which meant gunshot wounds to the feet, hands and elbows. It is alleged that after this incident McGuigan harbored a grudge against Davison. A former IRA prisoner turned author, Anthony McIntyre, who visited McGugian after the shooting, recalled that McGuigan felt Davison has “hijacked the army and punished him for reasons that were unfair—the result of favouritism and personalities.”

It would seem that the murders of these two men maybe have more to do with organised crime, a shared legacy of violence, suspicion and vying for dominance in quasi-political and paramilitary organisations than the full scale resumation of organised political violence in Northern Ireland. The Westminster government said last week that they would establish a commission to assess paramilitary organisations and organised crime. The DUP have said that they are “content” with this announcement and will be entering cross-party talks due to start soon. Sinn Féin have also said that they are entering these talks and the PSNI have welcomed the clear focus on organised crime. It is no doubt that cross-party talks will now see all involved trying to secure a better position for themselves.

It remains however a great shame and evident that, for whatever reason, structures put in place during the Troubles still exist and political point scoring invoking the past still goes on. Furthermore, whilst widescale organised paramilitary action seems to be a thing of the past, organised crime is still prevalent and as long as this remains the case, so will personal score settling that has a long and bloody history to feed on.

The Murder Marketplace

Written by Grace Iona Annesley-Mair on . Posted in Opinion.

You don’t need to be a genius to know that generally speaking, weapons equal death. The annual Defence and Security Equipment International Exhibition (DSEI) was hosted at the ExCel centre in London earlier this month, guaranteeing the glitz and glamour of a fair that caters for technologically innovative and efficient murder.

While David Cameron travelled to refugee camps near the border of Syria, lambasting the atrocities he saw around him, his government hosted the world’s largest arms fair in the heart of London. With the guests including countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel, the UK Government must take its share of the responsibility of the human cost of supplying the arsenals of these regimes, and yes, that includes helping refugees.

The hypocrisy of UK Government policy in relation to the arms trade is nothing new. In 2006 Tony Blair quashed investigations by the serious fraud office into the alleged corruption of the Al-Yamamah arms and oil deal with Saudi Arabia, which had been set up during Thatcher’s administration. In 2011, during the height of the Arab Spring, the UK government was kind enough to export potassium and sodium fluoride to Bashar Al Assad, which are both used in the production of chemical weapons which would later be used against civilians.

In 2012, MPs carried out an inquiry into how the BP and defence giants BAE systems were involved in the loan of £35 million of taxpayers money to the admirable humanitarian Robert Mugabe. Only six months into 2014 £63.2 million worth of arms export licences had been granted to states that had previously been on a blacklist for systematic human rights atrocities. I’m sure that the realisation that UK Government armed both Iran and Iraq during the Gulf War during the 1980s comes as no surprise. Nor is there any shock at the fact that the British firms, with government approval also supplied Sarin—one of the most important ingredients used in chemical weapons—to Syria during civil war.

Quite often when we discuss atrocity, or chemical weapons such as Sarin, it is done in a way which is quite clinical and detached from their immediate and physical effects. For those that don’t know, Sarin is a chemical agent that inhibits our enzymes from breaking down neurotransmitters (those clever little things which mediate the signals around your body). Because the body can’t break down these neurotransmitters, the same signals are sent over and over in rapid fire.

Within seconds of being exposed to this odourless and tasteless gas, these signals go into overdrive, meaning that whatever your body initially does to deal with the foreign gas repeats in quicker succession. That means you cannot stop your eyes from watering, you cannot stop your lungs from coughing into convulsions, and you have no control as your stomach empties itself of bile and would be entirely powerless to do anything as your bowels give out. This can quickly move into convulsions and paralysis, and with enough exposure, you could be dead in ten minutes.

Sarin takes away the control you have over your body and nervous system. That’s right, the UK Government doesn’t seem to mind our domestic firms selling this stuff. Considering the impacts Sarin has, I’m sure we can all appreciate the irony of David Cameron’s kindness in dealing with the so called “swarm” of refugees in Europe. As much as I might wish it, the UK’s track record hasn’t improved. Despite widespread condemnation of the actions of maniacal dictators across the world, arms sales continue. By March this year, the UK government had issued arms licences that are worth more than £5.2 billion.

