What the Hell is Europe?

This tweet, and this short blog response, have got me thinking about Europe, and what we mean when we talk about Europe. For me, when you say the word, I instinctively think of the EU. Some people, not so much. But how you define Europe affects the way you think, and so I’m just going to float some ideas which hopefully will get you thinking.

Europe as a continent/geographical area

This one is on shaky ground from the start, as the Eurasian land mass doesn’t have a particularly neat line between Europe and Asia. To the south-east, does Europe ‘stop’ at the Bosphorus? Are Turkey and Cyprus part of Europe? Slightly further afield, how do you deal with Russia, which spans a huge swathe of territory. What about Armenia? Azerbaijan? Looking north-west, is Iceland really part of Europe? There are no clear cut answers here.

Europe as a political-economic entity

Here, the EU is part of the equation – Europe is basically a group of capitalist democracies of various persuasions, and that’s about it. But past that, any further clarification is problematic. Are the Eurozone countries ‘more’ European than those outside? What about Switzerland and Norway, who remain outside the EU despite fitting the general ‘conditions’ outlined above? Even between similar countries, political and economic differences can be vast (eg France and the UK; Italy and Spain). Is Russia a ‘true’ democracy? Can any democracy claim it is a ‘true’ incarnation of that ideal?

Europe as values

Perhaps Europe is defined by values – a kind of ‘compassionate capitalism’ (though that term makes my Marxist blood boil), less brash and confrontational than that seen across the Atlantic in the US. But once more, there are problems. Using this definition, why restrict ‘Europeanness’ to a geographic area? Plenty of South American countries fit the mould. Why not allow them EU membership? (And yes, I am aware certain non-EU countries have observer status in various areas)

Europe as no-man’s-land

Across history, Europe has been a battlefield, both literally and politically. Throughout the Cold War, Europe was a political battlefield between communism and capitalism, even if the armed struggles were generally conducted elsewhere on the globe, where life was cheaper and infrastructure less important. Europe, where cultures clash and mix, where geopolitical conflicts are decided. But this has faults, too. The Cold War was global, even if the decisive final stroke fell in Eastern Europe, and advances in technology and communication have made the world smaller, reducing Europe’s strategic importance.

What do you think? Do you think of Europe in any of the ways mentioned above? Is Europe impossible to define without clarifying the scope of the question? Do you think of Europe in a completely different sense?

At the end of all this, I’m certainly no closer to answering the question in the title. What the hell is Europe?

Celebrity, Fame and Privacy

I think by now we all know who has inspired this post. Apparently he’s not football’s messiah, but a very naughty boy. And he sought a superinjunction to prevent the press reporting as such. Which made even more people sit up and take notice, and the resulting broohaha has now gone on for weeks when it would’ve been a 10 day story at most if the press had reported it as normal. Charlie Brooker has weighed in at CiF with a well-thought-out article.

But the ins and outs of why the injunction was sought, the feminist angle that this is about rich men gagging poorer women and the rights of this particular naughty boy’s family aren’t what I’m looking at here. There’s plenty of that discussion elsewhere. What I’m going to explore is what fame is, how we as a society treat celebrities, and the cost of celebrity.

I must admit that my position on this subject owes an awful lot to Chuck Klosterman, whose article,  ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Ralph Sampson’ I will quote from throughout. The article appears in Eating The Dinosaur, which I can wholeheartedly recommend as a fantastic read.

Klosterman’s essay invokes the idea that our celebrities, sporting or otherwise, are “cultural slaves”, who are “compensated with colossal sacks of cash”. This cash is still “less than they deserve”, though. Now, in an age where Premiership footballers, pop stars, actors etc. are paid astronomical amounts, that is quite a statement to make. But part of me agrees with him.

I know what you’re thinking – you’re thinking, ‘I’d switch places with them for that kind of money’, but bear in mind what it means to be a celebrity. Everything you do, everywhere you go, everyone you see is analysed and pored over by millions of people. Bored, unimaginative people for the most part. They use what you do to justify or condemn the behaviour of themselves and others. In a society with no religion, celebrities have become moral touchstones. The commandment is no longer ‘Thou shalt not kill’, but ‘Thou shalt not let thyself go like Lindsay Lohan has’. No more ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’, but ‘Emulate Katie Price, Queen of Tacky Shit’.

Pretty much what I’m saying is that we are a pagan society – we’ve got rid of Christianity and replaced it not with atheism or agnosticism, but celebrity idolatry. No more blood sacrifices at the altar, just a commitment to spend £60 on Britney’s new fragrance. Alms? How about £1.50 a shot for a phone-in prayer to the High Priest of Saturday Night, Simon Cowell, where every week someone’s dreams are sacrificed to the Almighty God, Entertainment. Who needs ziggurats?

Why do we need this outlet? To put it bluntly, our lives are boring. We wake up, we work (or don’t), we spend time with people we may or may not like, we go to sleep. That’s about it. So we “talk about [celebrities'] public failures and lack of talent as a way to fill the emptiness” of everyday life. When I worked in an office, talk was depressingly often centred around whatever trashy TV show was doing the rounds, or the celebrity scandal the papers were pushing that week, because these discussions are easy. There are always good guys and bad guys, and not much analysis is needed.

