Countdown to the Royal Wedding - Day 5: Is the British Royalty Relevant Anymore?

The impending wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton might propel her family into the privileged aristocratic band of Britain, but it might not do much for the main family she is joining, the Royals, due to apathy and a sense of increasing irrelevance by the public. This new couple would have to do something dramatic to change its approach and direction and, as William's father will be king before him, and the Queen has settled in for a long haul, don't expect any changes soon. Expect business as usual after the novelty of the wedding has passed.

The queen and the expanding members of her family.

The Royal Family is rapidly becoming an anachronism in today's classless world of high tech reactions, individual expressiveness and instant soundbites. The Queen still gives out medals and public honours based on the 'British Empire', yet where that empire exists these days is entirely beyond anyone to fathom. Paradoxically, she is head of a commonwealth which is highly multi-racial, yet there is not a single Black person in her entourage, no Black advisers and certainly no Black staff in her palace. In fact, if you wish to test the invisibility of minorities in Britain, the way they are treated as second class-citizens, have a close look in Westminister Abbey on April 29th 2011.

The Royal wedding will give the clearest indication of just how multicultural this nation is because the event will be practically all-white in representation, apart from the Commonwealth Heads of State who have been invited. Furthermore, this Commonwealth is weighed down under the oppressive symbolism of an unjust 'empire' that obstinately continues to take pride of place in our language, no matter how offensive it is to certain sections of the British community. There is no move to get rid of the archaic, divisive and racist symbolisms which divide her subjects, despite her important role in the Commonwealth she rules over.

Prince William, the most popular member of the Royal Family, expertly working the crowds.


In the dark ages
Quite simply, the British Royal Family has had its day. Constant exposure in a new vulnerable way, the treatment of Diana, Charles' long-standing affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, the lip service paid to diversity, and the seeming uselessness of their presence when the age of deference and awe has long gone, is killing the institution slowly. We might not be too keen on a Republic, like our American neighbours, but, even with Internet publicity, they are still mainly fodder for tourism and the curious rather than any real value to the public.

Heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, and his family.

The problem with the royal Family is that it has not changed with the times. Members are still trying to apply traditional, unequal ways of behaving to a situation which has long dispensed with tradition and inequality. Diana offered a golden chance of bringing the monarchy up to date with current expectations, but her demise meant that her sons offer the best hope of change. In a world where blog is king, there is no place for silence from our Royal Family anymore on the issues of the day, otherwise they rule themselves out of our rapidly advancing world simply by omission. That could explain why, except for the Queen, William and Harry, their popularity has dramatically declined and only a few people turn up to see them at events. We need a caring, expressive Royal family who is not just there for the tourists, but one who, through its own lead, will begin to justify the £10+ million per year the public purse has to supply to keep them in the dark ages.

In its present form, the Royal Family is definitely irrelevant, having the trappings without the substance. As a strong Royalist who has no desire to see Britain become a republic, to me it would be nice to see a leading Family which is more in tune with our modern age, more approachable, more inclusive and far more appreciative of their changing role in a diverse age. A Family that is no longer guided by an invisible and outdated colonial empire, but reflecting a modern society based on respect for the individual, regardless of class, race, creed or birth.

Prince Harry with kids abroad, the only time one sees Royalty with Black people - always as helpless victims!

Is there really such a thing as 'The Truth'?

Some years ago, I noted in my book, Managing the Diversity Maze, that: "’Truth’ is governed by privilege. It always looks so right when one has the power to support it". Thus ‘the truth’ of “Black people, women and others who suffer under such inequalities will seldom share anything with the ‘truth’ of the exploiters because they are both coming at that singular ‘truth’ from two different positions of privilege: one group has it and the other has not. That is what keeps equality from ever becoming a reality and cements its unequal foundations, regardless of the superficial flurry of activity and proliferation of fine words to prove otherwise.”

One man gave a stark demonstration of that comment at the time: Rudy Giuliani, the one time Mayor of New York and recent presidential hopeful. Rudy went from sinner to virtual saint with the 9/11 tragedy. In 2002, Rudy was riding high. He was dubbed the Mayor of the World by the New York Times magazine which made him its Person of the Year. And, in my opinion, if anyone truly deserved such an accolade, it was the Mayor of New York. He could not have been more of a father to his citizens when they needed him most, nor could he have been more caring and compassionate to shocked New Yorkers blasted by the carnage. Yet Rudy is living proof of the power of perception regarding the transient and questionable nature of 'truth'.

As I watched him tirelessly leading the city throughout September and beyond, I was extremely inspired by his unselfishness, humility, obvious compassion and quiet approachability. The cold-hearted mayor I had heard about up to a few months before seemed many miles away, bearing little relation to the man who now commanded so much respect and genuine authority, representing two completely different versions of ‘the truth’ according to one’s perception, expectation and frame of reference.

In fact, many other Black people in New York would have had some trouble adjusting their lens to double check that this new saintly figure was the same mayor who presided over three particularly brutal incidents and even backed his policemen in doing two of them too.


Zero Tolerance of Crime
According to the Times magazine, in 1997 Abner Louima, a Haitian man, was sodomised with a mop handle by policemen in a Brooklyn-precinct bathroom. Two years later, an unarmed street pedlar named Amadou Diallo was killed when police in the Bronx fired 41 shots at him in a dark lobby. In 2000, barely 18 months before 9/11, “an unarmed security guard named Patrick Dorismond, who had been trying to hail a cab outside a midtown bar, was shot to death after a scuffle with undercover cops”. “Giuliani denounced the policemen who brutalised Louima but defiantly backed the ones who killed Diallo and Dorismond.” In their cases the juries actually cleared the policemen of wrong doing. Giuliani had declared zero tolerance on crime and would not let a little matter of skin colour block his objective, which gave a licence to others to rob African Americans of their rights and even their lives.