What makes the situation slightly more difficult to grapple with is the level of state intervention within the arms trade. The arms sector is one of the most heavily subsidised areas of the UK economy with estimates sitting between £450 – 930 million per year. What seems most bizarre is the willingness to invest in arms, which means by default the state is not only happy but willing to sponsor murder. Amnesty International estimated that around 85 per cent of the killings they document are a direct result of guns, with a further 60 per cent of all human rights abuses being directly related to the arms trade.

In the context of the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War, it becomes impossible to ignore the intrinsic link between arms sales and the systematic dehumanisation, brutalisation, and murder of human beings globally. If anything, when we see refugees they are after all, human beings like the rest of us—with families, hopes, dreams and fears. Our humanity should extend beyond borders, crossings and checkpoints. It should be a reminder that refugees are not just running the risks of drowning in the Mediterranean for the sake of it. When we see what is reality for so many other human beings, such as the haunting images of Aylan Kurdi, our hands are not clean.

Refugees are running to survive, and more often than we would like to admit, they are running from the same regimes that the British arms industry has funded, equipped, and armed. They are also running from regimes that have been able to reinforce their false legitimacy through violent power, and it is the same violent power that the UK Government has been happy to supply.

Will Murdoch pollute National Geographic?

Written by Alex Daniel on . Posted in Environment, Opinion.

The National Geographic Magazine has, in its own words, been “inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888.” It is one of the largest non-profit scientific and educational organisations in the world and one of its chief interests is the “promotion of environmental conservation.” It is, without doubt, a tremendously valuable institution to anyone who takes even a remote interest in the planet upon which we live. It is obvious then, why 21st Century Fox’s recent majority purchase of the magazine has made waves.

21st Century Fox is the same company that has publicly (through their news channel, Fox News) called climate change a “superstition” a “scam” and a “hoax.” Their founder and executive co-chairman, Rupert Murdoch, has said of rising sea levels that “we’ve just got to stop building vast houses on seashores and go back a little bit.” How can the interests of a magazine that is committed to reducing global warming and exposing the truth about the harm humans are doing to the environment be reconciled with those of such a cancerous enterprise as Fox? Clearly, something isn’t right here.

There has been an element of confusion surrounding the deal, so the basic facts of the transaction are thus: 21st Century Fox have taken over 73 per cent of the magazine for $725 million, while the National Geographic Society, the owners since its inception 127 years ago, retain a 27 per cent stake. This has been described as merely an expansion of a venture that has been going on for some time; Fox have owned the associated Television channels (still under the NatGeo name) for 18 years, and they have thus created a new entity called National Geographic Partners.

Upon hearing the news, many voiced their concerns that the National Geographic Magazine will take a U-turn in its editorial line on the issue and follow that of its new owner, with desrisive tweets including “I give National Geographic 18 months before publishing its first piece of climate change denial.” Irish Green Party Politician Dan Boyle was one of many who posted mock-up covers of future editions, with titles including “If Global Warming is real, why is it so cold out?” and “Who needs animals anyway?” as well as “How rising seas are giving whales more room to swim.” Satire it may be, but it is a huge worry.

National Geographic has been leading the way in exposing and addressing the human impact upon climate change for many years. Is all of this going to take a backseat now that the magazine is owned by a multinational corporation that has little to no interest in climate change, aside from displaying its occasional scorn for those naïve enough to trust science?

Meanwhile, Murdoch himself, aside from his farcical comments about rising sea levels, has made it fairly clear how much credence he gives to the irrefutable evidence pointing to an impending environmental crisis. In a 2014 Sky News interview, he claimed that in the wider scheme of things, Australia isn’t contributing much to climate change and so doesn’t need to take action, while China does.

True as it may be that China has a far bigger carbon footprint than Australia, that is because it has more people. This phenomenon, known as the Travesty of the Commons, is equivalent to you or I leaving the lights on 24/7, “because one person won’t make a difference.” It is essentially the process by which humanity is driving, flying and burning its way towards catastrophe. Murdoch, one of the most powerful people on the planet, is a major proponent of it. His company’s takeover ofNational Geographic seems a pretty damning example of capitalism conquering a cause.

