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?
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Everyday Racism, At a Seaside Near You.
If you’re taking an only child for a day at the beach (that’s a long time) it’s essential to pitch up in just the right spot, i.e. next to other children the same age with accompanying adults that look keen. That, says my friend, who is also the mother of an older “only”, is key. Parents who look as though “they have a bit about them” will be vigilant and stand at the waters edge while your child plays with theirs’. “That way you can top up your tan while catching up with the latest celebrity gossip in Heat Magazine”.
I don’t do sun bathing (My freckled Irish skin goes a kind of radioactive red which isn’t a good look) and The Economist, as opposed to Heat, would be my magazine of choice. Despite dismissing the advice as a load of codswallop, I found myself doing a quick reccy of the beach last week and, completely coincidentally, pitched up next to a couple with children about the same age as my 6 year old.
As I wrestled with a beach tent with an identity crisis (it thought it was a kite) in gale force winds (this is England after all), my neighbours watched in amusement. It dawned on me that I would be the one on coast guard duty for the duration.
Having erected our base (after a fashion), I set to work pumping up the newly acquired inflatable dinghy. “A vital procurement”, according to my friend. “It’s a great way to lure other children in”. To which I replied, “I’m the mother of an only child, not Myra Hindley on a grooming expedition.”
The pump either wasn’t up to much or my technique was rubbish, but I kept trying. I overheard the woman opposite (part of the duo that allowed me to struggle unaided with my tent) say to one of her children who seemed upset, “Them children aren’t the same as us. They’re mean and rude, don’t play with them”. Her two blond boys had been playing with two British Asian boys, who I later discovered were Muslim.
Frustrated with my failed attempts to inflate his dinghy, my son accosted the first male he saw to rescue me (time to swap his superhero comics for some Jacqueline Wilson books methinks). The man was the father of the “rude, mean” children, Isa (pronounced Eesa) and Kareem. In return for saving the day, I offered them a ride in the boat. Turns out they were kind, well mannered boys with whom my son spent a joyous day, along with the blonde boys, Josh and Ben, who I invited to jump in too.
I gleaned that the incident that invoked outrage from Josh and Ben’s mum earlier was Isa and Kareem’s decision to go for lunch in the middle of a game. Her son’s disappointment was twisted into something sinister and ugly by his mother. Fortunately, still too young to be tainted by entrenched prejudice, both her boys were oblivious and carried on playing and sharing with their darker hued peers.
In last week’s Independent, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote about the scourge of every day racism. She lambasted the lack of roles for black actors in the UK, the fact that only one black or Asian writer was longlisted for the Booker Prize and the dearth of black editors anywhere in the mainstream media.
The 2011 census showed that 17.9% of the UK population is non-white, against 4.2% of MPs and 3.5% of FTSE 100 chief executives, chairmen and finance directors. That’s not good enough. But, while the campaign group, “Everyday Sexism”, is gaining momentum for gender equality, Everyday Racism goes either unnoticed and/or unchallenged. Apathy and complacency are the greatest enemy of equality and democracy.
Our children aren’t born bigoted. They’re born pure and prejudice free. We (parents, schools, the media, politicians and society), have it within our gift to inculcate that purity or, contaminate and annihilate it. I wonder how long Josh and Ben have before they start seeing Isa and Kareem through their parent’s poisonous prism?
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
This is no Time for Neutrality. Israel's Assault on Palestinian Civilians Must Be Stopped
" The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality". A quote from Joe Wilson’s book, The Politics of Truth.
Palestinian children are persecuted and pulverised in Gaza every day. A plight they have endured for over 50 years of Israeli occupation. Of the estimated 600 Palestinians who have been killed in the recent Israeli onslaught, 75% are civilians and a quarter of those are children (3 Israeli civilians have been killed and they are no more or less worthy of our heart felt sympathy). Their cries for help compete for column inches with their counterparts in Sudan, Syria Ukraine and elsewhere.
So much agony, so many disturbing images of severed little limbs and mangled bodies, but the media rations our exposure. Bite size chunks and palatable sound bites. Nothing to stir us into such a state of incandescent rage that we’d get out of our armchairs and, God [insert whoever or whatever it is you believe here] forbid, protest against the Israeli occupation and oppression of beleaguered Palestinians.
In spite of the media’s patchy at best and misleading at worst coverage of the horrors in Gaza, tens of thousands took to the streets in London on Saturday to demonstrate against Israeli occupation of Gaza and what some describe as a genocidal campaign. Similar demonstrations took place around the globe yet blink and you’ll have missed it. The mainstream media (with some exceptions), not for the first time, is out of step with the public mood but far more crucially, it has lost sight of the truth.
Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights points out the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to Israel.
“…instead of condemning such recourse to massive violence as ‘aggression’ that violates the UN Charter and fundamental international law principles, the reaction of Western diplomats and mainstream media has perversely sided with Israel. From the UN Secretary-General to the president of the United States, the main insistence has been that Hamas must stop all rocket attacks while Israel is requested ever so politely to show ‘maximum restraint’.
Ethical journalism is about reporting the context as well as the facts and allowing the truth to speak for itself. The rhetoric is heavily loaded against Palestinians. For example, I came across this in a left leaning newspaper today, “…For more than five years the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas nor Israel appeared ready to stop fighting…”
Why is religion only referenced when it’s Islam and why is it used as code for “terrorist”? If religion is deemed relevant, why not cite both? Why do we never hear the phrase, “Jewish fundamentalist” when reporting on a state that has breached numerous international laws and stands accused of “possible” war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Other common discursive distortions, which serve to obfuscate the truth, are to refer to the occupied territories as “disputed territories” and to portray one of the strongest military powers in the world as the victim of an unfortunate situation whereby “both sides” are equally culpable.
The reputable international organisation, Human Rights Watch, has been investigating Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza. The evidence it has gathered is damning. Despite being an independent source of evidence on the ground, the media has all but ignored its findings. The full report can be found on their website but here are some extracts;
“Human Rights Watch investigated four Israeli strikes during the July military offensive in Gaza that resulted in civilian casualties and either did not attack a legitimate military target or attacked despite the likelihood of civilian casualties being disproportionate to the military gain. Such attacks committed deliberately or recklessly constitute war crimes under the laws of war applicable to all parties. In these cases, the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties.
Israel has wrongly claimed as a matter of policy that civilian members of Hamas or other political groups who do not have a military role are “terrorists” and therefore valid military targets, and has previously carried out hundreds of unlawful attacks on this basis. Israel has also targeted family homes of alleged members of armed groups without showing that the structure was being used for military purposes”.
“A fourth Israeli airstrike, on July 9, killed Amal Abed Ghafour, who was 7-months pregnant, and her 1-year-old daughter, and wounded her husband and 3-year-old son. The family lived across the street from an apartment building that was struck with multiple missiles, according to witnesses. Residents of nearby homes said Israeli forces fired a small non-explosive “warning” missile at the apartment building minutes before the main missile strikes. However, the family did not know of the warning or have time to flee. Israeli officials have not said why they targeted the apartment building.
“For warnings to be effective, civilians need adequate time to leave and go to a place of safety before an attack. In several cases Human Rights Watch investigated, Israel gave warnings, but carried out the attack within five minutes or less. Given that Gaza has no bomb shelters, civilians realistically often have no place to flee.
When reporting on issues pertaining to Human Rights abuses, the press would do well to appraise itself of International Human Rights laws. If they don’t know what constitutes a violation of international law how can it be reported? For example, the International Court of Justice said that, as an occupying military power Israel has an obligation under the 4th Geneva convention, 1949, to protect the rights of civilians under military occupation. So, indiscriminate shelling of Palestinians communities, killing civilians, collective punishments, destruction of water supplies and natural resources and building settlements in occupied territories, would constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I, like Stephen Hawking, Brian Eno, Mike Leigh, Alice Walker and countless others around the world, am boycotting Israeli goods. It’s my way of demonstrating that, whether it's Jews in the Holocaust, black Africans in Sudan or Palestinians in Gaza, when it comes to the slaughter and suffering of innocent civilians, I am not neutral.
Palestinian children are persecuted and pulverised in Gaza every day. A plight they have endured for over 50 years of Israeli occupation. Of the estimated 600 Palestinians who have been killed in the recent Israeli onslaught, 75% are civilians and a quarter of those are children (3 Israeli civilians have been killed and they are no more or less worthy of our heart felt sympathy). Their cries for help compete for column inches with their counterparts in Sudan, Syria Ukraine and elsewhere.
So much agony, so many disturbing images of severed little limbs and mangled bodies, but the media rations our exposure. Bite size chunks and palatable sound bites. Nothing to stir us into such a state of incandescent rage that we’d get out of our armchairs and, God [insert whoever or whatever it is you believe here] forbid, protest against the Israeli occupation and oppression of beleaguered Palestinians.
In spite of the media’s patchy at best and misleading at worst coverage of the horrors in Gaza, tens of thousands took to the streets in London on Saturday to demonstrate against Israeli occupation of Gaza and what some describe as a genocidal campaign. Similar demonstrations took place around the globe yet blink and you’ll have missed it. The mainstream media (with some exceptions), not for the first time, is out of step with the public mood but far more crucially, it has lost sight of the truth.
Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights points out the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to Israel.
“…instead of condemning such recourse to massive violence as ‘aggression’ that violates the UN Charter and fundamental international law principles, the reaction of Western diplomats and mainstream media has perversely sided with Israel. From the UN Secretary-General to the president of the United States, the main insistence has been that Hamas must stop all rocket attacks while Israel is requested ever so politely to show ‘maximum restraint’.
Ethical journalism is about reporting the context as well as the facts and allowing the truth to speak for itself. The rhetoric is heavily loaded against Palestinians. For example, I came across this in a left leaning newspaper today, “…For more than five years the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas nor Israel appeared ready to stop fighting…”
Why is religion only referenced when it’s Islam and why is it used as code for “terrorist”? If religion is deemed relevant, why not cite both? Why do we never hear the phrase, “Jewish fundamentalist” when reporting on a state that has breached numerous international laws and stands accused of “possible” war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Other common discursive distortions, which serve to obfuscate the truth, are to refer to the occupied territories as “disputed territories” and to portray one of the strongest military powers in the world as the victim of an unfortunate situation whereby “both sides” are equally culpable.
