Conflicted

Conflicted feelings. They are the worst. And I’ve been full of them this week. Every time I look at the news I can feel myself breaking in two like a Kit-Kat.

The most powerful example of this was on Thursday when Obama gave Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It was brilliant to watch and warmed my heart after that press conference the day before. The way Obama surprised him and then Joe teared up and they all hugged and had the best time. But then a little sinister voice in my head wouldn’t let the good times sail by without exception.

The thing is it all came off very best pals. You could basically hear them scream ‘You were the greatest’, No, you were the greatest’. Obama even granted him it with distinction. Don’t get me wrong I one hundred percent believe Biden has been an exceptional Vice President but if Bush had given this honour to Cheney then I’m under no illusion that I’d be screaming my discontent from the rooftops. Then again, Biden never shot anyone with a rifle whilst serving so he probably deserves it more.

Then over the weekend, civil rights icon John Lewis announced he wouldn’t be going to the inauguration next Friday. Again my heart was rallying in support for Lewis’ idealism. Trump, to him, is not a legitimate President and so he will not be attending the swearing in. Now I completely agree with him that ‘the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton’. However, Trump still won the majority in the electoral college and that – as seemingly unfair and illogical as it is – is the only criteria that he needs to be a legitimate President.

American democracy is founded on a system of checks and balances so for the democracy to work; every part has to its job. For me, it is important that congress use the appropriate and formal frameworks in place to challenge the policies of Trump. Congress must watch him like a hawk and if he does anything which threatens the legitimacy of the office then they should impeach him. But to cry foul and not engage in institutions and ceremonies from the very beginning threatens your legitimacy when something tangible comes up. It will be easy to label you as nothing more than an obstructionist hell bent on bringing an innocent man down.

Even writing that paragraph brings to the fore that discontented feeling within me. As I type I can literally hear my body scream ‘but actually being obstructionist is exactly what the Republicans did to Obama.’ And it is absolutely true. Obama was ridiculously hounded throughout his first term. They demanded that he prove that he was born in America. Not to mention that you’ll find no shortage of small minded behaviour from the Grand Old Party over the past eight years. Mitch McConnell once even filibustered his own bill when the Democrats attempted to work with him. Not to mention the blatant refusal to engage with Obama’s supreme court nomination this past year because they were playing out the clock in the hope of a Trump presidency.

Of course, that’s exactly what happened. The genuine compromise candidate in Merrick Garland will be thrown to the wind and by February, we will no doubt have a conservative with a horrid track record on women’s right as the nominee. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t even say this as a moral argument. Twain’s advice on arguing with a fool comes to mind – don’t do it because they’re more experienced and will win. If both parties decide to play the obstructionist game, then absolutely no one wins but the poorest and most vulnerable suffer the most.

Obama, perhaps the best politician of his time, completely gets this. It was bittersweet watching his farewell address. In all that he said, I could find myself cheering him on. Part of me feeling guilt that I may not have fully appreciated what I had before I lost it. Even in a mostly sentimental speech he reminded us that everyone – even if the middle aged white man – has challenges to face and that we move forward as a society when we recognise that.

The contrast between the outgoing President and the incoming one is startling. Trump’s press conference on Wednesday was one point in the week that I did not feel conflicted at all. As it went on, I only became more anxious at what awaits America over the next four years. Regardless of his feelings towards a particular news organisation, he cannot refuse to take their question. If he continues to do this as President, it is an obvious threat to American democracy. It was a shocking moment and the surprise from the assembled press was visible even through a television screen. Added to that was the presence of Trump supporters who would loudly clap and boo when required.

The truth, though, is that this man will be the President on Friday. Action will be needed to reduce his ability to reduce his harmful behaviour. ABC news asked the question that the CNN reporter was denied. It is small acts of defiance like this that must be taken. It will require everyone to do their jobs and ensure that they are not being undermined. If they are then we must all work to protect them.  

