On the 8th of February 2012 Peter Williams, a gifted engineer and Guinness World Record holder, committed suicide after falling into arrears on his council tax.
Having paid these off months later, the council then sent him a £1,350 bill for court costs. Unable to pay in full he offered to pay in installments, an offer which was rejected. Despite a letter from his GP stating he was severely depressed and suicidal, still the council hounded him and set a date to evict him from his home which he had bought outright. His bill inexplicably escalated to £70,000 and with his eviction imminent, Peter wrote: “I have had enough and cannot stand any more of the mental turmoil”. Then he stepped in front of a train.
Had Peter not killed himself the council would have been obliged to rehouse him at the taxpayers’ expense.
David Clapson, a former soldier and diabetic, died in July 2014 after his benefit was cut. Clapson had no food in his stomach, £3.44 in the bank and no money on his electricity card, leaving him unable to operate his fridge where he kept insulin.
Jacqueline Harris committed suicide in November 2013 after her benefits were cut. She was disabled. Her sister Chrisitine, a nurse said, said: “If you’ve got a great education, if you have great health, you’re OK. But if you haven’t, you have to fight against the odds.
An inquest found that Harris, who was partially sighted, committed suicide after months of constant pain and following a “fit for work” ruling that replaced her incapacity benefit with jobseeker’s allowance.
These are just a few of the people who have been driven to death as a result of the Con Dem’s fatally flawed austerity measures. In previous blogs I’ve named others who have died, as reported in the media, as a result of fuel poverty and hunger and those driven over the edge by the beleaguered bedroom tax.
The Con Dem attack on the most vulnerable in society has been relentless, brutal and as unyielding as it is ill conceived. If you default on your council tax or you’re late with your income tax, they’re down on you like a ton of bricks.
Meanwhile, HSBC has been exposed as helping the rich to dodge taxes. That’s millions of pounds that should have gone to the NHS and education. Taxes the rest of us are charged at source and have to pay.
Despite HMRC knowing for several years that HSBC has helped over 1,000 of its UK customers dodge tax, only one prosecution has been pursued on behalf of UK taxpayers. It seems, if you rob a bank and de fraud the HMRC dressed in a designer suit and armed with a rolex and a top of the range “tax planner”, it’s not illegal. The more money you have the more you can steal from those that have nothing without ever facing criminal charges, because the laws of morality and criminality that apply to the rest of us have an opt out clause if you can afford to buy it.
The Con Dem government has managed to fast track legislation that squeezes the life blood (literally) out of the most vulnerable in society, yet known loopholes that allow the rich to dodge paying their fair share of taxes, remain conspicuously open. It will remain ever thus unless we make our voices heard.
International campaign group Avaaz has an online petition calling for HSBC prosecutions. It already has half a million signatures. In the UK, campaign group, 38 Degrees has the same online petition directed at George Osborne with over 100,000 signatures and counting.
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
Friday, 6 February 2015
Child Abuse Inquiry: Survivors' Approval of New Chair is a Step in the Right Direction
The following was published in today's Independent:
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each other’s children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas night with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
The psychological theory I studied at university did little to prepare me for that night in A&E almost 20 years ago. As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I welcome the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard, with reservation (she has a lot to prove). The credibility of the inquiry was at risk of derailment when two previous chairs were forced to resign due to their links to the establishment.
The outgoing chair, Fiona Woolf, vehemently denied being an establishment figure but was about as convincing as Jim Davidson claiming to be a feminist. Watching Woolf talk about her dinner parties with senior political figures and her (personal) Christmas card list of over 3,000 , yet concomitantly claiming to be just an ordinary gal, would have been comedic were her appointment not so ill conceived .
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole process will unravel. If their views were treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Cathy, though writhing in agony, refused to be examined by the belligerent male doctor. Under the circumstances, I didn’t think her request for a female doctor was unreasonable, but he clearly did. He lectured me on his innumerable professional accolades. I pointed out that Cathy didn’t get to choose not to be raped with a broken bottle, particles of which remained lodged in her vagina. That having found herself ripped asunder and in A&E on Christmas night, she didn’t choose to be bullied by a condescending doctor. But she did have one choice left. She chose not to have another man anywhere near her, let alone her private parts, for the foreseeable.
We did get a female doctor, though it was a long wait. Hopefully Theresa May has learned something I realised as a graduate advocating for a traumatised child, that sometimes, the most important criteria for a role can’t be found on a CV alone. It doesn’t matter how many letters you have after your name or what university you went to. If you cannot command the trust and confidence of your key stakeholders, you’re not the right person for the job.
A credible and therefore qualified candidate will be able to command the trust of survivors by having the capacity to relate to them on a personal level. Ms Goddard appears to meet this criteria.
There was no fairy tale ending for Cathy. But to do her and other survivors of child sexual abuse justice, this inquiry must proceed apace and be unimpeachable.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each other’s children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas night with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
The psychological theory I studied at university did little to prepare me for that night in A&E almost 20 years ago. As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I welcome the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard, with reservation (she has a lot to prove). The credibility of the inquiry was at risk of derailment when two previous chairs were forced to resign due to their links to the establishment.
The outgoing chair, Fiona Woolf, vehemently denied being an establishment figure but was about as convincing as Jim Davidson claiming to be a feminist. Watching Woolf talk about her dinner parties with senior political figures and her (personal) Christmas card list of over 3,000 , yet concomitantly claiming to be just an ordinary gal, would have been comedic were her appointment not so ill conceived .
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole process will unravel. If their views were treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Cathy, though writhing in agony, refused to be examined by the belligerent male doctor. Under the circumstances, I didn’t think her request for a female doctor was unreasonable, but he clearly did. He lectured me on his innumerable professional accolades. I pointed out that Cathy didn’t get to choose not to be raped with a broken bottle, particles of which remained lodged in her vagina. That having found herself ripped asunder and in A&E on Christmas night, she didn’t choose to be bullied by a condescending doctor. But she did have one choice left. She chose not to have another man anywhere near her, let alone her private parts, for the foreseeable.
We did get a female doctor, though it was a long wait. Hopefully Theresa May has learned something I realised as a graduate advocating for a traumatised child, that sometimes, the most important criteria for a role can’t be found on a CV alone. It doesn’t matter how many letters you have after your name or what university you went to. If you cannot command the trust and confidence of your key stakeholders, you’re not the right person for the job.
A credible and therefore qualified candidate will be able to command the trust of survivors by having the capacity to relate to them on a personal level. Ms Goddard appears to meet this criteria.
There was no fairy tale ending for Cathy. But to do her and other survivors of child sexual abuse justice, this inquiry must proceed apace and be unimpeachable.
Saturday, 24 January 2015
MSF Hospital Bombed in Sudan but UN Pursues Failed Policy of Appeasement in the Face of Genocide
The international community’s excuse for failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda was that they did not know what was happening until it was too late. A feeble, disingenuous defense which was discredited and lambasted by those who raised the alarm but were met with deaf ears, such as General Dallaire.
The words “Never again”, like the victims of the first genocide this century, in Darfur, have no worth, hold no significance and imbue no moral compulsion to act. Despite the genocide convention (1948) compelling us to intervene to prevent genocide and instructing us that failure to do so makes us complicit, still the UN remains on the sidelines, occasionally adding fuel to the genocidaires’ fire but never, never invoking its duty to protect the beleaguered, butchered civilians of Darfur and increasingly Southern Sudan.
The international community’s policy on Sudan seems to be that of silence. Whether it’s the rape of 200 women in girls in Tabit or the bombing of an MSF hospital a few days ago, say as little as possible and it’ll all blow over.
Excerpts from the MSF press release:
“A hospital operated by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was directly targeted in an aerial bombing in Sudan on January 20, forcing the suspension of medical activities, MSF announced today [22 January 2015]. The hospital, located in the Nuba Mountains village of Frandala in the South Kordofan region of Sudan, was bombed by the Sudanese Air Force (SAF). Repeated and targeted bombings in the region prevent the safe operation of medical activities, depriving the local population of lifesaving care...
“Approximately 150 patients and staff were in the hospital when a SAF fighter jet [almost certainly a Sukhoi-24 air-to-ground attack plane] dropped a cluster of 13 bombs, two of which landed inside the hospital compound. The others struck just outside the hospital fence. One MSF staff member and one patient were injured. The property also suffered damage... [The Mother of Mercy Hospital was also attacked by a fighter jet from Khartoum's air force, identified from its profile by Dr. Tom Catena, surgeon at the hospital, as a Sukhoi-24—ER.]
The eminent Sudan scholar, Eric Reeves, had this to say:
“If we want moral clarity in understanding the Khartoum—as opposed to the political "complexities" adduced whenever the regime is the subject—then let us look to Frandala. This deliberate bombing attack on an MSF hospital, by an advanced military jet aircraft, is the very face of the Khartoum regime. It is what the world should see when it looks at these men. Instead, the feckless Europeans, with only a couple of exceptions, accept the legitimacy of the regime and several have done substantial commercial business with it, at least before the collapsing Sudanese economy made the regime's ruthless survivalists even more desperate to do whatever it takes to maintain their monopoly on national wealth and political power. In the process they've made further commercial investment highly unlikely, and the economy will sink even more quickly”.
When I asked a Sudanese friend how she felt about the increasing attacks on schools and hospitals and the international community’s silence, she said:
“They will say nothing. They will do nothing. They do not care about us. Our children are being killed and no-one cares”.
If we allow our hearts to harden in the face of genocide, look away when we should bear witness and remain silent when we should speak up, what hope is there for humanity?
The words “Never again”, like the victims of the first genocide this century, in Darfur, have no worth, hold no significance and imbue no moral compulsion to act. Despite the genocide convention (1948) compelling us to intervene to prevent genocide and instructing us that failure to do so makes us complicit, still the UN remains on the sidelines, occasionally adding fuel to the genocidaires’ fire but never, never invoking its duty to protect the beleaguered, butchered civilians of Darfur and increasingly Southern Sudan.
The international community’s policy on Sudan seems to be that of silence. Whether it’s the rape of 200 women in girls in Tabit or the bombing of an MSF hospital a few days ago, say as little as possible and it’ll all blow over.
Excerpts from the MSF press release:
“A hospital operated by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was directly targeted in an aerial bombing in Sudan on January 20, forcing the suspension of medical activities, MSF announced today [22 January 2015]. The hospital, located in the Nuba Mountains village of Frandala in the South Kordofan region of Sudan, was bombed by the Sudanese Air Force (SAF). Repeated and targeted bombings in the region prevent the safe operation of medical activities, depriving the local population of lifesaving care...
“Approximately 150 patients and staff were in the hospital when a SAF fighter jet [almost certainly a Sukhoi-24 air-to-ground attack plane] dropped a cluster of 13 bombs, two of which landed inside the hospital compound. The others struck just outside the hospital fence. One MSF staff member and one patient were injured. The property also suffered damage... [The Mother of Mercy Hospital was also attacked by a fighter jet from Khartoum's air force, identified from its profile by Dr. Tom Catena, surgeon at the hospital, as a Sukhoi-24—ER.]
The eminent Sudan scholar, Eric Reeves, had this to say:
“If we want moral clarity in understanding the Khartoum—as opposed to the political "complexities" adduced whenever the regime is the subject—then let us look to Frandala. This deliberate bombing attack on an MSF hospital, by an advanced military jet aircraft, is the very face of the Khartoum regime. It is what the world should see when it looks at these men. Instead, the feckless Europeans, with only a couple of exceptions, accept the legitimacy of the regime and several have done substantial commercial business with it, at least before the collapsing Sudanese economy made the regime's ruthless survivalists even more desperate to do whatever it takes to maintain their monopoly on national wealth and political power. In the process they've made further commercial investment highly unlikely, and the economy will sink even more quickly”.
When I asked a Sudanese friend how she felt about the increasing attacks on schools and hospitals and the international community’s silence, she said:
“They will say nothing. They will do nothing. They do not care about us. Our children are being killed and no-one cares”.
If we allow our hearts to harden in the face of genocide, look away when we should bear witness and remain silent when we should speak up, what hope is there for humanity?
Wednesday, 14 January 2015
I am Not Charlie. France's Mantra of Equality, Liberty & Brotherhood, Like "Free" Speech, Has Been Exposed as a Lie.
The following was published in today's Independent Voices:
I was giving a lecture shortly after 7/7 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but, to be fair, he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy.
The Paris killings were barbarous and my heart goes out to the victims’ loved ones. There is no justification for murder. There is however a duty to properly debate critical societal events. The attribution of heroic status to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo ignores the role it may have played in normalising xenophobia in France. It has ironically served to close down debate and fails to acknowledge the fact that freedom of speech comes at a cost.