Because of his obstinate and his seemingly cold-hearted stance against the unarmed victims, the man who was to “save New York city” saw his popularity ratings plummet to new lows. But therein lies the capacity of power to change perception of what constitutes ‘the truth’.

With the support of the majority White community behind the law enforcers, crime assumed a particular colour. Giuliani had to show how a tough mayor should act towards those who were perceived to be the most troublesome, especially if they were easily identifiable. According to the magazine, “New York City was getting better, but the mayor seemed to be getting worse”. It was easy for him to feel unassailable. Inflated by his own idea of ‘the truth’, he seemed uncaring as to the consequences of it.

In mitigation, he told the reporter, “People didn’t elect me to be a conciliator. If they just wanted a nice guy they would have stayed with Dinkins” (the former mayor). “They wanted someone who was going to change this place. How do you expect me to change if I don’t fight with somebody?” he asked. “You don’t change ingrained human behaviour without confrontation, turmoil and anger.”

And this statement of his truth is absolutely right. Except, if it came from a Black male, it would have been regarded as somewhat dangerous; disturbing enough to merit the attentions of the security forces who would have questioned his intent and been wary of his actions. But he is White, which carries its own might, and that’s all right. He has both the colour and the power to give credibility and life to his version of ‘the truth’. A Black male talking about ‘confrontation and anger’ had better watch his back! There would be no ’truth’ in that.





Confrontation and challenge
But, I am one of those who agreed with that simple statement because it really was ‘the truth’. From the day I took on this thankless task of changing hearts and minds, I have felt that unmoving attitudes cannot be changed with just fine words and flowers. One has to be armed with something stronger: like 'confrontation, turmoil and anger'.

Change always starts with confrontation and challenge: confronting the self to change personal perceptions; confronting others as well as the issues no one wishes to acknowledge, or which everyone pretends do not matter. To confront and challenge basic injustice and discrimination in order to get at this elusive 'truth'.

Once there is confrontation there is turmoil. Any form of negative challenge disturbs the status quo and unleashes the worst anxieties within us. Anger swiftly follows, both from resentment at being challenged and from frustration on the part of the challenger at the lack of change or the slowness of it. However, once confrontation begins, it is like a pandora’s box which either generates argument and debate or unleashes a riot of indignant emotions and actions.

In the light of my book, Managing the Diversity Maze, Rudy Giuliani’s simple statement answered a lot of questions about my own ‘truths’ and objectives. This book certainly confronts the issues head on, starting from the Establishment to the individual, and a good deal of turmoil has followed in the ensuing reality check. But then, I have never shirked from the task! People who benefit from the status quo will seldom ever change unless it continues to reward them in some significant way.

I admire Rudy Giuliani a great deal now because some time in 2000 he had the humility to question his version of 'the truth’ regarding one section of the community and also the courage to face up to the negativity of the fact. With the two brutal murders fresh in his mind, he pledged his remaining time in office to “breaking down some of the barriers” he felt he had placed between himself and visible minority communities. “I don’t know exactly how you do that,” he said, “but I am going to try very hard.” He did succeed in some measure and reached his zenith with 9/11 because he began to confront his version of ‘the truth’, not a comfortable thing to do, but a necessary one in dealing with difference. In these awful tragic moments, the meaning of life assumes a clarity over questionable 'truths' which is almost blinding.

Next time one is hell bent on seeking 'the truth' as one sees it, one needs to remind one's self that personal perceptions and personal power dictate individual truths. That the nearest thing to a universal 'truth' happens only when majority perceptions merge in agreement on the same versions of 'the truth'. But even then, one has to be careful to ensure that this 'truth' is not being ruled by vested interest, is not being stifled by unbending traditions, is not holding commonsense to ransom, is not being used to bolster injustice and is not being held hostage to the latest fad for some select group.

In other words, in our search for the truth, we will always meet some road blocks or false versions of it. The test is to tease out which truth we are prepared to hang on to and defend, in the face of the consequences for ourselves and others.

Why the notion of valuing true diversity is a false and uncomfortable one!

Many people who know me and my pioneering equality work in the UK will find this post, in particular, rather strange, and might, in fact, fall off their chairs in some surprise! But that is the beauty of evolving in life from one stage to another. If we are learning, we are always developing and always changing perspectives. If we are entrenched in what we believe and have closed minds, we've stopped learning and are in danger of solidifying into fossilised rocks of dubious certainty. It has to be far more exciting to learn!

Being on a holiday in Chicago by myself has allowed for a lot of free thinking time and I believe the most profound thought I might have had on the whole trip was triggered by a comment from a member of an online diversity group I had joined. Some members had not taken kindly to comments by two other French members and had blasted them somewhat for their views. One member, in particular was so upset by this, she wrote:

"I am very disenchanted with a group entitled Diversity for Obama that does not welcome diverse comments from its members and does not stop to think that everyone may not be familiar with email etiquette."

She had made an excellent point which immediately gave me a new insight into my own work, as I had spent the last 15 years advocating diversity in very strong terms. Retired from it now, it was easier to see the wood from the trees and appreciate that accepting true diversity, not the cosmetic form like our recent 'Black History Month' etc., actually comes with a cost for each group/individual.

