In the UK, a Muslim woman in a WH Smith shop that serves the public refuses to serve a customer because she shouldn't be serving tobacco. Without a sign saying that, the customer was supposed to know that fact when he decided to make use of the service the shop offered. On parade in the Met Police a new trainee refuses to shake the hand of the head of the service. He had no idea he couldn't shake her hand and, goodness knows, he probably thought the picture of them would do much to boost further recruitment from Muslim women to the service. Apparently, both refusals are regarded as part of asserting one's cultural and religious right in multicultural Britain.
As a diversity adviser, I beg to differ. This is merely moving the goalpost to suit individual whims. It has very little to do with genuine respect across communities and will merely antagonise others and damage relations further. This kind of behaviour purporting to be part of multiculturalism is questionable, and more likely to fuel misunderstanding and discrimination. Multiculturalism and diversity are supposed to enhance relationships, to lead to greater understanding between communities and, above all, to greater sensitivity and compromise. If a Muslim woman is not allowed to sell tobacco, when the shop offers a service in selling tobacco, then she should not be working there. She is showing no sensitivity to her customers' needs while insisting on sensitivity to her needs as a Muslim.
The essence of multiculturalism and diversity is also mutual respect. We cannot have a diverse society where one minority group sets the rules which everyone else has to follow, especially where they meet in the middle. The shop sells tobacco. That's a known fact. Anyone working in that shop should be prepared to handle tobacco. One cannot choose what to sell. What is that person doing there if this is not part of their remit? And what kind of service is it to the customer to be told that the shop assistant won't serve the very customers whose money keeps her job intact?
Again, when we join a public service, we have to be prepared to deal with the public, both men and women. We cannot expect preferential treatment unless we CHOOSE to join an all male or all female occupation. It follows that in a mixed group of people we are going to be dealing with members of the opposite sex in one form or another. The whole service cannot change just for one person's benefit. These two women, and more like them, are now rapidly moving the goalpost of tolerance to suit themselves and their desire to impose their own inflexible beliefs on others for simple personal power. That is not good.
Mutual Respect and Sensitivity
Respect is not just from White to Black. It has to be mutual to be effective. However, respect has seven dimensions beginning with curiosity and ending with healing, with sensitivity at the heart of it. If we are not sensitive to the needs of others in a spirit of compromise, we cannot expect sensitivity for what we believe either. Practising respect and sensitivity means we cannot CHOOSE to live in another country and then do exactly what we like publicly, regardless of how much it flies in the face of common sense or members the host country. If we intend to continue living exactly as we were, why move to anywhere different? At least by staying where we are, we ensure our cultures and traditions remain intact much longer.
Individuals really cannot have it both ways, wanting to be part of a diverse Britain but seeking individual public privilege which others are denied in a similar situation. Justice and fairness are then eroded. In the privacy of our homes, we are masters and mistresses. In the public domain, we have to work together for the benefit of all. If people are deliberately opting out of that process by virtue of religion and culture, how can they be benefiting their employer and, most important, the clients they serve?
In all these incidents of Muslim women choosing to do what they wish in a public place, one key thing is being forgotten. The effect on their peers and colleagues and the message that is being sent out to them of a privileged few who can ignore the rules to suit themselves, simply because of their religion. That can only lead to resentment and division, further fuelling the perception that the rights of the majority are increasingly being eroded.
It is time the Government and employers exercise firm leadership on what forms of behaviour are acceptable in a public place, where interaction between gender and different communities are inevitable. We cannot have individuals deciding what should be accepted practice according to their whims because that's a disastrous road to resentment and disharmony. It will leave most people confused, fearful resentful and prejudicial and a country divided against itself cannot thrive. Sensitivity has to be a mutual reaction...unless, of course, it is about imposing one's wishes upon others.
Wednesday 24 January 2007
Friday 19 January 2007
Big Brother's Unhealthy Secret Weapon
In a few days the Big Brother suspense will be over. The ever clamouring chink of cash tills would have been both swelled and silenced by the final dash to the telephones to acclaim the hot 'celebrity' favorite. The winner would have been decided and, in this case, the only surprise will be that the winner will not be White.
