Recent media coverage of Cornwall would suggest that far from being one of Britain’s top beach destinations, it is some sort of lawless Badlands where the locals are mired in poverty and the holidaymakers and developers just walk on by like Neapolitan sunbathers. 

Commentators have been brightening up Cornwall’s summer tourist trade with talk of the local, feral children who have to be locked indoors at sunset, or the surfers who will beat you up Point Break-style if you tread on their turf. Or that infamous town, Redruth, with its burnt out buildings and the sinister nickname, Beirut.

Hmmmmmmm. As a Cornishman I am always a little proud when our far-flung county makes the national news but at least get it half right. Yes Cornwall is very poor, according to the EU it is the poorest county in the UK and one of the poorest parts of Europe. The ubiquitous engine houses which mark the former tin mines can be seen as the last fossils of the industrial age which left Cornwall a century ago, a time when the county saw more migration to the new world per head then even Ireland.

But Cornwall isn’t quite dead yet. The tourist trade which used to rely on the old coastal enclaves of Rock and St. Mawes is booming and not only thanks to the big names like the Eden Project or Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen restaurant.

Places that 10 years ago were literally health hazards such as Porthtowan, a beach which became so polluted local surfers started going deaf and the EU had to pay to clean it up, are now packed. Go down to the Blue Bar, or the Sand Bar at Praa Sands and even in the off-season there are still racks of BMWs accompanied by their poseur City boys pretending to be surfers. Even the notorious suicide spot, Hell’s Mouth, has got a delightful little cafe which does brilliant crab sandwiches. 

Yes there are the predictable whines that this is all on the coast and scratch a little below the surface and Cornwall will be revealed as the industrial wasteland it is. There is certainly truth in this if you look at parts of Camborne where there are housing estates which resemble a pebble-dashed vision of hell. Villages such as St Day have also had problems with travellers and violent children, one story suggested a gang of six year olds were attacking patrons of the local pub. But this picture of the interior of Cornwall is equally false.

St Day has sorted out its problems with the travellers. New shops are opening in the village, young professionals are moving in to take the advantage of the easy access to Truro, and the village has an excellent local school. The old parish church, which was previously desecrated by thugs, has just been restored to splendour courtesy of local charities.

Likewise in Camborne, charities such as the Cornwall Community Foundation are putting a huge amount of effort in to the local community with one member suggesting that Camborne has more volunteers per head then anywhere else in England, while pointing out that there is no barrier between the town and Cornwall’s beautiful coastline.

Redruth, the poster boy for wild and violent Cornwall, may not have the prettiest high street but to label it Beirut as the Sun did last month because of a few boarded up windows and one building which has not replaced the damage from an accidental fire is rather far fetched. Also the fact that the town now enjoys a curfew may be seen more as a result of the local policing style rather then a problem which no other community in the UK faces. Certainly when I was involved in a fracas outside the Twilight Zone nightclub in Redruth one officer suggested the safest course of action was to run away as he had no intention of confronting anyone. 

Yes Cornwall has its problems, as would be expected of any area where the local industry has been bled dry over the course of a century. However it is turning a corner. This week the Boardmasters event in Newquay will attract hundreds of thousands of young people to the area to see some of the world’s finest musicians and surfers perform. Towns such as Falmouth are seeing year round regeneration thanks to the university attracting some of the brightest journalism and art students (so much in fact that Exeter University is now basing some of its courses in the Falmouth campus). Thanks to a combination of excellent work by local charities, clever entrepreneurship and the physicality of the county itself, Cornwall is looking pretty splendid.

The counter-extremist think-tank, fronted by former Hizb ut-Tahrir members Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz, aims to use theological arguments to dismiss the religious justifications for terrorism and to bring with it the sort of media-savvy approach which so far seems only to have been used successfully by the extremists.

At the launch on Tuesday, the foundation brought together Islamic thinkers from throughout the world, as well as a collection of British imams, Oxford academic and Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash, politician Paddy Ashdown and socialite Jemima Khan.

The initial presence of Taliban-style black turbans, several feet of beards and Julie Burchill’s favourite hijabed white-girls would not normally inspire confidence in such an initiative, but to hear men with names like Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Bukhari and Dr Ali al Saleh al-Najafi state that Muslims have not done enough to counter extremism, and it is up to ‘us’ Muslims to find an Islam comfortable with itself in Britsh society, was positively exciting.