The problem with a desire for diversity is that the ideal usually falls far short of the reality. We are basically selfish in our cultural and social needs and genuinely fear difference. Hence diversity tends to be only acceptable when it conforms to our expectations, does not appear threatening and reinforces our cultural perceptions and beliefs!! Thus diversity is fine, but only from a detached and comfortable position, as we each vigorously protect our own corners. The minute that diversity encroaches on our specific values and traditions, questions our beliefs or challenges what we cherish, it ceases to be attractive and causes us to feel vulnerable and exposed.

In essence, the current notion of diversity as practised by the majority communiy, in particular, is simply monoculturalism in a slightly extended form!


The False Concept of Diversity
In fact, the whole concept of welcoming diversity is a false one because, for each species, gender, type etc., to survive, as is, each has to protect its own culture. The minute it allows for genuine diversity to encroach, it has to accommodate, and even integrate, the culture, needs and expectations of others, which then dilutes what was there in the first place and even challenges its traditions and beliefs. However, if the additional diverse entity is broadly similar, then the reverse happens: it strengthens what was there originally, while giving it new perspectives.

What is pretty clear about acknowledging, appreciating and valuing diversity in any genuine way is that each cultural group has to be prepared to respect other groups, accept parts of what they value and even integrate some of their customs to accord that respect. How many people are prepared to lose what they already have and hold dear to accommodate the expectations, traditions and beliefs of others? After all, we simply cannot appreciate, value or celebrate what we are not prepared to practise ourselves. For example, immigrant minorities in the UK are expected to learn English and be able to speak it, but having any knowledge of their language is not even addressed by the majority, which immediately negates an integral part of their culture!

That is why, in any mixed society, genuine diversity has mainly been practised by minority groups. They have had to integrate or assimilate the majority culture in order to be accepted, respected and valued, to feel included and psychologically comfortable in their identity. On the other hand, members of the majority can afford to deal with such diversity in a detached way, to pay lip service, in fact, while continuing with business as usual, because their culture, group, association etc., sets the standards, the laws, the goalposts, the decorum and the protocol of acceptance for everyone else to follow.

In essence, minority groups that crave inclusion practise diversity by having to accommode aspects of majority culture while members of the majority can take it or leave it and are often untouched by it.

The whole concept and promotion of diversity is a fine and noble one, but unless everyone is prepared to lose some of their cultural heritage and beliefs, true diversity will always remain a luxurious pipe dream, especially to majority groups with the power to avoid practising it, while being an imposition to minorities who are impotent to avoid its diluting and inevitably absorbing effects.

That is why cultural celebrations like 'Black History Month', which are aimed at educating the majority while valuing diversity, will always remain peripheral to majority culture until there is a genuine desire to actively accommodate other cultures by moving beyond words and actually practising the ideal in some respects.

The REAL Reason for Prejudice, Discrimination and Bias

For 12 years, from 1993, I was a very successful diversity consultant and trainer, advising all kinds of organisations in the UK - from huge companies like British Telecom, with 100,000 staff, and the Royal Navy, to small minnows like Coulsdon School - to encourage greater diversity and cultural understanding in the workplace. Being a pioneer in the field, it was easy for me to make a difference in corporate Britain by promoting effective personnel management as a business priority which impacted positively on the bottom line. I must have trained hundreds of staff across Britain during those years, primarily on the concept of diversity and appreciating its benefits and pitfalls. Through our magazine, New IMPACT, we also raised awareness of diversity, a relatively new import from America, and I also introduced the British Diversity Awards to recognise and reward good corporate practice. In that public way, winners could be useful champions to promote good management even further.


I thoroughly enjoyed what I did, and undertook a 5 year research stint into the topic, which led to the only definitive book on diversity in the UK (Managing the Diversity Maze). Throughout those years, though many people were very comfortable with difference and could understand the need to be tolerant, a growing number really felt threatened and this affected the personal perception of their lives. I found myself fielding questions, that appeared to relate to diversity, from very fearful, insecure people who worried about the effect of a multicultural society on what they held dear and how such cultural issues affected them personally. They wondered why they had to change to accommodate anyone else who was different when it was their country, especially when they did not share their values; they fretted about losing their traditions and history, blamed 'foreigners' for everything and complained of even losing their rights. Many of them came across as racist and intolerant, and were accused as such by others, despite their denials to the contrary and their deep ignorance of other cultures. However, I felt they were reasonable concerns cloaked under the label of diversity. They just sounded all 'wrong'.

Then there was another broad grouping who smiled a lot, took everything in their stride, was pretty knowledgeable on immigration and diversity issues, seemed to revel in solutions rather than just focusing on the problems and understood the benefits of diversity and how it could be used to full effect. They mainly needed affirmation for their beliefs appearing much more secure in themselves.

I pondered frequently on what caused the main difference between those two groups of people.


Our quality of life
Then it hit me six years ago, with my own marriage break-up, during one of those Eureka moments I seem to have often. I discovered that everyone of us, without exception, desired four main things to complete our life and find happiness. Each of us wishes to be significant (hence the obsession with celebrities), appreciated, valued and included, what I called my SAVI Self-Enrichment Concept. The degree to which we desire each item depends on what we place as priority in our life. A minority member, feeling excluded from mainsteam action, would value being included most, while an ambitious executive would yearn to be significant. A housewife or carer, toiling away unnoticed, is likely to put being appreciated and valued as tops in their needs.