Shilpa Shetty has to win this competition for two main reasons. First, having been made the whipping-girl of the competition, if they took her out of the programme now, it will suddenly lose all its attention and revert to the boring reality sitcom it was. There will be little left worth watching. Second, Shilpa will be paid off for being in that position by getting the prize. Then everyone will be silenced by the charge that she won it, so all is well. But all is not well in reality land.
Channel Four was brought in with a remit for ensuring minorities were well served and championed in the programme output. Yet Channel 4 is behind such a vile programme purely for money and attention. The main questions are two: Where does it stop using someone as human fodder for entertainment purposes? And, even more disturbing: What message is Channel 4 sending out to all these youngsters watching the programme about bullying and, quite obvious, racist bullying of the worst, subtle kind.
Let's be clear about the nature of the bullying, in case anyone is still unsure. As race and diversity expert, I am saying categorically that the bullying Shilpa Shetty is being exposed to is racist, pure and simple. There might be obvious class allusions in it but to refer to someone's difference in pointed cultural ways, like calling her a 'pappadom', telling her to go back to her slums and other pointedly cultural differences is to be racist. Then to have this one person in the firing line who has no emotional support from someone similar to her, as her tormentors have, is disgraceful in a programme that has reached an all-time low.
The Biggest Weapon
With this kind of behaviour, the housemates are deliberately reinforcing the biggest weapon in Big Brother’s armoury to unseat contestants: an unhealthy and discriminatory dislike of difference! From the moment each set of new occupants take centre stage in the Big Brother house, the secret weapon comes into play. That is why those who were genuinely different, like Ken Russell and Leo Sayer, walked out early. If you watch all the Big Brother programmes, those who are most individual and quirky leave first and they usually include all the minority candidates. That's why we have reached the 6th series of Big Brother with not a hope in hell of Black candidate winning, except to be used for racist fodder. Only this time, they have gone too far.
A similar thing happened to Narinder Kaur in the second series who perked up the show tremendously, but did not last too long either. Narinder was beautiful, bubbly, bright forthright and confident. She proved far too outspoken, and too much of a threat to the other women, and the more vulnerable men, for her own good. As she complained in the diary room, they would not even pay her the courtesy of saying her name correctly. She wondered whether they had ever dealt with an Asian before. The mother of the main perpetrator, Helen, could not see what Narinder was whinging about. The fact that she dared to expect the courtesy of being accorded her correct name and revelled in being different made her presence untenable to the others (whose names suffered no such distortion!) and she was gone in a flash.
This is just an entertainment show, right? Harmless fun watching people naked in every sense of the word, baring their souls, their fears and their aspirations? Wrong. This surrealistic low-brow drama is primarily a reflection of our unhealthy prejudices and dislike of diversity and I wager £1 that no Black person will ever win Big Brother without suffering racially first. White contestants have the privilege of not going through that kind of disrespect and ignominy. But that White majority privilege ensures they can mete it out to others with impunity. That is the main problem with such a programme which seeks to be 'multicultural'. That very diversity is the key weapon for getting rid of each contestant.
Personal Power and Bigotry
One is never certain to what extent Black people, gays and others with that extra ‘obvious’ difference are preys to the personal power and bigotry of people who wish to exercise their prejudices. This makes nonsense of the pretence that all housemates have an equal chance of winning the money, and makes any other similar claims rather spurious. People tend to select in their own image, their own likeness, their own gender – unless that person has special appeal – and conformity to their own beliefs and values. When those are missing, difference becomes an irritant, instead of being welcomed. The cult of superiority then sets in as diversity loses its attraction and becomes threatening. It is only tolerated when the person involved deprecates themself, is entirely non-threatening or becomes the court jester so that every one can laugh at their expense.
Shilpa obviously valued herself much more, took herself too seriously, wanted to be treated with the respect she felt she deserved and was also too beautiful and rich for such a situation. That did not augur well with either her fellow inmates or the public. Yes, the public has played a huge part in the way this has gone. Notice how the attention increased the minute the racist slants began when they should have turned off their TV in droves. If this was a situation in reverse, where Black housemates were being pointedly racist towards their White colleagues, it would not have been tolerated on British television.