The biggest ovation of the day came when 7/7 survivor Rachel North explained that God was there 70 feet under Russell Square, London, on 7 July 2005, but not in the way the young man who blew himself up thought. ‘He was there in the people holding hands in the dark, not knowing if the person next to them was black, white, Muslim, Christian or Jewish.’ Timothy Garton Ash, arguing the secular liberal viewpoint that he ‘couldn’t give a fig for a fiqh’, also raised a few giggles/groans.

But does Britain really need a Muslim counter-extremist think-tank? Is it, as Muslim commentator Ziauddin Sardar argued in the Guardian, ‘another attempt at the marginalisation of the overwhelming majority who never had a moment’s doubt that Islam gives no sanction for such murderous and misguided perversion of belief?’  Well, no, actually, particularly as Sardar, a self-proclaimed member of this overwhelming majority, stated in the same article that all Muslims are duty-bound to challenge our current, Iraq-war waging government.

The truth is that with people like Sardar dominating the debate, British Muslims will carry on being portrayed as a monolithic bloc who cannot separate their identity from their religion. As Maajid Nawaz correctly pointed out at the launch of the Quilliam Foundation, this is a form of political Islamism in itself. It also helps give the impression that any British Muslim has to have a strong opinion on a particular issue – whether it be the Iraq war, Danish cartoons, or misnomered teddy bears.

The fact that any opposition to this idea is seen as heresy by self-proclaimed Muslim community leaders like Sardar and the MCB is precisely why there is such a need for the Quilliam Foundation.

What the launch of the foundation showcased to the media was not only that British Muslims are going to take a proactive role in combatting extremism, but also that the guy with the scraggy beard and bulging rucksack next to you on the Tube isn’t thinking about checking into heaven’s best brothel while simultaneously sending you to hell like the kaffir you are.

The experiences of Quilliam’s members, its backing, and its positive message of hope mean that it has a good chance of appealing to its target audience of ‘Joe Muslim in Bradford’. However, this message of hope, and the foundation’s plan to upstage the clowns currently dominating Muslim debate in Britain, may also help to defuse the rhetoric of Timmy BNP in Barking.

The Taliban militants, led by Afghan commander Amir Khitab, had been operating in Doog Darra near the bombed village. They are believed to be behind the suicide attack to subjugate the people of Hayagay Sharqi. Some 400 villagers banded together to attack five villages in the nearby Doog Darra area that were known Taliban strongholds, said District Coordination Officer Atifur Rehman. He said the citizens’ Lashkar has occupied three of the villages since June 6, and was trying to push the Taliban out of the other two. District Police Chief Ejaz Ahmad said around 200 Taliban militants were putting up a tough resistance, but were surrounded by the villagers.  

Lashkar

Intensifying the offensive against the Taliban militants, the armed villagers of Hayagay Sharqi in Dir Upper District, backed by the people of dozens of other villages, besieged the militants from all sides, killing six more of them. Locals and the Lashkar (militia) sources said 12 Taliban militants, including two commanders, had been killed so far in the siege, while fighting was continuing. Capturing several hamlets, the villagers also torched 21 houses owned by the Taliban and their supporters. The people of Hayagay Sharqi, located in mountains some 20 kilometers east of Dir town, the District headquarters, launched an armed action against the Taliban to avenge the killing of 49 persons in the suicide attack at a mosque on June 5.

Hundreds of people of Hayagay Sharqi and Gharbi, armed with heavy weapons, launched the offensive in the evening of June 6. Locals said the people of Kilot, Doon, Ganshal, Gurrai, Narkun, Hayagay Sharqi, Hayagay Gharbi and 20 villages of Doog Darra banded together to rout the militants. The people of two villages, Panaghar and Maluk Khwar, who were previously supporting the Taliban, also abandoned them and joined the Lashkar. “The Lashkar fighters informed me that so far 12 militants had been killed,” a supporter of the Lashkar said. A man from Sheringal - a nearby town - said the Taliban had stopped putting up resistance. He also said that the Lashkar was making regular advances towards the stronghold of the militants. “They have been encircled from all sides, including Chitral and we are closing in on them,” he said. He put the number of Taliban casualties at 13.

In this case the National Obesity Forum has deplored Cadburys’ sponsorship of the 2012 Olympic games saying it goes against the government’s avowed policy to battle obesity while the BBC labelled Cadburys “the most controversial Olympic sponsor so far.”