The main difference between the two groups was one of emotional wellbeing- the quality of their life and their feeling of comfort with it. Those who felt good about themselves, who felt successful, wanted and valued in their relationships, who were dating successfully too and felt confident in their persona, had no time to fret and worry about others. They felt at peace with their world and did not see others as a threat. They did not seek scapegoats because they felt more responsible about their lives. They enjoyed being empowered to decide their own future and could understand the personal need for self-fulfilment, regardless of culture, creed, gender or race.

Others not so fortunate, who lived alone and felt lonely, who were not advancing in their jobs, who had a lot of hurt, disappointment and losses in their lives through failed relationships or stagnant careers, perceived things very differently. They genuinely did not know how to interact with others effectively, to get the necessary boost and reinforcement to their emotional wellbeing. The end result is that they felt limited in their aspirations, victim-like in their interactions with potential partners and afraid for the progression of their careers, often seeking scapegoats to feel better. This encouraged them to see anyone different, younger or older, male or female, etc., as a real threat; appearing as 'racist', 'ageist' or 'sexist' when that was perhaps not their intention.


Lack of emotional health priority
Both groups of people adopt different coping mechanisms, especially in the absence of good emotional health. Our society makes provisions for improving physical health and mental health, but the most important part of that wellbeing triangle, emotional health, is completely ignored. In a nutshell, emotional health concerns three major factors: self-love, self-belief and self-esteem, all three impacting on each other. They affect our level of achievement, the quality of our relationships with others and the way we view the world, whether positively or negatively. The state of our emotional health directly controls our physical one in the form of 'moods'. Continuing low moods keep us in a depressed state and ultimately lower our immunity, thus exposing us more frequently to clinical problems. Hence there is a direct correlation between our emotional health and how good we feel physically. (Sihera 2006)

One is usually expected to cope with a relationship breakdown - an essential aspect of our lives - at any time, while carrying on with our work as if nothing has happened. Yet, every crisis affects our perception of ourselves and when it involves rejection, it strikes at the heart of our esteem and robs us of our value. We would have been feeling very crappy, and incapacitated, with things falling apart around us. Only robots can ignore the fallout, long or short term, of a relationship crisis or loss of a loved one. Those two items cause the greatest distress for us but often lack the attention they require from others.

Emotional health and empowerment are at the heart of our existence and diversity management. The way we feel emotionally can attract or repel diseases. If we feel vibrant, happy and alive, we are more likely to remain healthy than someone steeped in unhappiness, depression, victimhood and regret. It is a simple equation. When we feel good, nurtured and valued, and we love and appreciate ourselves, we seldom feel threatened because we find it easier to empathise with others and their situation. It gives us the confidence to get out of our comfort zones, to experiment with the unknown and to share our lives and perspectives with others. With the life quality being dictated by personal feelings, if someone is unhappy in their personal life, feeling excluded and invisible, whatever is going on at work is going to suffer in a major way, hence why many people who are hurting emotionally vote with their feet from work through regular absence.

The key question is: How can you appreciate someone else, value someone else, celebrate their difference and diversity if your own personal life is falling apart, if you feel emotionally caustic or barren, culturally ignorant of others and a victim of life through hurt and loss? That's a very difficult thing to do in those negative circumstances. It's like asking someone to give away what they haven't got!

A lack of good emotional health is therefore responsible for a lot of things in our lives and that's where the main focus should be before physicians even treat ill-health. Take some time to find out something about the life of that person: their joys, their sorrows, their hopes, their fears, their desires because wherever there is chronic illness and strong prejudices, bad emotional health is not far from it! Charity has to start from within us. Only when we feel emotionally at peace with ourselves, enjoying greater self-confidence and high esteem, do we feel inclined to spread that joy outwards and value others, to really appreciate the empowering strengths of living in a diverse community and, most important, to appreciate ourselves and the amazing beings we are!

Why Do People Stereotype?

Stereotypes reflect flat, one dimensional caricatures of people which bear little resemblance to the variety and diversity inherent in any group or race, but they surface all the time in any culture for easy categorisation and comprehension of cultural behaviour. We hear a lot about stereotypes and why we should not use them, but there is nothing wrong with stereotypes, per se. We tend to judge each other by generalisations in order to understand every aspect of life, especially when faced with difference, a kind of shorthand way of addressing new groups without having to note every minute detail every moment of the day.

The brain, like any computer, works from the macro to the micro when absorbing information, seeking coherence and order by using the information it already has to sort items and people in the fastest, most stereotyped and efficient way until more data becomes available. At the first, or macro, stage, the only effective way to view people of all ilk is to focus on their similarities, what they are perceived to have in common from our state of ignorance, especially what links them together, whether positive or negative, in order to appreciate their culture/behaviour/perspectives.

When more information becomes available, sorting switches to the micro, or individual level, to focus on the differences that set the person or group apart in their own right, and to establish the level of familiarity and comfort in dealing with the strangers or new situations. This automatic second stage process by the brain sorts out interactions on a micro level, assigning individual characteristics to a host of originally 'sameness' features. Once we appreciate the uniqueness of that individual, we begin to feel more comfortable with them and there is no further need for stereotypes. We tend to accept them as they are.

So, while it may be wrong to assign something negative across a whole group of people, it becomes offensive as a stereotype ONLY if we know better, yet still persist in classifying those people in stereotypic ways. It is also the negative nature of stereotypes which makes them offensive because we really cannot accept a positive stereotype like, "Many African Americans are great athletes" (which appreciates and applauds their prowess), or that "Asians are good academic performers who end up in high status professions" (something which enhances that ethnic group by increasing its social and economic appeal) then react in an aggrieved manner when negative stereotypes are used as well.