The reputable international organisation, Human Rights Watch, has been investigating Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza. The evidence it has gathered is damning. Despite being an independent source of evidence on the ground, the media has all but ignored its findings. The full report can be found on their website but here are some extracts;
“Human Rights Watch investigated four Israeli strikes during the July military offensive in Gaza that resulted in civilian casualties and either did not attack a legitimate military target or attacked despite the likelihood of civilian casualties being disproportionate to the military gain. Such attacks committed deliberately or recklessly constitute war crimes under the laws of war applicable to all parties. In these cases, the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties.
Israel has wrongly claimed as a matter of policy that civilian members of Hamas or other political groups who do not have a military role are “terrorists” and therefore valid military targets, and has previously carried out hundreds of unlawful attacks on this basis. Israel has also targeted family homes of alleged members of armed groups without showing that the structure was being used for military purposes”.
“A fourth Israeli airstrike, on July 9, killed Amal Abed Ghafour, who was 7-months pregnant, and her 1-year-old daughter, and wounded her husband and 3-year-old son. The family lived across the street from an apartment building that was struck with multiple missiles, according to witnesses. Residents of nearby homes said Israeli forces fired a small non-explosive “warning” missile at the apartment building minutes before the main missile strikes. However, the family did not know of the warning or have time to flee. Israeli officials have not said why they targeted the apartment building.
“For warnings to be effective, civilians need adequate time to leave and go to a place of safety before an attack. In several cases Human Rights Watch investigated, Israel gave warnings, but carried out the attack within five minutes or less. Given that Gaza has no bomb shelters, civilians realistically often have no place to flee.
When reporting on issues pertaining to Human Rights abuses, the press would do well to appraise itself of International Human Rights laws. If they don’t know what constitutes a violation of international law how can it be reported? For example, the International Court of Justice said that, as an occupying military power Israel has an obligation under the 4th Geneva convention, 1949, to protect the rights of civilians under military occupation. So, indiscriminate shelling of Palestinians communities, killing civilians, collective punishments, destruction of water supplies and natural resources and building settlements in occupied territories, would constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I, like Stephen Hawking, Brian Eno, Mike Leigh, Alice Walker and countless others around the world, am boycotting Israeli goods. It’s my way of demonstrating that, whether it's Jews in the Holocaust, black Africans in Sudan or Palestinians in Gaza, when it comes to the slaughter and suffering of innocent civilians, I am not neutral.
Monday, 7 July 2014
It’s Been a Shitty Week for Barclays Bank, The Met & Me
I don’t know what was more shocking. That a man described as being in his 40’s, “well to do”, with a “calm but angry” demeanour walked around a Hampshire branch of Barclays, pooing as he went, or that the incident wasn’t picked up by the mainstream media. A customer in the branch at the time tweeted pictures of a female branch employee desperately wiping up the poo with a hanky. No protective clothing, no mask, despite the “disgusting stench” that permeated the building. Not even a pair of gloves.
You don’t have to be a therapist versed in the teachings of Freud, but it just so happens that I am, to know that if someone shits all over your house, there’s a good chance you pissed them off big time. Perhaps you invited them ‘round on false pretences. Promising free range Waitrose chicken but serving up a battery hen from Lidl instead.
People are losing their homes and businesses because of the reckless incompetence of the kind of “talent” that got a 10% increase on their bonus this year, a tidy £1 million, despite a 32% drop in profits. As one disgruntled shareholder recently said “We’re paying for Man United but we’re getting Colchester United (I’m sure no disrespect towards Colchester fans was intended…).
The same talent that came up with the brilliant idea of Libor rigging which saw Barclays fined £290m and just when you wonder at just how much talent any one bank can handle, another cunning plan from one of Barclays talent pool backfires. The bank is facing a potential £50m fine by the Financial Conduct Authority for breaching listing rules when dealing with Qatari investors in 2008.
Looking at the picture of the woman cleaning up someone else’s excrement, I wondered if she would be one of the 1,800 branch staff that will lose their jobs in order to pay for the £1m bonuses of the 148 super talented executives at HQ. I couldn’t help thinking that, if cleaning up after their own mess was a condition of their bonus, executives might take their talent somewhere else. The further away the better.
There’s only so much shit anyone can take and since the government has broken its promise to change the culture of contempt at banks, it’s little wonder some customers snap and resort to dirty protests. Anger is a powerful emotion. It demands expression. If all legitimate channels of grievance are closed down, expect it to emerge elsewhere.
It’s not just bankers who seem pathologically predisposed to repeating the same mistakes. A few days ago a tribunal found the Metropolitan Police had “directly discriminated” against employee Carol Howard on the grounds of race and sex. It emerged that the internal investigator was asked to delete any reference to sex or race discrimination from her file. Kiran Daurka, the lawyer representing Ms Howard, said that this wasn’t an isolated incident and that the alleged deleting of evidence in such cases was policy within the Met. Two words, Stephen Lawrence.
Incompetent unaccountable leadership causes harm, both to individuals and society. We tolerate it at our peril.
Notwithstanding the above, I’m grateful to Barclays for providing the hook and excuse for the gratuitous use of the word shit. Having had a pretty shitty week myself I’ve found using it (i.e. “shit”) in this blog remarkably therapeutic. Time to either do some transcendental medication or pour another flagon of poitin. Can’t decide…
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
Guildford Four's Gerry Conlon Dies of a Broken Heart & Cancer, Aged 60
Hooded and shackled he was unceremoniously plucked from his home in Belfast and taken to a police station in Surrey. It was 1974 and the end of Gerry Conlon’s life, as he knew it. He was 20 years old.
Gerry Conlon, along with Paul Hill, Carole Richardson and Paddy Armstrong became victims of what is described as one of the worst miscarriages of British justice. The Guildford Four, as they became known, were convicted based on wholly fabricated evidence.
In Gerry Conlon's autobiography, Proved Innocent, he recounts that, despite there being cast iron alibis proving that two of the Four couldn’t have been involved, the witnesses were intimidated, confessions were extracted through torture and a statement proving Conlon was in Kilburn and not Guildford at the time, was buried. Even when an IRA unit took responsibility for the Guildford bombings in 1977, Conlon and the others were sent back to prison until their convictions were quashed in 1989.
Gerry’s ailing father, Giuseppe, who came to Britain to rescue his son, was also falsely convicted, as part of the “Maguire Seven” and died in prison a few years later.
My path crossed that of Gerry’s on 9 February 2005 en route to a parliamentary committee meeting in the House of Commons. I wrote the following account in my diary:
Emerging from Westminster station, the Evening Standard headline caught my eye: “PM to Apologise to Guildford Four and Maguire Seven”.
On entering parliament, I saw a camera crew and a crowd of people huddled around someone. It was Ian Paisley. To get in, I had to squeeze past him as he pontificated loquaciously. I resisted the temptation to slice my spiked heel into the ankle of the man who is to Catholics in Northern Ireland what Primark is to ethical trading.
My head still reeling, I entered Westminster hall, to find myself face to face with Gerry Conlon. There was a group of people with him, standing in the centre of the imposing hall. Mr. Conlon was talking on his mobile. The atmosphere was charged but I couldn’t discern if it was good or bad energy. Had Blair reneged? Had the irascible Paisley stolen their thunder? I hung around trying to glean what was happening. I wanted to reach out to Conlon and say…what? “Congratulations on your prime ministerial apology after 30 years of living purgatory”? Words escaped me, so I just hovered, and stared. I noticed them looking at me awkwardly then moving on.
I realized later how I must have appeared. Looking down on them, vexed at their raised, Irish voices. No doubt donning my default furrowed brow, dressed in power clothes and brief case, ceremonial armour for my dance with the devil. Being an Irish (ex) catholic myself I was racked with guilt. Not only had I failed to communicate my sorrow and anger at the injustice they endured, I had inadvertently driven them on and made them feel they had no right to be there.
Having endured years of torture and abuse, which included, defecating in his food, putting glass in his food, having a gun put in his mouth, as well as spending years in solitary confinement for the audacity of protesting his innocence, it’s little wonder Gerry Conlon suffered post traumatic stress disorder for the rest of his life.
Yet, far from being incapacitated by it, Gerry Conlon galvanized his incredible energy, humility and compassion into fighting injustice globally. He met with survivors of Guantanamo Bay and berated the phlegmatic Irish American community for failing to support Muslims who had taken over the epithet of “suspect community” from the Irish.
Gareth Peirce was the human rights lawyer responsible for Gerry Conlon’s release. She said: "Once a community has been made suspect en masse, every organ of the state will feel entitled, in fact obliged, to discover proof of their suspicions. The example of what happened to Gerry and his entire family should haunt us forever"
SDLP MP Mark Durkan told the House of Commons this week that Gerry Conlon's dying wish was that secret documents relating to the bombings, which are being held in the national archives for 75 years (there are only two cases in history where the Official Secrets Act has been applied in this way), be made available for public scrutiny. He said Mr. Conlon had been promised access by the previous Victims’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland. He asked David Cameron: "Will you ensure that the dying wish of an innocent man is honoured?" He is said to be considering the matter.
Too little, too late for Gerry Conlon, who is being buried in Belfast on Saturday.
Gerry Conlon, along with Paul Hill, Carole Richardson and Paddy Armstrong became victims of what is described as one of the worst miscarriages of British justice. The Guildford Four, as they became known, were convicted based on wholly fabricated evidence.
In Gerry Conlon's autobiography, Proved Innocent, he recounts that, despite there being cast iron alibis proving that two of the Four couldn’t have been involved, the witnesses were intimidated, confessions were extracted through torture and a statement proving Conlon was in Kilburn and not Guildford at the time, was buried. Even when an IRA unit took responsibility for the Guildford bombings in 1977, Conlon and the others were sent back to prison until their convictions were quashed in 1989.
Gerry’s ailing father, Giuseppe, who came to Britain to rescue his son, was also falsely convicted, as part of the “Maguire Seven” and died in prison a few years later.
My path crossed that of Gerry’s on 9 February 2005 en route to a parliamentary committee meeting in the House of Commons. I wrote the following account in my diary:
Emerging from Westminster station, the Evening Standard headline caught my eye: “PM to Apologise to Guildford Four and Maguire Seven”.
On entering parliament, I saw a camera crew and a crowd of people huddled around someone. It was Ian Paisley. To get in, I had to squeeze past him as he pontificated loquaciously. I resisted the temptation to slice my spiked heel into the ankle of the man who is to Catholics in Northern Ireland what Primark is to ethical trading.