As someone who believes that the pen is mightier that the sword and who engages the potent properties of satire, I also accept the (ethical) rules of its engagement. Mockery as a tool to hold a mirror up to the powerful, is legitimate and strengthens democracy. Wielded against the marginalized and disenfranchised minority however, it’s cruel, divisive and its proponents threaten the democratic principles they claim to uphold.
I do not accept the narrative that the Paris massacres were an attack on free speech. On the contrary, the brutal, tragic, murders were, in my view, indicative of a society wherein “free” speech is seen as a privilege afforded only to those who can afford to buy it. There are 5m Muslims in France, more than in any other European country (except Turkey), yet they are conspicuously absent from the legislature and the media.
In contrast, 60% of prisoners in the country are Muslim and hail from poverty stricken suburbs, where youth unemployment is around 40% (Two of the three Paris killers, brothers Kouachis and Chérif, were orphaned early and having occupied menial jobs, got involved in petty crime ending up in prison where many Muslims become radicalised). Add to the mix the rise of the far right in France and the daily attacks on immigrants, Muslims and blacks, all of which is disseminated by the media and fuels inter community hatred. France’s mantra of Equality, Liberty and Brotherhood has been exposed, like free speech, as a lie.
When I criticized Charlie Hebdo’s original cartoons depicting Islam as being synonymous with terrorism it summoned the charge of “political correctness”, as though it is shameful to avoid “forms of expression that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”, which is the largely forgotten meaning of the term (source: OED). It is disingenuous for those in the media to defend their “entitlement” to free speech for the mere sake of it and to rail against a concept that might render their gratuitous attacks on the powerless and voiceless, as socially unacceptable.
The Paris killers, like those who brutally murdered Lee Rigby in the UK, were deranged, sick individuals. They were terrorists certainly but they are no more representative of Islam than I am of Catholicism.
As well as the unequal distribution of “free speech” and economic resources, there’s another player in the dock. Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There’s no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killings in Paris were indefensible and abhorrent, spare a thought too for all the thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Darfur and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice.
A generation of young Muslims throughout Europe are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young people by a world that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
I was giving a lecture shortly after 7/7 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but, to be fair, he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy.
The Paris killings were barbarous and my heart goes out to the victims’ loved ones. There is no justification for murder. There is however a duty to properly debate critical societal events. The attribution of heroic status to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo ignores the role it may have played in normalising xenophobia in France. It has ironically served to close down debate and fails to acknowledge the fact that freedom of speech comes at a cost.
As someone who believes that the pen is mightier that the sword and who engages the potent properties of satire, I also accept the (ethical) rules of its engagement. Mockery as a tool to hold a mirror up to the powerful, is legitimate and strengthens democracy. Wielded against the marginalized and disenfranchised minority however, it’s cruel, divisive and its proponents threaten the democratic principles they claim to uphold.
I do not accept the narrative that the Paris massacres were an attack on free speech. On the contrary, the brutal, tragic, murders were, in my view, indicative of a society wherein “free” speech is seen as a privilege afforded only to those who can afford to buy it. There are 5m Muslims in France, more than in any other European country (except Turkey), yet they are conspicuously absent from the legislature and the media.
In contrast, 60% of prisoners in the country are Muslim and hail from poverty stricken suburbs, where youth unemployment is around 40% (Two of the three Paris killers, brothers Kouachis and Chérif, were orphaned early and having occupied menial jobs, got involved in petty crime ending up in prison where many Muslims become radicalised). Add to the mix the rise of the far right in France and the daily attacks on immigrants, Muslims and blacks, all of which is disseminated by the media and fuels inter community hatred. France’s mantra of Equality, Liberty and Brotherhood has been exposed, like free speech, as a lie.
When I criticized Charlie Hebdo’s original cartoons depicting Islam as being synonymous with terrorism it summoned the charge of “political correctness”, as though it is shameful to avoid “forms of expression that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”, which is the largely forgotten meaning of the term (source: OED). It is disingenuous for those in the media to defend their “entitlement” to free speech for the mere sake of it and to rail against a concept that might render their gratuitous attacks on the powerless and voiceless, as socially unacceptable.
The Paris killers, like those who brutally murdered Lee Rigby in the UK, were deranged, sick individuals. They were terrorists certainly but they are no more representative of Islam than I am of Catholicism.
As well as the unequal distribution of “free speech” and economic resources, there’s another player in the dock. Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There’s no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killings in Paris were indefensible and abhorrent, spare a thought too for all the thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Darfur and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice.
A generation of young Muslims throughout Europe are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young people by a world that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
Thursday, 8 January 2015
To Women's Magazines & Ched Evans, I Have This to Say: Yes We Bloody Well Can!
Arguing with inanimate objects is not my thing. It tends to be pretty one sided. Such was the ire invoked by listening to Radio Four yesterday that I found myself yelling “yes we bloody well can” at the car radio. Futile perhaps, but therapeutic nonetheless.
The subject of my wrath was the editor of You magazine, which is part of The Mail on Sunday’s (MoS) “package”. She was a guest on Woman’s Hour discussing the future (or not) of glossy women’s magazines. When asked whether she felt compromised by being part of the MoS news package, she lamented that there are a lot of terrible things happening in the world but alas there’s nothing we (women) can do about them. The good news is that we (women) can at least cook a nice meal for our loved ones (husband & children) & sit back with a nice cuppa afterwards to escape in an orgy of airbrushed surgically enhanced bodies & “aspirational” lifestyle envy (my words not hers).
The message is, don’t worry your little heads ladies. Let men get on with the business of ruling/making a complete hash of the world. I have nothing against hot pots & bake offs (I’m just rubbish at both) & I’m not averse to making do & mending but the fact is, the world needs more women to get involved in news & politics. Women’s magazines that still peddle 1950’s stereotypes have no place in the present, let alone the future.
Yes we bloody well can is my response to the defeatist acceptance of impotence. There’s plenty we can do about the horrible things happening in the world & burying our heads in the sand is not one of them. Our engagement now will determine the legacy we leave our children. Be it climate change, social inequality & oppression (which threatens democracy & acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism), it’s all happening on our watch.
What can I, just one individual, do? I hear you ask. Plenty. Take the debacle over convicted rapist Ched Evans, for example. When Sheffield United announced their intention to sign him last year it provoked public outrage. One of those angry individuals set up a petition, then 170,000 other angry individuals signed it. Collectively those simple individual actions resulted in Sheffield United backing down. This powerful democratic tool was employed to achieve the same outcome when Oldham United announced their intention to sign the convicted rapist this week. Again the petition was set up & within days 70,000 individuals, including myself, signed it. One by one the sponsors threatened to pull out of the club if Evans was signed. Oldham United announced today that they would not be signing the convicted rapist after all. Every single individual act accumulates to effect societal change.
For overseas readers who aren’t familiar with the Ched Evans case, it’s worth noting that, having served 2.5 years in prison for raping a 19 year old girl, he emerged, not contrite but inciting revenge against his victim. A website has been set up in his name which discloses the victim’s identity & address. She had to change her name & has moved 5 times because of threats made to her by Evans’ supporters. She continues to be persecuted, vilified & threatened & lives in constant fear of reprisals.
In the UK over 85,000 women are raped and 400,000 sexually assaulted every year. Three months ago the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported that rape had increased 29% in the UK & that rape at knife point had increased by 48%. The rape crisis centre warned that these stats, though damning, were “just the tip of the iceberg”. It’s thought that 80% of rapes never get reported. Not surprising when judges make sympathetic overtures to the perpetrators, such as when female judge, Ms Mowat, told a teacher convicted of child pornography offences that she would not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, 63, a supply teacher, escaped with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.
Ms Mowat is the same judge who last year indicated that women who drank too much & were then raped had no-one but themselves to blame if they don't get a conviction, on the grounds that they can’t recall exact details in court. As a judge she should know that the legal responsibility is on the defendant to explain how they sought and received consent, not on the survivor to recall every detail.
The objectification of women in the media & advertising contributes to the rape culture. Among comedian Jimmy Carr’s rape jokes repertoire is this side splitter, “What’s the difference between football and rape? Women don’t like football”. Nuff said.
Thanks to the lose the Lads’ mags campaign, several lads’ rags have folded in the last year & those remaining have cleaned up their act. They’re starting to get that their in your face porno representation of women was frankly, uncool. That happened because thousands of individuals signed petitions, wrote letters, or in my case, serially put copies of The Lady or Good Housekeeping (the lesser of evils) in front of all the Lads’ mags wherever I saw them on display.
My rancour at the paralysing creep of apathy is exacerbated by discovering today that my local A&E is on the verge of closure. No consultation, no concerted local political opposition & negligible local media coverage (despite buying the local newspaper I knew nothing of this). It took one hour for an ambulance to take my 6 year old to the nearest A&E after he has injured in a car crash in November (all the while in agony strapped into a hard plastic stretcher & head blocks). That was bad enough, but closing our A&E could mean up to twice that length of time to get to another one. If this closure happens, people in this rural, often isolated community, will needlessly die on route to A&E. Not something that will keep our lacklustre Tory MP awake at night. Fortunately, some angry people have mobilised and formed a campaign group to block the move. Now that I know about it, I'll be supporting their noble efforts. If we don't join forces against expunging critical services on which our families & communities depend, they'll be gone forever & we'll only have ourselves to blame.
If I’ve incited just one reader to get into the bloody well can mindset, I’ll take solace from that. Following the gender based theme, if anyone is bloody well fed up with The Sun’s sexist Page 3, there is something you can bloody well do about it. Join the 216,700 other individuals who’ve signed the No More Page 3 petition at https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
The subject of my wrath was the editor of You magazine, which is part of The Mail on Sunday’s (MoS) “package”. She was a guest on Woman’s Hour discussing the future (or not) of glossy women’s magazines. When asked whether she felt compromised by being part of the MoS news package, she lamented that there are a lot of terrible things happening in the world but alas there’s nothing we (women) can do about them. The good news is that we (women) can at least cook a nice meal for our loved ones (husband & children) & sit back with a nice cuppa afterwards to escape in an orgy of airbrushed surgically enhanced bodies & “aspirational” lifestyle envy (my words not hers).
The message is, don’t worry your little heads ladies. Let men get on with the business of ruling/making a complete hash of the world. I have nothing against hot pots & bake offs (I’m just rubbish at both) & I’m not averse to making do & mending but the fact is, the world needs more women to get involved in news & politics. Women’s magazines that still peddle 1950’s stereotypes have no place in the present, let alone the future.
Yes we bloody well can is my response to the defeatist acceptance of impotence. There’s plenty we can do about the horrible things happening in the world & burying our heads in the sand is not one of them. Our engagement now will determine the legacy we leave our children. Be it climate change, social inequality & oppression (which threatens democracy & acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism), it’s all happening on our watch.
What can I, just one individual, do? I hear you ask. Plenty. Take the debacle over convicted rapist Ched Evans, for example. When Sheffield United announced their intention to sign him last year it provoked public outrage. One of those angry individuals set up a petition, then 170,000 other angry individuals signed it. Collectively those simple individual actions resulted in Sheffield United backing down. This powerful democratic tool was employed to achieve the same outcome when Oldham United announced their intention to sign the convicted rapist this week. Again the petition was set up & within days 70,000 individuals, including myself, signed it. One by one the sponsors threatened to pull out of the club if Evans was signed. Oldham United announced today that they would not be signing the convicted rapist after all. Every single individual act accumulates to effect societal change.
For overseas readers who aren’t familiar with the Ched Evans case, it’s worth noting that, having served 2.5 years in prison for raping a 19 year old girl, he emerged, not contrite but inciting revenge against his victim. A website has been set up in his name which discloses the victim’s identity & address. She had to change her name & has moved 5 times because of threats made to her by Evans’ supporters. She continues to be persecuted, vilified & threatened & lives in constant fear of reprisals.
In the UK over 85,000 women are raped and 400,000 sexually assaulted every year. Three months ago the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported that rape had increased 29% in the UK & that rape at knife point had increased by 48%. The rape crisis centre warned that these stats, though damning, were “just the tip of the iceberg”. It’s thought that 80% of rapes never get reported. Not surprising when judges make sympathetic overtures to the perpetrators, such as when female judge, Ms Mowat, told a teacher convicted of child pornography offences that she would not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, 63, a supply teacher, escaped with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.
Ms Mowat is the same judge who last year indicated that women who drank too much & were then raped had no-one but themselves to blame if they don't get a conviction, on the grounds that they can’t recall exact details in court. As a judge she should know that the legal responsibility is on the defendant to explain how they sought and received consent, not on the survivor to recall every detail.
The objectification of women in the media & advertising contributes to the rape culture. Among comedian Jimmy Carr’s rape jokes repertoire is this side splitter, “What’s the difference between football and rape? Women don’t like football”. Nuff said.