We cannot know every human being individually, so we have to start with certain assumptions about them, based upon our limited knowledge of their background and origin. This would include the primary differences relating to gender, race, ethnicity, age, ability, religion and nationality - the more readily observable characteristics. For those who wish to be prejudiced or discriminatory, or who lack confidence in themselves, this is where the process stops. A quick analysis usually catalogues the group or person into a 'rigid box of acceptance or rejection', dominated by stereotypes and feelings of fear.

If the original perception remains unchanged, despite added knowledge to the contrary, that's where negative stereotypes become damaging and prejudicial. Any further assumptions would be deliberate and used for a particular purpose which is rarely ever meant to be complimentary to that person or group, and particularly to feel superior.

The Greatest Empowerment to a Child

This week the British government said that schools can ban students from wearing Muslim veils, if teachers believe they affect safety, security or pupils' learning. School administrators have the right to ban students from covering their faces under a new uniform policy, but educators should speak with parents before introducing such a ban, said Schools Minister Jim Knight in a DEfS statement.

"And while they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence," he said.

As expected, some leading Muslims have objected to the ban, but I welcome the government's leadership on this issue because, as both a former education manager, and a keen promoter of diversity and a multicultural society, I agree wholeheartedly with it. It is all about human respect, inclusion and value. We use the word respect regularly in our daily lives, but very few people understand what it really means. It is not a singular cure-all for worthy intentions, but a very powerful 6-dimensional word which goes to the heart of diversity, human worth and appreciation.

Genuine respect is all embracing. It carries much compassion, little judgment and is entirely non-selective. It sees positivity before negativity, strength before weakness and possibility before judgement. Above all, it is mutually reinforcing, not one way. So respect is never present where only one party claims the need to be respected for their values and traditions through appeasement or bullying. That expectation would reflect mere power and a lack of respect, making it an extremely good pointer to interpersonal interactions. At the heart of respect is sensitivity through compromise. If we are not prepared to compromise with another, there is no respect.


Consequences of Emigrating

When we settle in a different country, we choose that country because of what it offers us, at the beginning, but also what we feel we can contribute to it over time. One of the consequences of emigrating is that we lose at least 50% of what we cherish and value, unless we remain in the past, holding on to something we can never regain. Then we lose much more than that in security and self-worth. If we wanted that country to be like the place we have left, why emigrate at all? Simpler to stay put and preserve the cherished customs and traditions which are reinforced by others around us.

The minute we leave our homeland, the need for compromise becomes essential because nothing will be as we left it. Our new life will need negotiation, adjustment and embracing change in a massive way. It will be pretty scary but very rewarding. We cannot impose our values on the new country of residence. It is bound to change us over time because that is the natural law of change. We can never resist it, no matter how long it takes, otherwise we will be fossilised in a time warp while everything briskly moves on around us, as shown by the conflict between the older generation of immigrants who are stuck back there and the new generation born in the UK. Furthermore, only oppressors and colonists seek to impose their language and customs on the new countries they inhabit.

For me personally, as a former education manager, the ban is appropriate and well overdue. We cannot have equality for some women in Britain and not for others. I would also NOT employ someone veiled to teach young children, or have them wear the veil in school either, for one single important reason. The greatest encouragement to anyone, let alone a young child, is a SMILE. It is at the heart of inclusion and belonging. It is very powerful, it costs nothing and can move mountains when everything else fails because of its inclusiveness and reassurance. Without that smile there is nothing familiar and welcoming. Children of whatever age live for that smile of approval and reinforcement. At the youngest ages they soon learn that a smile is the essential currency of love and inclusion, a reinforcement of their worth; that the simple smile takes on a life of its own and opens doors to other aspects of enjoyment. Take it away, and there is doubt, fear and insecurity in the young mind.

Teachers are there to teach but children do not learn just from what they actually say. Children learn from example, from expressions, from a sense of being valued and wanted; from a simple smile of encouragement to do improve their efforts. Boys do not cover their faces in a classroom. In a land striving for equality, girls should not cover their faces either. It is important that children communicate with each other from as early as possible, if we are to reduce prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. A smile is one of the most powerful forms of communicating in any language, especially when other communication isn't possible. Covered faces in a classroom do nothing to bridge the cultural gap, to aid understanding of others, or to enhance self-worth, self-esteem and belonging. Neither do they communicate anything about the joy and positivity of being a vibrant and exciting part of a true multicultural society. They simply breed suspicion and mistrust, continually reinforcing them and us.

Do We Really Need A Black History Month?

It is February again, that time of the year when America celebrates Black History Month, just like the month of October in Britain. But do we really need that kind of celebration? Is it really helping understanding or, could the annual nature of it, like a cuckoo in a clock, and its exclusive label rob it of its validity and significance?

As one who has spent the last 14 years promoting multiculturalism from the rooftops in the UK, through the only book on the subject in Europe, and two annual national diversity awards, I have been pretty saddened to hear government ministers and others trumpeting that 'multiculturalism isn't working' or we 'cannot celebrate diversity because it encourages difference' and keeps us separate. But both statements are based upon ignorance and fear which does not really help a diverse community to move forward together.

Every human being desires four things in their life to feel good about themselves as individuals:
a. To be significant
b. To be accepted
c. To be valued
d. To be included
What I call my SAVI empowerment concept.

