Theresa May is trashing the perception of British values

Against a backdrop of political apathy and distrust of politicians, a demagogue comes to power. He appeals to sections of society that claim they aren’t listened to by politicians and left to experience worsening conditions while other groups prosper. His xenophobia and aggression is a concern on the world stage but it largely goes unchecked. The groups he and his supporters show the most vitriol for are increasingly subject to hate crimes until said crimes are now effectively organised by state agencies. Sound familiar?

It might sound like the synopsis for a dystopian novel but you’d be correct if you assumed I was referencing Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany. You’d also be correct if you said it similarly described Donald Trump’s ascent to power in America.

We’re all aware of Trump’s rhetoric and we expected him to attempt to portray himself as the arrogant cretin he is. So when he signed the executive order for nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to be banned from entering the United States, it should probably have been met with less surprise. The disgust, however, was not misplaced.

Trump has claimed this isn’t a Muslim ban but that’s exactly what it is. A ban on people who have established lives, families and jobs in America, contributing to American society, but they happen to be Muslim or from a country that increases the likelihood of that being their faith. It’s a ban on people who are escaping a life of persecution and seeking solace and sanctuary in America as a nation of immigrants with a history as a sympathetic host towards refugees before them. But again, they happen to probably be Muslims. It’s an unfathomable act and one that has been criticised globally. Well, not by everyone.

Returning to the Nazi Germany parallels, in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement giving parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany in an attempt to appease Hitler’s threats of war with its eastern neighbour. Hitler ignored the Agreement and in 1939 invaded Czechoslovakia and World War 2 essentially followed. Sadly, Chamberlain played himself and history has not been kind to him for his naivety and lack of balls in standing up to Hitler.

The same could be said for Theresa May for whom history will judge a racist and a poor man’s Margaret Thatcher throwback. She couldn’t have been further up Trump’s backside if she tried when they met on her state visit. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg outlined in one question much of what is so dangerous about Trump and why a relationship with America under his leadership is something we should be giving a wide berth. She gave May the opportunity to take the moral high ground for once in her morally bankrupt premiership but instead she chose to remain pathetically obsequious towards Trump.

"Have I still got that brown stuff on my nose Donald?"

Though more apparent was her refusal to condemn Trump’s Muslim ban, only eventually bowing to pressure to later show lukewarm opposition when it became apparent that some British nationals were affected. As Trump takes the role of Hitler on the stage, May is primed to assume the role of Chamberlain and history will not portray her favourably either.

Theresa May is a disgrace to British values and British people. An admittedly chequered British history of benevolence has been further eroded under her leadership. Not to mention the ability to actually have the cojones to stand up for what is right in the face of a man that shows moral vacuity almost every time he speaks.

I understand May’s attempt to preserve the ‘special relationship’ and with the UK looking like a pariah of Europe (as she pursues Brexit without a plan), America probably looks like an even more desirable and necessary ally. But there’s no excuse for her approach. If these are British values, it’s little wonder I’m again ashamed to be British with her at the helm.

This is just the beginning from Trump and there will be more opportunities to condemn his actions. May needs to ask herself, is Trump’s America an ally we want to have? Do we want British history to record that we stood by, mute while he inflicted his prejudice on the world? Any nation of moral fibre should be turning its back on him.

During May’s state visit, she extended an invitation to Trump to visit the UK but a petition to halt it was approaching 500,000 signatures within hours of being posted. British people don’t want anything to do with Trump and don’t want him here either. If May wants to reflect the will of the people as she claims is her driver behind Brexit, she should reflect our will in relations with undesirable allies.

Trump has normalised the hatred that he espouses by bringing it into mainstream politics and May is now endorsing this. That makes her no better and those aren’t the ethics we should want in a British Prime Minister.

Is monogamy simply a social and emotional construct?

While having children is undoubtedly a person choice, anthropologically speaking, procreation is a perceived (and archaically assumed) feature of most relationships between the opposite sex. For those who seek to have children, and those that don’t, a monogamous relationship is usually deemed the most ideal unit from within which to procreate or simply to coexist with a partner. It represents stability, support and, bizarrely, social success of being in a relationship.

However, if we critique this approach, does monogamy really provide the aforementioned or have we been conditioned to believe it does to reinforce the very arguments that are made in its support? Furthermore, as emotional beings, is there an emotional attraction to monogamy that we crave in seeking an exclusive and reciprocated belonging, acceptance and love from a partner who is considered unique in fulfilling said role?

Firstly, I need to make a disclaimer that this isn’t about me expressing a desire or endorsement for polygamy or a proclamation that I am polyamorous (which would go against my own monogamous relationship). Had it been, I would likely have chosen a more personal forum to announce this to my partner. It’s also not something I’m seeking to explore, not to mention a practice I can’t envisage my wife embracing.