Thanks to the lose the Lads’ mags campaign, several lads’ rags have folded in the last year & those remaining have cleaned up their act. They’re starting to get that their in your face porno representation of women was frankly, uncool. That happened because thousands of individuals signed petitions, wrote letters, or in my case, serially put copies of The Lady or Good Housekeeping (the lesser of evils) in front of all the Lads’ mags wherever I saw them on display.
My rancour at the paralysing creep of apathy is exacerbated by discovering today that my local A&E is on the verge of closure. No consultation, no concerted local political opposition & negligible local media coverage (despite buying the local newspaper I knew nothing of this). It took one hour for an ambulance to take my 6 year old to the nearest A&E after he has injured in a car crash in November (all the while in agony strapped into a hard plastic stretcher & head blocks). That was bad enough, but closing our A&E could mean up to twice that length of time to get to another one. If this closure happens, people in this rural, often isolated community, will needlessly die on route to A&E. Not something that will keep our lacklustre Tory MP awake at night. Fortunately, some angry people have mobilised and formed a campaign group to block the move. Now that I know about it, I'll be supporting their noble efforts. If we don't join forces against expunging critical services on which our families & communities depend, they'll be gone forever & we'll only have ourselves to blame.
If I’ve incited just one reader to get into the bloody well can mindset, I’ll take solace from that. Following the gender based theme, if anyone is bloody well fed up with The Sun’s sexist Page 3, there is something you can bloody well do about it. Join the 216,700 other individuals who’ve signed the No More Page 3 petition at https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
It's a Mother's Job to Pull Rank
Apart from boardrooms, the other places I’ve encountered a high concentration of psychologically dysfunctional individuals were, in the enclaves of Westminster and at a British Psychological Society (BPS) conference. I was invited to exhibit my research on agency v’s structural manifestations of sex discrimination within organisations. When I turned up, my pitch was facing a rear wall. When I protested that no-one would see my exhibition, I was blithely informed, “Well, it’s a bit controversial, you’ve got some pretty bold images (he was referring to actual recruitment adverts featuring testosterone charged images of men). We don’t want to alienate [male] delegates”!
Despite the initial resistance, I persuaded the organisers to take the radical move of relocating my pitch to a more prominent position. No cash exchanged hands.
At lunchtime, there was only one seat free in the dining hall. Out of politeness I asked the man opposite if I could join him. He looked at me as though I had killed his cat and stuffed it with out of date horsemeat from Tesco. Ignoring the pregnant pause, I smiled and sat down. About to take my first mouthful of chargrilled potato soup, the man said, “I was hoping to be alone”. Strange thing for someone who paid £150 to be surrounded by other people to say I thought. I assured him that a soon as another seat became available, he could be alone with someone else. In the meantime, I was comfortable with eating in complete silence. Thirty minutes later, I still didn’t know the stranger’s name but I could give you chapter and verse about his unresolved Electra complex. He was a psychologist and "an expert" (in something to do with the mind)but that didn't prevent him from being a psychological mess himself.
So when I found myself in A&E last month advocating for my 6 year old and my husband, the words “Trust me I’m a doctor” were never going to wash. Letters after your name and titles do not infallibility make. If there’s one thing I learnt hanging out with so called eminent folk, it’s that everyone is fallible and no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny. In fact, the less accountability, the greater the likelihood of error.
In this year’s BBC Radio 4 Reith lectures, US based Dr Atul Gawande, grappled with why doctors Fail. He examined how much of failure in medicine remains due to ignorance (lack of knowledge) and how much is due to ineptitude (failure to use existing knowledge). He advocates putting systems in place, such as checklists for surgical teams to go through before embarking on surgery. Despite medical practitioners railing against the system on the grounds that “we know our job, we do this every day”, those teams that followed the system reported significantly reduced errors and better surgical outcomes. In short, even experts make mistakes and cross checking can save lives.
I hadn’t heard Dr Gawande’s lecture before I got the phone call we all dread. My loved ones had been hurt and were en route to hospital. A **** came ‘round the bend on the wrong side of the road and hit my husband’s car head on. Our 6 year old child was in the back. They both sustained injuries and were hospitalised for two days. In A&E I was inwardly distressed but outwardly calm.
I never left my sons side. I asked the nurse responsible for my husband’s care to give me an update every 10 minutes. A&E is a frenetic, overwhelming environment. Not somewhere any parent wants to find themselves with their child. By way of slowing the pace down enough to allow my brain to assimilate what was happening, I asked everyone who entered the room to identify themselves to myself and my child and to explain to us what they would be doing, before doing it. I needed to feel I had a semblance of control, some level of involvement in decisions that were being made, from the start.
Fortunately, my son’s presence was like an enchantment. The staff came in their droves to meet the boy who, despite his injuries, never complained. Every-one was lovely and very tolerant of my constant questions, which were always posed in a respectful, appreciative way. Then the big cheese came in. The doctor. He was authoritative. But did he really know what he was doing? After examining my son he ordered x-rays. I asked why he didn’t order more. He explained that he’d been satisfied by his physical examination that it wasn’t necessary. “But how can you know for sure…” I challenged, politely, but earnestly, “…if you can’t see what’s happening inside”.
A junior doctor said the big cheese knew what to look for. Not moving my gaze from the big cheese himself, I said, “Then I’d be grateful if you could impart that knowledge in a way that I can understand”. To my amazement, he did. There was no hint of reproach in his tone. There was no jargon, no condescension. Just facts delivered with compassion. He explained the protocol of minimising unnecessary exposure to radiation. He knew what he was doing. I could trust him and I did. I made the usual self-deprecating apologies for being an anxious mum but he rebuked them, “You’re just doing your job, which is to make sure I’m doing mine”. You could have knocked me over with a cardboard bed pan.
Over the course of spending 2 days in an NHS hospital, my little boy was superbly well looked after. On the second night, my child was exhausted. The previous night was punctuated by intrusive, though necessary, hourly obs. By the second night, having spent the day in hospital and spoken to a number of doctors, I was looking forward to him getting more sleep. But the hourly obs continued. By 10pm, he had had 4 interruptions and was crying for sleep. Emboldened by my A&E big cheese experience, I asked the nurse (with whom I had struck up a warm rapport the previous night) to explain why my son was still on hourly obs and if the reason wasn’t medically compelling, I would like him to have an uninterrupted (as much as possible on a children’s ward) nights sleep. She explained that the instruction hadn’t been amended by the doctor. She kindly offered to confer with the on call doctor.
The doctor came on the ward and very politely told me he was down for hourly obs but couldn't help me understand why, other than, “doctors orders”. He was a very affable junior (i.e. big cheese in training) doctor who was just following orders. I didn’t want to make his life difficult but this wasn’t about him, or me, it was about my sick child. In a haze of sleep deprived angst I tried to convey my concerns. To communicate that every maternal bone in my body told me that what my child needed more than anything else right now, was a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. I argued that his body needed rest in order to heal and that being poked and prodded by beeping equipment that startled him every hour could only hinder his recovery. I told him I wanted the obs’ to stop until morning and that I would take full responsibility. I offered to put it in writing.
I pulled rank as a mother and to my amazement, it worked. Turned out the junior doctor wasn't a "big cheese in training". He was already a brilliant doctor. He possessed two qualities you can't teach in medical school. The ability to listen and compassion. He put my child's wellbeing before his career that night, and for that I'll be eternally grateful. My son had a solid 8 hours sleep and awoke rested. Ready to fight another day.
When I tucked my little boy in tonight he said he didn’t care if Father Christmas didn’t bring any toys (delayed concussion?) as long as I promised him my undivided attention on Christmas day. “No work for a whole day mum. Do you think you can do it”? “I can do better than that”, I said, “I’ll disconnect until January!” I'm sure that rabbit in the headlights look in his eyes, was an expression of sheer joy. Definitely not dread...
I’m not religious but I embrace the opportunity that Christmas affords us to wind down and reconnect with the people and things that matter. In that spirit, I wish you all fond festive greetings, wherever you are in the world.
*Had this not been such a personal story involving my role as a mother, I would have used the word “parent”. Pulling rank applies as much to fathers as mothers, in my view.
Despite the initial resistance, I persuaded the organisers to take the radical move of relocating my pitch to a more prominent position. No cash exchanged hands.
At lunchtime, there was only one seat free in the dining hall. Out of politeness I asked the man opposite if I could join him. He looked at me as though I had killed his cat and stuffed it with out of date horsemeat from Tesco. Ignoring the pregnant pause, I smiled and sat down. About to take my first mouthful of chargrilled potato soup, the man said, “I was hoping to be alone”. Strange thing for someone who paid £150 to be surrounded by other people to say I thought. I assured him that a soon as another seat became available, he could be alone with someone else. In the meantime, I was comfortable with eating in complete silence. Thirty minutes later, I still didn’t know the stranger’s name but I could give you chapter and verse about his unresolved Electra complex. He was a psychologist and "an expert" (in something to do with the mind)but that didn't prevent him from being a psychological mess himself.
So when I found myself in A&E last month advocating for my 6 year old and my husband, the words “Trust me I’m a doctor” were never going to wash. Letters after your name and titles do not infallibility make. If there’s one thing I learnt hanging out with so called eminent folk, it’s that everyone is fallible and no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny. In fact, the less accountability, the greater the likelihood of error.
In this year’s BBC Radio 4 Reith lectures, US based Dr Atul Gawande, grappled with why doctors Fail. He examined how much of failure in medicine remains due to ignorance (lack of knowledge) and how much is due to ineptitude (failure to use existing knowledge). He advocates putting systems in place, such as checklists for surgical teams to go through before embarking on surgery. Despite medical practitioners railing against the system on the grounds that “we know our job, we do this every day”, those teams that followed the system reported significantly reduced errors and better surgical outcomes. In short, even experts make mistakes and cross checking can save lives.
I hadn’t heard Dr Gawande’s lecture before I got the phone call we all dread. My loved ones had been hurt and were en route to hospital. A **** came ‘round the bend on the wrong side of the road and hit my husband’s car head on. Our 6 year old child was in the back. They both sustained injuries and were hospitalised for two days. In A&E I was inwardly distressed but outwardly calm.
I never left my sons side. I asked the nurse responsible for my husband’s care to give me an update every 10 minutes. A&E is a frenetic, overwhelming environment. Not somewhere any parent wants to find themselves with their child. By way of slowing the pace down enough to allow my brain to assimilate what was happening, I asked everyone who entered the room to identify themselves to myself and my child and to explain to us what they would be doing, before doing it. I needed to feel I had a semblance of control, some level of involvement in decisions that were being made, from the start.
Fortunately, my son’s presence was like an enchantment. The staff came in their droves to meet the boy who, despite his injuries, never complained. Every-one was lovely and very tolerant of my constant questions, which were always posed in a respectful, appreciative way. Then the big cheese came in. The doctor. He was authoritative. But did he really know what he was doing? After examining my son he ordered x-rays. I asked why he didn’t order more. He explained that he’d been satisfied by his physical examination that it wasn’t necessary. “But how can you know for sure…” I challenged, politely, but earnestly, “…if you can’t see what’s happening inside”.
A junior doctor said the big cheese knew what to look for. Not moving my gaze from the big cheese himself, I said, “Then I’d be grateful if you could impart that knowledge in a way that I can understand”. To my amazement, he did. There was no hint of reproach in his tone. There was no jargon, no condescension. Just facts delivered with compassion. He explained the protocol of minimising unnecessary exposure to radiation. He knew what he was doing. I could trust him and I did. I made the usual self-deprecating apologies for being an anxious mum but he rebuked them, “You’re just doing your job, which is to make sure I’m doing mine”. You could have knocked me over with a cardboard bed pan.
Over the course of spending 2 days in an NHS hospital, my little boy was superbly well looked after. On the second night, my child was exhausted. The previous night was punctuated by intrusive, though necessary, hourly obs. By the second night, having spent the day in hospital and spoken to a number of doctors, I was looking forward to him getting more sleep. But the hourly obs continued. By 10pm, he had had 4 interruptions and was crying for sleep. Emboldened by my A&E big cheese experience, I asked the nurse (with whom I had struck up a warm rapport the previous night) to explain why my son was still on hourly obs and if the reason wasn’t medically compelling, I would like him to have an uninterrupted (as much as possible on a children’s ward) nights sleep. She explained that the instruction hadn’t been amended by the doctor. She kindly offered to confer with the on call doctor.