You can accuse me of being a cultural snob if you want, but this isn’t a predictable, broadsheet-reading, university educated rant against the dumbing-down of modern society. Society has been ‘dumb’ in that sense for at least a century. This is nothing new. I’m just trying to show what celebrities mean in our present cultural context, and as far as I can work out, they’re lambs to the slaughter – we slap their backs when they’re up and wipe our feet on them when they’re down, because both activities distract us very quickly and very easily from the humdrum that is everyday life.

So when it comes to fame and privacy, I have some sympathy with celebrities, because they are no longer people. The prophets at tabloid newspapers have stripped them of personality, representing them instead as a list of qualities to aspire to or shun, and that’s not any kind of life to lead, even on the salaries they command. Welcome to the new religion baby, buy yourself a red-top.

Two Extracts

“Do you love her?”

“What kind of question is that? I loved her when I fucked her.”

“Bullshit.”

“I loved her when I fucked her. Hand on heart.”

“But you don’t love her now…”

“Of course not. She listens to weird female-fronted pop-metal bands.”

“What the hell does that have to do with it?”

“Everything. I might still love her if it wasn’t for that.”

“You’re shallow.”

“I know.”

“Stop looking so happy about it.”

“But I am happy about it.”

“Fuck you. You’re an asshole.”

“Arsehole.”

“…Asshole. She broke up with him for you.”

“What in God’s name did she do that for?”

“You told her you loved her.”

“Of course I did. We fucked three times. It’s not like it was serious.”

“That had better not be one of your rules.”

“….”

“…………..”

“…………………….”

“Asshole.”

The door slams. The air-conditioning hums to itself.

“Arsehole.”

—————

Being 31 is difficult, because it’s okay to drink, but it’s not okay to be drunk. You can go out and have a few beers, and your friends and acquaintances think you’re hilarious. But then after a little more, when everyone your age has gone home and put the baby to bed, and you’re left with a dozen twenty-somethings (and early-twenty-somethings at that), you’re suddenly out of place.

When you’re a teenager, tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life, and that is exciting (and terrifying). When you’re old, tomorrow could be the last day of the rest of your life, and that is terrifying (and exciting). But for all the years in between, tomorrow is just Wednesday. That is neither terrifying nor exciting. It’s Wednesday for fuck’s sake.

This is why being middle-aged is the single most depressing thing in the world.

Ken Clarke, and the Nuances of Rape Law

Ken Clarke made some comments today about rape, which are proving contentious. Particularly worrisome was his allusion that “serious rape” or “classic rape”, ie someone you don’t know using violence to force you to have sex with them, is somehow more serious than, for example, familial rape or date rape.

I’ve seen people defending Clarke try to say he was alluding to sex between 17 and 15 year-olds, but that charge is not prosecuted as rape. It seems people don’t really understand how rape is charged, and what actually constitutes rape in the first place, especially in the grey area 13-15 year olds fall into. I should also add that I’m discussing the law as it aplies to England and Wales, under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), and draw legal guidance from the CPS website.

What is rape?

In a nutshell, rape is the insertion of a penis into the vagina, anus or mouth without consent, or reasonable belief of consent. Furthermore, if the offence is committed against a child under the age of 13, any questions regarding consent are irrelevant.

What about 13-15 year olds?

If an adult has sex, or engages in some other sexual activity, with someone who is under 16, and who they do not reasonably believe to be over 16, they are guilty of the offence of sexual activity with a child, not rape as defined above. Offences under the relevant sections of the Act (9-10) carry maximum sentences of 14 years.

However, if the offender is a minor, the advice for prosecutors contains this quote from Lord Falconer:

Our overriding concern is to protect children, not to punish them unnecessarily. Where sexual relationships between minors are not abusive, prosecuting either or both children is highly unlikely to be in the public interest. Nor would it be in the best interests of the child…

Charging advice also instructs prosecutors to take into account “the relevant ages of the parties”, “parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development”, “the relationship between the parties, its nature and duration” and “whether there is any element of exploitation, coercion, threat, deception, grooming or manipulation in the relationship”. This quote is also important:

In addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament.

It’s obvious that when he was talking about rape, Ken Clarke wasn’t referring to those kinds of relationships. Either that, or he has no knowledge of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003.

What was he talking about, then?

His remarks bear a worrying resemblance to a recent Republican move in the US to impose a distinction between “forcible” and “non-forcible” rape. This idea that there is a “serious” kind of rape, which involves overt violence, and a softer, gentler kind, which is less overtly violent and so somehow less damaging or severe. It’s not new, and it’s wrong, but it seems popular, especially when linked to three factors, namely:

a) having a penis

b) being older

c) being privileged/rich

Possession of one or more of these traits seems to make you more likely to subscribe to this “levels of seriousness” argument, and it’s cousin, victim-blaming. Dear Kenneth probably won’t lose his job over this, but his comments are deeply worrying.

Amendment: I also recommend you read David Allen Green’s piece over at the NS website, which talks about sentencing.