Nevertheless, the practice of monogamy has largely remained unquestioned in contemporary society. For even those of us that are more liberal-leaning, monogamy is still broadly considered sacrosanct. Polyamory is becoming more visible and accepted (Laurie Penny wrote an article on her own experience as a polyamorous woman) but there is still a stigma around it. For the conservative brigade, it’s probably just a synonym for liberal promiscuity that we blindly criticise. Why? Because it threatens the status quo of monogamy as the standard for relationships.

Our physical attraction to a partner is typically underpinned by a sexual attraction. And in anthropological terms (for a hetrosexual couple), an underlying desire to procreate. Although, society’s expectations when having children, and the pragmatism surrounding it, downgrades that underlying desire to sex for couples of all sexual orientation. Subsequently, that attraction forms the basis of compatibility for a relationship with personalities and shared values of course typically being granted similar status.

When it comes to a physical attraction, that initial spark is more primitive that we would care to admit. And it calls monogamy into question given its features are secondary, albeit valid, considerations for any relationship.

The stability of a monogamous relationship; having someone to confide in and receive reciprocated comfort, support and affection, makes perfect sense. And attributing that to one person perhaps makes it extra special. Throw in the mix exclusive intimacy and growing emotional attachment and you’ve just placed each other on a status of importance that places your partner above all others. Yet much of this is projected from the relationships of others in setting the standard that we’re told we should seek.

Most weddings feature speeches where the ‘special’ and ‘perfect’ love between the couple is waxed lyrical upon while guests are subject to regaling of how the couple are ‘made for each other’. Well, I’ve been to enough weddings (including those where I’ve known the feelings between the couple are far from mutual) to know that such rehearsed sentiments mean someone’s lying. Rather, they’re soundbites that we’re expected to attain in relationships and if we don’t project them in our own relationships, we risk the stigma-driven judgement of not attaining the social success of relationships.

If we want children, we are erroneously conditioned to feel that a two-parent, cohabiting relationship is better than one where parents may live separately (again, judgement raises its ugly head, particularly in relation to single mothers). Similarly, having two incomes is better than one and provides increased financial stability. And particularly as we age, existing in a unit where we can look after each other makes sense. But are these reasons suffice to drive the social conditioning of monogamy as the ‘right’ standard for relationships? Thinking objectively, and breaking away from my own social conditioning, perhaps not.

Conversely, wouldn’t more than one partner present all of the above but in abundance? Increased financial stability via further incomes, increased support in raising children and further companionship (assuming all of the relationships were able to coexist harmoniously alongside each other) all make a case for those of us sticking with monogamy missing a trick.

There are also the emotional ties that probably provide the strongest anchor to monogamy. As humans, we can be insecure creatures. The notion of sharing a partner, no matter how much of an understanding there might be, would be difficult for many. It’s why infidelity is deemed such a transgression - not just because one has gone against a promise to be monogamous but because their actions represent their willingness to share themselves with another and therefore serve as a trigger of insecurity.

Nonetheless, while not championing infidelity within a monogamous relationship, it comes back to the primal physical attraction that we experience. The attraction isn’t what causes a transgression (though those who experience much more insecurity in their relationship might argue otherwise), instead it’s acting upon it. That default opposition to doing so is based on the social conditioning we’ve been subject to. We’re wired to know that it represents wrongdoing but also empathy of how a partner would feel should that ever-present insecurity be provoked.

If I’m driving a Maybach and I see the Batmobile, I’m going to want to stop and look at it. And I’m probably going to want to drive it too. Nonetheless, getting out and risking not being able to drive my Maybach because I’ve forsaken it for the Batmobile (no matter how temporarily or meaninglessly) is an inherent temptation that is mitigated by the social conditioning that it would be wrong. Similarly to relationships, this makes us human but resistance to acting on an attraction is neutered by our perception and acceptance of monogamy. If we returned to experiencing and accepting those primal instincts, few people would bat an eyelid at getting in both cars.

"I like my Maybach... but it's the Batmobile..."

Monogamy represents stability and within contemporary society, a pragmatic approach to relationships that demonstrates how special a partner is. While I might not seek to adopt a different path, those that do are merely tapping into more primal sentiments that the rest of us have moved away from. Monogamy provides the safety and relationship goals that society has told us we desire and wards off the stigma that we’ve come to fear in not achieving the expectations placed upon us. It’s a social and emotional construct but one that most of us have seemingly brought into in making it the status quo.

Khan doesn’t want it with Brook

At the beginning of 2014, I wrote about five all-British fights that I wanted to see. They didn’t all happen in 2014 but, with the exception of one, all have occurred at the time of writing. That one fight is Kell Brook vs Amir Khan.