The trouble is that the magazine is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like so many other print publications, it has been in decline with the growth in popularity of online journalism, not to mention the vast freedom of information that the web now provides. In short, people no longer need to subscribe to the National Geographic Magazine to gain awareness of the scientific, geographical and historical issues that it has led the way in exposing for so long, and it has been on a low trajectory towards extinction for quite some time.

The National Geographic Society has admitted as much in a statement, and their CEO Gary Knell said the venture will help to “continue to fulfil our mission long into the future,” while Susan Goldberg, the magazine’s Editor-in-chief was more sheepish, saying that Fox “have not always represented the National Geographic brand… in a way we loved or even they loved.” She added, “holding still and doing the same thing is not a sustainable position.” National Geographic needs the money, and the sad fact is that a partnership with Fox is the only way to preserve the company’s longevity.

Those most worried might take comfort in James Murdoch’s—son of Rupert and CEO of 21st Century Fox—comments, saying he revered the magazine, which he has purportedly read from a young age. It must also be noted that Fox would potentially be shooting itself in the foot from a PR perspective in ruining the good work that National Geographic has been doing for so long.

That said, one must ask the question: since when has bad publicity ever bothered a Murdoch-owned news outlet? One can only hope that this is merely the end of the magazine’s non-profit status, and that nobody intends to meddle with its content or cause. Only time will tell.

Oversharing and Generation Facebook

Written by Cecilia Bicknell on . Posted in Opinion.

In her book Not That Kind Of Girl, Lena Dunham was widely criticised for sharing that she had harmlessly explored her sexuality and body with her sister when they were both young children. Anyone who has read the book and understands the context of the situation will know that Dunham acted as many young children do on the cusp of puberty. It is not, as some tabloids reported it, paedophilic, depraved or malicious. Dunham has always been a self-confessed ‘over-sharer’, and her large fan base has praised her for it. And yet over this intimate confession of childhood innocence, she was deemed a pervert. It would appear that for Dunham, the public embraced and rejected her openness.

The concept of “oversharing” is prevalent in both journalism and social media, with more selfies being taken than any other form of photograph on Facebook. It would appear that Generation Y has become Generation “is this my best angle?” While selfies are occasionally mocked, they are accepted as the social norm; the idea of sharing intimate, often nude, photos of oneself for thousands to see is a naturalised phenomenon in the present day. The same can be said for posting personal beliefs (even if they cause great offence to others) on various platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr. And this is apparently a “normal” form of self-expression.

When talking to my technophobic mother the other day about starting a Facebook account, the differences occurred to me between her generation and mine on the line that divides personal and public information. I wouldn’t hesitate before uploading a picture of my puppy playing in our living room, whereas my Mum’s immediate reaction was “what about weirdos seeing our house, where we live, my furniture!” I asked myself whether the 30-year age gap between us was the answer to her pedantry about keeping our private lives private, or whether it was because I have become fundamentally hardened to the chronic “oversharing” cultivated by my fellow Facebook friends.

While sharing the odd selfie on a particularly good hair day isn’t exactly setting the world on fire, the constant barrage of personal pics flowing daily through Instagram can lead to the promotion of so-called fantasy relationships. We’re all guilty of it, stalking girls we despise simply because we stumbled across them on Instagram and they have better clothes, better skin, and a better body. After seeing 50 pictures of some poor girl you’ve never even met and whose birthday party you weren’t even invited to, you begin to feel like you know her. She’s out of reach, but only just. If you look at her long enough on Facebook you can learn every detail about her life, you’re basically friends. But what happens when this turns nasty? She may think she’s posting a harmless photo of her family, but does she really want all 653 of her “friends” to see her Nana’s 90th?

It feels as if we have become deadened to the notion of privacy. When does sharing cross over into the frightening realm of giving up your discretion in favour of a form of public ownership?

Without going into too much sordid detail, I have recently been rather embroiled in a love tryst. Of course, I’m over-exaggerating, but in basic terms a boy thought I was “leading him on” because I would occasionally reply to his rather bizarre Facebook messages. Not wanting to appear rude, I’d try to be congenial and subtly deter his somewhat full-on advances. Foolishly I thought this would be the end of it, little did I know the guy had been cultivating a fantasy relationship between the two of us and my off-hand replies were the fuel to his burning passion. While I don’t know for sure, I dread to think of my profile pictures being the object of sweaty desire for an afternoon’s self-fondlings.