My head still reeling, I entered Westminster hall, to find myself face to face with Gerry Conlon. There was a group of people with him, standing in the centre of the imposing hall. Mr. Conlon was talking on his mobile. The atmosphere was charged but I couldn’t discern if it was good or bad energy. Had Blair reneged? Had the irascible Paisley stolen their thunder? I hung around trying to glean what was happening. I wanted to reach out to Conlon and say…what? “Congratulations on your prime ministerial apology after 30 years of living purgatory”? Words escaped me, so I just hovered, and stared. I noticed them looking at me awkwardly then moving on.
I realized later how I must have appeared. Looking down on them, vexed at their raised, Irish voices. No doubt donning my default furrowed brow, dressed in power clothes and brief case, ceremonial armour for my dance with the devil. Being an Irish (ex) catholic myself I was racked with guilt. Not only had I failed to communicate my sorrow and anger at the injustice they endured, I had inadvertently driven them on and made them feel they had no right to be there.
Having endured years of torture and abuse, which included, defecating in his food, putting glass in his food, having a gun put in his mouth, as well as spending years in solitary confinement for the audacity of protesting his innocence, it’s little wonder Gerry Conlon suffered post traumatic stress disorder for the rest of his life.
Yet, far from being incapacitated by it, Gerry Conlon galvanized his incredible energy, humility and compassion into fighting injustice globally. He met with survivors of Guantanamo Bay and berated the phlegmatic Irish American community for failing to support Muslims who had taken over the epithet of “suspect community” from the Irish.
Gareth Peirce was the human rights lawyer responsible for Gerry Conlon’s release. She said: "Once a community has been made suspect en masse, every organ of the state will feel entitled, in fact obliged, to discover proof of their suspicions. The example of what happened to Gerry and his entire family should haunt us forever"
SDLP MP Mark Durkan told the House of Commons this week that Gerry Conlon's dying wish was that secret documents relating to the bombings, which are being held in the national archives for 75 years (there are only two cases in history where the Official Secrets Act has been applied in this way), be made available for public scrutiny. He said Mr. Conlon had been promised access by the previous Victims’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland. He asked David Cameron: "Will you ensure that the dying wish of an innocent man is honoured?" He is said to be considering the matter.
Too little, too late for Gerry Conlon, who is being buried in Belfast on Saturday.
Monday, 16 June 2014
We Must do More to Stop Rape Being Used as a Weapon of War Against Girls Like Roa.
An edited version of the below was published in yesterdays Independent on Sunday. Apologies for delay between posts. My internet connection has been down since Thursday.
As fathers throughout Britain unwrap their polyester pyjamas on Sunday morning, imagine this. You’re sitting down to a meal with your family when you hear gun shots. Moments later you’re surrounded by militia pointing AK47’s at your family. You, the father, are given a choice, “We either rape your daughter or kill your son. You decide”.
The father was a relative of a Darfuri friend of mine. His daughter, Roa, was 4 at the time.
The UN has recognized rape as a deliberate weapon of war in Sudan since 2005. Yet, it steadfastly fails to provide adequate protection for the victims or any consequences for the perpetrators. UN special envoy, Angelina Jolie and William Hague co-chaired a summit to end sexual violence in conflict in London this week. Roa and her family could not be there.
Driven from their homes and their livelihoods they, like an estimated 4 million others, sought refuge in a displaced persons camp on the border with Chad. Given the government of Sudan (GoS) persistently obstructs access of humanitarian aid to the camps, Roa’s nightmare is far from over.
Three weeks ago the UNICEF representative in Sudan, Geert Cappelaere, warned that an entire generation in Darfur may be lost as a result of over a decade of violence in the region. Given that 60 percent of the displaced in Darfur are minors, he warned that the children growing up in the camps may not be able to return to a normal life. Many are traumatised having witnessed attacks against their families or being themselves subjected to violence, abduction, and other assaults. In addition, the malnutrition figures are very high. More than 80,000 children in North Darfur are severely malnourished. He warned that the world should not turn its back to the tragedy of the children in Darfur.
Despite the shocking nature of this very red flag and the fact that is was raised by a senior UNICEF official, apart from Radio Dabanga and Reuters, it was not picked up by the mainstream media.
In order to combat starvation, women and children in Darfur face the prospect of being raped and beaten on a daily basis. Leaving their homes and camps in search of food and firewood is highly hazardous. It’s where over 80% of the rapes occur. Some women refuse medical help after being raped because they say they fear being arrested by the Sudanese security forces. Many never reveal their ordeal to spare their family the stigma. Those are the “lucky” ones. Others are “branded” by their attackers (including facial scarring) so that they will never be free from “shame”.
Rape is an integral, strategic component of the genocide in Darfur. Women and children are routinely raped in front of their families, breaking minds as well as bodies in a bid to crush their will and erode family structures where virginity and chastity are sacrosanct.
A few years ago I collaborated with Ricken Patel, who since founded the hugely impactful campaigning group Avaaz, to organize a series of global demonstrations for Darfur. One of which focused entirely on rape as a weapon of war. We asked the women in the camps what the international community could do to help and that is what we campaigned for.
Firstly, they wanted whistles so that when women and children ventured outside the camps for firewood, they could raise the alarm if attacked. Citizens around the world simultaneously demonstrated outside their respective parliaments, blowing whistles against the systematic rape of women and children in Darfur. Having got the attention of our respective governments and the media, we pressed for the other key “asks”, which included; more UN peacekeepers to protect civilians, sending groups of policewomen from African nations to accompany the firewood-gathering trips, rape counseling in a bid to break the taboo of silence and increased medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
Seven years on and there’s no sign of African policewomen and efforts to provide medical treatment and counseling have been obviated at every turn by the GoS. More peacekeepers have been deployed to the region, with a mandate to protect civilians, yet the raping rampage continues undeterred. We blow our whistles, said one woman, but no-one comes. The dins of their whistles, like their cries for help, fall on deaf ears.
After a decade of sexual violence being used as a weapon in the ongoing genocide in Darfur, a generation of women will never be able to have children due to infection or physical damage. Countless raped women (little data is collected or reported) who became pregnant by their attackers, or “branded”, will live with the stigma of rape for the rest of their lives. For the London summit to be of any use to Roa, it must translate into action. We owe her that.
As fathers throughout Britain unwrap their polyester pyjamas on Sunday morning, imagine this. You’re sitting down to a meal with your family when you hear gun shots. Moments later you’re surrounded by militia pointing AK47’s at your family. You, the father, are given a choice, “We either rape your daughter or kill your son. You decide”.
The father was a relative of a Darfuri friend of mine. His daughter, Roa, was 4 at the time.
The UN has recognized rape as a deliberate weapon of war in Sudan since 2005. Yet, it steadfastly fails to provide adequate protection for the victims or any consequences for the perpetrators. UN special envoy, Angelina Jolie and William Hague co-chaired a summit to end sexual violence in conflict in London this week. Roa and her family could not be there.
Driven from their homes and their livelihoods they, like an estimated 4 million others, sought refuge in a displaced persons camp on the border with Chad. Given the government of Sudan (GoS) persistently obstructs access of humanitarian aid to the camps, Roa’s nightmare is far from over.
Three weeks ago the UNICEF representative in Sudan, Geert Cappelaere, warned that an entire generation in Darfur may be lost as a result of over a decade of violence in the region. Given that 60 percent of the displaced in Darfur are minors, he warned that the children growing up in the camps may not be able to return to a normal life. Many are traumatised having witnessed attacks against their families or being themselves subjected to violence, abduction, and other assaults. In addition, the malnutrition figures are very high. More than 80,000 children in North Darfur are severely malnourished. He warned that the world should not turn its back to the tragedy of the children in Darfur.
Despite the shocking nature of this very red flag and the fact that is was raised by a senior UNICEF official, apart from Radio Dabanga and Reuters, it was not picked up by the mainstream media.
In order to combat starvation, women and children in Darfur face the prospect of being raped and beaten on a daily basis. Leaving their homes and camps in search of food and firewood is highly hazardous. It’s where over 80% of the rapes occur. Some women refuse medical help after being raped because they say they fear being arrested by the Sudanese security forces. Many never reveal their ordeal to spare their family the stigma. Those are the “lucky” ones. Others are “branded” by their attackers (including facial scarring) so that they will never be free from “shame”.
Rape is an integral, strategic component of the genocide in Darfur. Women and children are routinely raped in front of their families, breaking minds as well as bodies in a bid to crush their will and erode family structures where virginity and chastity are sacrosanct.
A few years ago I collaborated with Ricken Patel, who since founded the hugely impactful campaigning group Avaaz, to organize a series of global demonstrations for Darfur. One of which focused entirely on rape as a weapon of war. We asked the women in the camps what the international community could do to help and that is what we campaigned for.
Firstly, they wanted whistles so that when women and children ventured outside the camps for firewood, they could raise the alarm if attacked. Citizens around the world simultaneously demonstrated outside their respective parliaments, blowing whistles against the systematic rape of women and children in Darfur. Having got the attention of our respective governments and the media, we pressed for the other key “asks”, which included; more UN peacekeepers to protect civilians, sending groups of policewomen from African nations to accompany the firewood-gathering trips, rape counseling in a bid to break the taboo of silence and increased medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
Seven years on and there’s no sign of African policewomen and efforts to provide medical treatment and counseling have been obviated at every turn by the GoS. More peacekeepers have been deployed to the region, with a mandate to protect civilians, yet the raping rampage continues undeterred. We blow our whistles, said one woman, but no-one comes. The dins of their whistles, like their cries for help, fall on deaf ears.
After a decade of sexual violence being used as a weapon in the ongoing genocide in Darfur, a generation of women will never be able to have children due to infection or physical damage. Countless raped women (little data is collected or reported) who became pregnant by their attackers, or “branded”, will live with the stigma of rape for the rest of their lives. For the London summit to be of any use to Roa, it must translate into action. We owe her that.
Thursday, 5 June 2014
Wanted: BBC Trust Chairman (women need not apply).
* There is currently a bidding war between the BBC & the Sunday Times to publish this piece...
In the spring of 2004 Barbara Cassani, then chair of the London 2012 Olympic bid, successfully led London through to the final five shortlist. In reporting that not insignificant feat the BBC News at Ten referred to Cassani as the bids “Chief Cheerleader”, not once but on two consecutive nights.