The doctor came on the ward and very politely told me he was down for hourly obs but couldn't help me understand why, other than, “doctors orders”. He was a very affable junior (i.e. big cheese in training) doctor who was just following orders. I didn’t want to make his life difficult but this wasn’t about him, or me, it was about my sick child. In a haze of sleep deprived angst I tried to convey my concerns. To communicate that every maternal bone in my body told me that what my child needed more than anything else right now, was a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. I argued that his body needed rest in order to heal and that being poked and prodded by beeping equipment that startled him every hour could only hinder his recovery. I told him I wanted the obs’ to stop until morning and that I would take full responsibility. I offered to put it in writing.
I pulled rank as a mother and to my amazement, it worked. Turned out the junior doctor wasn't a "big cheese in training". He was already a brilliant doctor. He possessed two qualities you can't teach in medical school. The ability to listen and compassion. He put my child's wellbeing before his career that night, and for that I'll be eternally grateful. My son had a solid 8 hours sleep and awoke rested. Ready to fight another day.
When I tucked my little boy in tonight he said he didn’t care if Father Christmas didn’t bring any toys (delayed concussion?) as long as I promised him my undivided attention on Christmas day. “No work for a whole day mum. Do you think you can do it”? “I can do better than that”, I said, “I’ll disconnect until January!” I'm sure that rabbit in the headlights look in his eyes, was an expression of sheer joy. Definitely not dread...
I’m not religious but I embrace the opportunity that Christmas affords us to wind down and reconnect with the people and things that matter. In that spirit, I wish you all fond festive greetings, wherever you are in the world.
*Had this not been such a personal story involving my role as a mother, I would have used the word “parent”. Pulling rank applies as much to fathers as mothers, in my view.
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
Pornographic Images of Boobs Abound But it's Breastfeeding Mums we Berate
Laura McKenna was a 22 year old nursing student. Jordan was a glamour model. Both got their breasts out in public, one to breast feed her baby, the other for male titillation. Guess which one was thrown off the bus for offending the driver?
Last month a privately owned café in Surrey put a “polite” notice in its window informing breastfeeding mothers that they were welcome to breastfeed in their new, expansive… disabled toilet. For their convenience, the sign read, a chair would be left outside. Groups of breast feeding women were welcome (in the toilets but not at the table). As long as they were happy to sit on the toilet/floor and take their own disinfectant, presumably.
Last week a breastfeeding mother in top London hotel, Claridges, was lectured about “discretion”. The manager helpfully provided a starched white linen napkin for mum to hide, not just her boob but her baby too. Ironically, the ridiculous, indiscreet starched shroud is what drew everyone’s attention to the woman, who said she was made to feel humiliated and uncomfortable by the hotel’s intervention.
Breastfeeding in public is not some perverse form of exhibitionism. It can be a daunting, intimidating experience. Although around 80% of women start off breastfeeding their baby, by 12 weeks the percentage still exclusively breastfeeding drops to 7%. Only around 1% of women are still breastfeeding when their baby is 6 months old. It’s not surprising given that women who dare to breastfeed in public are labelled “tramps” on social networking sites, such as Facebook.
Perversely, TV coverage of the Claridges story showed a photo of a female guest with her bare boobs on show in a see through dress. I have a feeling she wasn’t asked to sit in the corner and cover up. I somehow doubt that she was lectured on “discretion” by the waiter
Becoming a mother for the first time is a joyous, exhilarating experience but it’s also overwhelming and all consuming. In those early days, weeks, even months, I worried that I’d break my baby if I held him too tight. New mothers are preoccupied every waking hour by doing the best for their baby. Yet, we can’t do right for doing wrong. “Breast is best” we’re told, but the social stigma attached to breastfeeding in public is too much for many women to endure. If it’s not prats like Ukip leader Nigel Farage lecturing us about sitting in the corner, it’s the hostile starers, the tutters and the complainers.
I’m no shrinking violet but it took me weeks before I had the courage to breast feed in public. Anxiety about judgemental comments/glares was preventing me from going out. When I arranged to meet a non lactating friend in a well known high street coffee chain, I got there early so I could feed my baby in a quiet corner before she arrived. A few minutes later, the waiter approached and told me a customer had complained about my “offensive” behaviour.
In a state of perma sleep deprived comatose, I doubted my own sanity. Had I in fact just done the lambada on the table in my off white Mothercare bra and elastic-less pants? Had I forgotten to put any pants on and caused offence by inadvertently exposing my rear? No, I was definitely wearing pants because the woman in the chemist told me my skirt was tucked into them at the back, so it couldn’t be that (I untucked the skirt but was too jaded to give a flying feck as to how many people saw the off white undies). Dignity is the first thing to go when you become a mother. Or is that just me….
Being in the aforementioned comatose state, the best I could muster for the waiter was a glazed gait like stare. Clearly irked by my not cottoning on to the sub text, he told me I’d either have to cover up or leave. His tone, more than the words, struck a chord. I found my pre baby brain and asked the waiter who had complained. Realising from my tone that he had crossed a line, he pointed at a man in his 60’s sitting with a woman the same age. He was reading The Sun and I could see it was open on page 3!
I pointed this out to the waiter but the irony was lost on him. Why? Because, as a society, we have normalised the visibility of surgically enhanced, pneumatic breasts gratuitously exhibited for male sexual titillation. So much so, that breast exposure for this purpose has become acceptable. For the frivolous purpose of feeding a baby, however, it’s “scandalous”, “exhibitionism” and “tramp” like behaviour. There’s something seriously wrong in a society in which a nursing mother is considered an aberration.
I told the waiter that I was “offended” by the complainants’ ogling of pornographic images of a woman’s naked full frontal boobs in a public place and asked if he could please request that the man either be more discrete or leave. Incensed that I clearly had no intention of being bullied, the man and his female accomplice left in a huff. The waiter scowled at me in a “see what you’ve done now” manner. By the time my friend arrived I felt like I had done 10 rounds with Mike Tyson (I came out for a coffee not to fight my corner).
Eighteen months after this experience the Equalities Act 2010 made it illegal to do what was done to me, i.e. discriminate against a woman for breastfeeding. For the avoidance of doubt, it is illegal to approach a woman breastfeeding in public and tell her to be “discrete”, or to cover up, or to sit in the corner. Mothers, fathers, midwives and supporters staged a protest outside Claridges Hotel on Saturday to remind the management of this legal duty. It was co-ordinated by Free to Feed, an organisation set up in March by Emily Slough after she was described as a “tramp” on Facebook for breastfeeding in public.
The following spoof poster is doing the rounds. I can’t not share it:
BREAST FEEDING MUMS WELCOME
If you are a Ukip supporter we politely ask, for the comfort of other customers, that you eat in the corner, or in the toilet, or under a large tablecloth that we can drape over you.
We’re sure you understand that, when people are eating, they don’t want to have to look at a complete and utter tit.
Thank you.
Last month a privately owned café in Surrey put a “polite” notice in its window informing breastfeeding mothers that they were welcome to breastfeed in their new, expansive… disabled toilet. For their convenience, the sign read, a chair would be left outside. Groups of breast feeding women were welcome (in the toilets but not at the table). As long as they were happy to sit on the toilet/floor and take their own disinfectant, presumably.
Last week a breastfeeding mother in top London hotel, Claridges, was lectured about “discretion”. The manager helpfully provided a starched white linen napkin for mum to hide, not just her boob but her baby too. Ironically, the ridiculous, indiscreet starched shroud is what drew everyone’s attention to the woman, who said she was made to feel humiliated and uncomfortable by the hotel’s intervention.
Breastfeeding in public is not some perverse form of exhibitionism. It can be a daunting, intimidating experience. Although around 80% of women start off breastfeeding their baby, by 12 weeks the percentage still exclusively breastfeeding drops to 7%. Only around 1% of women are still breastfeeding when their baby is 6 months old. It’s not surprising given that women who dare to breastfeed in public are labelled “tramps” on social networking sites, such as Facebook.
Perversely, TV coverage of the Claridges story showed a photo of a female guest with her bare boobs on show in a see through dress. I have a feeling she wasn’t asked to sit in the corner and cover up. I somehow doubt that she was lectured on “discretion” by the waiter
Becoming a mother for the first time is a joyous, exhilarating experience but it’s also overwhelming and all consuming. In those early days, weeks, even months, I worried that I’d break my baby if I held him too tight. New mothers are preoccupied every waking hour by doing the best for their baby. Yet, we can’t do right for doing wrong. “Breast is best” we’re told, but the social stigma attached to breastfeeding in public is too much for many women to endure. If it’s not prats like Ukip leader Nigel Farage lecturing us about sitting in the corner, it’s the hostile starers, the tutters and the complainers.
I’m no shrinking violet but it took me weeks before I had the courage to breast feed in public. Anxiety about judgemental comments/glares was preventing me from going out. When I arranged to meet a non lactating friend in a well known high street coffee chain, I got there early so I could feed my baby in a quiet corner before she arrived. A few minutes later, the waiter approached and told me a customer had complained about my “offensive” behaviour.
In a state of perma sleep deprived comatose, I doubted my own sanity. Had I in fact just done the lambada on the table in my off white Mothercare bra and elastic-less pants? Had I forgotten to put any pants on and caused offence by inadvertently exposing my rear? No, I was definitely wearing pants because the woman in the chemist told me my skirt was tucked into them at the back, so it couldn’t be that (I untucked the skirt but was too jaded to give a flying feck as to how many people saw the off white undies). Dignity is the first thing to go when you become a mother. Or is that just me….
Being in the aforementioned comatose state, the best I could muster for the waiter was a glazed gait like stare. Clearly irked by my not cottoning on to the sub text, he told me I’d either have to cover up or leave. His tone, more than the words, struck a chord. I found my pre baby brain and asked the waiter who had complained. Realising from my tone that he had crossed a line, he pointed at a man in his 60’s sitting with a woman the same age. He was reading The Sun and I could see it was open on page 3!
I pointed this out to the waiter but the irony was lost on him. Why? Because, as a society, we have normalised the visibility of surgically enhanced, pneumatic breasts gratuitously exhibited for male sexual titillation. So much so, that breast exposure for this purpose has become acceptable. For the frivolous purpose of feeding a baby, however, it’s “scandalous”, “exhibitionism” and “tramp” like behaviour. There’s something seriously wrong in a society in which a nursing mother is considered an aberration.
I told the waiter that I was “offended” by the complainants’ ogling of pornographic images of a woman’s naked full frontal boobs in a public place and asked if he could please request that the man either be more discrete or leave. Incensed that I clearly had no intention of being bullied, the man and his female accomplice left in a huff. The waiter scowled at me in a “see what you’ve done now” manner. By the time my friend arrived I felt like I had done 10 rounds with Mike Tyson (I came out for a coffee not to fight my corner).
Eighteen months after this experience the Equalities Act 2010 made it illegal to do what was done to me, i.e. discriminate against a woman for breastfeeding. For the avoidance of doubt, it is illegal to approach a woman breastfeeding in public and tell her to be “discrete”, or to cover up, or to sit in the corner. Mothers, fathers, midwives and supporters staged a protest outside Claridges Hotel on Saturday to remind the management of this legal duty. It was co-ordinated by Free to Feed, an organisation set up in March by Emily Slough after she was described as a “tramp” on Facebook for breastfeeding in public.
The following spoof poster is doing the rounds. I can’t not share it:
BREAST FEEDING MUMS WELCOME
If you are a Ukip supporter we politely ask, for the comfort of other customers, that you eat in the corner, or in the toilet, or under a large tablecloth that we can drape over you.
We’re sure you understand that, when people are eating, they don’t want to have to look at a complete and utter tit.
Thank you.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Is Britain Not Bothered about Raped Children in Darfur?
An edited version of this is published in todays Independent on Sunday. Heartfelt thanks to my Darfuri friends who risk their lives in order for the truth to be known and to James Hanning for allowing their voices to be heard.
On October 31st, when most of our children were playing trick or treat, enjoying their childhood innocence, 200 women and girls (as young as 7) in Darfur, were raped. According to locals, the perpetrators were the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). One month later the victims of this egregious assault are no closer to justice.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for decades. The attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit”. What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
UNAMID’s chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of previous allegations of cover up. Despite finding instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon concluded, “There was no evidence to support the allegation that UNAMID intentionally sought to cover up crimes against civilians".
To the uninitiated, withholding evidence of crimes against civilians, particularly given that protection of civilians is UNAMID’s remit, may sound like a cover up. But in UN land, unless the scandalous event was the result of an intentional cover up, and you can prove that, it doesn’t count as one.
Where is the UK in all this? Instead of calling for an independent investigation into the mass rape in Tabit at the time, our government diverted attention away from it. Issuing a press release about food vouchers for displaced people in Darfur (440,000 beneficiaries over 7 months) was in my view, an act of either willful obfuscation or gross ineptitude.