It means that the behaviour of every person in our world is related to at least one, or all, of those requirements because they all underscore respect. Minorities in a majority world desire 'significance' and 'inclusion' most of all, exactly what they have been broadly denied in the UK through their routine exclusion from high office, the media, arts and politics.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating diversity or encouraging multiculturalism. What has been terribly wrong is a marked absence of respect on both sides of the cultural divide which makes appreciation difficult. The word 'respect' is glibly shouted by everyone in times of crisis, especially in seeking those SAVI attributes, but it seems to be only in connection with our own needs and viewpoint and very little to do with others. We all seek respect, we feel we are denied it, we accuse each other of not giving it. But in reality, we are simply in love with the idea of the word itself, not its implementation. This could be because we really do not understand the meaning of this important word.

Respect is not a single word that we assign as a cure-all to any situation. Respect has six dimensions within it. Genuine respect starts with curiosity of another, then taking the time to give attention, then having a dialogue with them, and with sensitivity for their feelings. These actions should lead to empowerment and healing. Since 9/11, in particular, there has been little respect shown on both sides, particularly in the blanket targeting of Muslims, the insensitive way many have been treated and, for their part, the violence accompanying any criticism of destructive beliefs and behaviour. Vociferous minorities would also deny the same free speech they enjoy to any form of criticism or debate which concerns them. That is not respect. Even worse, an absence of respect has been alive and well in our daily lives, despite denials to the contrary, which makes it difficult for one side or the other to cry foul.

Let's cite a few routine examples which get to the heart of the matter.


Origins of Disrespect

1. Black History Month. This is October and, as usual, it is Black History Month to celebrate Black heritage and culture. This is not just a showcase but an educational opportunity for the White majority to learn about their minority neighbours. It empowers Black people to take pride in their identity and thus a wholesome cause for celebration. There are also many pointedly 'Black', 'Asian' or 'Muslim' organisations which were created for both a positive identity and to guard against isolation, primarily because of their exclusion from the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that at all. However, how would members of minority groups feel if they suddenly saw signs and promotion for a 'White History Month', 'White Women Forum', the 'White Professional Association' or the 'White Entrepreneurs Club', labels which are clearly racist and exclusive? They would rightfully be up in arms. But where is the sensitivity (respect again) for the pointedly White exclusion in those labels?


2. Negative media coverage. There should not be a need for a Black History month at all. There is a flurry of activities in October (February in America), a month saturated with events where everyone tries to be heard, to be significant and valued, and then nothing else for the other 11 months. Like cuckoos, they go back inside their clocks. That is very sad. But Black History Month emerged because of a lack of positive attention to minorities (respect again!) by the media. The only time you hear about minorities is when something negative (like the veil issue?) is being reported.

Minorities in Britain are virtually invisible in every aspect of life except crime. We hear about them ad nauseam in relation to terrorism and street crime but hardly in any other dimension. For example, the focus on celebrities is pervasive in our society. But where are the minority celebrities? The ones well known in their communities but are ignored by the mainstream press? Where are the minority guests and achievers on chat shows? On discussion panels? On entertainment programmes? Once again, they are deprived of significance and value through invisibility but take centre stage when it's negative. Such an exclusive and racist approach keeps minorities in the public eye as extraordinary and non-contributing beings. It uses them in situations that bolster national fear (immigration and crime) while ignoring the vast majority of law abiding, legal citizens playing their part in society. Minorities are also used in a cynical way to show national pride abroad, as with the Olympics, when multculturalism was suddenly cool and essential, but are largely excluded from the preparations and nearly all the service contracts.


Lack of Recognition

3. Absent Media Faces. Today I visited the website of a top national newspaper and, of its 24 writers paraded for the public, only one was Black. I won't even mention television and radio because commercial radio, in particular, is dismal when it comes to representation of their diverse audience among radio staff. Is it any wonder that the views in the media are so skewed against minorities when there is hardly anyone giving an alternative view? Especially when the service provided for them is so negative and exclusive. That is why there is very little sensitivity (respect again) to minority views and feelings. Being on the negative end of any reporting, they are fair game for people seeking sensational headlines.

4. Separate existence. We talk a lot about the need for integration and the separateness of communities, but it has not been minorities who have cut themselves off from the majority, especially in our schools, it is the other way around. Many Whites have a negative view of minorities, fed by the media, and actually move away from areas with a significant minority population to 'preserve their culture'. The result is virtual apartheid in certain localities. That is very sad because neither side is making the effort to learn about one another or mix together. So how can there ever be a better understanding of difference? It really takes both sides to compromise, to engage in dialogue and to be sensitive to each other's needs and perspectives. But simple racism has spawned a lot of lip service while discrimination and exclusion run riot.


Diversity is here to stay

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 our peers 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. 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 is 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 we freely choose, there are many other countries one can go to that could be more suitable. That should be the bottom line for unity while ensuring due respect for those who choose to celebrate being British, regardless of their culture.

Starting from that base, Black History Month should be scrapped and minority heritage and culture celebrated ALL year round, just like that of the White majority, but under a diversity label. For example, what about Our Diverse Music in January, Our Diverse Literature in February, Diverse Arts and Crafts in April, Dance in May, Diverse Foods in June?...You get the drift. It means that, instead of just focusing on minority crime and negative issues around minorities, the White media can actually begin to pay some proportional attention, throughout the year, to the positivity of being a minority, particularly encouraging involvement and patronage by White participants, sponsors and patrons. That is the only way to make all people feel included and to engender loyalty and pride. It is also the main way to change White perception of their Black neighbours and for all British citizens, whatever their origins, to feel significant, appreciated, valued and included.