Despite her obvious business acumen and talent, the British media, disgruntled it seemed to have an American woman at the helm of the British bid, made her position untenable. After reportedly winning a libel action against the Telegraph, she stepped aside, making way for her successor, Lord Coe, who is now in the running for the position of chair of the BBC Trust, along with another American woman, Marjorie Scardino.
According to the job specification, Scardino appears to be the most qualified of the two (if they apply). Yet, David Cameron is already being warned not to give the job to a woman but to award it on merit, as if the two are mutually exclusive. In the corridors of power, however demonstrably brilliant a woman’s track record, a male (sometimes mediocre) with the right other credentials (class/title, political affiliations, race, old boy club carrying card) will always be the best “man” for the job.
The BBC is in crisis. The rot that enabled a series of debacles that exploded with the Saville scandal and which continue with the ongoing bullying revelations is systemic. More than ever the role of the BBC Trust is to be the conscience of the organisation. The person taking the lead will need to have the moral fortitude, independence of mind and a strong track record in governance (as opposed to the 100 metres) to have any chance of reinstating a semblance of trust in the BBC. The head hunters will need to be creative in their approach and recognise that titled elites, male or female, may not be the best people for the job.
Looking on the appointed head hunter’s website though, I’m not hopeful. Groupthink and faulty decisions are the product of homogeneity, a core factor, I believe, in the BBC’s downfall. Yet, of the 21 listed employees, the 18 pictures I could see were all white with the co-founder boasting having worked in Whitehall. It doesn’t bode well, in my view, for finding a wide rage of diverse talent from which to choose an outstanding candidate.
The Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, and the BBC should know that, when outsourcing contracts to external parties they are obliged to ask for evidence of their adherence to Equality legislation. I wouldn’t have thought that an apparently all white head hunter in London, where 10% of the population is BME, would make the grade. The Culture secretary, the BBC and the head hunters themselves should also be aware of their duty to promote gender equality under the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA). It’s not enough to be seen to remove barriers to gender equality, they must actively promote and encourage it. The advertisement for the position falls at the fist hurdle with the title, Chairman. Subtext (whether intentional or not), women need not apply. As part of the SDA’s duty to remove barriers and promote gender equality, gender neutral language would be an absolute minimum requirement.
Ten years ago I conducted research into the impact of testosterone charged images and language used in advertising for leadership positions. I tracked several adverts and followed up on the appointments, all of which were men. In some cases, no women even applied. The advert that spurred my action was the following: What Turns Businessmen on: DOMINATION?
This advert appeared regularly in The Sunday Times “Appointments” section during the summer of 2004. When I first encountered it, I felt as though, as a woman, I was a non-person. Like a waitress at a free mason’s ball, with Bernard Manning as the guest speaker. You may say the newspaper was merely employing the term ‘businessmen’ as a universally understood euphemism for business people of both sexes. You might also brush off the concept of ‘being turned on by domination’ as a vaguely humorous and largely innocuous turn of phrase that underlines the newspaper’s attractiveness for recruitment advertising. And indeed, this was how the Sunday Times defended its use of language to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) when I lodged a complaint. However, when viewed as a strategy of dismissal, we can begin to understand how such language contributes to the marginalization of women at work. It does so by portraying the business arena as an inherently “man’s world”. The complaint was upheld.
Encouraging the use of gender-neutral language is an unashamed and totally legitimate act of political correctness. Many titles, such as ‘chairman’ and ‘businessman’, are so culturally imbued that they are not recognised for what they are, i.e. symbols of a masculinised business paradigm. Examining language within the social constructivist paradigm, as I do, it would be fatuous not to acknowledge the political aspect and the power it wields. Language does not simply reflect reality (i.e. that the majority of chair or business people are men) but constructs and perpetuates it (i.e. “that’s the norm” and “lets keep it that way”).
The discourse of the dominant sets out different rules for those with and without power. Language, which itself can be understood to be constitutive of both knowledge and power, is hijacked to legitimise what is deemed mere “common sense”. Protestations that serve to challenge this rationality are ridiculed and labelled as “radical”. Some media very deliberately choose their language to enflame prejudice by playing on people’s fears, inciting outrage at the very thought of introducing positive discrimination to attract black recruits to the police, for example.
The fact is that positive discrimination has existed for years. The metaphorical tap on the shoulder and old boys’ networks are all practices so institutionalised that we take them for granted. Those who profit from privilege accept such benefits as their birth-right, and are the ones who have the most to lose if these unwritten rules are exposed by the critical scrutiny of language.
In the spring of 2004 Barbara Cassani, then chair of the London 2012 Olympic bid, successfully led London through to the final five shortlist. In reporting that not insignificant feat the BBC News at Ten referred to Cassani as the bids “Chief Cheerleader”, not once but on two consecutive nights.
Despite her obvious business acumen and talent, the British media, disgruntled it seemed to have an American woman at the helm of the British bid, made her position untenable. After reportedly winning a libel action against the Telegraph, she stepped aside, making way for her successor, Lord Coe, who is now in the running for the position of chair of the BBC Trust, along with another American woman, Marjorie Scardino.
According to the job specification, Scardino appears to be the most qualified of the two (if they apply). Yet, David Cameron is already being warned not to give the job to a woman but to award it on merit, as if the two are mutually exclusive. In the corridors of power, however demonstrably brilliant a woman’s track record, a male (sometimes mediocre) with the right other credentials (class/title, political affiliations, race, old boy club carrying card) will always be the best “man” for the job.
The BBC is in crisis. The rot that enabled a series of debacles that exploded with the Saville scandal and which continue with the ongoing bullying revelations is systemic. More than ever the role of the BBC Trust is to be the conscience of the organisation. The person taking the lead will need to have the moral fortitude, independence of mind and a strong track record in governance (as opposed to the 100 metres) to have any chance of reinstating a semblance of trust in the BBC. The head hunters will need to be creative in their approach and recognise that titled elites, male or female, may not be the best people for the job.
Looking on the appointed head hunter’s website though, I’m not hopeful. Groupthink and faulty decisions are the product of homogeneity, a core factor, I believe, in the BBC’s downfall. Yet, of the 21 listed employees, the 18 pictures I could see were all white with the co-founder boasting having worked in Whitehall. It doesn’t bode well, in my view, for finding a wide rage of diverse talent from which to choose an outstanding candidate.
The Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, and the BBC should know that, when outsourcing contracts to external parties they are obliged to ask for evidence of their adherence to Equality legislation. I wouldn’t have thought that an apparently all white head hunter in London, where 10% of the population is BME, would make the grade. The Culture secretary, the BBC and the head hunters themselves should also be aware of their duty to promote gender equality under the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA). It’s not enough to be seen to remove barriers to gender equality, they must actively promote and encourage it. The advertisement for the position falls at the fist hurdle with the title, Chairman. Subtext (whether intentional or not), women need not apply. As part of the SDA’s duty to remove barriers and promote gender equality, gender neutral language would be an absolute minimum requirement.
Ten years ago I conducted research into the impact of testosterone charged images and language used in advertising for leadership positions. I tracked several adverts and followed up on the appointments, all of which were men. In some cases, no women even applied. The advert that spurred my action was the following: What Turns Businessmen on: DOMINATION?
This advert appeared regularly in The Sunday Times “Appointments” section during the summer of 2004. When I first encountered it, I felt as though, as a woman, I was a non-person. Like a waitress at a free mason’s ball, with Bernard Manning as the guest speaker. You may say the newspaper was merely employing the term ‘businessmen’ as a universally understood euphemism for business people of both sexes. You might also brush off the concept of ‘being turned on by domination’ as a vaguely humorous and largely innocuous turn of phrase that underlines the newspaper’s attractiveness for recruitment advertising. And indeed, this was how the Sunday Times defended its use of language to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) when I lodged a complaint. However, when viewed as a strategy of dismissal, we can begin to understand how such language contributes to the marginalization of women at work. It does so by portraying the business arena as an inherently “man’s world”. The complaint was upheld.
Encouraging the use of gender-neutral language is an unashamed and totally legitimate act of political correctness. Many titles, such as ‘chairman’ and ‘businessman’, are so culturally imbued that they are not recognised for what they are, i.e. symbols of a masculinised business paradigm. Examining language within the social constructivist paradigm, as I do, it would be fatuous not to acknowledge the political aspect and the power it wields. Language does not simply reflect reality (i.e. that the majority of chair or business people are men) but constructs and perpetuates it (i.e. “that’s the norm” and “lets keep it that way”).
The discourse of the dominant sets out different rules for those with and without power. Language, which itself can be understood to be constitutive of both knowledge and power, is hijacked to legitimise what is deemed mere “common sense”. Protestations that serve to challenge this rationality are ridiculed and labelled as “radical”. Some media very deliberately choose their language to enflame prejudice by playing on people’s fears, inciting outrage at the very thought of introducing positive discrimination to attract black recruits to the police, for example.
The fact is that positive discrimination has existed for years. The metaphorical tap on the shoulder and old boys’ networks are all practices so institutionalised that we take them for granted. Those who profit from privilege accept such benefits as their birth-right, and are the ones who have the most to lose if these unwritten rules are exposed by the critical scrutiny of language.
Monday, 26 May 2014
Hay-on-Wyte
This piece was published in the Huffington Post on 29 May.
After half an hour waiting in my second queue of the day I was catatonic. The people behind were chatty at first but grew markedly frosty when little Sylvian exclaimed (finger pointing for dramatic effect) she’s the one that booed bankers in the Tata tent! (more on that later) As the father’s face froze in a glacial manner, I clocked the Barclays logo on his salmon/pink Lacrosse sweater. Suddenly the Festival’s 87 page brochure became a compelling read.
It also enabled me to feign obliviousness to the tuts from the family in front, who clearly disapproved of my 6 year old catching stagnant water in his open mouth as it dripped, in torrents, from the side of the tent. There were some big questions posed in the forward, such as Who are we in 2014? and What do liberty and equality look like? I leafed through the brochure for answers. Apart from one black face on page 57, all the other images depicted happy white families enjoying the Festival’s delights.
I looked around at the hundreds of people queuing, eating in the café and walking around. Everywhere I looked, the whole day, there were white faces. Around 10% of British people are BME. The answer to the question, who we are in 2014 then, won’t be found in the hideously homogeneous Hay brochure (eat your alliteration heart out Francesca Simon), or indeed the corridors of the festival itself.