Which essentially draws two conclusions; either chocolate can now be viewed as on a par with alcohol, tobacco and gambling, as ruinous to health, families and social cohesion or that lobbyists are looking to the government to extend its paternalistic intervention in advertising to progressively minor cases which suit their particular gripe.

It is all the more indicative of this creeping Puritanism that Cadburys quite happily sponsored Sydney 2000, and the Commonwealth Games of 2002 and 2006 without a peep and yet within two years they can suddenly be regarded as a controversial sponsor.

The activists campaigning against Cadburys sponsorship however are using a much more subtle argument then “Chocolate is bad” to get their views heard. Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum told Spiked, “I have nothing against chocolate per se, I just think that chocolate and sports don’t mix.” 

Fair enough Fry does mention that chocolate is a good source of energy but he states that “athletes are aware how to take it in moderation,” and this draws us to the distinction the National Obesity Forum is making. Their argument would suggest that sport sponsorship should be linked to the sport itself and be about the athletes partaking in it, despite the fact that this has never been the case in the history of sports advertising. 

Obviously footballers like the odd drink and a gamble and a fair few Formula 1 drivers smoke, however what brands have historically tried to do is associate their product with the feel-good factor of sport and not the athletic prowess of its participants.

This is why you had the Premier League sponsored by Carling beer or the rugby Premiership sponsored by Guinness. The campaigns focused on the social aspect of watching sport and not the self-discipline many of the athletes need to maintain their abilities in competitive leagues.  Hence Cadburys has paid close on £30 million to have the 2012 logo on their chocolate bars and the exclusive rights to sell their confectionary at the Games itself, not to pretend they are part of some healthy lifestyle but to take advantage of the massive amount of interest worldwide the Games are going to generate.

Also by implication in the NOF’s point that athletes are aware how to use chocolate is the suggestion that consumers are not, and being a bit like goldfish are incapable of stopping themselves from devouring any food in sight.  Hence Fry is happy with Coca-Cola as a sponsor thanks to its Diet brand while McDonalds is fine as athletes such as Michael Phelps use it for fuel but would consumers know where to stop?

It is this latter point, which however subtly put, reverts back to the government view of people as being the hapless victims of advertisers with no will or common sense of their own.  The NOF is particularly concerned for children stating they are especially prone to advertising and that schoolchildren are now spending around £485 million a year on fizzy drinks and chocolate. It does sound quite a lot until you work out that is essentially the 10 million children under 11 spending their one pound a week pocket money on sweets.

What all this debate ignores is that Cadburys is the perfect brand to be an Olympic sponsor, it’s as quintessentially English as the Routemaster and Jimmy Page and considering London is supposed to be the yoof innit Olympics what better product to captivate their interest then something thy spend 100% of their income on.

There are plenty of people talking up the 2012 Games as the “austerity Olympics” with suggestions including spending less on fireworks and hoping the credit crunch will just make the whole circus go away. Cadburys have had to sign up to this way of hosting what could represent the world’s biggest party and they have promised not to give out free sweets to the children attending the games. Taking candy from a baby used to be a bad thing.

Although this report cites 30 years of decline in community relations and although there must be many reasons why this is the case, I would suggest that one major cause is the government’s increasing nannyism and micro-managing of communities. It is this mentality which has forced the people who make a society to abrogate their role towards each other and instead rely on the state to treat them like sheep and provide the pastures and pens to keep society in order.

Indeed to revise the parting shot at the end of Cool Hand Luke (or the opening of Guns n Roses‘ Civil War for younger readers) “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate…which is the way they wants it, well they gets it.”

And yes I don’t like it anymore then you.

To take a case in point try sitting on the 22 bus to Piccadilly Circus, a fact you will be reminded of every 30 seconds by a Chinese water torture-esque announcement in a faux jovial voice. The reason behind the announcement must be for people who are unaware of the route, even blind, or tourists, and I would guess the announcement is obnoxiously loud for those hard of hearing. A noble sentiment indeed but hugely frustrating if your morning commute involves having your destination bellowed at you 120 times just after you have woken up.

However the announcement also suggests something else. It suggests that for those who are lost, blind or a stranger, the state will provide you with answers to your needs not your fellow passengers or the driver who could easily help but are not trusted to do so.

It is this arbitrary nature of the state, stepping in and preventing discourse between strangers that can only spread alienation rather than a sense of community.

Every time the government puts up CCTV cameras for your protection, every time the state tells you what you should eat or where you can smoke or what you can watch, it is taking the role of the community on its shoulders and it is this cause which can only lead to more fragmentation, segregation and alienation.

