Countdown to the Royal Wedding- Day 2: Why William and Kate's marriage should last much longer than the other Royals'

Soon after their engagement, in November last year, a bishop of the Anglican church, the Rt Rev. Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden was censured by the Bishop of London, who oversees him, and asked to "withdraw from public ministry until further notice". Why? Because he likened the couple, on his Facebook page, to 'shallow celebrities' whose marriage would fall apart "after seven years". How he is so privy to the exact number of years the marriage would last, is anyone's guess. However, it got me thinking about the couple's fortchoming union and I thought I would pronounce on the issue, as a relationship guru, at least from a more expert base than the bishop's.

William and Kate are likely to have a very long marriage because of certain key factors which were not common to other Royals, or 'shallow celebrities'.

Prince William and Kate Middleton being interviewed.


1. Shared VALUES
Shared values lie at the heart of any relationship. Partnerships fail when the values become disparate, the couple see things differently and cherish different aspects of their lives. William and Kate got obviously on very well from the moment they met at St Andrews University because they clearly share certain key values - especially valuing communication and empathy for others. They place priority on the same kinds of activities which seem to matter to BOTH of them.

For example, during his gap year at University, William joined Raleigh International in southern Chile for 10 weeks, helping to improve the lives of the local community. He actually helped to 'construct walkways from log posts and taught English in local schools'. That would have had quite an impact on his perspectives. Six weeks after he left, Kate Middleton joined the group too. It seems that both choices of Raleigh International were entirely independent of each other. The fact that they both wanted to share in a similar experience relating to other people would form part of the glue to hold them together.

William chops wood for his community in Chile.

He also spent time on a dairy farm in the UK, where he was paid the measly sum of £3.20 ($5) per hour. Apparently, he has said he loved that experience the best, "rising before dawn to milk cows and performing mucky jobs" like everyone else. Kate herself wasn't raised on a farm, but she lives in a very quiet rural area, which seems to please William greatly, as he is always finding opportunities to spend time with her family. I would think that the couple's choice of living in Anglesey, a very remote rural area in wales, would have been a deliberate choice connected to that style of life.


2. Great CHEMISTRY
There are four main elements to chemistry: attraction, comfort, value and excitement. Attraction itself has three further elements: physical, emotional and intellectual. If we examine their chemistry carefully, it is very clear that the physical attraction between them is off the scale, they are clearly emotionally connected. They seem to have the same moods and body language and the intellectual connection would be awesome because of their shared University experience and the level of education they both had.

William and Kate chilling out.

They are obviously VERY comfortable with each other, as their constant smiles and body language demonstrate, they also value each other and show it (as their interviews indicate), they have an irreverent sense of humour, and they seem to enjoy great excitement in the company of each other. With this couple, one might be a Royal prince and the other a commoner but, take away the superficial title and you would have two ordinary people who are likely to be holding hands and hugging at every opportunity and who wouldn't be afraid of public displays of affection. One senses that they are holding back in their public treatment of each other to avoid undue attention from the media. But the chemistry is electric between them and that's what will hold them together for a long time. They truly love each other. This won't be a marriage for heirs and spares, but one of a deep bonding of mutual understanding. Not like his mother and father, Charles and Diana, where there was a clear division between his status and hers, a stiff formality of never ending protocol, which was reflected in the way he treated her.

William and Kate seem far more natural and warm in their affection that Charles and Diana.


3. Good COMMUNICATION
This couple are clearly in tune with one another. They seem most at ease together in every picture taken of them and they are always chatting together. They like communicating together and are articulate enough to appreciate what each other is saying and the meaning involved. William and Kate are truly at ease with each other. One gets the impression that if they have a disagreement they can sort it out together without things becoming negative. She is not in awe of him and he has a healthy respect for her, a good basis for mutual respect. Most importantly, they smile a lot, being very positive people who seem happy in their own skins. This should draw them closer together even more and be a source of comfort in the down times.

Eyes only for each other!


4. Shared ASPIRATIONS
One gets a sense that their expectations, objectives and aspirations are likely to be the same. No one spends over seven years in another's company without learning tons about them and without a deep understanding developing between them. By their behaviour since they met, they have been acting like a married couple in all but name. Mismatching expectations are the biggest killers of relationships. It seems that their expectations of each other are in full alignment with what matters to both of them. The interaction between them is so flowing and easy; nothing seems artificial or staged. It shows that, along with their values, they do share similar objectives which they can both be comfortable with, which could partly explain why Kate was keen for them to get on with it and tie the knot.