This was my first foray into the world of the literati. My son is an avid consumer of the Hiccup Horrendous Haddock the Third series of books by the splendicious Cressida Cowell (who encourages playing with words, as opposed to traffic or fire). She was our main attraction and didn’t disappoint, inspiring children and adults alike. I was slightly disappointed to learn of her privileged background. I liked imagining her sagesse as being born of a life of privation and adversity but my prejudice could not deny Cowell of her genius.
There are core themes that form a thread which weaves its way, seamlessly through her work. In a tribe of burley Vikings, Hiccup is the “weakling”. He employs wit and intellect to defeat brute force and idiocy. Although Cowell clearly coddles her penchant for the pantomime villain, her complex characterisations challenge us to see the potential for good in everyone. But perhaps the most compelling theme for me is her call to arms, to children everywhere, to question everything.
Childrens' thirst for knowledge and their innate curiosity is satiated by questioning things we take for granted. That’s how they make sense of a sometimes incomprehensible world, even for adults. Cowell said her next book would depict Hiccup growing up and his political awakening. So, when she said that anyone seeking fortune should go into banking rather than writing, I found the sound boooo involuntarily oozing out from my mouth and dissipating like flatulence into the ether. It was an instinctive reaction to the contemporary pantomime villain and the children loved it. Those in close proximity joined in, much to their parents’ disgust. Not surprising, given the demographic and sponsors (including Barclays Bank), there’s a good chance many of them were b***ers.
When I saw the first black face of the day on my way out I wondered how he would answer the second big question posed in the brochure’s forward, What do liberty and equality look like? Surveying the sea of white faces looking back at him I can only imagine his answer, Nothing like this.
After half an hour waiting in my second queue of the day I was catatonic. The people behind were chatty at first but grew markedly frosty when little Sylvian exclaimed (finger pointing for dramatic effect) she’s the one that booed bankers in the Tata tent! (more on that later) As the father’s face froze in a glacial manner, I clocked the Barclays logo on his salmon/pink Lacrosse sweater. Suddenly the Festival’s 87 page brochure became a compelling read.
It also enabled me to feign obliviousness to the tuts from the family in front, who clearly disapproved of my 6 year old catching stagnant water in his open mouth as it dripped, in torrents, from the side of the tent. There were some big questions posed in the forward, such as Who are we in 2014? and What do liberty and equality look like? I leafed through the brochure for answers. Apart from one black face on page 57, all the other images depicted happy white families enjoying the Festival’s delights.
I looked around at the hundreds of people queuing, eating in the café and walking around. Everywhere I looked, the whole day, there were white faces. Around 10% of British people are BME. The answer to the question, who we are in 2014 then, won’t be found in the hideously homogeneous Hay brochure (eat your alliteration heart out Francesca Simon), or indeed the corridors of the festival itself.
This was my first foray into the world of the literati. My son is an avid consumer of the Hiccup Horrendous Haddock the Third series of books by the splendicious Cressida Cowell (who encourages playing with words, as opposed to traffic or fire). She was our main attraction and didn’t disappoint, inspiring children and adults alike. I was slightly disappointed to learn of her privileged background. I liked imagining her sagesse as being born of a life of privation and adversity but my prejudice could not deny Cowell of her genius.
There are core themes that form a thread which weaves its way, seamlessly through her work. In a tribe of burley Vikings, Hiccup is the “weakling”. He employs wit and intellect to defeat brute force and idiocy. Although Cowell clearly coddles her penchant for the pantomime villain, her complex characterisations challenge us to see the potential for good in everyone. But perhaps the most compelling theme for me is her call to arms, to children everywhere, to question everything.
Childrens' thirst for knowledge and their innate curiosity is satiated by questioning things we take for granted. That’s how they make sense of a sometimes incomprehensible world, even for adults. Cowell said her next book would depict Hiccup growing up and his political awakening. So, when she said that anyone seeking fortune should go into banking rather than writing, I found the sound boooo involuntarily oozing out from my mouth and dissipating like flatulence into the ether. It was an instinctive reaction to the contemporary pantomime villain and the children loved it. Those in close proximity joined in, much to their parents’ disgust. Not surprising, given the demographic and sponsors (including Barclays Bank), there’s a good chance many of them were b***ers.
When I saw the first black face of the day on my way out I wondered how he would answer the second big question posed in the brochure’s forward, What do liberty and equality look like? Surveying the sea of white faces looking back at him I can only imagine his answer, Nothing like this.
Friday, 16 May 2014
What do E.On, The Tories & Gary Barlow Have in Common?
They all exploit loopholes in the law (allegedly) to their own advantage.
E.On has apparently been fined 12m for mis selling to its already long suffering customers and the Tory party is accused of circumventing electoral law in order to keep big donor anonymous. Individuals who donate over £1,500 per year are supposed to be named. If donations are made through a private club however, no such restrictions apply.
One such club, despite having no website and appears to be operating out of a house in leafy Buckinghamshire, has donated inordinate sums to Tory coffers but individual contributors cannot be identified. By way of putting our minds at rest, a Tory spokesperson (speaking from an offshore, hot and duty free location) said “All donations are entirely proper and accounted for”. See, everything’s entirely above board. Nothing illegal going on so it’s obviously a loony left wing conspiracy.
As for Gaz Barlow (a devout Tory apparently), should he be asked to relinquish his honour just because he was allegedly engaged in some kind of tax avoidance scheme? According to his mate, Dave (the PM), absolutely not. His logic? Barlow gives shed loads of money away to charity. If I didn’t have to pay all the tax due on my income, I could afford that kind of munificence too, and get the knighthood that goes with it. The fact is though Mr Cameron. It isn’t his money he’s giving away, it’s ours. Does Gary Barlow live in Buckinghamshire by any chance?
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Bring Back the Stolen Girls of Nigeria
It’s almost a month since 274 girls were brutally abducted from their beds in the dead of night in Nigeria. They were piled into the back of lorries and transported, like livestock, to be sold into a lifetime of child slavery, rape and forced marriage. A barbaric practice that affects 10 million children worldwide. Some reports cast doubt on whether the girls will ever be found alive.
Yet, this mass kidnapping has only hit the headlines in the last few days. What took so long to break this story and why are the children’s parents living in fear of their lives for speaking out? In theory this has all the hallmarks of a headline grabber. Anyone who has children or a heart could relate to this heinous crime, yet it didn’t make the grade.
Protestations of the remoteness of the locality don’t bear scrutiny. The story was known but it took social media, rather than mainstream media to break it. Once broken, momentum was slow. It gathered pace once pictures of grieving parents were beamed across the globe and outrage began to grow about the lack of urgency or apparent strategy to rescue the girls.
Is it that the abduction of 274 girls doesn’t seem to matter or is it that the abduction of 274 African girls doesn’t seem to matter? One thing is for sure, if this happened in California or Cornwall, it wouldn’t take a month for it to make the news.
I’ll be supporting the “Bring Back Our Girls” Campaign and lobbying for the safe return of those 274 children to the arms of their distraught parents. I hope you will too.
* A Note to my readers in Nigeria: If you have any information you think I could help to disseminate please get in touch via my website: www.tessfinchlees.com. Many thanks.
Yet, this mass kidnapping has only hit the headlines in the last few days. What took so long to break this story and why are the children’s parents living in fear of their lives for speaking out? In theory this has all the hallmarks of a headline grabber. Anyone who has children or a heart could relate to this heinous crime, yet it didn’t make the grade.
Protestations of the remoteness of the locality don’t bear scrutiny. The story was known but it took social media, rather than mainstream media to break it. Once broken, momentum was slow. It gathered pace once pictures of grieving parents were beamed across the globe and outrage began to grow about the lack of urgency or apparent strategy to rescue the girls.
Is it that the abduction of 274 girls doesn’t seem to matter or is it that the abduction of 274 African girls doesn’t seem to matter? One thing is for sure, if this happened in California or Cornwall, it wouldn’t take a month for it to make the news.
I’ll be supporting the “Bring Back Our Girls” Campaign and lobbying for the safe return of those 274 children to the arms of their distraught parents. I hope you will too.
* A Note to my readers in Nigeria: If you have any information you think I could help to disseminate please get in touch via my website: www.tessfinchlees.com. Many thanks.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
City Fathers Revolt. Better Late Than Never.
Probably the most incendiary movement to hit the city since Occupy London is Cityfathers. A charity set up to lobby city employers to recognise the role of fatherhood in male employees’ lives. That it exists, is the single biggest threat to capitalism since the abolition of slavery.
Capitalism is founded on the principle of having control over its workforce. Clearly demarcated gender roles are integral to that. With women paid less than their male counterparts they’re often the ones to be the stay at home parent. The Equal Pay Act proved to be a surmountable threat (devised & [not] implemented by a predominately male judiciary). With women at home looking after the baby, the pressure is on the sole remaining breadwinner to provide for the family. No pressure.
City employers know that sole breadwinners don’t tend to rock the boat and are easily exploited (though the mega buck earners could hardly be described as vulnerable). It’s generally considered career suicide to resist working long hours and a request for parental leave could result in dismissal on grounds of insanity.
Cityfathers wants to change that culture. In a recent survey of its 750 members 44% of its working fathers said that missing their children was their greatest daily challenge. Yet, only 29% of them said they availed of their legal entitlement to parental leave. All 2 weeks of it. For some it comes down to finances. Paternity leave pay amounts to 90% of the average weekly wage, which is less than the minimum wage.
The government plans to introduce shared parental leave from April 2014, whereby apart from the first two weeks, parental leave can be shared between both parents. Sounds good, but even the government has predicted a poor uptake, around 4-8%.
The devil, as always is in the detail. Whilst it’s being sold as shared parental leave, it has been criticised for being “transferable” leave, i.e. it’s still essentially maternity leave which can be transferred to Dad if he so requests it. Cityfathers wants fathers to have the same automatic rights as mothers & wants city employers to tackle, what Nick Clegg describes as an “Edwardian” approach to gendered roles in the workplace.
Research that I did 10 years ago, interviewing young fathers in particular, exposed the myth that men are happy to have walk on parts in their children’s lives. When I presented these findings at a city business conference at the time it was as if I had announced the bar was out of Bollinger. It was considered highly controversial to suggest that the city’s malleable male workforce might be so miserable that at some point in the future they may stage a revolt. It’s a bit late coming but welcome nonetheless.
As more men assert their rights to work reduced hours, there will be more room for women to share those top positions, thus allowing both fathers and mothers to have an equal role at home & in the workforce. This isn’t just good for families. It’s good for society and the economy.