The cash/vouchers have been in place since 2011 apparently, but there’s no evidence, that I could find, that anyone other than the government of Sudan benefits from the UK’s £11m contribution. A local UN official told me he was unaware of the scheme. The 3m Darfuris living in camps want the humanitarian organizations that were expelled by the genocidal regime in 2009, to be reinstated. Not gimmicks. They want enough food for every child (not just the percentage calculated to hit millennium goals).
Eight years ago, having visited Darfur, David Cameron said, “This is ethnic cleansing and we cannot remain silent in the face of this horror”. He knows that rape is a weapon of war and that mass rape constitutes a war crime. He is therefore obliged under international law, to ensure that the perpetrators in Tabit are held to account.
Ban Ki-Moon once said, "Break the silence. When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act." Here’s Ban and Cameron’s chance to put those laudable words into action. Speak up, the world is listening.
On October 31st, when most of our children were playing trick or treat, enjoying their childhood innocence, 200 women and girls (as young as 7) in Darfur, were raped. According to locals, the perpetrators were the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). One month later the victims of this egregious assault are no closer to justice.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for decades. The attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit”. What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
UNAMID’s chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of previous allegations of cover up. Despite finding instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon concluded, “There was no evidence to support the allegation that UNAMID intentionally sought to cover up crimes against civilians".
To the uninitiated, withholding evidence of crimes against civilians, particularly given that protection of civilians is UNAMID’s remit, may sound like a cover up. But in UN land, unless the scandalous event was the result of an intentional cover up, and you can prove that, it doesn’t count as one.
Where is the UK in all this? Instead of calling for an independent investigation into the mass rape in Tabit at the time, our government diverted attention away from it. Issuing a press release about food vouchers for displaced people in Darfur (440,000 beneficiaries over 7 months) was in my view, an act of either willful obfuscation or gross ineptitude.
The cash/vouchers have been in place since 2011 apparently, but there’s no evidence, that I could find, that anyone other than the government of Sudan benefits from the UK’s £11m contribution. A local UN official told me he was unaware of the scheme. The 3m Darfuris living in camps want the humanitarian organizations that were expelled by the genocidal regime in 2009, to be reinstated. Not gimmicks. They want enough food for every child (not just the percentage calculated to hit millennium goals).
Eight years ago, having visited Darfur, David Cameron said, “This is ethnic cleansing and we cannot remain silent in the face of this horror”. He knows that rape is a weapon of war and that mass rape constitutes a war crime. He is therefore obliged under international law, to ensure that the perpetrators in Tabit are held to account.
Ban Ki-Moon once said, "Break the silence. When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act." Here’s Ban and Cameron’s chance to put those laudable words into action. Speak up, the world is listening.
Friday, 21 November 2014
It's Road Safety Awareness Week
It was road safety awareness week. Tell that to the 61 people who were seriously injured today by other road users, and the 61 victims the day before that and the day before that and everyday in the UK. According to Road Safety Charity Brake, who launched a campaign this week calling on road users to “Look out for each other”, in addition to 61 serious injuries daily, on average, 5 people die every day on UK roads.
Other sobering facts include:
• Two fixed penalties for 'careless driving' or speeding issued every minute
• Two in five (41%) UK primary school children say they have been hit or nearly hit by a vehicle while on foot or bike
Yet, the fixed penalty for driving offences, including speeding and mobile phone use, is currently £100 plus three penalty points. “Brake believes this is woefully inadequate, given these crimes can and do lead to terrible crashes, injury and death. Minor crimes that do not pose a direct threat to human life, like littering and smoking in a public place, can be met with a fine of £1,000+. A £100 penalty for driving offences sends out a dangerous message that offences like speeding and phone use at the wheel are not real crimes, and important safety laws need not be taken seriously. Brake argues a fixed penalty of £500-£1,000 would have a significant effect on compliance with these laws, which are in place to protect and safeguard the public.
Brake is also concerned the penalty points system is not working as a way to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders who show disregard for the law. Brake recently revealed 40% of drivers who have reached 12 points are not disqualified, due to a loophole allowing drivers to keep their licence in 'exceptional circumstances'. This loophole should be closed urgently: those who reach 12 points have been given ample opportunity to comply with the law, and should be automatically disqualified to protect themselves and others”.
Brake is calling on road users to sign up to the following pledge:
Slow
Drivers – I'll stay under limits, and slow down to 20mph around schools, homes and shops to protect others. I'll slow right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoid overtaking.
Everyone – I'll speak out for slowing down and help drivers understand that the slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.
Sober
Drivers – I'll never drive after drinking any alcohol or drugs – not a drop, not a drag.
Everyone - I'll plan ahead to make sure I, and anyone I'm with, can get home safely and I'll never get a lift with drink/drug drivers. I'll speak out if someone's about to drive on drink or drugs.
Secure
Drivers – I'll make sure everyone in my vehicle is belted up on every journey, and kids smaller than 150cm are in a proper child restraint. I'll choose the safest vehicle I can and ensure it's maintained.
Everyone – I'll belt up on every journey, and make sure friends and family do too.
Silent
Drivers – I'll never take or make calls or texts when driving. I'll turn off my phone or put it out of sight and on silent, and stay focused on the road.
Everyone – I'll never chat on the phone to someone else who's driving.
Sharp
Drivers – I'll get my eyes tested every two years and wear glasses or lenses at the wheel if I need them. I'll take regular breaks and never drive if I'm tired, stressed or on medication that affects driving.
Everyone – I'll look out for friends and loved ones by ensuring they only drive if they're fit for it, and rest if they're tired.
Sustainable
Everyone – I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all. I'll get about by walking, cycling or public transport as much as I can, for road safety, the environment and my health.
Why not sign up & help prevent the daily carnage on our roads. Any one of us and our children could be innocent victims of reckless road users at any time. Lets do our bit to raise awareness, and safety standards.
Other sobering facts include:
• Two fixed penalties for 'careless driving' or speeding issued every minute
• Two in five (41%) UK primary school children say they have been hit or nearly hit by a vehicle while on foot or bike
Yet, the fixed penalty for driving offences, including speeding and mobile phone use, is currently £100 plus three penalty points. “Brake believes this is woefully inadequate, given these crimes can and do lead to terrible crashes, injury and death. Minor crimes that do not pose a direct threat to human life, like littering and smoking in a public place, can be met with a fine of £1,000+. A £100 penalty for driving offences sends out a dangerous message that offences like speeding and phone use at the wheel are not real crimes, and important safety laws need not be taken seriously. Brake argues a fixed penalty of £500-£1,000 would have a significant effect on compliance with these laws, which are in place to protect and safeguard the public.
Brake is also concerned the penalty points system is not working as a way to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders who show disregard for the law. Brake recently revealed 40% of drivers who have reached 12 points are not disqualified, due to a loophole allowing drivers to keep their licence in 'exceptional circumstances'. This loophole should be closed urgently: those who reach 12 points have been given ample opportunity to comply with the law, and should be automatically disqualified to protect themselves and others”.
Brake is calling on road users to sign up to the following pledge:
Slow
Drivers – I'll stay under limits, and slow down to 20mph around schools, homes and shops to protect others. I'll slow right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoid overtaking.
Everyone – I'll speak out for slowing down and help drivers understand that the slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.
Sober
Drivers – I'll never drive after drinking any alcohol or drugs – not a drop, not a drag.
Everyone - I'll plan ahead to make sure I, and anyone I'm with, can get home safely and I'll never get a lift with drink/drug drivers. I'll speak out if someone's about to drive on drink or drugs.
Secure
Drivers – I'll make sure everyone in my vehicle is belted up on every journey, and kids smaller than 150cm are in a proper child restraint. I'll choose the safest vehicle I can and ensure it's maintained.
Everyone – I'll belt up on every journey, and make sure friends and family do too.
Silent
Drivers – I'll never take or make calls or texts when driving. I'll turn off my phone or put it out of sight and on silent, and stay focused on the road.
Everyone – I'll never chat on the phone to someone else who's driving.
Sharp
Drivers – I'll get my eyes tested every two years and wear glasses or lenses at the wheel if I need them. I'll take regular breaks and never drive if I'm tired, stressed or on medication that affects driving.
Everyone – I'll look out for friends and loved ones by ensuring they only drive if they're fit for it, and rest if they're tired.
Sustainable
Everyone – I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all. I'll get about by walking, cycling or public transport as much as I can, for road safety, the environment and my health.
Why not sign up & help prevent the daily carnage on our roads. Any one of us and our children could be innocent victims of reckless road users at any time. Lets do our bit to raise awareness, and safety standards.
Friday, 14 November 2014
Mass Rape of 200 Girls and Women in Darfur
On October 31st, 200 women and girls (some as young as 7) in Darfur were raped. Locals say the attacks were carried out by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for years, as documented regularly on the reputable local media outlet, Radio Dabanga. This attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit on the day of that media report”.
What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, national security staff, police forces, and military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
The Coordination Committee of Refugees and Displaced Persons in Darfur sent a delegation to Tabit in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. They spent 2 days interviewing women and girls and reported, “We looked into their eyes while they told us they were raped by soldiers”.
UNAMID’s handling of, what has been confirmed by numerous sources to be mass rape, has been marred by incompetence and complicity. Its chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of allegations of cover up. Sort of. It found that there were instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. It also concluded that UNAMID self-censored their reporting on Sudanese abuses, leading to "under-reporting of incidents when government and pro-government forces were suspected to be involved".
More on this story on Sunday. Watch this space.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for years, as documented regularly on the reputable local media outlet, Radio Dabanga. This attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit on the day of that media report”.
What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, national security staff, police forces, and military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
The Coordination Committee of Refugees and Displaced Persons in Darfur sent a delegation to Tabit in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. They spent 2 days interviewing women and girls and reported, “We looked into their eyes while they told us they were raped by soldiers”.
UNAMID’s handling of, what has been confirmed by numerous sources to be mass rape, has been marred by incompetence and complicity. Its chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of allegations of cover up. Sort of. It found that there were instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. It also concluded that UNAMID self-censored their reporting on Sudanese abuses, leading to "under-reporting of incidents when government and pro-government forces were suspected to be involved".
More on this story on Sunday. Watch this space.
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Fiona Woolf’s Replacement Should be Approved by Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I was relieved by Fiona Woolf’s resignation as chair of the historical child sex abuse inquiry. That she was considered an appropriate candidate in the first place is staggering, particularly in light of baroness Butler-Sloss’ resignation just three months earlier due to her links to the establishment.
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole charade will unravel. If their views are treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Alison Millar, the solicitor representing around 50 survivors, wants the inquiry to be given statutory powers, such as the ability to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. She also wants those who give false evidence to face criminal charges. Perhaps the involvement of the Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz (who has had flashes of brilliance in the past), will advance the survivors’ bid to secure some teeth for the inquiry, and focus the terms of reference to ensure it is conducted in a timely and transparent, manner.
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole charade will unravel. If their views are treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Alison Millar, the solicitor representing around 50 survivors, wants the inquiry to be given statutory powers, such as the ability to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. She also wants those who give false evidence to face criminal charges. Perhaps the involvement of the Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz (who has had flashes of brilliance in the past), will advance the survivors’ bid to secure some teeth for the inquiry, and focus the terms of reference to ensure it is conducted in a timely and transparent, manner.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Micheal Buerk's Misogynistic Comments Expose Moral bankruptcy of The BBC's Moral Maze
Michael Buerk’s misogynistic comments about the rape victim of Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, this week should come as no surprise. What is far more sinister, in my view, is that someone who has form when it comes to vocalising his contempt for women, should be allowed to chair the BBC’s Moral Maze.
The trailer for this week’s programme aired Buerk pontificating that neither Evans, nor the woman he attacked emerged “with any credibility because she was so intoxicated she could barely stand”. Thus positioning the victim of rape as morally equivalent to the rapist.
As someone who specialises in ethics, I had to stop listening to the programme several years ago, predominately because of the sanctimonious, self righteous, alpha male tones of the two female presenters, Melanie Phillips and Clare Fox. Why they, or indeed Michael Portillo, qualify to make moral judgements of the day, alludes me. Giles Frazer is a theologian at least. For the moral Maze to be relevant in contemporary Britain, it should reflect it. The panel should be made up of different faiths and people of no faith who deal with ethics (academics & practitioners who help institutions navigate the real world on a daily basis).
Michael Buerk and three of the current panellists are out of touch (Portillo, Phillips & Fox) and have a pompous &/or combative approach, which is completely at odds with getting the best out of witnesses. It’s like a blood sport. Listening to Melanie Phillips’ verbal attempts to annihilate anyone with opposing views is worse than watching Benefits Street. Having my finger nails pulled out with a pliers would be preferable to listening to Phillips and Fox in action.