5. Genuine mutual RESPECT
The interviews of this couple show unmistakeably that they have great respect for each other. They clearly love one another, but they also value each other too, the essence of respect. You can hear it in their words, when they are talking about each other, the loving and admiring way they look at each other other, and in the way they support one another at every opportunity. There is complete alignment here between the couple. Contrast that to Charles and Diana, especially when she said she was in love with him, and he replied vaguely, 'Whatever love is'!

Altogether, the couple's clear attraction, confidence, easy communication, body language and mutual support suggest two people who know each other very well, who love each other very much, whose expectations are in alignment on a mutally supportive level and who, above all, have tremendous chemistry flowing between them. A firm foundation for a wonderful and long-lasting relationship.

A future king and queen of the United Kingdom.

Is Your Country Turning Into a Fascist State? (Quiz)

In these security-conscious times, it is easy to erode personal freedoms, to rob people of their dignity and respect and to forget basic human rights in trying to get results. How is your country dealing with terrorism or global challenges, particularly in their reactions? Is it a kind of knee-jerk, cavalier response, or a sensitive, well thought-out and caring one that does not treat everyone as a criminal?

I posed this question in another article and asked American readers to rate each of the 14 Fascist Signs from an American perspective. These "Early Warning Signs of Fascism" were developed by Lawrence Britt and quoted in Fascism Anyone? . I have also rated America, and my own country, Britain, using my perception, on each of the Signs to see the comparison. The results follow the Score Key at the end.

Why don't you try the quiz below, after you have read the article (which gives some prompt questions to help your decisions)? What's your sincere opinion, or that of your friends and family? How does your perception compare to mine or others? This should generate a lot of debate!

FASCISM Test

Which country are you comparing?

Country:

How democratic is your country, or is it leaning towards Fascism?

How do you personally feel about your freedoms?

Use these warning signs to find out!

For each of the Fascist Signs listed below, select a reply that, in your opinion, DEFINITELY applies to it.

In my country there is:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



2. Disdain for human rights.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



4. Supremacy of the military.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



5. Rampant sexism.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



6. Controlled mass media.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



7. Obsession with national security.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



8. Religion and government intertwined.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



9. Corporate power protected.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



10. Labor power suppressed.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.



14. Fraudulent elections.

Yes, all the time.
Very often.
Quite noticeable.
Sometimes.
Odd occasions.
Hardly - wishful thinking!
Not at all.

Thank you for completing this quiz.

To help our research, you can send your score to us by pressing the EMAIL ME button after your result.

After scoring, see the SCORE KEY below to see what the result means for your country. Please note: this is a fun quiz with a serious message.

SCORE KEY (Not designed to be scientific!!)

85-98: No doubt about it - a Fascist state.
71-84: Nearly there!
55-70: Some worrying concerns.

41-54: Healthy regime
27-40: Great government
12-26: No chance of Fascism here!

(My Scores: UK=47, USA=81)

The Causes of Racism

Racism is pernicious, particularly hurtful to those on the receiving end, and is little understood. Its causes are not just social, neither can they be remedied in an instant. Racism goes much deeper than simple social factors and it stems, primarily, from the following four causes:

1. Instinctive reaction for species protection: It is the most natural thing in the world to gravitate towards our own kind, to recruit in our own image and likeness and to feel comfortable with people who outwardly look like us, reflect who we are and behave like us. We are all ingrained with a sense of self protection, especially of our culture, territory, family, the things we cherish and which form our identity. Racism comes out of a desire to protect all of that, as well as our roots and our species. Anything which isn't like us immediately becomes threatening and, where it is also perceived to be inferior, the prejudice towards it in order to protect our own becomes even more lethal and menacing.

2. Fear of loss and displacement: Seeking to protect our own kind means we fear any loss of what we already have and what makes us who we are: whether it's our jobs, our status, territory, possessions, personal significance and even our being. We fear being replaced by others, especially in a relationship, by anyone perceived to be much more appealing and desirable than we are. When that person is from another race, it simply confirms our unworthiness and adds insult to injury. Fear is the biggest cause of racism in our world, especially irrational fear of difference and loss, which tends to see any difference as both threatening and undeserving of what we regard as our right.