Channel 4 needs to decide whether it wishes to push bullying and racism as healthy forms of life in our multicultural community, to encourage prejudice among the population in a thinly disguised form of respectability while condoning subconscious malice, or whether it really wishes to truly entertain ALL of us, instead of a favoured majority who already benefit from the advantage of White privilege. This channel cannot have it both ways and the only way the public, especially minority groups can stop this disturbing charade is for decent, respectable people NOT to watch it anymore. Money talks, so hit them were it hurts. Most important, it is time for visible minorities to stop taking part in this cynical and manipulative programme that simply uses them as racist fodder to increase its revenue while the prize always goes to the racists themselves. That is so shameful, but can only be stopped by the participants themselves.
Big Brother 7 is now being auditioned. I trust it will be boycotted by all intelligent Black and Asian members of the public, depriving it at one stroke, of its oxygen of racism.
Shilpa Shetty has to win this competition for two main reasons. First, having been made the whipping-girl of the competition, if they took her out of the programme now, it will suddenly lose all its attention and revert to the boring reality sitcom it was. There will be little left worth watching. Second, Shilpa will be paid off for being in that position by getting the prize. Then everyone will be silenced by the charge that she won it, so all is well. But all is not well in reality land.
Channel Four was brought in with a remit for ensuring minorities were well served and championed in the programme output. Yet Channel 4 is behind such a vile programme purely for money and attention. The main questions are two: Where does it stop using someone as human fodder for entertainment purposes? And, even more disturbing: What message is Channel 4 sending out to all these youngsters watching the programme about bullying and, quite obvious, racist bullying of the worst, subtle kind.
Let's be clear about the nature of the bullying, in case anyone is still unsure. As race and diversity expert, I am saying categorically that the bullying Shilpa Shetty is being exposed to is racist, pure and simple. There might be obvious class allusions in it but to refer to someone's difference in pointed cultural ways, like calling her a 'pappadom', telling her to go back to her slums and other pointedly cultural differences is to be racist. Then to have this one person in the firing line who has no emotional support from someone similar to her, as her tormentors have, is disgraceful in a programme that has reached an all-time low.
The Biggest Weapon
With this kind of behaviour, the housemates are deliberately reinforcing the biggest weapon in Big Brother’s armoury to unseat contestants: an unhealthy and discriminatory dislike of difference! From the moment each set of new occupants take centre stage in the Big Brother house, the secret weapon comes into play. That is why those who were genuinely different, like Ken Russell and Leo Sayer, walked out early. If you watch all the Big Brother programmes, those who are most individual and quirky leave first and they usually include all the minority candidates. That's why we have reached the 6th series of Big Brother with not a hope in hell of Black candidate winning, except to be used for racist fodder. Only this time, they have gone too far.
A similar thing happened to Narinder Kaur in the second series who perked up the show tremendously, but did not last too long either. Narinder was beautiful, bubbly, bright forthright and confident. She proved far too outspoken, and too much of a threat to the other women, and the more vulnerable men, for her own good. As she complained in the diary room, they would not even pay her the courtesy of saying her name correctly. She wondered whether they had ever dealt with an Asian before. The mother of the main perpetrator, Helen, could not see what Narinder was whinging about. The fact that she dared to expect the courtesy of being accorded her correct name and revelled in being different made her presence untenable to the others (whose names suffered no such distortion!) and she was gone in a flash.
This is just an entertainment show, right? Harmless fun watching people naked in every sense of the word, baring their souls, their fears and their aspirations? Wrong. This surrealistic low-brow drama is primarily a reflection of our unhealthy prejudices and dislike of diversity and I wager £1 that no Black person will ever win Big Brother without suffering racially first. White contestants have the privilege of not going through that kind of disrespect and ignominy. But that White majority privilege ensures they can mete it out to others with impunity. That is the main problem with such a programme which seeks to be 'multicultural'. That very diversity is the key weapon for getting rid of each contestant.
Personal Power and Bigotry
One is never certain to what extent Black people, gays and others with that extra ‘obvious’ difference are preys to the personal power and bigotry of people who wish to exercise their prejudices. This makes nonsense of the pretence that all housemates have an equal chance of winning the money, and makes any other similar claims rather spurious. People tend to select in their own image, their own likeness, their own gender – unless that person has special appeal – and conformity to their own beliefs and values. When those are missing, difference becomes an irritant, instead of being welcomed. The cult of superiority then sets in as diversity loses its attraction and becomes threatening. It is only tolerated when the person involved deprecates themself, is entirely non-threatening or becomes the court jester so that every one can laugh at their expense.