Fearing Infection

Illnesses and diseases are, by their very nature, not very nice things. They cause pain and stop people from achieving their full potential. They’re also quite scary, especially when you throw in the fact that most of the time we don’t actually know much about them. Nothing sparks more panic than an illness that’s contagious. Think about the images of men and women in protective white suits and restrictions on travel when another mass panic grabs the world.

On a more local level, we’ve probably all become a little bit paranoid in the winter months, making silent note of anyone that has a pervasive cough and tactically deciding not to sit beside them. Those people seem ill and are having a rough time of it. t’s perfectly sensible that we don’t want to get sick. That being said, we don’t regularly single these people out or point blank refuse to sit beside them if need be. This is, however, the case for people with sexually transmitted infections.

In Britain especially, sex is something of a taboo subject. It’s a subject matter that’s often characterised as shallow and seedy. A thing that should only be talked about with close friends and otherwise never discussed. Make it about STIs and people stop the discussion all together. Silence though, is one of the worst things that can happen. Not talking about something is a sure way to make a scary thing gain momentum. In the darkness, it grows and grows and grows. Ideas about how people get it move from fact to fiction. Suddenly, it’s only a certain type of people that get the disease.

The Terrence Higgins Trust knows this only too well. They’re a charity that campaigns on various issues regarding the prevention of HIV and promoting safer sex. Founded after the death of Terry Higgins, one of the first men who died from AIDS in the UK, it sought to humanise the issue at a time where the British press were labelling it as a gay disease. While thirty years on people in Britain very rarely die from AIDS, the stigma around gaining HIV is nonetheless still very much prevalent in our society. It was only last Summer that the Daily Mail freaked out about Prep being available on the NHS, calling it a lifestyle drug. The language may not be as blunt as back in the eighties but the meaning is obviously the same. People that are more promiscuous are the type that are likely to get HIV and if they do become positive then they'll have deserved it.

If we pause to think about it, this level of subtle, implicit shaming around STI bounds. Often, we’ll hear people discussing if someone is clean. They never talk about whether they’re not, but it follows that if the person isn’t then they’re dirty. It creates an idea that people with HIV are less worthy than people without it. Quickly, this leads to no one wanting to identify as having HIV for fear that they’ll be alienated from their peers. The stigma of any STI and especially HIV is perhaps the most dangerous element now because it hides the light and stops people from seeking out the help and support that they need.

It’s important to get checked regularly and fortunately testing is available in a multitude of ways. Sandyford is the sexual health clinic and whilst it might appear scary, it really isn’t. However, if you’re still not entirely comfortable going there then you can always speak to your GP and have your bloods taken in your local practice.

We’re all hoping that every test we ever take will come back as negative, but don’t fear the results. Even if you find that you’ve tested positive for HIV, it’s not the end and you will not be left alone. Not only does the NHS have excellent support systems in place, but wonderful charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust will be there to support you.

Eddie Murphy - 'Faggots aren't allowed to look at my ass while I'm on stage'

Up until this evening, Eddie Murphy to me was a hilarious actor who had a string of funny films I remembered watching growing up. He was absolutely hilarious in Dr. Dolittle and The Nutty professor but his role as Donkey will always be special to me. I didn’t even realise he had done stand up until about two hours ago or that in one of his routines, he came out with some unbelievably homophobic stuff.

The routine is getting banded around online because Netflix only recently released it online and goodness me, to say it hasn’t aged well is an understatement. It pretty much opens with Murphy going on a rant about gay men and how he moves about on stage so that faggots can’t stare at his butt. By the way, he throws that word around like its nothing. I think that was one of the things that struck me the most about this video. I've spent a good five minutes debating if I should use the word and it just falls off his tongue. 

You’d maybe think that dropping the f-bomb would be the height of it but not so, his homophobia only gets worse. He continues about how we shouldn’t be horrid to gay people and it’s totally cool to play tennis with them. It’s just that after the game, as a straight man, you’ll want to go get a beer and they’ll want to suck dick and that’s where you should part ways.