To make a comparison, Gerry Adams is another political leader with a violent past, albeit one that he has now shunned in favour of democratic means. Like Mandela, the people he sought to represent were discriminated against by the institutions of the state, the arms of a government elected by a democratic process in which their voting power was diminished as a result of gerrymandering. In the latter part of the 1960s, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was met with state-sponsored violence, perhaps most famously at Burntollet Bridge. Although not especially significant in themselves, this and other events are limited in the public knowledge, but bear direct similarity to the events Mandela catalogued in his attempt to justify the descent of the ANC toward terrorism. If anyone suggested the erection of a statue of Adams in Parliament Square, there would be rioting in the streets.

To move across the Atlantic, minorities in the United States suffered a very similar sort of persecution to the majority population in South Africa under apartheid. The striking difference, however, is that the most famous and celebrated figures of the US Civil Rights movement are those who continued to shun violence, even in the face of extreme provocation. One need only think of Dr Martin Luther King, or Rosa Parkes as heroes for many Americans, back and white alike. Conversely, Malcolm X, who argued that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”, is very much an afterthought in the popular history of the Civil Rights Movement.

So what is it about Mandela? There are some factors specific to him. His long incarceration for one – yet many were interned in Northern Ireland for long periods without the trial or public platform. Mandela’s life following his release, both as President of South Africa and the highly influential role he has played as an international public figure are significant. Yet neither has been without controversy and many would argue his government’s failure to either properly deal with the growth of AIDs, or strongly criticise Robert Mugabe for the slaughter of the Matabele during the 1980s and the subsequent disastrous government of Zimbabwe.

The reality of the situation is that his portrayal by the media and some of his success has little to do with Mandela as an individual. His positive portrayal by the British media, and the acclaim he receives from British public figures is due to a residual guilt stemming from the UK’s failure to readily condemn apartheid and support economic sanctions. Further the fact that the apartheid regime fell has meant that Mandela (as the first president of South Africa) had to be accepted into the international fold, whereas the continuing separation of Ireland leaves the goal of Sinn Fein and Adams unachieved. I want to make it clear that I am in no way attempting to diminish the achievements of a great statesman. Mandela and de Klerk were deserving joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize they received in 1993. Further, I sympathise with the situations faced by the black people of South Africa under the apartheid regime, those in America during the 1950s and 60s, and the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland during the 1960s and 70s. I do not, however, agree with the level of adulation that Mandela receives, and his statue, when he is a man who “as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation” (his own words from the 20 April 1964 speech) made a decision to plan and assist in terrorist action.

There is a deep irony in today’s current popular-politico climate, given the universal abhorrence which terrorist action receives and its use as a justification for military action, that a once-terrorist is so celebrated in his lifetime. The really cynical observer would say that the absence of similar celebration of Mohandas Ghandi is because, like Adams, he was calling for independence from Britain, whereas Mandela’s fight was with the government of South Africa. Whatever the reason, I find the words of Ghandi far more laudable than any attempt to justify violence; “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of democracy and liberty.”

The big issue appears to be that these students are betraying women’s solidarity and the hard-won rights of feminism by wearing nice dresses and having their hair done and conforming to an idealistic Western sense of what constitutes beauty. As Guru-Murthy put it so tactfully “Were any large girls allowed to compete?”

The point that people like Guru-Murthy are missing is that the students are completely right to describe themselves as “post-feminists.” Any movement for freedom has to be essentially about giving a downtrodden minority the right to choose how they live. Therefore by insisting that these young women should be banned from appearing in a beauty contest the feminists are taking over the whip-hand from the men by pursuing their own agenda about how a woman should behave.

By standing up to the militants and the media the students entering in the competition are actually making a statement about a woman’s right to choose how to live and are the real feminists in this case.

It is institutions such as the LSE with its outdated posts such as women’s officer, or the media who can’t grasp young people embracing their own liberty, which are holding back the sexes from real equality. Entertainingly the Mail looked back nostalgically to the 60’s when London universities where the hot-bed of women’s rights probably just as many a chap living through the 60s looked back wistfully 40 years before to a time when his wife would just shut up and make the tea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/25/do2501.xml

Goody. At last an elected official from one of the two ruling elites has said something remotely contentious and entertaining. It’s just a bit of a shame that it is precisely for those qualities he was shipped over to the Mayor of London. Defamation and debate are just not very Parliament anymore.