Shilpa obviously valued herself much more, took herself too seriously, wanted to be treated with the respect she felt she deserved and was also too beautiful and rich for such a situation. That did not augur well with either her fellow inmates or the public. Yes, the public has played a huge part in the way this has gone. Notice how the attention increased the minute the racist slants began when they should have turned off their TV in droves. If this was a situation in reverse, where Black housemates were being pointedly racist towards their White colleagues, it would not have been tolerated on British television.
Channel 4 needs to decide whether it wishes to push bullying and racism as healthy forms of life in our multicultural community, to encourage prejudice among the population in a thinly disguised form of respectability while condoning subconscious malice, or whether it really wishes to truly entertain ALL of us, instead of a favoured majority who already benefit from the advantage of White privilege. This channel cannot have it both ways and the only way the public, especially minority groups can stop this disturbing charade is for decent, respectable people NOT to watch it anymore. Money talks, so hit them were it hurts. Most important, it is time for visible minorities to stop taking part in this cynical and manipulative programme that simply uses them as racist fodder to increase its revenue while the prize always goes to the racists themselves. That is so shameful, but can only be stopped by the participants themselves.
Big Brother 7 is now being auditioned. I trust it will be boycotted by all intelligent Black and Asian members of the public, depriving it at one stroke, of its oxygen of racism.
Sunday 7 January 2007
The Gloves Are Off!!
Well, no one can say that Gordon Brown hasn't started off in 2007 how he means to carry on. The Chancellor obviously believes that Tony Blair has long overstayed his welcome and is now pulling the red carpet rigorously from under his feet. After all, he doesn't want it too worn out by the time he walks on it. He is tired of waiting and perhaps hoped that Tony would have relinquished his keys by December 31st so that the new year heralded a new man, with new policies and a new government. No such luck! We are dealing with human beings here; ones who love to cling to power to their last breath so, it is small wonder Tony is hanging on by his teeth and being as obstinate as ever. However, having waited so long, Gordon can wait a little longer.
He probably feels that he has nothing to lose by being bold and everything to gain by putting Tony in a tight squeeze. However, the Chancellor has made a serious error, on top of the one he made a few months ago when he tacitly complied with colleagues to push Blair out. Gordon Brown is gradually showing, very clearly, that he's not a leader. An opportunist, maybe, but not for overall charge. He might be good at counting his money and balancing his figures but he is a crap leader. Leadership calls for keeping one's mouth shut, especially at the most difficult and sensitive times, not trying to upstage and hurry your boss along. Leadership is also about protecting your team, not being publicly divisive or showing how great you are. It means if you have nothing pleasant or positive to say about your rival, don't say it. That is far more charitable, dignified and advantageous in the long term.
Moreover, in today's celebrity-mad age, appealing to 51% of the voters - the women – by being darned attractive and sexy counts for something too. Gordon might be a man's man, strong and dependable in a masculine way, but he's no woman's man! So, at this moment in time, though a lot of male MPs hoping for some favours might be rooting for him, at the rate he is going, trying to show Tony Blair briskly to the door, Gordon will not last very long. Life is a circle and you can bet your last pound that what you give out will come back to haunt you. Gordon is behaving disgracefully and that is such a pity, when there can only be weeks left of Tony's tenure. The public, in fact, will be eyeing Gordon keenly to see what he does in Tony's twilight moments. It will say a lot, and today was not a good start.
Gordon has embarrassed Tony big time with his comment on Saddam Hussein's execution, saying it was 'unacceptable and deplorable". Regardless of how he felt, it was NOT his place to say it. He is not the current Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the country. His time will come, but it was not today. That was a very uncharitable and unprofessional thing to do, especially when he is still a member of Tony's cabinet. I think Tony has been silent on any public endorsement of his friend because he is gradually learning about the kind of character he is dealing with. For the purposes of taking charge of the country, Gordon's actions are demonstrating that we can do without a Prime Minister who publicly trumps his colleagues and is simply there for himself.
Personally, I cannot wait for Gordon to take over because, at the rate he is going, he will be rapidly propelling himself out the same door. Then we can move on to finding a real leader for the Labour Party, one with loyalty and trust, if it is not to go back into the wilderness for another 18 years.