Anyway, to avoid being crass, it’s over now. However, it did get me thinking—if those brief and frankly quite boring Facebook conversations had happened in real life, would the outcome have been the same? I am left thinking that when things happen over the Internet, they take on a whole new code of social conventions. Facebook succeeds in both giving and taking away anonymity—you can know everything about a person and nothing at all.

I suppose the crux of my argument lies in my deep fear of the power of “oversharing” in desensitising our generation to the wonderful intoxicant that is secrecy. When every moment has to be retweeted, regrammed, and relived, nothing is sacred anymore. You can “hate” a person you’ve never even met just for their poor choice of Instagram filter and you can fall in love for the very same thing. It sounds jaded to say this, but maybe we all need to take a step back from our laptops, and put the iPhones down, just in case we’ve given our lives away without even realising it.

Housing crisis tensions continue to escalate

Written by Liam Kelly on . Posted in Features.

Housing and homelessness charity Shelter has consistently sounded warnings about the chronic shortage of affordable housing available in the UK.

One of the starkest warnings yet was its recent report that, since the broadening of the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme in 2012 under the coalition government—which allows council tenants to buy their council home at a discount of up to £75000—one in three local councils had failed to replace a single home sold through the scheme.

The charity said just 8 per cent of councils had built enough homes to replenish half of its stock.

The growing need for more affordable housing is a cause that has consistently united politicians from across the political spectrum in calling for more to be done.

However, despite these emphatic and repeated calls to action from all sides, house building in the UK continues to be in a state of inertia.

The government says it is committed to building 275,000 affordable homes before the end of this parliament.

Statistics compiled by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)—which are hosted on the Shelter website—show that the number of homes owned by Manchester City Council decreased by almost 1,500 between 2010 and 2014.

After the broadening of ‘Right to Buy’ in 2012, the council sold 245 houses under the scheme, to the end of 2014. Since the year 2010/11, the amount of new houses built by the council—both completions and starts—totals only 40.

With less and less affordable housing available in Manchester, more and more people are finding themselves homeless or sleeping rough.

Compounding the issue is fact that the Salvation Army previously managed a 120-bed homeless shelter on Wilmott Street, but it closed two years ago. The Manchester Evening News reported in June that an estimate of the rough sleepers in Manchester in 2014 showed a six-fold increase since 2010.

Since the spring, there has been a marked escalation in the tensions resulting from the dearth of affordable housing and increasing levels of homelessness, and continue to rumble on as the new academic year starts.

Firstly, in April, a group calling themselves ‘Homeless Rights of Justice’—made up of around 30 people who had been homeless for a long time—organised a protest outside Manchester Town Hall to raise awareness of cuts to funding to aid homeless people, such as mental health provision and housing benefit.

When facing eviction, the group then moved to St. Peter’s Square, outside the Central Library. Tensions increased during a row over the use of library facilities by members of the group.

This bizarre cat-and-mouse game between the council and the homeless activists continued into June, when the group were evicted from St. Peter’s Square and set up a new camp in St. Ann’s Square, just around the corner. The evictions kept coming, and the group subsequently moved on to Castlefield, and then King Street.

Eventually, in August, the council applied for an injunction to prevent anybody from erecting a tent in the city centre in protest at its homeless policies. A judge granted the injunction, and now those who are found to be in breach could face up to two years in prison, or a fine of £5,000.

Then, in early September, a new camp made up by homeless people sprung up under the Mancunian Way overpass, between two buildings owned by Manchester Metropolitan University.

‘The Ark’, as it was known, attempted to take on this issue of almost biblical proportions.

‘The Ark’ before demolition. Photo: The Mancunion

I went to The Ark to talk to Ryan, a 24-year-old man who has led the charge in this crusade, a modern-day Noah taking on those desperately in need of help. He is uncomfortable at the idea that he is the “leader” or “boss” of this group, but instead claims to be someone doing whatever he can to help. So, how did The Ark come into being?

“This bridge has been used by homeless people since I was a child… I used to see people sleeping here, and when I first became homeless myself I used to stay here in a cardboard box. A series of events and strange happenings led to a friend and myself living here, homeless, living together in a tent.

“And I built a windbreaker to the side of us, which I ultimately made into four walls, and the council said I was ‘protesting’. And because we’re ‘protesting’ they’re trying to forcibly remove us.”