I digress. Buerk sort of apologised but implied that there was substance to what he said. A similar position to that which he took in 2005. In a toe curling mockumentary (supposed to be serious) he made of women, he railed against the plight of men moved to the margins of a woman’s world. Back then he claimed women set the agenda in the media. He claimed it was run by women for women.
Nearly 10 years on there are even fewer female editors and media executives, so there was no need to panic about the “femocracy” Michael. Male domination prevails. Viewers of week-end TV will know that it’s a veritable lads’ fest. Mock the Week is to be renamed “Mock the Women”. I have a game I play with friends (we need to get out more) called “spot the women” on the male dominated panel shows (QI, Have I Got News for You, 9 out of 10 cats, soon to be renamed 9 out of 10 times the panellists are white men…). Sometimes there’s a token female pitted against the otherwise all male panellists, and if she’s an ethnic, that ticks 2 boxes. Actually, if there’s an ethnic male they often don’t bother with the token woman.
Buerk played down his choice of words as “Clumsy”. Not a good enough defence for a highly paid journalist where, words are your craft. Perhaps if he hadn’t referred to Tess Daly as “that pneumonic bird brain from Strictly” a few years ago, he might have gotten away with a gloss over, half hearted apology. But, he did say that about Daly and he referred to other female colleagues as “air heads”. Stooping to such vitriolic sexist epithets isn’t just morally reprehensible, it’s sloppy journalism. Rather than articulate a case to illustrate a point, he uses the short hand of prejudice, effectively conflating any perceived professional shortcomings with gender. What a Buerk.
The trailer for this week’s programme aired Buerk pontificating that neither Evans, nor the woman he attacked emerged “with any credibility because she was so intoxicated she could barely stand”. Thus positioning the victim of rape as morally equivalent to the rapist.
As someone who specialises in ethics, I had to stop listening to the programme several years ago, predominately because of the sanctimonious, self righteous, alpha male tones of the two female presenters, Melanie Phillips and Clare Fox. Why they, or indeed Michael Portillo, qualify to make moral judgements of the day, alludes me. Giles Frazer is a theologian at least. For the moral Maze to be relevant in contemporary Britain, it should reflect it. The panel should be made up of different faiths and people of no faith who deal with ethics (academics & practitioners who help institutions navigate the real world on a daily basis).
Michael Buerk and three of the current panellists are out of touch (Portillo, Phillips & Fox) and have a pompous &/or combative approach, which is completely at odds with getting the best out of witnesses. It’s like a blood sport. Listening to Melanie Phillips’ verbal attempts to annihilate anyone with opposing views is worse than watching Benefits Street. Having my finger nails pulled out with a pliers would be preferable to listening to Phillips and Fox in action.
I digress. Buerk sort of apologised but implied that there was substance to what he said. A similar position to that which he took in 2005. In a toe curling mockumentary (supposed to be serious) he made of women, he railed against the plight of men moved to the margins of a woman’s world. Back then he claimed women set the agenda in the media. He claimed it was run by women for women.
Nearly 10 years on there are even fewer female editors and media executives, so there was no need to panic about the “femocracy” Michael. Male domination prevails. Viewers of week-end TV will know that it’s a veritable lads’ fest. Mock the Week is to be renamed “Mock the Women”. I have a game I play with friends (we need to get out more) called “spot the women” on the male dominated panel shows (QI, Have I Got News for You, 9 out of 10 cats, soon to be renamed 9 out of 10 times the panellists are white men…). Sometimes there’s a token female pitted against the otherwise all male panellists, and if she’s an ethnic, that ticks 2 boxes. Actually, if there’s an ethnic male they often don’t bother with the token woman.
Buerk played down his choice of words as “Clumsy”. Not a good enough defence for a highly paid journalist where, words are your craft. Perhaps if he hadn’t referred to Tess Daly as “that pneumonic bird brain from Strictly” a few years ago, he might have gotten away with a gloss over, half hearted apology. But, he did say that about Daly and he referred to other female colleagues as “air heads”. Stooping to such vitriolic sexist epithets isn’t just morally reprehensible, it’s sloppy journalism. Rather than articulate a case to illustrate a point, he uses the short hand of prejudice, effectively conflating any perceived professional shortcomings with gender. What a Buerk.
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Human Rights Are For All Not Just Those Who Can Afford to Buy Them
The stale, pale, male aphorism associated with our political elite is far from defunct. The run up to the election is invariably dog whistling O’clock. I can set my watch by them. Be it Enoch Powell (rivers of blood), Michael Howard (“Are you thinking what I’m thinking”?), Gordon Brown (the Britishness test) or UKIPs bongo bongo land (though in fairness to UKIP, they wear their racial epithets on their sleeves).
Homogeneity and inbreeding leads to a lack of creativity and ideas, a by product of which is poor decision making. A phenomena described by George Orwell as, “The decay in the ability of the ruling classes”. Given 54% of Tory MPs have been educated privately (versus 7% of the overall population) and indoctrinated in establishment ideology, it’s little wonder the same old clichés emerge in the run up to every election. I can imagine the pre-election brainstorm at Tory HQ, “How about, go home foreigners, discreetly written on the side of vans cruising immigrant “hot spots”? Or, “Islam is the new IRA” (though I never heard the phrase “Catholic fundamentalism” on Newsnight).
This time they came up with scrapping the Human Rights Act (HRA). In practice, the government has cut legal aid to the point where only the rich can afford to access many aspects of the HRA. Only women on 6 figure salaries, for example, can afford to take their case of sex discrimination to an employment tribunal. In theory, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a watchdog, there to uphold the rights of ordinary people. In practice, it’s a toothless organistion, so bereft of funding, and gumption, to render it almost extraneous.
In practice, the most vulnerable in our society have less access to the HRA now than ever before. Under the Con-Dem coalition we have seen the legislature lurch to protect the interests of the state and the powerful, such as large corporations (Amazon, Google, Starbucks, energy giants, banks etc etc) at the expense of the individual. In addition to cutting legal aid (resulting in an 80% reduction in tribunal cases), criminalising peaceful protests and making freedom of information requests more difficult, have, in my view, eroded what little recourse ordinary people had to justice.
Human rights laws are supposed to protect the marginalised from the powerful. This is why a bill of rights (the alternative proposed by the Tories), decided solely by the parliamentary majority, is so perilous. The HRA serves as a check on the majority.
McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris is a case in point. McDonalds sued 2 environmental activists (known as the Mc Libel two) over a leaflet they claimed was libelous. Two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contents to be indeed libelous and others to be true.
However, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the original case (heard in the UK) had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which contravenes Article 10). It also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were “complex and oppressive UK libel laws”.
In particular the Court held: "in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment".
It is thanks to the HRA that Jacqueline Carmichael (who has spina bifida) and her husband /carer, are not homeless. They successfully challenged the grossly unjust bedroom tax (AKA tax on poverty). They appealed against the crippling cut to their housing benefit on the grounds that it contravened their human rights. It was physically impossible to fit 2 beds into their tiny flat so Jacqueline’s carer husband had to sleep in a separate room.
It seems the bedroom tax (together with benefit cuts) is also forcing some soldiers, disabled by combat, into destitution. The newspapers regularly report stories of war heroes having to sell their medals to pay for care homes and to avoid eviction. Evictions are at a 10 year high yet, William Hague is reportedly living in a luxury London residence costing the taxpayer £2,000 per day (disclaimer: I have been unable to corroborate the facts of this story..). A charity boss responded, “Who exactly are the scroungers in our society”? Fear not, a government spokesperson reportedly said, “We monitor usage for good value for money”. That’s alright then.
As the Human Rights Group Liberty recently reminded us, the HRA protects victims of crime. For example, as a result of a case brought in the European Court under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, rape victims no longer have to suffer the indignity and trauma of being cross-examined in person by their alleged attackers.
It’s thanks to the Human Rights Act that children with SEN in this country still enjoy the right to mainstream education. Funding for which has been under threat recently by unscrupulous local authorities around the country.
We’ve seen how state powers can be used to abuse the rights of the individual. Undercover police officers spying on the Lawrence family in the aftermath of their son Stephen’s death, rather than looking for his killers. Yet more under cover officers “infiltrating” environmental activists, engaging in sexual relationships and, in some cases, fathering children. The women who fell victim to such “surveillance” described it as “like being raped by the state”.
Finally and compellingly, Liberty warns us, “Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or big corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. Hopefully this won’t happen to you but if it did, you might find you need to rely on the Human Rights Act or the European Court of Human Rights to help you”.
Homogeneity and inbreeding leads to a lack of creativity and ideas, a by product of which is poor decision making. A phenomena described by George Orwell as, “The decay in the ability of the ruling classes”. Given 54% of Tory MPs have been educated privately (versus 7% of the overall population) and indoctrinated in establishment ideology, it’s little wonder the same old clichés emerge in the run up to every election. I can imagine the pre-election brainstorm at Tory HQ, “How about, go home foreigners, discreetly written on the side of vans cruising immigrant “hot spots”? Or, “Islam is the new IRA” (though I never heard the phrase “Catholic fundamentalism” on Newsnight).
This time they came up with scrapping the Human Rights Act (HRA). In practice, the government has cut legal aid to the point where only the rich can afford to access many aspects of the HRA. Only women on 6 figure salaries, for example, can afford to take their case of sex discrimination to an employment tribunal. In theory, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a watchdog, there to uphold the rights of ordinary people. In practice, it’s a toothless organistion, so bereft of funding, and gumption, to render it almost extraneous.
In practice, the most vulnerable in our society have less access to the HRA now than ever before. Under the Con-Dem coalition we have seen the legislature lurch to protect the interests of the state and the powerful, such as large corporations (Amazon, Google, Starbucks, energy giants, banks etc etc) at the expense of the individual. In addition to cutting legal aid (resulting in an 80% reduction in tribunal cases), criminalising peaceful protests and making freedom of information requests more difficult, have, in my view, eroded what little recourse ordinary people had to justice.
Human rights laws are supposed to protect the marginalised from the powerful. This is why a bill of rights (the alternative proposed by the Tories), decided solely by the parliamentary majority, is so perilous. The HRA serves as a check on the majority.
McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris is a case in point. McDonalds sued 2 environmental activists (known as the Mc Libel two) over a leaflet they claimed was libelous. Two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contents to be indeed libelous and others to be true.
However, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the original case (heard in the UK) had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which contravenes Article 10). It also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were “complex and oppressive UK libel laws”.
In particular the Court held: "in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment".
It is thanks to the HRA that Jacqueline Carmichael (who has spina bifida) and her husband /carer, are not homeless. They successfully challenged the grossly unjust bedroom tax (AKA tax on poverty). They appealed against the crippling cut to their housing benefit on the grounds that it contravened their human rights. It was physically impossible to fit 2 beds into their tiny flat so Jacqueline’s carer husband had to sleep in a separate room.
It seems the bedroom tax (together with benefit cuts) is also forcing some soldiers, disabled by combat, into destitution. The newspapers regularly report stories of war heroes having to sell their medals to pay for care homes and to avoid eviction. Evictions are at a 10 year high yet, William Hague is reportedly living in a luxury London residence costing the taxpayer £2,000 per day (disclaimer: I have been unable to corroborate the facts of this story..). A charity boss responded, “Who exactly are the scroungers in our society”? Fear not, a government spokesperson reportedly said, “We monitor usage for good value for money”. That’s alright then.
As the Human Rights Group Liberty recently reminded us, the HRA protects victims of crime. For example, as a result of a case brought in the European Court under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, rape victims no longer have to suffer the indignity and trauma of being cross-examined in person by their alleged attackers.
It’s thanks to the Human Rights Act that children with SEN in this country still enjoy the right to mainstream education. Funding for which has been under threat recently by unscrupulous local authorities around the country.
We’ve seen how state powers can be used to abuse the rights of the individual. Undercover police officers spying on the Lawrence family in the aftermath of their son Stephen’s death, rather than looking for his killers. Yet more under cover officers “infiltrating” environmental activists, engaging in sexual relationships and, in some cases, fathering children. The women who fell victim to such “surveillance” described it as “like being raped by the state”.
Finally and compellingly, Liberty warns us, “Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or big corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. Hopefully this won’t happen to you but if it did, you might find you need to rely on the Human Rights Act or the European Court of Human Rights to help you”.
Thursday, 2 October 2014
Tory Conference Peddles the Same Old Promises
“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. A sentiment that surely informs Tory policies. Bedroom tax has reportedly led to people committing suicide, food and fuel poverty has and will lead to more deaths. Minimum, instead of living wage, scrapping of permanent contracts and undermining employment protection rights, have all served to destabilise humanity and society. Despite policies being more likely to kill people than make us stronger, they are pursued blindly. Recklessly. Cruelly.