He probably feels that he has nothing to lose by being bold and everything to gain by putting Tony in a tight squeeze. However, the Chancellor has made a serious error, on top of the one he made a few months ago when he tacitly complied with colleagues to push Blair out. Gordon Brown is gradually showing, very clearly, that he's not a leader. An opportunist, maybe, but not for overall charge. He might be good at counting his money and balancing his figures but he is a crap leader. Leadership calls for keeping one's mouth shut, especially at the most difficult and sensitive times, not trying to upstage and hurry your boss along. Leadership is also about protecting your team, not being publicly divisive or showing how great you are. It means if you have nothing pleasant or positive to say about your rival, don't say it. That is far more charitable, dignified and advantageous in the long term.
Moreover, in today's celebrity-mad age, appealing to 51% of the voters - the women – by being darned attractive and sexy counts for something too. Gordon might be a man's man, strong and dependable in a masculine way, but he's no woman's man! So, at this moment in time, though a lot of male MPs hoping for some favours might be rooting for him, at the rate he is going, trying to show Tony Blair briskly to the door, Gordon will not last very long. Life is a circle and you can bet your last pound that what you give out will come back to haunt you. Gordon is behaving disgracefully and that is such a pity, when there can only be weeks left of Tony's tenure. The public, in fact, will be eyeing Gordon keenly to see what he does in Tony's twilight moments. It will say a lot, and today was not a good start.
Gordon has embarrassed Tony big time with his comment on Saddam Hussein's execution, saying it was 'unacceptable and deplorable". Regardless of how he felt, it was NOT his place to say it. He is not the current Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the country. His time will come, but it was not today. That was a very uncharitable and unprofessional thing to do, especially when he is still a member of Tony's cabinet. I think Tony has been silent on any public endorsement of his friend because he is gradually learning about the kind of character he is dealing with. For the purposes of taking charge of the country, Gordon's actions are demonstrating that we can do without a Prime Minister who publicly trumps his colleagues and is simply there for himself.
Personally, I cannot wait for Gordon to take over because, at the rate he is going, he will be rapidly propelling himself out the same door. Then we can move on to finding a real leader for the Labour Party, one with loyalty and trust, if it is not to go back into the wilderness for another 18 years.
Saturday 6 January 2007
The Key to Successful Multiculturalism
Recently Tony Blair made one of his most important speeches but it was not publicised as it should have been. Yet what he advocated is at the heart if any cohesive and successful community: Integration. Speaking at a lecture at No. 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister held up a multicultural Britain as something to be celebrated, but added bluntly: "Conform to it or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."
Blunt words indeed, but very necessary.
The one thing Britain has lacked for a long time is leadership on diversity issues. Since immigration has increased, there has been an emphasis on legislating for the newcomers' integration and protection while not much attention was given to the host members who had to deal with their new neighbours. Now, in the wake of the threat from terrorism and Jack Straw's comments about Muslim women wearing their veils, one can sense a new fear creeping in to communities which needed some sort of reassurance. Without that leadership in diversity, White Britons have perceived, whether wrongly or rightly, that their culture and heritage are being eroded and ignored in order to 'celebrate' that of others. We can only change perceptions by acknowledging and addressing them. Minorities are here partly because Britain tried to impose its values and its racism on other countries through colonialism and imperialism. Is that what some minorities are now trying to do? Because in the absence of free speech, we have only imposition and oppression. If we resented British imperialism we cannot have it both ways by trying to change the country to suit ourselves.
Tony Blair said people who wanted to live in Britain had a duty to integrate. He continued, "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and one of us. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it."
Some people in immigrant communities might take offence to those words but a divided society cannot advance in any meaningful way. The only way forward is together and, as we chose Britain to be our country of residence, we chose it for the very qualities we need to celebrate and promote, not knock them when we had a free choice in settling here. When we make a decision to leave our country of birth and to embrace the difference of another, that is a deliberate statement about our aspirations. What we believe is right for us at that point in time. We CHOOSE to come to Britain precisely because of the values, ethos and opportunities we too aspired to enjoy; to embrace what Britain is, not what we would like it to be! Constant criticism of a country we are free to take or leave only destroys its potential, as we would be merely pulling in different directions. No one stops us from returning to any country of our choice to enjoy the better existence we crave, or the particular lifestyle we seek. We choose to live in Britain because of what it has to offer each of us and what we can gradually add to it. Not what we can demand from it in our rush to pull it down.