Obviously, The Ark was a makeshift set up: Pallets and sheets of plastic created windbreaks, a tattered sofa and a picnic table provided a sitting area and, most distinctively, the group slept in tents.

Adorning the outside walls of The Ark were pleas for support from passers-by, donation buckets, and denunciations of both the council and Manchester Metropolitan. One said:

“THESE TENTS ARE HERE TO PROVIDE HOMES AND SHELTER. THEY ARE NOT HERE AS A PROTEST.”

One of many signs that were outside ‘The Ark’. Photo: The Mancunion

However, as Ryan pointed out to me, The Ark was much more than a group of people sleeping in tents under a bridge: “It really feels like a home… We’ve got hot rings so we can cook food, we’ve got a TV, and we can watch DVDs.

“We’ve got 230-volt mains power, we’ve got 110-volt power, and we’ve got 12-volt power. Some of the equipment has been bought from the donation bucket; some of it has been donated by lovely people who wanted to help us.

“The whole setup probably cost about £300, but it gives somewhere for homeless people to come, get warm, eat some hot food, charge their phones and sleep a bit more soundly.”

This is the crux of the issue: those who found themselves homeless felt abandoned, and took it upon themselves to create a safe space.

However crude the nature of the shelter’s construction, it did not dampen the spirits of the members of this “self-serving community.” There was a real sense of community at The Ark. Resources were shared in a selfless way; whilst discussions were had about how to save the camp from its impending destruction.

You would be forgiven for thinking that The Ark was a desolate place, but it really wasn’t. Members of the group were laughing and smiling sat around a fire in the middle of the complex, much as students do in their accommodation. The apparent contentment may well have resulted from the security they felt at being in that place.

During the brief time I was there, they welcomed a new member into their midst without interrogation or prejudice, immediately offering him a place to stay until he gets back on his feet.

A petition organised by the members of The Ark against the group being evicted gained over 3,500 signatures on Change.org.

The members of the group are also a dab hand at social media—which is so important in getting recognition for a campaign today—and their Facebook page has over 2,000 likes. The page has been used to update the supporters of the group, organise demonstrations, and even meditation sessions.

Early in the morning of Friday 18th of September, as reported in The Mancunion, the camp members were evicted from their position under the bridge by a combination of police officers and bailiffs.

Videos from the scene show physical altercations between the members of the camp and the enforcement officers whose job it was to clear the camp, remove the infrastructure and, according to some reports, the personal effects of the camp members.

A reporter for The Mancunion, who was at the scene when the camp was removed, saw artist and homeless activist Jen Wu forcibly dragged from her tent screaming, before later seeing her be carried into an ambulance on a stretcher.

During the afternoon of 18th of September, Manchester Metropolitan University released a statement about the eviction of the camp members, claiming that the majority of those removed “are not recognised as homeless individuals, either by the City Council or by Greater Manchester Police.”

The site that previously played host to The Ark has now had a metal fence erected around it, and is now used for the storage of refuse bins.

Ryan was arrested for breaching the peace on the day of the eviction.

Last week a protest led by students from the University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University was held in solidarity with the members of the group, urging the university to return the land to the group. Over 70 people took part in the demonstration, with placards that read “Lives not Land”, and “People before Profits.”

Students from both the University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University protest the demolition of The Ark. Photo: The Mancunion

The increasing tension between the homeless and the authorities is symptomatic of the housing shortage in the area, as well as cuts to mental health provision and insecure jobs. However, this problem is not merely confined to Manchester, but to the UK as a whole.

All sides would likely view the current situation as being unsustainable, as the pattern of eviction-relocation-eviction appears to be never-ending. I asked Ryan how, in an ideal world, he would see it resolved: “It’s not going to be resolved overnight; it needs a massive strategic plan and total overhaul.”

And would he try and keep the community together?

“Of course. You have to.”

Refugees United: Football shows support for refugees

Written by Harry Newton on . Posted in Sport.

Football is often used as an escape from everyday life, as we watch or play to empty our minds—but football in the last couple of weeks has utilised its reach and power to impact the world and spread an important message. While various governments look at how, and even if, they should help Syrian refugees, football rose up and simplified the situation to say “these people need our help!”