4 years ago George Osborne promised he would take on bankers and rein in their bonkers bonuses. Thus far he has not. He promised he would close tax loopholes that allow corporations, and the rich, to effectively cheat the exchequer. He has not. David Cameron promised to protect the NHS. He has not. So, when I hear the very same promises emerging from the Tory conference this week, I am at once patronised (they think we’re too thick to remember they made the same promises last time…), incandescent with rage (see above & read the newspapers) and resigned (they know not what they do).
For anyone at Tory HQ reading this, you can put me down as a swing voter.
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
BP, GlaxoSmithKine & Tesco are in the Dock, Again. When Will They Learn....
Recividism is high in miscreant corporations. Moral deviance and psychopaty, it seems, need not be career limiting personality traits. This, together with centuries of in breeding and cloning has led to reduced institutional intelligence and a dearth of strategic capability making repeat offences inevitable. In the last month, BP, GlaxoSmithKline and Tesco have all been in the dock.
Putting profits before people has demonstrably failed as a strategy (see global financial meltdown & my previous blogs if you’re not convinced). Myself and others have been making the business case for ethics for longer than Justin Bieber’s been on solids (though rumour has it he’s regressed to a liquid diet). Take care of people and the planet. Put ethics at the heart of your business and the profits will take care of themselves. It’s not rocket science. Time and again we see that greed and the pursuit of short term profits lead to corporate catastrophe. Yet, it remains the primary corporate driver.
At the start of the month, BP was found quilty of gross negligence for the Deepwater Horizon explosion which killed 11 people and caused environmental carnage. The share price fell by 5%, wiping in excess of £5bn off its stock market value. Had BPs directors taken on board the learnings from a similar explosion only a few years earlier, the Deepwater disaster could have been avoided.
Yesterday, Tesco was forced to suspend four senior executives and call in investigators following the discovery that its profits had been artificially inflated by £250m. More than £2bn was wiped off its share value. A whistleblower warned that payments from suppliers were being irregularly booked and business costs were being misrepresented.
Last week, Chinese police accused GSK's former head of operations in the country of ordering employees to commit bribery on a widespread scale. Four senior managers from GSK’s China business were arrested last July while investigating £320m in potential bribes to individuals in order to secure higher market share & prices. Mark Reilly, who led GSK’s China business until the bribery scandal first broke last year, allegedly “pressed his sales teams to bribe hospitals, doctors and health institutions”, according to Chinese police.
The charges against GSK could lead to the cancellation of its business licenses in a major growth market. Reilly also faces jail.
There were suggestions that these allegations compromised GSK’s corporate integrity. I would argue that, if corporate integrity was a GSK priority, this scandal, like the one involving the reported use of black orphans as guinea pigs for drug trials or the Seroxat scandals before that, would not have happened.
A number of years ago I wrote to some UK charities that had awarded GSK gold star employer status for disability. I asked them how they squared the allocation of such a prestigious accolade with the recent BBC Panorama programme which exposed alleged evidence about GSK’s handling of concerns about their drug Seroxat (e.g. that it’s linked to aggression, suicide and dependency)?
I asked them to respond to the evidence which seemed to indicate that GSK had been aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes. It is also claimed that GSK knew Seroxat to be harmful to children, yet one month after the previous Panorama programme, where they denied this, they sought a licence for Seroxat to be prescribed to children. Although not licensed for this age group, it is alleged that GSK knew GP’s were prescribing it to them, based on the positive trial results published. What GP’s and the public did not know was that:
“GlaxoSmithKline's own clinical trial data revealed that the drug simply didn't work in depressed children. Worse still it made them up to three times more likely to self harm and attempt suicide than depressed children who were just given sugar pills. This was evidence the regulator had never seen before”. (Taken from Panorama transcript of 3 Oct.)
Panorama also produced, what it claimed to be, a confidential internal memo indicating that GSK knew that Seroxat, also known as Paroxetine, didn't work in depressed children as long ago as 1998.
SSB CONFIDENTIAL – FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY – October 1998
"It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated as this would undermine the profile of Paroxetine."
GSK’s apparent withholding of these clinical trials is the subject of an investigation and the programme indicated that criminal charges may be brought. My concern, then & now, is as much related to the ethical as it is with the potential criminal implications. In addition to many Seroxat users themselves, numerous eminent doctors were prepared to speak out on the Panorama programme, including the President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I put all of this to the charity, which had no defence. Yet GSK retained its “gold member” champion of disability status on their website. I was told that member companies of the charity made financial contributions for that honour.
When will shareholders, government and business leaders (BP, GSK & Tesco’s boards are dominated by a white, male “like minded” elite) wake up to the fact that people, and how we treat them, is central, not peripheral, to profit making. Unless and until power is shared equally between women and men, and until marginalised voices are heard, the groupthink that lunges our world from one crisis to another, will prevail.
Putting profits before people has demonstrably failed as a strategy (see global financial meltdown & my previous blogs if you’re not convinced). Myself and others have been making the business case for ethics for longer than Justin Bieber’s been on solids (though rumour has it he’s regressed to a liquid diet). Take care of people and the planet. Put ethics at the heart of your business and the profits will take care of themselves. It’s not rocket science. Time and again we see that greed and the pursuit of short term profits lead to corporate catastrophe. Yet, it remains the primary corporate driver.
At the start of the month, BP was found quilty of gross negligence for the Deepwater Horizon explosion which killed 11 people and caused environmental carnage. The share price fell by 5%, wiping in excess of £5bn off its stock market value. Had BPs directors taken on board the learnings from a similar explosion only a few years earlier, the Deepwater disaster could have been avoided.
Yesterday, Tesco was forced to suspend four senior executives and call in investigators following the discovery that its profits had been artificially inflated by £250m. More than £2bn was wiped off its share value. A whistleblower warned that payments from suppliers were being irregularly booked and business costs were being misrepresented.
Last week, Chinese police accused GSK's former head of operations in the country of ordering employees to commit bribery on a widespread scale. Four senior managers from GSK’s China business were arrested last July while investigating £320m in potential bribes to individuals in order to secure higher market share & prices. Mark Reilly, who led GSK’s China business until the bribery scandal first broke last year, allegedly “pressed his sales teams to bribe hospitals, doctors and health institutions”, according to Chinese police.
The charges against GSK could lead to the cancellation of its business licenses in a major growth market. Reilly also faces jail.
There were suggestions that these allegations compromised GSK’s corporate integrity. I would argue that, if corporate integrity was a GSK priority, this scandal, like the one involving the reported use of black orphans as guinea pigs for drug trials or the Seroxat scandals before that, would not have happened.
A number of years ago I wrote to some UK charities that had awarded GSK gold star employer status for disability. I asked them how they squared the allocation of such a prestigious accolade with the recent BBC Panorama programme which exposed alleged evidence about GSK’s handling of concerns about their drug Seroxat (e.g. that it’s linked to aggression, suicide and dependency)?
I asked them to respond to the evidence which seemed to indicate that GSK had been aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes. It is also claimed that GSK knew Seroxat to be harmful to children, yet one month after the previous Panorama programme, where they denied this, they sought a licence for Seroxat to be prescribed to children. Although not licensed for this age group, it is alleged that GSK knew GP’s were prescribing it to them, based on the positive trial results published. What GP’s and the public did not know was that:
“GlaxoSmithKline's own clinical trial data revealed that the drug simply didn't work in depressed children. Worse still it made them up to three times more likely to self harm and attempt suicide than depressed children who were just given sugar pills. This was evidence the regulator had never seen before”. (Taken from Panorama transcript of 3 Oct.)
Panorama also produced, what it claimed to be, a confidential internal memo indicating that GSK knew that Seroxat, also known as Paroxetine, didn't work in depressed children as long ago as 1998.
SSB CONFIDENTIAL – FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY – October 1998
"It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated as this would undermine the profile of Paroxetine."
GSK’s apparent withholding of these clinical trials is the subject of an investigation and the programme indicated that criminal charges may be brought. My concern, then & now, is as much related to the ethical as it is with the potential criminal implications. In addition to many Seroxat users themselves, numerous eminent doctors were prepared to speak out on the Panorama programme, including the President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I put all of this to the charity, which had no defence. Yet GSK retained its “gold member” champion of disability status on their website. I was told that member companies of the charity made financial contributions for that honour.
When will shareholders, government and business leaders (BP, GSK & Tesco’s boards are dominated by a white, male “like minded” elite) wake up to the fact that people, and how we treat them, is central, not peripheral, to profit making. Unless and until power is shared equally between women and men, and until marginalised voices are heard, the groupthink that lunges our world from one crisis to another, will prevail.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
Darfur "Peacekeeping Mission" was Doomed to Fail
Heart felt thanks to the visionary team at the Independent on Sunday for being the only Western media to run with this story. More details are published in today’s paper.
In April, the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) came under scrutiny amid allegations that it was covering up crimes by Sudanese government forces against civilians.
In a leaked report published by US Magazine, Foreign Policy, a former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha El-Basri, gave accounts of several transgressions wherein the joint mission failed in its primary mandate, which is to protect civilians and humanitarians. As a result of these allegations, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon instigated an internal investigation. On Wednesday I was informed by a contact on the ground that UNAMID’s head, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, had stepped down (there was no official UN announcement making the story hard to corroborate initially), just weeks before the report’s findings are due to be published.
Darfuri civilians, I’m told, are indifferent to Chambas’ departure. Two weeks ago he was reported as saying “UNAMID cannot stop government forces [from] enter [ing] the camps for the displaced”, despite having the resources and mandate to do just that. Whilst Chambas certainly won’t be missed, Darfuris have given up any hope or expectation that UNAMID will ever fulfil its mandate towards them.
The mission was deployed to Darfur in 2008. It costs an estimated 1.4 billion dollars annually, making it the worlds most expensive and arguably least effective, peacekeeping force. So sullied is the reputation of UNAMID amongst Darfuris (approximately 2 million people have been newly displaced since its arrival, most by violence) that many believe they are working for the Sudanese government. The history of incompetence dates back to its inception and has been a constant throughout.
In August, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, described UNAMID as being largely ineffectual in protecting civilians from violence. The report warned of an escalation of government led attacks on civilians in the region making accurate and timely reporting more crucial than ever. HRW berates the mission for its failure to report detailed findings, including civilian death tolls, estimates of property destruction, and alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In fact, the mission has not reported on human rights issues, including the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war, since 2009.
Last week New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, leaked data from a UNICEF document. In it he states that, 45% of children in central Darfur, 40% in East Darfur and 35% in West and North Darfur suffer from chronic malnutrition. This condition commonly leads to "stunting", which is a retarding of children's growth and development, amongst other things. The UN cannot be allowed to prevent the gathering and publication of damning data such as this in an apparent bid to obfuscate genocidal activity and its failure to stop it.
UNAMID was arguably doomed to fail. It is based on a false premise, one that assumes there is a peace to keep. Peace not only eludes Darfuris, its utterance taunts them. The people in camps, lying doubled up from starvation induced abdominal spasms, know that there are no deals to be made with the devil. Al Bashir has signed several, so called peace deals, but honoured none. Peace cannot be brokered as long as the UN allows Sudanese forces to drop bombs on civilians.
At what point and at what human cost will the UN stop the crippling charade of appeasement and complicity? If Ban Ki-moon is serious about his pledge to put ‘Rights up Front’ in the UN’s work, why is Darfur always languishing at the back of the queue?
In April, the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) came under scrutiny amid allegations that it was covering up crimes by Sudanese government forces against civilians.
In a leaked report published by US Magazine, Foreign Policy, a former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha El-Basri, gave accounts of several transgressions wherein the joint mission failed in its primary mandate, which is to protect civilians and humanitarians. As a result of these allegations, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon instigated an internal investigation. On Wednesday I was informed by a contact on the ground that UNAMID’s head, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, had stepped down (there was no official UN announcement making the story hard to corroborate initially), just weeks before the report’s findings are due to be published.
Darfuri civilians, I’m told, are indifferent to Chambas’ departure. Two weeks ago he was reported as saying “UNAMID cannot stop government forces [from] enter [ing] the camps for the displaced”, despite having the resources and mandate to do just that. Whilst Chambas certainly won’t be missed, Darfuris have given up any hope or expectation that UNAMID will ever fulfil its mandate towards them.
The mission was deployed to Darfur in 2008. It costs an estimated 1.4 billion dollars annually, making it the worlds most expensive and arguably least effective, peacekeeping force. So sullied is the reputation of UNAMID amongst Darfuris (approximately 2 million people have been newly displaced since its arrival, most by violence) that many believe they are working for the Sudanese government. The history of incompetence dates back to its inception and has been a constant throughout.