Since that post, Khan has fought four times with three wins and one loss. That loss was a KO at the hands of Canelo, a fight that he was roundly predicted to lose. Most boxing fans foresaw his chin wouldn’t be able to withstand Canelo’s power (not to mention the jump in weight to a catchweight of 155lbs being too much for him). As far as modern boxers go, Khan’s frequency in the ring is probably just below average (if not too infrequent for those of us that hark back to the golden eras of the sport where fighters were much more active) but it’s been punctuated by some admirable charity work.

In contrast, Brook has fought six times in the same period. During that time he wrested the IBF welterweight belt from Shawn Porter, beating the American as the away fighter. Subsequently, he defended it against less impressive opponents than those faced by Khan. Though his most recent fight was against Gennady Golovkin, a fight he lost by TKO following his corner retiring him due to a broken eye socket.

In similar circumstances to Canelo vs Khan, Brook went up in weight to fight at middleweight but even in defeat, his stock rose and there was no shame in losing his ‘0’. Not to detract from Golovkin’s victory and ferocious punch power but Brook ended the fight on his feet (unlike Khan who fought a less spiteful puncher in Canelo yet ended up on the canvas). Furthermore, had Brook not sustained the injury that led to the fight being stopped, he showed that he was not only able to withstand Golovkin’s punch power but also trouble him with his own firepower, athleticism and pugilism. In fact I can’t recall when another fighter put it on Golovkin like Brook did in the second round of their fight.

Both fighters are therefore coming off losses and looking for big money fights which would make Brook vs Khan a no-brainer. Alas, more than ever, it seems that Khan just doesn’t want it with Brook.

Brook and his promoter Eddie Hearn have chased this fight for so many years that it’s become borderline embarrassing in how much they want the fight. Initially, Khan claimed that the fight didn’t make commercial sense as Brook was largely unknown outside of boxing circles, didn’t have any high profile names on his resume and didn’t have a belt. And he was right. Despite my desire to see this fight, taking it a few years earlier would have likely seen it generate much less revenue than it could do today. Yet despite his valid opposition then, Khan and his team clearly didn’t want the fight. They continue to claim that Brook isn’t a problem for them and that they’d be the a-side to the fight but on both counts I would beg to differ.

Brook has since addressed Khan’s concerns regarding the commercial viability of the fight. He’s now IBF champion, has increased his stock on both sides of the Atlantic and despite a defeat, troubled GGG and took his best shots in a way that no middleweight has done. Conversely, Khan hasn’t been particularly active and has failed to deliver a performance that’ll erase memories of his chin getting lit up like a christmas tree (as a friend once so eloquently put it).

Khan is a bigger name in America where he’s had more of a presence and is now based but I still see him as the b-side to the fight. And since this fight was first mooted, I’ve seen Brook as the favourite. Indeed, and as Khan is very aware of hence his reluctance, I can see a defeat against Brook ending his career.

Canelo vs Khan was accurately billed Power vs Speed, a nod to what each fighter was bringing to the table in their respective skill set. On that basis, Brook vs Khan should be billed ‘power and accuracy vs speed and a suspect chin’. I’ve said repeatedly that Khan can’t hold a shot and the KOs he has experienced, or wars like his fight against Marcos Maidana (where he showed himself to have heart and balls in abundance), will not only have damaged his confidence but also affected his already fragile punch resistance. His trademark poor discipline in refraining from a temptation to trade also does him few favours. His chin isn’t built for brawling and big punchers like Brook will tear him a new one if he tries to initiate a tear up.

The sticking point in resumed negotiations between the two camps are reportedly the split (Khan still feels he’s the a-side and should take the lion’s share while Brook is content to take a 50-50 split). Again, Khan is presenting a stumbling block through his misguided hubris as he brings less to the table by the day. He’s also insisted that the fight take place at welterweight; a clear disadvantage to Brook who’s disadvantaged at the weight and would perform more effectively at the light middleweight limit of 154lbs.

With all of Khan’s rhetoric prior to the Canelo fight of being able to perform better at a higher weight class, why not take the fight at 154lbs? Because he’s clutching at straws to duck the fight or give himself an advantage if it does happen.

I don’t want Brook to fight at welterweight and would rather see him relinquish his IBF welterweight belt and move up in weight. He’s weight drained at welterweight and looked the best we’ve seen him at 160lbs when he fought Golovkin. But his own stubbornness is preventing him from making the move. He’s the a-side in the fight and if Khan really wanted it, he’d move up for the fight and the consequent pay day and opportunity to prove himself. He should also be grateful that Brook isn’t pushing for more of a 50-50 split (which is probably fair given Khan’s profile).

Fight fans want to see the fight and Brook wants it too. It’s only Khan who doesn’t. Whether he’s delusional in his demands as he tries to cash out of boxing, or just ducking Brook to avoid the risk of what could be the end of his career, time is running out for this fight to happen.