A proposal put forward by FC Porto, and backed by the rest of the UEFA Champions League teams, has been put into action by UEFA. Each team’s first home match of the Champions League will result in €1 of each ticket sold going to help in the refugee crisis. This movement took the internet by storm as FC Porto tweeted their initial proposal and German side FC Schalke tweeted back the Portuguese team; “Great idea @FCPorto! #Schalke are in—let’s play for the migrants! #Standup #SO4.” These were the first two teams to sign up, and now every team in the competition has done.

Considering that the attendance for Real Madrid’s Champions League opener against Shakhtar Donetsk was 66,389, this is a great way to raise money for the crisis, and it doesn’t stop here. PSG and Real Madrid are two of many European teams who then went on, of their own volition, to give money to the crisis, both donating €1,000,000 in this instance.

The Premier League showed its support for the refugee crisis last week too, as the ‘Get on with the Game’ flag, which is usually erected before games, was swapped for a ‘Save the Children’ flag. This will continue for one more week before being swapped back. Further support includes action from Chelsea, who will auction off their match-day shirts from their game with Maccabi Tel-Aviv; Arsenal, who have donated £1 from each ticket they sold against Stoke; and Everton, who fielded a team of Syrian refugee children as their mascots against Chelsea last weekend.

Despite these great acts by Premier League sides, it seems to be German football teams who are making the greatest contributions, which may come as no surprise, since the German government has been so forthcoming about the crisis. Bundesliga champions Bayern Munich have created training camps for Syrian refugees, where they can learn German, have meals and use the football equipment that they have been provided. They also invited Syrian refugees to stand alongside their usual German match day mascots last weekend against Augsburg as a “symbol of integration of refugees.” Borussia Dortmund have also been showing their support—they invited 220 refugees to watch their 7-2 Europa League demolition of Norwegian team, Odds Ballklubb.

The German Football Association (DFB) have been very active in their help for refugees. Last week they lengthened their migrant-aid initiative until 2019. Furthermore, in order to integrate migrants into smaller communities, the DFB created “1-0 for a welcome,” which offers €500 to any German amateur club that provides footballing opportunities for refugees.

It is in the eighth tier of German football, though, where you will find one of the greatest footballing acts for refugees. A local Christian refugee aid organisation in Egelsbach has joined forces with SG Egelsbach to set up their very own football club for refugees—Refugees United—in a fantastic act of kindness, to integrate refugees into the community. Their opening match against another local side was introduced by the DFB president Wolfgang Niersbach, who described the team’s creation as “exactly what we had in mind”.

Teams from all countries and from all tiers of football, just like SG Egelsbach, have shown their support for refugees in the last few weeks. FC United of Manchester, Charlton Athletic, Clapton FC, Middlesbrough and Arsenal are a few of many in England who held aloft their “Refugees Welcome” banners at games last week, coinciding with the National Day of Action. The message even spreads all the way to Australia, with North Melbourne Kangaroos having displayed a “NMFC Welcomes Refugees” banner on the pitch before their game last week.

Despite these fantastic strives towards helping and integrating refugees, two notable banners have been seen at matches of two Champions League teams that convey the complete opposite message. Maccabi Tel-Aviv’s fans held aloft a “Refugees not Welcome” banner before their game against Kiryat Shmona, and Lyon fans did the same last Saturday in their 0-0 draw with Lille. Both teams will still be giving €1 to the crisis for each ticket they sell for their first Champions League home match, along with every other Champions League team. These minority groups of fans stand rather alone in their anti-refugee stance.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel this month hammered home the importance of Europe’s need to tackle the current refugee crisis. In the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, Merkel urged Europe to act together, stating that “if Europe fails on the question of refugees, its close connection with universal civil rights will be destroyed.”

Regardless of Merkel’s cries for help, imitated by politicians and people alike, the British government are still potting below par. David Cameron has announced that Britain will take up to 20,000 refugees in the next five years, whereas Germany will take in 25 times that amount in one year alone, through their willingness to take in 500,000 each year.

In spite of the couple of anomalous examples of fans not welcoming refugees, the world of European football is doing what the British, and other, governments are struggling to do: Prioritising the refugee crisis and meeting simple social implications. Despite any bad press football fans may usually get for their antics, clubs and fans have come together in this instance to fight this crisis head on. When Merkel addressed Europe to come together and act, Europe listened, but it was Europe’s football.