Diversity and multiculturalism can work beautifully when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect, but it has to be genuine in every sense of the word. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none to others for their culture or beliefs because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive to make it a great place to live. Britain is a wonderful country but it needs to have leadership on its diverse society by laying down clear guidelines of behaviour, what is acceptable and unacceptable for the benefit of all, White and Black. Decisions which should be made through a representative voice of its people, but they must be clear.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of multiculturalism. The problem comes in the lack of understanding of it. Multiculturalism is not about each culture simply doing its own thing, disregarding everyone else. It is actually the celebration of diversity within a framework of unity, compromise and respect which benefits all. In a multicultural society, there has to be clearly agreed principles, responsibilities and rights which everyone adheres to, if they are to have the full benefit of a multicultural state. Anything else, like the insecure vagueness now rampant in the UK, will simply be each to his/her own, a recipe for confusion, inequality and civil disaster.
There are rights and responsibilities attached to being citizens of any country and merely stressing the rights without the responsibilities is folly and can only lead to isolation, discrimination, resentment and divisions. Clear guidelines on what it means to be British are now crucial if the country seeks the respect of all Britons, if it hopes to make them feel empowered and to bring about healing. The Government also needs to add, equally clearly, that if life in Britain is not to one's liking, a life which every immigrant citizen freely chooses, there are many other countries they can go to that could be more suitable. It means that those who love Britain, warts and all, can enjoy its benefits and help to build it, and those who do not can contribute to somewhere else which means positivity all round. That should be the bottom line for social unity while ensuring due respect and rewards for those who choose to celebrate being British, regardless of their culture.
It seems Tony Blair has at last given a strong signal on that. I hope his successor will be equally uncompromising.
Blunt words indeed, but very necessary.
The one thing Britain has lacked for a long time is leadership on diversity issues. Since immigration has increased, there has been an emphasis on legislating for the newcomers' integration and protection while not much attention was given to the host members who had to deal with their new neighbours. Now, in the wake of the threat from terrorism and Jack Straw's comments about Muslim women wearing their veils, one can sense a new fear creeping in to communities which needed some sort of reassurance. Without that leadership in diversity, White Britons have perceived, whether wrongly or rightly, that their culture and heritage are being eroded and ignored in order to 'celebrate' that of others. We can only change perceptions by acknowledging and addressing them. Minorities are here partly because Britain tried to impose its values and its racism on other countries through colonialism and imperialism. Is that what some minorities are now trying to do? Because in the absence of free speech, we have only imposition and oppression. If we resented British imperialism we cannot have it both ways by trying to change the country to suit ourselves.
Tony Blair said people who wanted to live in Britain had a duty to integrate. He continued, "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and one of us. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it."
Some people in immigrant communities might take offence to those words but a divided society cannot advance in any meaningful way. The only way forward is together and, as we chose Britain to be our country of residence, we chose it for the very qualities we need to celebrate and promote, not knock them when we had a free choice in settling here. When we make a decision to leave our country of birth and to embrace the difference of another, that is a deliberate statement about our aspirations. What we believe is right for us at that point in time. We CHOOSE to come to Britain precisely because of the values, ethos and opportunities we too aspired to enjoy; to embrace what Britain is, not what we would like it to be! Constant criticism of a country we are free to take or leave only destroys its potential, as we would be merely pulling in different directions. No one stops us from returning to any country of our choice to enjoy the better existence we crave, or the particular lifestyle we seek. We choose to live in Britain because of what it has to offer each of us and what we can gradually add to it. Not what we can demand from it in our rush to pull it down.
Diversity and multiculturalism can work beautifully when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect, but it has to be genuine in every sense of the word. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none to others for their culture or beliefs because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive to make it a great place to live. Britain is a wonderful country but it needs to have leadership on its diverse society by laying down clear guidelines of behaviour, what is acceptable and unacceptable for the benefit of all, White and Black. Decisions which should be made through a representative voice of its people, but they must be clear.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of multiculturalism. The problem comes in the lack of understanding of it. Multiculturalism is not about each culture simply doing its own thing, disregarding everyone else. It is actually the celebration of diversity within a framework of unity, compromise and respect which benefits all. In a multicultural society, there has to be clearly agreed principles, responsibilities and rights which everyone adheres to, if they are to have the full benefit of a multicultural state. Anything else, like the insecure vagueness now rampant in the UK, will simply be each to his/her own, a recipe for confusion, inequality and civil disaster.