No Such Thing As 'The Truth'

With Rudy Giuliani having thrown his hat into the presidential ring, his time as mayor of New York suddenly loomed large, particularly with three disturbing incidents and his reaction to them. In 2002, after 9/11, Rudy was riding high. He was dubbed the Mayor of the World by the New York Times magazine which made him its Person of the Year. And, in my opinion, if anyone truly deserved such an accolade, it was the mayor of New York. He could not have been more of a father to his citizens when they needed him most, nor could he have been more caring and compassionate to shocked New Yorkers blasted by the carnage. Yet Rudy is living proof of the power of perception, including his own, to either vilify or sanctify, according to the moment.

As I watched him tirelessly leading the city throughout September and beyond, I was extremely inspired by his unselfishness, humility, obvious compassion and quiet approachability. The cold-hearted mayor I had heard about up to a few months before seemed many miles away, bearing little relation to the man who now commanded so much respect and genuine authority, representing two completely different versions of ‘the truth’ according to one’s perception, expectation and frame of reference.

In fact, many other Black people in New York would have had some trouble adjusting their lens to double check that this new saintly figure was the same mayor who presided over three particularly brutal incidents and even backed his policemen in doing two of them too.


Zero Tolerance of Crime
According to the Times magazine, in 1997 Abner Louima, a Haitian man, was sodomised with a mop handle by policemen in a Brooklyn-precinct bathroom. Two years later, an unarmed street pedlar named Amadou Diallo was killed when police in the Bronx fired 41 shots at him in a dark lobby. In 2000, barely 18 months before 9/11, “an unarmed security guard named Patrick Dorismond, who had been trying to hail a cab outside a midtown bar, was shot to death after a scuffle with undercover cops”. “Giuliani denounced the policemen who brutalised Louima but defiantly backed the ones who killed Diallo and Dorismond.” In their cases the juries actually cleared the policemen of wrong doing. Giuliani had declared zero tolerance on crime and would not let a little matter of skin colour block his objective, which gave a licence to others to rob African Americans of their rights and even their life.


“After Dorismond was killed, Giuliani’s instinct to defend the police” led him to attack the unarmed Black victim and “he authorised the release of Dorismond’s juvenile record” to “prove” his propensity for violence. “The dead,” Giuliani argued, “waived their right to privacy. Even close friends and supporters were appalled.” The man who had “saved New York city” saw his popularity ratings plummet to new lows. But therein lies the capacity of power to change perception of what constitutes ‘the truth’. As I said in my book, managing the diversity maze, ’Truth’ is governed by privilege. It always looks so right when one has the power to support it. Thus ‘the truth’ of “Black people, women and others who suffer under such inequalities will seldom share anything with the ‘truth’ of the exploiters because they are both coming at that singular ‘truth’ from two different positions of privilege: one group has it and the other has not. That is what keeps equality from ever becoming a reality and cements its unequal foundations, regardless of the superficial flurry of activity and proliferation of fine words to prove otherwise.”

With the support of the majority White community behind the law enforcers, crime assumed a particular colour. Giuliani had to show how a tough mayor should act towards those who were perceived to be the most troublesome, especially if they were easily identifiable. According to the magazine, “New York City was getting better, but the mayor seemed to be getting worse”. It was easy for him to feel unassailable. Inflated by his own idea of ‘the truth’, he seemed uncaring as to the consequences of it.

In mitigation, he told the reporter, “People didn’t elect me to be a conciliator. If they just wanted a nice guy they would have stayed with Dinkins” (the former mayor). “They wanted someone who was going to change this place. How do you expect me to change if I don’t fight with somebody?” he asked. “You don’t change ingrained human behaviour without confrontation, turmoil and anger.”

And this statement of his truth is absolutely right. Except, if it came from a Black male, it would have been regarded as somewhat dangerous; disturbing enough to merit the attentions of the security forces who would have questioned his intent and been wary of his actions. But he is White, which carries its own might, and that’s all right. He has both the colour and the power to give credibility and life to his version of ‘the truth’. A Black male talking about ‘confrontation and anger’ had better watch his back! There would be no ’truth’ in that.


Sense of Frustration

But, I am one of those who agreed with that simple statement because it was ‘the truth’. From the day I took on this thankless task of changing hearts and minds, I have felt that unmoving attitudes cannot be changed with just fine words and flowers. One has to be armed with something stronger: like 'confrontation, turmoil and anger'.

Change always starts with confrontation and challenge: confronting the self to change personal perceptions; confronting others as well as the issues no one wishes to acknowledge or which everyone pretends do not matter. To challenge basic injustice and discrimination in order to get at this elusive 'truth'.

Once there is confrontation there is turmoil. Any form of negative challenge disturbs the status quo and unleashes the worst anxieties within us. Anger swiftly follows, both from resentment at being challenged and from frustration on the part of the challenger at the lack of change or the slowness of it. However, once confrontation begins, it is like a pandora’s box which either generates argument and debate or unleashes a riot of indignant emotions and actions.

In the light of my book, managing the diversity maze, Rudy Giuliani’s simple statement answered a lot of questions about my own ‘truths’ and objectives. This book certainly confronts the issues head on, starting from the Establishment to the individual, and I expect a good deal of turmoil to follow in the ensuing reality check. But then, I have never shirked from the task! People who benefit from the status quo will seldom ever change unless it continues to reward them in some significant way.