3. Ignorance: When we know better we can act better, especially if we have the confidence to put that knowledge into action. But what keeps racism going in a vicious circle is ignorance of the worst kind. If we grow up doing a particular thing, and everyone else around us does it too, we come to believe it is right, no mater how morally reprehensible it could be to another person who does not share our culture and outlook. We will not see anything wrong with our actions because those acts would be validated by everyone else like us. The only change will come through education and awareness of why those actions might not be appropriate, the consequences they carry for others as well as the alternatives that are available. Until people who know no better undergo an educative process around racism, ignorance will always keep racism thriving, especially among those who have no desire to act differently.

4. Lack of self love, feeling of unworthiness and desire to feel superior: The most racist people in our world tend to be the least confident, lacking in self esteem and, most of all, lacking in self love. They project all their negative feelings outward unto others, especially on to the most week and vulnerable. When we truly love ourself and appreciate who we are, we can appreciate how others feel and accommodate them more. We also have better understanding of others because we appreciate where we are coming from. Racism comes through a feeling of unworthiness, of being 'victimised', of lacking the opportunities others have, and of being a failure. Someone has to pay for such low feelings and self-perception. This means a need for scapegoats in order to feel superior and to exercise personal power over others. Racist people tend to feel insignificant, isolated, wronged and unloved and they remedy that feeling of exclusion by blaming someone else for it instead and seeking opportunities to exercise that prejudice and resentment.