Some are arguing that Murphy is engaging in high level satire to prove a point about what we now call toxic masculinity. Whilst I’d really love to believe that, it seems incredibly revisionist. I’m all about giving him the benefit of the doubt but when the set culminates in his worry that his girlfriend will get too friendly with a gay guy, kiss him and then bring back the AIDs virus thus killing Eddie; I very much doubt that.

Now where I will extend the benefit of the doubt is in that this was filmed in 1983. I want to make perfectly clear that what he said was inexcusable and wrong. It demonstrates the level of fear and misunderstanding around the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the early eighties, neatly demonstrating how culturally it was derided as a gay disease. We were not the victims but the enemies who deserved the disease but would occasionally infect the innocent straights. Not to mention the fact that it’s plainly homophobic, however to say that Murphy is homophobic and end it there would be idiotic.

Giving the show a one-star rating and imploring Netflix to take it off seems like the wrong reaction. It should stay there to serve as a reminder of how far we have come and the progress that we have made as a society. What’s far more damning that his actual words is the audience reaction. It isn’t very shocked at any point, the level of clapping and laughter remain high throughout. We can remove it and pretend that homophobia never existed on a societal level but to me that seems more dangerous than watching people we respect spouting such disrespectful and plainly wrong ideas.

It’s not only his lack of knowledge of HIV but his incipit homophobia. In one part he talks about his fear about Mr. T being gay and interestingly, he describes in detail how his fear is that Mr. T would be the receiver. He talks about how gay people can be okay because they might still play sports. It shows that even when he talks about accepting gay people, he really means that gay people are fine as long as they don’t talk about it and we can just pretend they’re straight.

Murphy apologised for his comments in 1996.
‘I know how serious an issue AIDS is the world over. I know that AIDS isn’t funny. It’s 1996 and I’m a lot smarter about AIDS now. I am not homophobic and I am not anti-gay. My wife and I have donated both time and money to AIDS research.’ 
You can argue that it’s too little too late and that the apology only came at a point when Murphy was becoming mainstream and so he had to backtrack on his earlier comments.

I’m willing to be more forgiving. For me, the routine is a symptom of a less accepting and tolerant world. Remember that in 1983, homosexual acts between men had been legal in Scotland for less than four years. The age of contest was not equal. The world was in a different place in which the LGBT community was fighting to prove that we were equal and this language wasn't acceptable. The world has evolved now and in the same country that was filmed, same sex marriage is legal. I sincerely believe that Murphy's views have evolved too and that whilst he should have to deal with the consequences of this video, he should not be labelled as homophobic today for the homophobia of his past.

In Praise of O'Connor's new EastEnders

In a year were the very real world seems to be doing coke every week and then dealing with the consequences by doing some more; you’d be forgiven for not noticing a change in the world of television.

‘Eastenders’ is an icon of British television. It’s not the longest soap on television but it’s a staple none the less. We all know that anything that has been on for as long as it has, will inevitably have peaks and troves. Just as the noughties came to an end, it entered a prolonged slump. First came a baby swap storyline which caused such controversy that the actress at the centre of the plot, Samantha Womack, departed the series. The role of executive producer became like a revolving door as several writers tried and failed to revive the magic. Attempts became more desperate as legendary characters like Pat Butcher were killed off and suddenly the show seemed like a terrible ‘Hollyoaks’ wannabe.

And so, like all good heroes, Dominic Treadwell-Collins entered the fray at just the right moment. Even if you haven’t watched a single episode, you probably know that Danny Dyer plays the landlord of the Queen Vic unbelievably well. The epic ‘Who Killed Lucy Beale’ saga was ingrained in the fabric of British culture for most of 2014 building up to a week of live episodes. Regulars noticed an uptake in the amount of older characters being portrayed and though not devoid of pretty people or love triangles, they were no longer the sum total of the show. After successfully rebuilding the brand, Treadwell-Collins left his position earlier this year – paralleled by the onscreen departure of Peggy Mitchell.