Capitalism is founded on the principle of having control over its workforce. Clearly demarcated gender roles are integral to that. With women paid less than their male counterparts they’re often the ones to be the stay at home parent. The Equal Pay Act proved to be a surmountable threat (devised & [not] implemented by a predominately male judiciary). With women at home looking after the baby, the pressure is on the sole remaining breadwinner to provide for the family. No pressure.
City employers know that sole breadwinners don’t tend to rock the boat and are easily exploited (though the mega buck earners could hardly be described as vulnerable). It’s generally considered career suicide to resist working long hours and a request for parental leave could result in dismissal on grounds of insanity.
Cityfathers wants to change that culture. In a recent survey of its 750 members 44% of its working fathers said that missing their children was their greatest daily challenge. Yet, only 29% of them said they availed of their legal entitlement to parental leave. All 2 weeks of it. For some it comes down to finances. Paternity leave pay amounts to 90% of the average weekly wage, which is less than the minimum wage.
The government plans to introduce shared parental leave from April 2014, whereby apart from the first two weeks, parental leave can be shared between both parents. Sounds good, but even the government has predicted a poor uptake, around 4-8%.
The devil, as always is in the detail. Whilst it’s being sold as shared parental leave, it has been criticised for being “transferable” leave, i.e. it’s still essentially maternity leave which can be transferred to Dad if he so requests it. Cityfathers wants fathers to have the same automatic rights as mothers & wants city employers to tackle, what Nick Clegg describes as an “Edwardian” approach to gendered roles in the workplace.
Research that I did 10 years ago, interviewing young fathers in particular, exposed the myth that men are happy to have walk on parts in their children’s lives. When I presented these findings at a city business conference at the time it was as if I had announced the bar was out of Bollinger. It was considered highly controversial to suggest that the city’s malleable male workforce might be so miserable that at some point in the future they may stage a revolt. It’s a bit late coming but welcome nonetheless.
As more men assert their rights to work reduced hours, there will be more room for women to share those top positions, thus allowing both fathers and mothers to have an equal role at home & in the workforce. This isn’t just good for families. It’s good for society and the economy.
Saturday, 19 April 2014
Irish Parenting Wisdom: It Involves Jam, a Door Handle & a Bottle of the Hard Shhstuff
Dia daoibh mo chairde! I’ve just returned from my annual pilgrimage to my homeland to 1) ensure my 6 year old can brush up on his “Oirish”, which usually involves him saying “dia dhuit” to random strangers who invariably say “whah”? and him saying “howya”, 2) provide said child with ample opportunity to inform the aforementioned strangers that he’s Anglo Oirish but that he feels “more Oirish than English” (see Pete McCarthy’s hilarious book, “McCarthy’s Bar”, for more Anglo Irish angst and, 3) stock up on items from The Dunnes Stores Homeware range. Where else would you get door stops filled with ammonite rock in the shape of a leprechaun. For 5 Euro?
The day before I left for Ireland a piece I wrote was published in The Independent. It marked the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, as well as highlighting the current genocide in Darfur. It was scathing of the UN’s failure to learn from its mistakes. Cue a barrage of abuse and threats. Whilst supping on a pint of the hard shhstuff and enjoying a chin wag in a local watering hole, a relative commented on the minefield that is my chosen profession. But, the truth be told, the hardest thing I’ve ever done was becoming a parent. It’s a rare day when I can kick back my heels and pat myself on the back for a job well done. Invariably, the Mother Mary Consumpta, Ignacious, of the holy child of Jesus, voice in my head bellows, “shite, shite, shite. Must try harder. Shite”.
Since an incendiary device was planted in my head on the day of my first holy communion (guilt), it’s hard to shake off the proclivity for self reproachment. Especially when it comes to being a mammy. However, on my recent pilgrimage to Knock (the airport as opposed to the shrine itself….) I came across a little gem that has proved to be the missing link in my arsenal of parental armoury. You won’t find it in any of those nauseatingly “knowing” and judgemental parenting books in WHSmiths. This nugget of wisdom was wrapped up in a beautiful Irish poem that I had known as a child but since forgotten. It’s “Subh Milis” by Seamus O'Neill.
"Bhà subh milis, Ar bhaschrann an dorais, Ach mhúch mé an corraÃ, Ionam d'éirigh, Mar smaoinigh mé ar an lá, A bheas an baschrann glan, Agus an láimh bheag, Ar iarraidh." ("There was jam on the door handle, but I suppressed the anger that rose up in me, because I thought of the day that the door handle would be clean, and the little hand would be gone.")
So, now, when my child is, I don’t know, lassoing an OAP with his Bob the Builder belt in the middle of the spirits isle at Aldi, instead of pretending he’s not mine (God forbid) whilst making a frenzied B line for the nearest exit with a bottle of Paddys in one hand and an own brand chocolate gateaux in the other, I simply take a deep breath, think of the jam on the door handle and all the guilt inducing rage evaporates from my being. Then, I pretend he’s not mine and make a calm, composed B line for the nearest exit.
The day before I left for Ireland a piece I wrote was published in The Independent. It marked the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, as well as highlighting the current genocide in Darfur. It was scathing of the UN’s failure to learn from its mistakes. Cue a barrage of abuse and threats. Whilst supping on a pint of the hard shhstuff and enjoying a chin wag in a local watering hole, a relative commented on the minefield that is my chosen profession. But, the truth be told, the hardest thing I’ve ever done was becoming a parent. It’s a rare day when I can kick back my heels and pat myself on the back for a job well done. Invariably, the Mother Mary Consumpta, Ignacious, of the holy child of Jesus, voice in my head bellows, “shite, shite, shite. Must try harder. Shite”.
Since an incendiary device was planted in my head on the day of my first holy communion (guilt), it’s hard to shake off the proclivity for self reproachment. Especially when it comes to being a mammy. However, on my recent pilgrimage to Knock (the airport as opposed to the shrine itself….) I came across a little gem that has proved to be the missing link in my arsenal of parental armoury. You won’t find it in any of those nauseatingly “knowing” and judgemental parenting books in WHSmiths. This nugget of wisdom was wrapped up in a beautiful Irish poem that I had known as a child but since forgotten. It’s “Subh Milis” by Seamus O'Neill.
"Bhà subh milis, Ar bhaschrann an dorais, Ach mhúch mé an corraÃ, Ionam d'éirigh, Mar smaoinigh mé ar an lá, A bheas an baschrann glan, Agus an láimh bheag, Ar iarraidh." ("There was jam on the door handle, but I suppressed the anger that rose up in me, because I thought of the day that the door handle would be clean, and the little hand would be gone.")
So, now, when my child is, I don’t know, lassoing an OAP with his Bob the Builder belt in the middle of the spirits isle at Aldi, instead of pretending he’s not mine (God forbid) whilst making a frenzied B line for the nearest exit with a bottle of Paddys in one hand and an own brand chocolate gateaux in the other, I simply take a deep breath, think of the jam on the door handle and all the guilt inducing rage evaporates from my being. Then, I pretend he’s not mine and make a calm, composed B line for the nearest exit.
Friday, 11 April 2014
Twenty Years after Rwanda the UN is Accused of Covering up the Genocide in Darfur
This piece will be published in The Independent tomorrow.
It grates that the head of the UN, an organization accused of complicity in the Rwanda genocide, could unceremoniously hijack its 20th anniversary as a tawdry PR opportunity, airbrushing out the current Darfur genocide in the process.
That’s what Ban Ki Moon did in last week’s Independent on Sunday. Although the UN failed in Rwanda, "lessons have been learned", he said. His contrition came amid reports in the US’ Foreign Policy of leaked UNAMID (UN and African Union Mission in Darfur) documents proving, not only that lessons haven’t been learned from Rwanda, but that there is evidence of "a pattern of denial, disingenuousness, concealment of data and reports and outright mendacity in downplaying the continuing genocide in Darfur".
Ban talks of UN “eyes” and ears” being deployed where civilians are under threat. Given the Khartoum regime forbids a media or human rights presence in those areas where it’s slaughtering its own people, the only “eyes” and ears” is a multimillion pound US embassy in the capital which is being built, not to protect Darfuri, but US citizens. The Foreign Policy report indicates that the US’ silence on the Darfur genocide is the price for anti-terrorism intelligence, considered necessary to avert attacks on the US.
White blood, it seems, always trades higher than African blood on the open human rights market. General Dallaire, who headed the UN's small peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, lambasted the international community’s reticence to act in Africa, but meanwhile hundreds of millions of dollars were pouring into Yugoslavia. Were some human beings "more human than others”? he asked.
Ban Ki Moon boasts about the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the “United Against Impunity” slogan. This catchy rhetoric is meaningless. In a recent attack in March, the leaked documents indicate that government forces destroyed an entire camp for displaced people adjacent to the UN compound. The attackers are reported to have burned to death a sheikh, injured multiple others, kidnapped local leaders, looted property and livestock while also destroying water wells, homes, and a hospital. UN peacekeepers apparently did nothing to intervene despite their mandate to protect civilians. The head of UNAMID later expressed only general concerns about the “escalation of violence”.
On Monday a UN spokesperson admitted that “There is tension between the necessity to preserve the consent and good will of the host government (whose president is indicted by the Hague for war crimes and acts of genocide against his own people) required to allow peacekeepers (The UN seeks permission from a despot to protect the civilians his regime is attacking) to do their jobs and the sometimes contradictory imperative to report accurately and candidly on any and all incidents of violence”. That he thought it okay to admit covering up “any and all incidents of violence” against civilians is terrifying.
The former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha Elbasri, who resigned in protest in December, said that much of the evidence is withheld from public reports. Due to self imposed evidentiary restrictions, UNAMID disallows the testimony of local witnesses so, despite numerous aerial bombardments constituting violations of the UN ban on air strikes, they are rarely reported to the UN Security Council.
Michael Gaouette, A former UN official who led the Darfur peacekeeping team in 2008, said that many of UNAMID’s deficiencies were predictable. Without a ceasefire in place the peacekeeping mission was set up to fail. To achieve that would have meant implementing some of those 16 UN resolutions that were passed but never enforced, such as no fly zones to prevent aerial bombardments. Only when civilians are protected can political settlements be pursued. That requires political will on behalf of the international community. Unfortunately, in Darfur, as in Rwanda before it, that doesn’t exist. Today, as 20 years ago, the international response is marred by indifference and incompetence.