That is why racism will always be difficult to eradicate because it is not a social act. It's an individual one. The causes of racism begin with the individual and can only be resolved by addressing the actions of individuals. It's individual people who behave in a racist manner which is then enhanced by the group and validated by institutions. That is why institutions often remain racist and discriminatory in approach for a long time unless the individuals within them are encouraged to act otherwise.

~~~~~~~000000000~~~~~~~~~

"If you have no love or respect for yourself, how can you give any away?" - Elaine Sihera

Do you always say "yes" when you really want to say "no"?

The two main reasons why we might say 'yes' when we want to say 'no' are a lack of confidence and a desire for approval.

When we lack confidence we are deprived of the willpower to be assertive, to be consistent and to actually seek what we want because we fear the consequences of what saying 'no' might bring. We are not strong enough to stand up or our own rights and so allow others to dictate the pace. We also lack the skills to deal with someone who might be more socially adept, or someone we fear, we respect and admire or who have influence over us, so we are more willing to say 'yes' for a quiet life. That might please other people, but it is likely to leave us feeling frustrated and dissatisfied with our lives. While saying 'yes' might make someone else happy, if we are yearning to say no, we do ourselves no service and engender a lot of stress and confusion in the process.

The second reason, a desire for approval, stems from being in controlling environments: either with parents, spouses and even bosses. Wherever there is control, there is a desire to please through fear, isolation and repression. As we are likely to be expected to do as we are told, the only way we can feel included and valued is by pleasing the significant others around us. That might work for that particular moment in time, or that situation, but it really keeps us feeling inadequate and unhappy with ourselves and makes us even less empowered each time we go against our own needs and desires.

Only by facing the consequences of our actions can we then say what we mean and stick by it. However, the more we seek approval by simply pleasing others the less fulfilled we will feel and the more frustrating life will appear to be. Most important, we soon lose our own integrity because it is difficult to be honest when we are not even being honest with ourselves.

10 Things I Hate About the World We Live In

The things which annoy me tend to be those that rob us of our humanity, which do not build, but merely destroy, and which detach us from our world, like the following:

1. IGNORANCE...Lack of knowledge has the most debilitating impact on our world because, without knowledge, we are at a loss to develop our potential to fruition. Ignorance keeps behavior and appreciation of others at the most basic level and simply robs us of a life.

2. Lack of SELF-LOVE...This is the biggest cause of problems in relationships. People lacking in self-love tend to be selfish, insecure, self-absorbed because it really is only about them. Lacking self-love means that one also lacks the love to give to others, which then sets up a vicious cycle of emotional pain.

3. WAR...This is the most destructive force in our life, often destroying more than it builds, yet solving very little in the long run. War might be an awesome exhibition of violence and power but the negative consequences it has, the havoc it wreaks and the sheer destruction it entails leave huge questions about how appropriate war is for resolving anything between nations or peoples.

4. VIOLENCE...particularly between youths and gangs, is pernicious, especially when gangs engender a sense of belonging among the youth and teaches them how to behave. Like war, violence solves nothing except to rob both the perpetrator and the recipient of their lives, in one form or another.

5. POVERTY...A lack of money and other basic essentials of life rob us of the opportunities we could have to make that life more enriching. Poverty is lethal because of the other negative things which come out of it: the main ones being ignorance, loss of self-esteem, loss of hope and violence.

6. INJUSTICE...Any injustice anywhere encourages injustice everywhere. We lose or humanity when we put up with blatant inequality and injustice to others, especially when they are weak and vulnerable.

7. Lack of RESPECT...At the heart of respect is sensitivity and a loss of respect is so obvious in our world today, in the way we treat each other, our expectations of each other, imposing our views on others and the selfish way we tend to live detached from one another.

8. Misuse of POWER...Power corrupts when it is misused and, if nothing else, the invasion of Iraq has demonstrated the impact of misused power for selfish reasons; the devastating way it affects the lives of many innocent and unsuspecting people.

9. GREED..The world has more than enough to go round for everyone. Nothing is more unattractive than seeing people, no matter how much they have, chasing money or material things for their own sake, when so many others have so little.

10. Lack of COURTESY...My mother taught me that 'Courtesy costs nothing, give generously' and I have lived by it ever since. The lack of courtesy in human interaction is now so sad, when a simple smile, thank you, and compliment can truly make someone's day, yet cost nothing at all to give.

Do we really need a Black History Month?

As one who has spent the last 14 years promoting multiculturalism from the rooftops in the UK, through the only book on the subject and two annual national diversity awards, I have been pretty saddened this year 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.

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, 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. Let's take some glaring examples of disrespect.

Origins of Disrespect

1. Exclusive labels: October has a special significance for minorities. 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 also 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 to encourage 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. Where is the sensitivity (respect again) for the pointedly White exclusion in those labels? Yet, in a diverse society, such cultural sensitivities are very important if we are to learn about, value, and appreciate one another.