I admire Rudy Giuliani a great deal now because some time in 2000 he had the humility to question his version of ‘truth’ regarding one section of the community and also the courage to face up to the negativity of the fact. With the two brutal murders fresh in his mind, he pledged his remaining time in office to “breaking down some of the barriers” he felt he had placed between himself and visible minority communities. “I don’t know exactly how you do that,” he said, “but I am going to try very hard.”

He did succeed in some measure and reached his zenith with 9/11 because he began to confront his version of ‘the truth’, not a comfortable thing to do, but a necessary one in dealing with difference. Rudy will be fine as a president because he has seen so much death and destruction, everything else would have paled into insignificance. In these awful tragic moments, the meaning of life assumes a clarity over questionable 'truths' which is almost blinding.

Next time you are hell bent on seeking 'the truth' as you see it, just remind yourself that personal perceptions dictate our individual truths. That the nearest thing to a universal 'truth' happens only when majority perceptions merge in agreement on the same versions of 'the truth'. But even then, one has to be careful to ensure that this 'truth' is not being ruled by vested interest, is not being stifled by unbending traditions, is not holding commonsense to ransom, is not being used to bolster injustice and is not being held hostage to the latest fad for some select group. In other words, in our search for the truth, we will always meet some road blocks or false versions of it. The test is to tease out which truth we are prepared to hang on to, in the face of the consequences for ourself and others.

NOTE: Managing the Diversity Maze is available from Amazon or can be ordered from any good British bookshop.

Does Obama's Audacity Carry Lessons for Britain?

A man speaking more than 3000 miles away moved and uplifted me today as a Black woman and gave me hope for the future. He was eloquent, passionate, good looking and fervent in his desire to make history; to show what could be achieved with simple belief and faith in one's ability. His team expected 1000 people to turn up to hear him announce his candidacy for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world, but 15,000 actually made the journey to be part of history, fired by what was possible. I was one of the first to subscribe to Senator Barack Obama's online campaign a few weeks ago, though I am not an American. But I share one thing with Mr Obama, the belief that anything is possible if we just believe it, have faith in it and act upon it. I believe in the power of thoughts to get us where we want to go and Obama has obviously been exercising his thoughts, big time!

As a Black woman in the UK, there are a lot of things I admire about America, though I wouldn't live there, as I love Britain too much. But America certainly has that quality of personal encouragement and the fulfilment of dreams. Being successful might cost you an arm and a leg in financial terms, but there are lots of fellow dreamers who are only too willing to help you to achieve that dream, living vicariously through you to taste their own success too. America's vastness, immense opportunity and huge diversity inspire one to greatness and Barack Obama, a virtual unknown, is the living embodiment of what is possible when the time is right, the belief is high and the stars come together.

Terror and Crime
Britain sadly lacks such dreams and success for Black people. We hear about British Blacks only in negative terms of terror and crime. No one from minority communities is positively highlighted regularly in the media, as they do with the members of the White majority, because very few minorities are in the media to give it an alternative view and to widen its appeal. But the media merely reflects the rest of British society in its negative treatment of those who are different. If you wish to see the true visibility of minorities in Britain, just cast your eyes around the entourage of the British Royal Family and that of the Prime Minister. The only face you might see which is Black will belong to the odd bodyguard. There will be few Black people of substance in these illustrious circles. But we are in the 21st century and minorities have been here for years. Yet, leadership at these heights, among people who are supposed to lead our Commonwealth, is crucial to unite the nation and to give a strong message of inclusion. A nation divided against itself cannot thrive in any way, it merely implodes from the inside.

Britons talk a lot about our multicultural society, but Black talent stays hidden in its own community, a victim of fear, prejudice, lack of opportunity and sheer exclusion, clothed in invisibility and neglect, while deviance is trumpeted as the only Black and Asian achievement worth noting in the public arena. We are about 25 years behind America in the way we treat our diverse communities, still a very long way from a Black Prime Minister. Is change really possible among such entrenched institutional racism? Perhaps not in my lifetime.

After all, in 2007, the Local Government Association (LGA), based in London and avidly promoted by Mayor Livingston's office, has all 31 of its most senior officers being White, despite having 39% of minority staff working for it! The magnitude of this situation seems to have been lost on the Mayor's diversity team if we can have such a discriminatory situation in place, and posing as normal! This authority (which boasts itself as being "The UK's top government body") represents and advises every council in the UK, councils which serve a multicultural society. Yet not one of its minority workers has been deemed suitable for its highest positions to reflect this diversity. What message of competence is the LGA giving out to talented minorities, despite its office being based in our most diverse capital?

My pessimism is borne out by that incredible example of exclusion. But, like Senator Obama, I audaciously live in hope. My love for the UK and its potential does not permit me to accept otherwise. It would be too depressing.

Next Vice-President?
Much as I would like Barack Obama to become the next President, I do not think that he will, on this round. I think he should be Hillary Clinton's running mate and what an unstoppable team they would be - his charisma with her experience, not to mention the differing gender, race and personal ethos which would add extra appeal. He would at least dent her conservatism while gaining the necessary training to succeed after her. We would also get three for the price of two as Bill Clinton, that great orator and action man, would be in the background too.

Good luck, my friend. I have few doubts that when you reach the White House, you will also have changed an awful lot of perceptions about what is possible right across the world. And, who knows, even Britain, and its own minorities, might learn something of value from your courage and audacity. Thank you for sharing your vision in such a definitive way.

Decide for yourself between the two rivals!"

Moving the Goalposts of Multiculturalism!

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.

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.

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!