When, as head of the UN, Mr Ban says, “Let us show people facing threats that they are not alone or abandoned and that the lifeline they need is on the way”, we must hold him to account. Darfuris have waited 11 long years for that lifeline. Still, those hanging on by a thread will grab it with both hands. The world is watching, waiting for you to throw that lifeline Mr Ban. Act now or face the opprobrium incurred by your predecessor, Kofi Annan, for his failure in Rwanda.
It grates that the head of the UN, an organization accused of complicity in the Rwanda genocide, could unceremoniously hijack its 20th anniversary as a tawdry PR opportunity, airbrushing out the current Darfur genocide in the process.
That’s what Ban Ki Moon did in last week’s Independent on Sunday. Although the UN failed in Rwanda, "lessons have been learned", he said. His contrition came amid reports in the US’ Foreign Policy of leaked UNAMID (UN and African Union Mission in Darfur) documents proving, not only that lessons haven’t been learned from Rwanda, but that there is evidence of "a pattern of denial, disingenuousness, concealment of data and reports and outright mendacity in downplaying the continuing genocide in Darfur".
Ban talks of UN “eyes” and ears” being deployed where civilians are under threat. Given the Khartoum regime forbids a media or human rights presence in those areas where it’s slaughtering its own people, the only “eyes” and ears” is a multimillion pound US embassy in the capital which is being built, not to protect Darfuri, but US citizens. The Foreign Policy report indicates that the US’ silence on the Darfur genocide is the price for anti-terrorism intelligence, considered necessary to avert attacks on the US.
White blood, it seems, always trades higher than African blood on the open human rights market. General Dallaire, who headed the UN's small peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, lambasted the international community’s reticence to act in Africa, but meanwhile hundreds of millions of dollars were pouring into Yugoslavia. Were some human beings "more human than others”? he asked.
Ban Ki Moon boasts about the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the “United Against Impunity” slogan. This catchy rhetoric is meaningless. In a recent attack in March, the leaked documents indicate that government forces destroyed an entire camp for displaced people adjacent to the UN compound. The attackers are reported to have burned to death a sheikh, injured multiple others, kidnapped local leaders, looted property and livestock while also destroying water wells, homes, and a hospital. UN peacekeepers apparently did nothing to intervene despite their mandate to protect civilians. The head of UNAMID later expressed only general concerns about the “escalation of violence”.
On Monday a UN spokesperson admitted that “There is tension between the necessity to preserve the consent and good will of the host government (whose president is indicted by the Hague for war crimes and acts of genocide against his own people) required to allow peacekeepers (The UN seeks permission from a despot to protect the civilians his regime is attacking) to do their jobs and the sometimes contradictory imperative to report accurately and candidly on any and all incidents of violence”. That he thought it okay to admit covering up “any and all incidents of violence” against civilians is terrifying.
The former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha Elbasri, who resigned in protest in December, said that much of the evidence is withheld from public reports. Due to self imposed evidentiary restrictions, UNAMID disallows the testimony of local witnesses so, despite numerous aerial bombardments constituting violations of the UN ban on air strikes, they are rarely reported to the UN Security Council.
Michael Gaouette, A former UN official who led the Darfur peacekeeping team in 2008, said that many of UNAMID’s deficiencies were predictable. Without a ceasefire in place the peacekeeping mission was set up to fail. To achieve that would have meant implementing some of those 16 UN resolutions that were passed but never enforced, such as no fly zones to prevent aerial bombardments. Only when civilians are protected can political settlements be pursued. That requires political will on behalf of the international community. Unfortunately, in Darfur, as in Rwanda before it, that doesn’t exist. Today, as 20 years ago, the international response is marred by indifference and incompetence.
When, as head of the UN, Mr Ban says, “Let us show people facing threats that they are not alone or abandoned and that the lifeline they need is on the way”, we must hold him to account. Darfuris have waited 11 long years for that lifeline. Still, those hanging on by a thread will grab it with both hands. The world is watching, waiting for you to throw that lifeline Mr Ban. Act now or face the opprobrium incurred by your predecessor, Kofi Annan, for his failure in Rwanda.
Friday, 4 April 2014
Porno Lads’ Mag “Nuts” Goes Bust!
Readers of this blog will know that I’m not above employing guerilla tactics in order to thwart the sale of pornographic lads’ rags in family spaces. I routinely put copies of “Good Housekeeping” or “Country Living” in front of the merchandise usually displayed on the top shelf (i.e. women’s body parts).
So, the announcement this week of “Nuts’” demise was music to my ears. It marks another huge victory for the “Lose the Lads’ Mags campaign, led by “UK Feminista” & “Object”. The news comes just two months after “Front” magazine announced its closure.
If the publishers of Good Housekeeping &/or Country Living are reading this, those rise in profits didn't happen by themselves. My commission is very reasonable...
So, the announcement this week of “Nuts’” demise was music to my ears. It marks another huge victory for the “Lose the Lads’ Mags campaign, led by “UK Feminista” & “Object”. The news comes just two months after “Front” magazine announced its closure.
If the publishers of Good Housekeeping &/or Country Living are reading this, those rise in profits didn't happen by themselves. My commission is very reasonable...
Monday, 24 March 2014
Oh Do Shut Up, Dear: The Silencing of Women in Public Life
An all male panel make a presentation. A woman in the room spots some gaps in their argument and seeks clarity. Her questions are interpreted as a threat and attempts are made to silence her. She is spoken over, sneered at and ultimately shouted at for a sustained period of time, by another man in the room, without any intervention from the [male] chair.
Afterwards one of the people present expresses outrage to a colleague that someone could be treated so disgracefully on their organisations’ premises. To which the colleague responds, “If she had kept her mouth shut she wouldn’t have been subjected to a barrage of abuse. She provoked them [the men]”. The message is clear. A man, or group of men, can shout at and subject a woman to a barrage of verbal abuse but it is not the mens' behaviour that comes under scrutiny, but the woman’s.
The woman, in this case, was me and the conversation was relayed to me by the person who initiated it. The discourse is instructive. There is no attempt to deny that the behaviour of the men was “disgraceful”, rather the prevailing social transgression was deemed that of a woman, first speaking out, and then refusing to be silenced when attempts were made to do so. For exhibiting such willful disobedience, I deserved, in this person’s mind, to be punished, taught a lesson. It is all the more galling (though sadly not surprising) to know that this person was a woman, who unlike me, chooses to acquiesce to gender biased social mores.
The fact that I wasn’t deterred from my line of questioning and attempts to silence me were thwarted does not diminish the actions. Being on the receiving end of snide, rude remarks and being spoken over is never pleasant. It forces the person into, either submission/silence or having to exercise uncharacteristic rigour in ensuring they are heard. It’s a no win situation. You’re either cast as a mouse or “strident” or “combative”.
When I watched the esteemed Mary Beard’s incisive lecture, "Oh Do Shut Up Dear", on BBC4 last week, I recognized the irony. Her lecture addressed the historical aversion to women being afforded a voice in the public sphere. For example, In Homer’s The Odyssey, written around three thousand years ago, Telemachus tells his mother Penelope: “Go back to your quarters… Speech will be the business of men, all men, and of me most of all, for mine is the power in the household.”
In the early 4th Century BC, Aristophanes wrote a comedy about women taking over the running of the state. The men thought it was uproarious, since women were “unable to speak properly in public.” In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Zeus turns one female character into a cow therein reducing all her utterances to “moo.” Zeus’ wife, Hera, punishes Echo, by reducing her speech to that of repeating what others say.
Women remain silenced and gagged in modern life. The emergence of social media has turned the abuse of outspoken women into a veritable past time for some. Caroline Criado Perez’s recent success in securing a female head on a bank note incurred the wrath of Twitter’s thriving misogyny community. Death and rape threats were her comeuppance for not knowing her place. For the audacity of having a voice and daring to use it, and with such powerful effect.
.
Beard recounted her own experiences of abuse. When she objected to an abusive tweet she replied that she was “gobsmacked,” by one male commentator’s behaviour. He responded, "The misogyny is truly gobsmacking," she whined.” The same commentator, she said, runs a “lighthearted” sideline. A contest to find “…the most stupid woman to appear on Question Time.”
I’ve documented my own experiences of death threats in the past. To some, a woman with a voice is the equivalent of storming the pentagon with a Kalashnikov. Wielding such a lethal weapon makes her a threat to civilization as we know it. Brutal force, including water boarding, should not be ruled out in a bid to disarm women found to be in possession of a voice, especially where there is known intent to use it.
*Are you struggling to find your voice/inner kalashnikov? If so & you’re a woman, I’m now scheduling dates for another women’s empowerment course. A number of you have been in touch asking me to run another one, which I’m now doing. For anyone who hasn’t been in touch before, if you contact me via my website contact page I’d be very grateful (tessfinchlees.com).
Monday, 17 March 2014
It's St Patrick's Day: There'll be Humour & Heartache in Equal Measure
[A more evocative/historical piece I wrote for the Huffington Post was published today. Variations thereof were also published in US outlets].
Fifty years ago signs such as, “No blacks, dogs or Irish” were commonplace. Nowadays, [well behaved] Irish and dogs are welcome in most British establishments.
As recounted previously, before I left my native Dublin to live in the UK I took elocution lessons and words like “feck” were banished from my vocabulary. I dyed my carrot red hair black and reduced my daily alcohol intake from 10 to 8.5 pints. You won’t find U2 or The Script on my ipod. I changed my name from Mary Gobnit O’Reilly to the more British sounding Tess (short for Tessandra) Finch-Lees. My assimilation was complete.
As a people we Irish have learned to lighten up a little. Not take ourselves so seriously. In the past we would be incensed at acts of oppression and injustice. The literary elite would compete to capture the political pulse of the people. Each vying for a place in history with arty alliteration and perennially portentous prose (what can I say, it’s in the blood).
The Irish genius for creativity didn’t stop at the door of literature. Their ingenuity knew no bounds when it came to circumventing the 17th century equivalent of austerity measures, known as the penal laws. Just as today, the penal laws provided a legal framework to steal from the poor for the benefit of the rich. The tax on chimneys was resisted by making a fire in the middle of the room. The tax on outbuildings saw animals brought into the house and tethered to the wall. We resisted glass tax, or tax on light, by using horse placenta and splitting doors in two, hence the expression, “day light robbery”.