2. Negative media coverage. Black History Month emerged because of a lack of positive attention to minorities (respect again!) by the media. Minorities in Britain are virtually invisible in every aspect of life except crime. We hear about them ad nauseam in relation to terrorism, guns, gangs and street crime but hardly in any other dimension. The only time you hear about minorities is when something negative is being reported. Black History Month was introduced to counteract that media exclusion, to give much needed positivity and visibility. Yet, there should be no need for a Black History month at all because there is just a flurry of activities in October (and February in the USA), 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 tragic cuckoos, they coo loudly once, then go back inside their clocks for another year. What minorities need is to be treated ordinarily, like the majority community, with balance and value.

For example, the focus on celebrities is pervasive in our society. But where are the minority celebrities and achievers? The ones well known in their communities but are ignored by the mainstream press? Where are the minority guests on chat shows? On discussion panels? On entertainment programmes? Where are the minority writers to give alternative viewpoints? Such an exclusive and racist approach keeps minorities in the public eye as extraordinary and non-contributing beings who are simply taking from society. It uses them in situations that bolster national fear (immigration and crime) while ignoring the vast majority of law abiding, legal citizens quietly playing their part in their communities. 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, the promotion and the service contracts.



Lack of Recognition
3. 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 a basic lack of recognition for them, with hardly anyone speaking with any cultural knowledge? 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 without any responsibility for the divisive consquences of their actions. The BBC has been recently accused of racism by a prominent writer in 21st century Britain. That is very sad today. The real worry is that if the BBC is still lagging behind in its own objectives, a service which is supposed to be serving, and representing, the whole community, what can one expect of lesser organisations?

Diversity and multiculturalism can work harmoniously when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive together to make it a great place to live. However, we cannot respect what we don't understand or appreciate.

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, 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, and the rich diversity of our nation, through the cultural exchange of knowledge, particularly encouraging involvement and patronage by White sponsors and patrons. That is the only way to make all people feel included, to engender loyalty and pride, and the main way to change White perception of their Black neighbours.

It is also the only way for all British citizens, whatever their origins, to feel significant, appreciated, valued and included. In effect, to feel respected.

Why it is Difficult to Earn RESPECT

From today, an 18 year old at the start of his adult life will be spending the next 25 years of it in prison in the UK for killing another man who he said paid him no 'respect'. Yet another Black youngster is behind bars, his freedom and potential dramatically cut short like the life of his victim. Bradley Tucker shot unarmed Peter Woodhams after Peter had already been knifed by someone in Tucker's hoodie gang. He lost his life trying to stand up to the bullies.

According to the judge, Bradley "perceived disrespect". He feared loss of face in a challenge that he perceived from the man he killed - a challenge to the standing he felt he had in the eyes of the people whose respect he sought. Gang members tend to talk about getting 'respect' from each other and others. They believe that the negative acts of wounding and killing should encourage even more 'respect' and save face. But they will always fail in getting the desired result because of a misunderstanding of the word respect and a lack of awareness of how it is acquired. Respect is a positive word. It has nothing to do with negativity or negative acts. So one cannot get respect through negative behaviour. One can probably get a temporary feeling of satisfaction and power, but no real respect. There are also six dimensions of the word respect.

At the heart of respect is sensitivity to others and their feelings. By demanding respect, or bullying others into showing it, that goes against the grain of earning that respect because there is no sensitivity. We are all automatically entitled to respect by virtue of being living, thinking human beings. Respect is thus automatic in the first instance for who we are and proclaim to be. However, maintaining that respect is the difficult bit because unless the six dimensions of respect are in place (curiosity, attention, dialogue, sensitivity, empowerment, healing), we are likely to withhold respect from that person and treat them with either contempt or disdain, especially through ignoring them or resisting their attempts to draw our attention or engage in dialogue.


Reasons for Joining Gangs
Most important, real respect begins from the self. If we have no respect for ourselves, we cannot expect it from others either. That would be a difficult thing to do. For example, someone being a murderer, yet expect to be treated as though he hasn't committed a crime, is contradictory. He is a criminal. Until there has been a successful rehabilitation for his action, he will always be perceived in a negative light and denied the respect he seeks.

People join gangs for a variety of reasons but the key one is to foster a sense of belonging, an essential part of the confidence triangle. Most gang members will be low in self-esteem and the stronger ones will have a craving for power. Not being able to use that power in positive ways in the wider world, they will use it negatively to feel better about themselves. In such groups, where the only glue holding members together is the desire to belong and feel wanted, the achievement they crave is likely to come in deviant acts to maintain that feeling of power and desire for 'respect'. Yet that is not the basis to earn respect because there is no self-respect already in place. Instead, members are likely to expect others to like what they reject - themselves. They will also be expecting others to condone negative acts which are likely to be part of their rituals and affirmation process. Yet those very acts merely serve to alienate the wider public and form a dubious base for their efforts to impress other members. In such a negative situation, how could Bradley expect to get the respect that he himself denied others?

Bradley Tucker is another tragic youngster who thinks he can earn respect by force through the maiming and killing of another person. But he lost respect for himself when he became a member of a deviant gang and began his reign of terror against his neighbourhood. He said he only meant to scare his victim. I am inclined to believe him. But what obviously got in the way when he pointed the gun at defenceless Peter Woodhams was that feeling of power again, the sudden realisation of the heady power to snuff out a man's life to prove a point, while momentarily forgetting that he was robbing himself of a life too.