There are rights and responsibilities attached to being citizens of any country and merely stressing the rights without the responsibilities is folly and can only lead to isolation, discrimination, resentment and divisions. Clear guidelines on what it means to be British are now crucial if the country seeks the respect of all Britons, if it hopes to make them feel empowered and to bring about healing. The Government also needs to add, equally clearly, that if life in Britain is not to one's liking, a life which every immigrant citizen freely chooses, there are many other countries they can go to that could be more suitable. It means that those who love Britain, warts and all, can enjoy its benefits and help to build it, and those who do not can contribute to somewhere else which means positivity all round. That should be the bottom line for social unity while ensuring due respect and rewards for those who choose to celebrate being British, regardless of their culture.
It seems Tony Blair has at last given a strong signal on that. I hope his successor will be equally uncompromising.
Nancy Pelosi - Upward and Onward
Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, I now understand much more about the American political system than I ever did before. I used to wonder about all the strange sounding titles given to politicians on Capitol Hill, erroneously thinking that the Speaker of the House there is like the Speaker of our parliament here, yet nothing could be more wrong. Our Speaker has responsibility for the routine mayhem that goes on in the House of Commons when MPs are in the House, not quite part of the Executive power, but very powerful nonetheless, and he/she is appointed to the post in strict party rotation. But they wouldn't become king or prime minister if anything happened to the queen or Tony Blair.
Mrs Pelosi, on the other hand, is like our prime minister in stature. She appoints her 'cabinet' too with their various roles and is a very powerful woman altogether. Most important, she is also third in the American political hierarchy. Should anything really bad happen to the president and vice president she will be set and ready to become the next appointed interim president. That is awesome for a lady of 66. Let me repeat that again for those who missed it first time: Nancy Pelosi is 66 and looks fabulous, like being in her early 50s. She is ready at that age to take on the world.
If she were in the UK, she would never have attained such a high office because she would have been excluded purely because of her age and derided by the pundits. The media would have had a field day about her. Everyone would be moaning that she is too old for the job and bypass her. Fortunately, in America, ability counts a lot. Age is not an issue there because American society still venerates older people, especially older men who are very powerful. That's what endears me to some aspects of that country. It does not matter how old you are (one of the candidates for deputy was 73!), the opportunity is still there to prove your worth. So long as you have the talent and can hack it, you are in. That is why America is so well developed and successful. It does not cut off its population at 50, isolate them from their work and passions, then talk lamely about human value and equality for all. It speaks with action.
Thank you Nancy for motivating and educating a Brit across the Pond; for giving hope and encouragement to millions of women across America today. Here's wishing you the greatest success in your new post. No doubt you will be kicking a lot of asses in the months to come. Go for it Girl!
Mrs Pelosi, on the other hand, is like our prime minister in stature. She appoints her 'cabinet' too with their various roles and is a very powerful woman altogether. Most important, she is also third in the American political hierarchy. Should anything really bad happen to the president and vice president she will be set and ready to become the next appointed interim president. That is awesome for a lady of 66. Let me repeat that again for those who missed it first time: Nancy Pelosi is 66 and looks fabulous, like being in her early 50s. She is ready at that age to take on the world.
If she were in the UK, she would never have attained such a high office because she would have been excluded purely because of her age and derided by the pundits. The media would have had a field day about her. Everyone would be moaning that she is too old for the job and bypass her. Fortunately, in America, ability counts a lot. Age is not an issue there because American society still venerates older people, especially older men who are very powerful. That's what endears me to some aspects of that country. It does not matter how old you are (one of the candidates for deputy was 73!), the opportunity is still there to prove your worth. So long as you have the talent and can hack it, you are in. That is why America is so well developed and successful. It does not cut off its population at 50, isolate them from their work and passions, then talk lamely about human value and equality for all. It speaks with action.
Thank you Nancy for motivating and educating a Brit across the Pond; for giving hope and encouragement to millions of women across America today. Here's wishing you the greatest success in your new post. No doubt you will be kicking a lot of asses in the months to come. Go for it Girl!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