This brings us to the present with Sean O’Connor taking up the reins for the latter part of this year. He came over from leading an incredibly well received storyline about domestic violence on the radio serial ‘The Archers’. That serial is an institution in its own right, broadcasting for well over half a century but it’s far slower paced than the soaps we’re used to on our television screens. Stakes are often far lower and the usual expectations of murders or big revelations at Christmas are not quite the same.

You’d have to be totally obtuse not to have noticed a tonal switch since O’Connor took over. The show has taken a breath and the break neck speed at which Treadwell-Collins liked to deliver twists has stopped so that not every episode has to have a big reveal at the end. I’m not going to lie, it definitely took a bit of getting used to. For example, a recurring plot has been a bin collections crisis leading to black bin bags cluttering the square. I mean it’s hard to get excited about that. Then again, it does have its bonuses. As great as Treadwell-Collins was, the need for constant surprises did lead to some ridiculous plot developments. Hard as I try to forget, I think I’m permanently scarred from Vincent being delivered a pig’s head.

O’Connor has also made an impact through cast changes with a large amount of fan favourites departing. The entire Masood family has been written out with Roxy and Ronnie being written out in the New Year. Not to mention bringing back Michelle Fowler, a decision which has been panned already even though she’s been on TV for all of an episode. Though people are critical of her being recast, I can’t see the issue given that she was last on the show twenty years ago.

Personally, the decision to write out a pack of older characters was the most worrying decision. Whilst Pam and Les may not have been around as long as characters like Masood, they seemed to have far more mileage left in them. Not to mention that when the show slumped before, a large part of that was the older generation was being forgotten.

Then again, I don’t think that the show is going to suffer all that badly. O’Connor is being bold because he’s not only changing up the cast like most producers do, he’s also changing the tone and challenging the audience. He could attempt to compete with the big twists and turns of ‘Emmerdale’ or ‘Coronation Street’ as many other producers have tried to do but when you compete for the sake of competing, that’s often when you deliver the most half-baked, short sighted plots.  

People have been having a go at the most boring Christmas special of ‘Eastenders’ ever. But if he’d given in to that need for a big twist then he’d most likely have killed off Phil Mitchell. Yes, it would have made for an excellent episode and it would have got a lot of press but it would have been a terrible choice for the show. Steve McFadden is one of the strongest actors on the serial at the moment with his portrayal of Phil’s long standing addiction to alcohol winning him much deserved acclaim. His death would have created an unnecessary vacuum which they’d end up desperately trying to fill with characters that were inevitably less relatable.

The show on Christmas Eve was also a belter with Dot being put front and centre. O’Connor has been quietly and consistently building on what Treadwell-Collins got so very right about ‘Eastenders’. It flourishes when it deals with issues around community, friendship and family. Realistic portrayals of important social issues were some of the highlights of Treadwell-Collins tenure including exploring the issue of rape and the repercussions of it on victims; especially when justice isn’t provided by the legal system. As O’Connor has taken over he has continued to explore social issues with extensive tact and sensitivity.

Under the radar, he has crafted an elegant portrayal of the best and worst of gentrification in which Dot Branning has been front and centre. In one brilliant episode, he focused on homophobia and how it had changed over time. A gay character, Paul is the victim of a homophobic attack and as his wake is taking place, Dot has to confront her own prejudices over same sex marriage. The writing makes clear that Dot isn’t in any way on a level with the deeply homophobic attackers but does have a younger generation question her values. In doing so, the changing dynamic of London’s East end into a more accepting area is praised but a darker side of generation exists and as an older character, Dot is also subjected to that.

Dot has been the manageress of the laundrette for almost as long as she has been in the square but gentrification leads to its closure. When she hosts a closing party, no one attends showing a lack of community. However during the Christmas special, a power cut forces the residents of Albert Square to abandon their individual plans and gather in the Vic. We may yawn and complain that the show was boring this year but that probably says more about us than O’Connor. It was a welcome surprise to have a special focus on community, especially at this time of the year.