Referee respect

Written by Harry Newton on . Posted in Sport.

With the arrival of the much-anticipated Rugby World Cup last week, the country has contracted Rugby Fever! A sport that generically plays second fiddle to football has fought its way to the forefront of people’s minds and the backfront of the presses. In comparison to football, rugby is a game with more aggression, more players and more scoring, but despite this scope for potential problems for referees, they are treated with respect and protection, unlike within The Beautiful Game.

Last Saturday saw Garth Crooks, BBC pundit, launch a tirade at football referee Mike Dean, after his performance in the Arsenal vs. Chelsea game, which involved Arsenal being reduced to nine men through ill discipline. The ex-Tottenham Hotspur and Stoke City man became visibly heated as he continued his rant about Dean. Crooks stated that, “the only people who were interested in sending the player off… were the officials,” when discussing Gabriel’s departure.

He then went on to comment about Dean himself; “I think Mike Dean is a really good referee, but he’s got one fault—he wants to be the star too often, and it’s really getting on my nerves. It’s not about you Mike, it’s about the game.” He went on to liken him to a “petulant school teacher,” labeled him “over officious” and suggested he looks for excuses to send off players. A pundit may be paid to express their opinion on the game, but this is a step too far from Crooks, who made this debacle personal.

This is not the only time that somebody has come out into the media to slam Mike Dean, as in March of last year Nigel Pearson, ex-Leicester City manager, described Dean as “one of the most arrogant people” he has met.

Whether or not the views of Crooks or Pearson are in any way accurate is irrelevant. Both of these comments are just two examples that have been cherry-picked from a pool of hundreds of other examples where pundits, managers and footballers have shown a complete lack of respect for the officials. In a world where managers will not comment on a player’s individual performance after a game, they have absolutely no problem criticising the referee’s individual performance. Strange.

Week in, week out, we see footballers harass the referee. Whether it be the infamous sending off of Manchester United’s ex-player Ángel Di María last season for tugging at a referee’s shirt, or the constant moans of Diego Costa, players simply do not treat the referee the way that they should. Rules indicate that a referee can show a yellow card to a player for arguing an official’s decision. This has not changed the situation much, however, because if they booked every player that argued with them, the game would eventually become into the referee playing crossbar challenge, alone.

Differences in rugby show how a referee can be treated correctly. Whilst watching England beat Fiji in their opening game of the Rugby World Cup last Friday, the commentators fell silent whilst the referee walked over to an offending player. We heard the referee speak, via a microphone, to the offender, telling him calmly what he had done wrong. And the player accepted the referee’s explanation. This happened time and time again without complaint, because the microphone gave the referee protection, so that the world could hear what was being said between the two. Football referees already have a microphone during the games; making this device’s output public would make footballers think twice about what they are saying to the referee, and would open up understanding as to why referees make the decisions that they make.

Of course, it is not just the microphone that makes players respect the referee, since respect is instilled at lower levels of the game and from a young age. This is something that English football is trying to do via the “Get On With The Game” initiative. Going to a game played between children does not always turn out to be as joyful and carefree as you would expect, with some referees getting a much harder time than even Mike Dean has received from Garth Crooks. Starting to eradicate the problem at this level is progress; however, it will only work if Premier League players act like role models to these children and do the same.

Whether the sport is rugby or football, one thing is apparent—you will not change the referee’s decision. No referee will give a foul, only to then change their mind once Diego Costa has sprinted over to tell him that he is wrong. However, one thing that is different in rugby is that the referee’s decision is given more with a greater explanation, because he can discuss with officials watching overhead and consult a video replay. This instills more confidence in the players towards the officials and gives us a much more accurate sport.

The problem with football is that we find ourselves in a vicious cycle. If we introduce this, it will mean more correct calls and gain referees more respect. However, with the current lack of respect from players, this would lead to officials calling for a video replay on most decisions, undermining the referee’s trained decision-making skills.

There is no doubt that the introduction of video would help a referee in instances of difficult decisions; would make the game run more smoothly; and would overall gain the referees more respect as authoritarians of the game. But football does not deserve this until players, managers and even pundits treat referees with the respect that they deserve.