You need look no further than Kilburn to see the Irish solution to the bedroom tax. It involves minor demolition and open plan sleeping.
Contemporary Irish culture is exported in more palatable packaging. Focusing on personal relationships rather than political angst. Maeve Binchy is the literary equivalent of freshly baked soda bread, smothered in artery hardening butter and homemade jam, washed down with a nice cup of Barry’s tea.
Whilst Father Ted embodied a more anarchic, 7 pints of Guinness washed down by a Jameson chaser, approach to exposing cultural warts, Mrs Brown’s Boys is more a cocktail of mind altering drugs mashed up with boiled bacon and cabbage.
Humour is part of Irish DNA and, historically, has been a powerful bulwark against heartache. But, when the pain of a people is so palpable, jocularity sometimes demeans it.
There are haunting resonances between the Ireland of the past and present. A profusion of People begging in the streets, half built houses abandoned and boarded up. Rural towns, once vibrant are now jaded and deserted. Young people yet again are leaving in their droves to seek gainful employment abroad.
The window tax has been replaced by a roof tax. Anyone lucky enough to be able to keep their home is being punitively taxed for that. The burden of austerity is hitting the poorest the hardest. Ordinary Irish people have their begging bowls out again. The St Vincent De Paul occupying the role of soup kitchen for the homeless and destitute.
If ever there was a time for the Irish to recapture the spirit of defiance, employed so effectively by our ancestors, now would be it.
Fifty years ago signs such as, “No blacks, dogs or Irish” were commonplace. Nowadays, [well behaved] Irish and dogs are welcome in most British establishments.
As recounted previously, before I left my native Dublin to live in the UK I took elocution lessons and words like “feck” were banished from my vocabulary. I dyed my carrot red hair black and reduced my daily alcohol intake from 10 to 8.5 pints. You won’t find U2 or The Script on my ipod. I changed my name from Mary Gobnit O’Reilly to the more British sounding Tess (short for Tessandra) Finch-Lees. My assimilation was complete.
As a people we Irish have learned to lighten up a little. Not take ourselves so seriously. In the past we would be incensed at acts of oppression and injustice. The literary elite would compete to capture the political pulse of the people. Each vying for a place in history with arty alliteration and perennially portentous prose (what can I say, it’s in the blood).
The Irish genius for creativity didn’t stop at the door of literature. Their ingenuity knew no bounds when it came to circumventing the 17th century equivalent of austerity measures, known as the penal laws. Just as today, the penal laws provided a legal framework to steal from the poor for the benefit of the rich. The tax on chimneys was resisted by making a fire in the middle of the room. The tax on outbuildings saw animals brought into the house and tethered to the wall. We resisted glass tax, or tax on light, by using horse placenta and splitting doors in two, hence the expression, “day light robbery”.
You need look no further than Kilburn to see the Irish solution to the bedroom tax. It involves minor demolition and open plan sleeping.
Contemporary Irish culture is exported in more palatable packaging. Focusing on personal relationships rather than political angst. Maeve Binchy is the literary equivalent of freshly baked soda bread, smothered in artery hardening butter and homemade jam, washed down with a nice cup of Barry’s tea.
Whilst Father Ted embodied a more anarchic, 7 pints of Guinness washed down by a Jameson chaser, approach to exposing cultural warts, Mrs Brown’s Boys is more a cocktail of mind altering drugs mashed up with boiled bacon and cabbage.
Humour is part of Irish DNA and, historically, has been a powerful bulwark against heartache. But, when the pain of a people is so palpable, jocularity sometimes demeans it.
There are haunting resonances between the Ireland of the past and present. A profusion of People begging in the streets, half built houses abandoned and boarded up. Rural towns, once vibrant are now jaded and deserted. Young people yet again are leaving in their droves to seek gainful employment abroad.
The window tax has been replaced by a roof tax. Anyone lucky enough to be able to keep their home is being punitively taxed for that. The burden of austerity is hitting the poorest the hardest. Ordinary Irish people have their begging bowls out again. The St Vincent De Paul occupying the role of soup kitchen for the homeless and destitute.
If ever there was a time for the Irish to recapture the spirit of defiance, employed so effectively by our ancestors, now would be it.
Sunday, 16 March 2014
RIP Tony Benn
The last of the British conviction politicians died on Friday. Reading his diaries it’s clear that Tony Benn was driven, not by personal ambition, but by political conviction and clarity of vision. He never wavered, never compromised, never lost his way, ethically or politically.
He resisted Labour’s courtship of corporations and refused to prostitute his principles in a bid for power. He doggedly opposed the re branding of “New Labour” & recognised it as a sinister sop to the right & a betrayal of the working classes. He remained true to his values to the end.
His words & presence were always inspiring. I’ve chosen just one quote (below) but would highly recommend his incisive, warm, wise & witty diaries:
"For our greatest enemy is the fear that our opponents seek to instil in our minds to force us to accept the unacceptable, and so to paralyse our will and render us incapable of thinking out the alternative or working to bring it about,"
He added: "We all have it in our power to deny them that victory and to establish a better society by our own efforts, provided that we remember our own history and the lessons of unity and courage that it teaches us."
The loss of Tony Benn leaves a gaping hole at the heart of [what’s left of ] British democracy. He'll be sadly missed.
He resisted Labour’s courtship of corporations and refused to prostitute his principles in a bid for power. He doggedly opposed the re branding of “New Labour” & recognised it as a sinister sop to the right & a betrayal of the working classes. He remained true to his values to the end.
His words & presence were always inspiring. I’ve chosen just one quote (below) but would highly recommend his incisive, warm, wise & witty diaries:
"For our greatest enemy is the fear that our opponents seek to instil in our minds to force us to accept the unacceptable, and so to paralyse our will and render us incapable of thinking out the alternative or working to bring it about,"
He added: "We all have it in our power to deny them that victory and to establish a better society by our own efforts, provided that we remember our own history and the lessons of unity and courage that it teaches us."
The loss of Tony Benn leaves a gaping hole at the heart of [what’s left of ] British democracy. He'll be sadly missed.
Monday, 3 March 2014
Co-Op Trust: A Positive Petition
The following petition is available to sign in Gwythers, Simpsons & the library in Bishops Castle:
“We, the undersigned, note from Appendix B of the consultation documents that it is currently proposed that the community “Trust Forum” will only be allowed to elect 3 Trust Board Members compared to the 4 External Partner Trust Board Members. We would like to express our support for the proposed Co-Operative Trust but only if the proposals are amended so that External Partner Board Members can never outnumber Trust Forum Board Members.”
After just a couple of hours on Saturday, 5 of us managed to secure 100 signatures.
The diagram on the back of the petition, taken from the consultation materials, sets out the situation very clearly. The trust is made up of 3 distinct groups; Schools (of which there would be only 3 full members), each one entitled to 2 votes, Trust forum (made up of the diverse range of community interest groups), which is entitled to 3 votes in total & External partners (there’s no cap on numbers & the intention has been expressed to invite private industry) who are entitled to a vote each. Given the diagram states that one of the roles of the Trust forum is to hold the other two (schools & external partners) to account, that task is rendered impossible. With just 3 votes they’ll always be in the minority.
This is being sold as being based on Co-Op principles of equity, fairness & democracy. Amending the distribution of votes to reflect this is the first test. I flagged this inequity on the local radio this morning but the 2 heads seemed to be confusing the issue. They argued that school votes would ensure external votes could never have the upper hand.
The school vote is not part of the community, even in their own materials, so to conflate the two appears to be misleading & disingenuous, albeit unintentionally. Their separation is crucial, not least because, should a school, or schools become dependent on any private sponsors, their ability to vote against said sponsor is compromised. That’s one good reason why the Trust forum is separate & needs enough teeth to safeguard the interests of the community.
One of the heads said on the radio that this isn't about finances. The other one in the same interview indicated it was. At the public consultation meeting the heads announced that the local authority funding was drying up and the words "jump before we're pushed" were used. As one of you commented in my previous blog, the communications on this are as clear as mud.
Why do the heads continue to package schools as part of the "trust forum" & why the apparent resistance to concede that the Trust forum is stand alone & needs as many votes as external partners in order to be effective in safeguarding community interests?
Apologies to my overseas followers for the recent UK centric entries, although galvanising community democracy is a globally relevant endeavour.
“We, the undersigned, note from Appendix B of the consultation documents that it is currently proposed that the community “Trust Forum” will only be allowed to elect 3 Trust Board Members compared to the 4 External Partner Trust Board Members. We would like to express our support for the proposed Co-Operative Trust but only if the proposals are amended so that External Partner Board Members can never outnumber Trust Forum Board Members.”
After just a couple of hours on Saturday, 5 of us managed to secure 100 signatures.
The diagram on the back of the petition, taken from the consultation materials, sets out the situation very clearly. The trust is made up of 3 distinct groups; Schools (of which there would be only 3 full members), each one entitled to 2 votes, Trust forum (made up of the diverse range of community interest groups), which is entitled to 3 votes in total & External partners (there’s no cap on numbers & the intention has been expressed to invite private industry) who are entitled to a vote each. Given the diagram states that one of the roles of the Trust forum is to hold the other two (schools & external partners) to account, that task is rendered impossible. With just 3 votes they’ll always be in the minority.
This is being sold as being based on Co-Op principles of equity, fairness & democracy. Amending the distribution of votes to reflect this is the first test. I flagged this inequity on the local radio this morning but the 2 heads seemed to be confusing the issue. They argued that school votes would ensure external votes could never have the upper hand.
The school vote is not part of the community, even in their own materials, so to conflate the two appears to be misleading & disingenuous, albeit unintentionally. Their separation is crucial, not least because, should a school, or schools become dependent on any private sponsors, their ability to vote against said sponsor is compromised. That’s one good reason why the Trust forum is separate & needs enough teeth to safeguard the interests of the community.
One of the heads said on the radio that this isn't about finances. The other one in the same interview indicated it was. At the public consultation meeting the heads announced that the local authority funding was drying up and the words "jump before we're pushed" were used. As one of you commented in my previous blog, the communications on this are as clear as mud.
Why do the heads continue to package schools as part of the "trust forum" & why the apparent resistance to concede that the Trust forum is stand alone & needs as many votes as external partners in order to be effective in safeguarding community interests?
Apologies to my overseas followers for the recent UK centric entries, although galvanising community democracy is a globally relevant endeavour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)