In August, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, described UNAMID as being largely ineffectual in protecting civilians from violence. The report warned of an escalation of government led attacks on civilians in the region making accurate and timely reporting more crucial than ever. HRW berates the mission for its failure to report detailed findings, including civilian death tolls, estimates of property destruction, and alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In fact, the mission has not reported on human rights issues, including the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war, since 2009.
Last week New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, leaked data from a UNICEF document. In it he states that, 45% of children in central Darfur, 40% in East Darfur and 35% in West and North Darfur suffer from chronic malnutrition. This condition commonly leads to "stunting", which is a retarding of children's growth and development, amongst other things. The UN cannot be allowed to prevent the gathering and publication of damning data such as this in an apparent bid to obfuscate genocidal activity and its failure to stop it.
UNAMID was arguably doomed to fail. It is based on a false premise, one that assumes there is a peace to keep. Peace not only eludes Darfuris, its utterance taunts them. The people in camps, lying doubled up from starvation induced abdominal spasms, know that there are no deals to be made with the devil. Al Bashir has signed several, so called peace deals, but honoured none. Peace cannot be brokered as long as the UN allows Sudanese forces to drop bombs on civilians.
At what point and at what human cost will the UN stop the crippling charade of appeasement and complicity? If Ban Ki-moon is serious about his pledge to put ‘Rights up Front’ in the UN’s work, why is Darfur always languishing at the back of the queue?
Monday, 1 September 2014
Mc Donalds, Im Not Lov'n It
I’ve never been a fan of Mc D’s. In my university days, myself & a friend popped in to the O’Connell Street branch in Dublin. A quick pit stop to line our stomachs as cheaply as possible, preferring to use our pennies to swell the student union bar coffers instead. My friend, a vegetarian had not been before. She asked for a veggie burger and got a guerkin in a bun. That was McDonalds take on vegetarian at the time.
Ever since seeing the Mc Libel documentary, wherein two Greepeace activists took on the fast food behemoth and won, I vowed that I would never again cross the threshold of an edifice with a giant yellow M. A pledge I have kept, apart from 2 occasions, both of which were driven by necessity rather than choice. The last time was a few days ago. The mitigating circumstances were as follows:
1) It was late at night and we had to catch the Chunnel (Calais to Folkestone) early the next morning
2) My 6 year old had been forced to forego food in order to make it to the port on time & was starting to eat the upholstery of the hired campervan
3) It was a choice of loading up with wine in the supermarket or feeding said child. Fortunately, we spotted a Mc D’s while we were loading up the vino
4) It was either Mc D’s or a day old baguette & everyone knows Baguettes have to be eaten fresh. It would breach cultural protocol & international incidents have been born of far less effrontery.
I ordered the Mc Fillet and small fries. I couldn’t taste the fries for all the salt they were smothered in. My request to exchange the fries for some without salt caused a near diplomatic episode. “Did you ask for them without salt?” said the “crew member” as though she was prosecuting me for murder. “No, I retorted, but I didn’t order my fries with salt either”. If I didn’t ask for salt, why did you add it without asking me”? “If I’d wanted salt with a sprinkling of fries, that’s what I would have ordered (I said this last bit in my head as my French wasn’t up to that level of complexity)”.
The discussion ensued with Mc D’s rep arguing that all Mc D’s fries are served with lashings of salt so what did I expect. I pointed out that I’m not one of their regulars (evidenced by the fact that my waistline is still discernible) & asked if it didn’t occur to them that some customers, given a choice, would prefer not to ingest their weekly sodium allowance in just one portion of fries? Either she couldn’t think of a clever retort or she just gave up the will to live, but I got my sodium free fries.
Having done some research on Mc D’s nutritional components I came across numerous reports citing a document apparently published by Mc Donald’s last year. It set out the ingredients that go into their fries. All 17 of them. One website elaborated on what some of those ingredients actually comprise of. They range from hydrogenated soybean oil which they claim is largely extracted from genetically modified soybeans to dimethypolysiloxane, an anti foaming agent, which appears to be an industrial chemical and allegedly carries a host of safety concerns and TBHQ, which is cited as a petroleum based butane like ingredient (lighter fuel), which is allegedly used as a preservative. The list, including alleged hormone disrupters, goes on.
Next time you want to order some fries in Mc D’s you might want to take the list & ask them to hold all but 1 of the 17 ingredients. The potato.
Ever since seeing the Mc Libel documentary, wherein two Greepeace activists took on the fast food behemoth and won, I vowed that I would never again cross the threshold of an edifice with a giant yellow M. A pledge I have kept, apart from 2 occasions, both of which were driven by necessity rather than choice. The last time was a few days ago. The mitigating circumstances were as follows:
1) It was late at night and we had to catch the Chunnel (Calais to Folkestone) early the next morning
2) My 6 year old had been forced to forego food in order to make it to the port on time & was starting to eat the upholstery of the hired campervan
3) It was a choice of loading up with wine in the supermarket or feeding said child. Fortunately, we spotted a Mc D’s while we were loading up the vino
4) It was either Mc D’s or a day old baguette & everyone knows Baguettes have to be eaten fresh. It would breach cultural protocol & international incidents have been born of far less effrontery.
I ordered the Mc Fillet and small fries. I couldn’t taste the fries for all the salt they were smothered in. My request to exchange the fries for some without salt caused a near diplomatic episode. “Did you ask for them without salt?” said the “crew member” as though she was prosecuting me for murder. “No, I retorted, but I didn’t order my fries with salt either”. If I didn’t ask for salt, why did you add it without asking me”? “If I’d wanted salt with a sprinkling of fries, that’s what I would have ordered (I said this last bit in my head as my French wasn’t up to that level of complexity)”.
The discussion ensued with Mc D’s rep arguing that all Mc D’s fries are served with lashings of salt so what did I expect. I pointed out that I’m not one of their regulars (evidenced by the fact that my waistline is still discernible) & asked if it didn’t occur to them that some customers, given a choice, would prefer not to ingest their weekly sodium allowance in just one portion of fries? Either she couldn’t think of a clever retort or she just gave up the will to live, but I got my sodium free fries.
Having done some research on Mc D’s nutritional components I came across numerous reports citing a document apparently published by Mc Donald’s last year. It set out the ingredients that go into their fries. All 17 of them. One website elaborated on what some of those ingredients actually comprise of. They range from hydrogenated soybean oil which they claim is largely extracted from genetically modified soybeans to dimethypolysiloxane, an anti foaming agent, which appears to be an industrial chemical and allegedly carries a host of safety concerns and TBHQ, which is cited as a petroleum based butane like ingredient (lighter fuel), which is allegedly used as a preservative. The list, including alleged hormone disrupters, goes on.
Next time you want to order some fries in Mc D’s you might want to take the list & ask them to hold all but 1 of the 17 ingredients. The potato.
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
No Matter How Many “Potential” Genocide’s Obama Seeks to Prevent, His Presidency Will be sullied by the One he Failed to Stop
Last Wednesday, while delegates at the US Africa summit tucked into their grilled beef with coconut milk sauce and cappuccino fudge cakes, Omar, aged 3 and Haroun, aged 4, died of starvation in Darfur.
Sudan’s president Bashir was not invited to the summit which took place in Washington this week. He’s wanted by The Hague on charges of genocide in Darfur, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is right that Bashir was excluded from the summit, but it’s wrong to silence the voices of Sudanese citizens who are crying out to be heard. To hide the first genocide this century in the corner of the room marked “off limits” is an affront to humanity. In Darfur alone, it’s estimated that half a million people have died from violence, disease, and starvation. Approximately 4 million are living in “displaced person’s” camps, all of whom are dependent on aid.
In 2009, when Khartoum expelled 13 aid agencies from Darfur, rather than condemn the regime, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly reassured Darfuris that the agencies would be reinstated imminently. They were not, and now hundreds of thousands of people are dying of disease and starvation, as a direct consequence of what has become known as a genocide of attrition. Kerry’s actions arguably served to deflect the media glare from the escalating humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, thus emboldening the genocidal regime. Perfidy, incompetence and impunity have become the trademarks of the US’s calamitous role in Sudan.
In 2010, it was reported that the U.S. signaled its willingness to remove Sudan from the state sponsor of terrorism list, if Khartoum fully implemented the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. When the Bush administration made similar overtures in 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama reportedly fulminated, “This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments”.
Why the change of heart? There are those who believe that US foreign policy in Sudan is driven, not by its “Responsibility to Protect” endangered civilians, but by a counter-intelligence agenda, as reported in the Los Angeles Times in June 2005;
“The CIA and Khartoum's intelligence and security officials have met regularly over the last few years, but Gosh [then head of Sudan’s national security service] had been seeking an invitation to Washington in recognition of his government’s efforts”, sources told The Times. The CIA, allegedly hoping to seal the partnership, extended the invitation.
In August 2010, the Washington Post reported; “The CIA is continuing to train and equip Sudan’s intelligence service in the name of fighting terrorism” said a former intelligence officer who served in Sudan. He notes the duplicitous nature of the arrangement, “We also refer to the Sudanese as a state sponsor of terror and have called their activities in Darfur genocide”. If this is true, the failure to recognise, or care, that this armoury could be turned on defenseless Sudanese civilians is unconscionable.
As presidential candidate, Obama said, “When you see a genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or in Darfur, that is a stain on all of us…We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again, and as a president of the United States I don’t intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.”
It seems that being the first African American President to turn a blind eye to the genocide of black Africans is not the legacy Barack Obama planned to bequeath. Yet, he seems bent on doing just that.
Obama’s betrayal of black Africans in Darfur hit a heart breaking low last week when he vowed to act decisively in Iraq in order to prevent a “potential” genocide there. What about the one you vowed to stop 7 years ago, if only you were president and had it within your gift? Where the power now exists it seems the will is lacking.
How many more starving, slaughtered Sudanese children must be sacrificed at the alter of (misplaced) self interest before we call in Obama’s promise of “never again” in Darfur?
Sudan’s president Bashir was not invited to the summit which took place in Washington this week. He’s wanted by The Hague on charges of genocide in Darfur, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is right that Bashir was excluded from the summit, but it’s wrong to silence the voices of Sudanese citizens who are crying out to be heard. To hide the first genocide this century in the corner of the room marked “off limits” is an affront to humanity. In Darfur alone, it’s estimated that half a million people have died from violence, disease, and starvation. Approximately 4 million are living in “displaced person’s” camps, all of whom are dependent on aid.
In 2009, when Khartoum expelled 13 aid agencies from Darfur, rather than condemn the regime, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly reassured Darfuris that the agencies would be reinstated imminently. They were not, and now hundreds of thousands of people are dying of disease and starvation, as a direct consequence of what has become known as a genocide of attrition. Kerry’s actions arguably served to deflect the media glare from the escalating humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, thus emboldening the genocidal regime. Perfidy, incompetence and impunity have become the trademarks of the US’s calamitous role in Sudan.
In 2010, it was reported that the U.S. signaled its willingness to remove Sudan from the state sponsor of terrorism list, if Khartoum fully implemented the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. When the Bush administration made similar overtures in 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama reportedly fulminated, “This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments”.
Why the change of heart? There are those who believe that US foreign policy in Sudan is driven, not by its “Responsibility to Protect” endangered civilians, but by a counter-intelligence agenda, as reported in the Los Angeles Times in June 2005;
“The CIA and Khartoum's intelligence and security officials have met regularly over the last few years, but Gosh [then head of Sudan’s national security service] had been seeking an invitation to Washington in recognition of his government’s efforts”, sources told The Times. The CIA, allegedly hoping to seal the partnership, extended the invitation.
In August 2010, the Washington Post reported; “The CIA is continuing to train and equip Sudan’s intelligence service in the name of fighting terrorism” said a former intelligence officer who served in Sudan. He notes the duplicitous nature of the arrangement, “We also refer to the Sudanese as a state sponsor of terror and have called their activities in Darfur genocide”. If this is true, the failure to recognise, or care, that this armoury could be turned on defenseless Sudanese civilians is unconscionable.
As presidential candidate, Obama said, “When you see a genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or in Darfur, that is a stain on all of us…We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again, and as a president of the United States I don’t intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.”
It seems that being the first African American President to turn a blind eye to the genocide of black Africans is not the legacy Barack Obama planned to bequeath. Yet, he seems bent on doing just that.
Obama’s betrayal of black Africans in Darfur hit a heart breaking low last week when he vowed to act decisively in Iraq in order to prevent a “potential” genocide there. What about the one you vowed to stop 7 years ago, if only you were president and had it within your gift? Where the power now exists it seems the will is lacking.
How many more starving, slaughtered Sudanese children must be sacrificed at the alter of (misplaced) self interest before we call in Obama’s promise of “never again” in Darfur?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)