Why Paris Hilton's Sentence is the Right One

Paris Hilton has been sentenced to 45 days in prison for violating her probation terms. She won't be able to choose her prison, there will be no work releases, electronic monitoring or any other concessions. Just a plain old jail with an hour outside her cell each day. Her mother thought the sentence was 'pathetic and disgusting' and her lawyer was 'shocked and surprised' by it. Why is that? What exactly did they expect when Paris kept breaking the law? Is she special in that regard?

If one disobeys the law one can expect retribution. What is the point of having laws which some people ignore or which only work with some types but not others? If the law is not applicable to all, can we expect it to work to society's benefit when we want it to do so? If we give no respect to the law we are actually condoning a lawless society and one dreads to think of the consequences of that. The law can only be effective if it is taken seriously, treated with respect and applied to everyone, whether rich or poor, high or low, famous or unknown. If those three elements are not in place, judges and lawyers might as well pack up and go home.

There are four reasons why this is a just sentence. First, Hilton was caught for alcohol-related reckless driving in 2006, and reckless driving costs lives. Simple and unequivocal. She could have killed someone in her state. She was given 36 months probation, $1500 in fines and mandatory alcohol education. All of which she accepted, especially reporting for enrolment in the education programme. Yet she never did enrol and, worse still, she took to driving again and was stopped twice by police when she was not even supposed to be in her car! She said she didn't know she was banned! Wow!


The Responsibilities of Being Celebrity
Second, Hilton is a celebrity role model, whether she acknowledges that or not. Millions of teens and other women across the world who look up to her would be watching, and even emulating, what she does. Flouting the law is not behaviour to inspire, or even reassure, such fans and followers, neither can she be allowed to disregard her probation by placing herself above it.

Third, for the law to work effectively, its application has to be consistent and perceived to be fair, no matter what the actual reality says. By ignoring whatever Hilton does in her case, a strong message of bias would be sent out to the general public regarding favoured people and their ability to ignore the law. The effect of that kind of action on others who are similarly sentenced would be disastrous, for upholding the law, for respect of it or instilling a sense of fairness in its jurisdiction. Worse of all, it would weaken the legitimacy of that law.

Finally, no one is above the law. Ignoring her actions would have encouraged others to do the same, especially when there are many people caught daily drinking and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to waste taxpayer's money any further.

Why Don Imus Was Right to be Sacked

The CBS popular radio announcer, Don Imus, who enjoys over two million listeners on the radio station WFAN, called the Black members of the Rutgers University team "nappy headed hoes". As usual, he does not believe he is racist and leading Black leaders called for him to be fired. As a Black person, normally I would be against anyone losing their job or livelihood because of a racist remark, no matter how abhorrent. But this case is different for three main reasons.

First, Imus has had thirty years in his job, building up a sizable audience for his morning show; people who, no doubt, look to him for guidance and being a role model. One would have thought that those years in the job would have given him a sensitivity for the feelings of his audience and a respect for the listeners who keep him there. One would also have expected that such long years would have built up an expertise which fosters the kind of responsibility and respect we would expect from such an experienced talk show host.

Yet, his critics say that during his thirty years he has shown a 'pattern of racially charged remarks' which he retorted were either 'misinterpreted' or 'satirical'. Regardless of misinterpretation, or otherwise, they were still racist, yet he did not desist. But racist remarks of any kind have no place in the vocabulary of someone on the public stage who is supposed to be serving a diverse audience. Being in a position of authority, especially with the privilege of being White in a majority White community, carries certain responsibilities as well as rights. We cannot attack people who are weak, or powerless, then say we are not bullies. Just as one cannot continue to use racist language down the years, aimed at vulnerable members of the community, then say one is not racist. It's a contradiction in terms. If we use the language of the bully, we are bullies, and if we use the language of the racist, we are racist. We cannot use the language of hate if we aspire to love. The two are inompatible.


Language Conveys Meaning
Second, the language we use defines who we are. For example, the word 'boredom' does not exist in my vocabulary. I have never used it in my lifetime to describe my feelings because I have too much to do in any one day and cannot find the time to be bored at any point. The word NO does not exist for me either, especially when trying to achieve something, because I believe everything is possible. Someone else who does not believe that will think 'no' first before they look at the possibilities. Moreover, I have never thought of saying anything racist about another person because I value every person and treat them with respect until they show me otherwise. So language is not just something we learn to use for communication or our benefit; not just something we pluck out of the air at random. Language represents who we are, body and soul, and the meanings we wish to convey.

We cannot use negative language and achieve positive aims, neither can we put down others and expect to make friends with them. Language reflects our identity, ethics, beliefs, who we are and aspire to be. We give life to what we believe through language. We would NEVER use words we are not comfortable with unless we are coerced. We also stamp our own style on our use of words so much that when something comes from us which doesn't sound in line with our personalities, not the 'normal' thing we would say, people begin to wonder. Language comes from the heart and the head to reflect exactly who we are and what we value. So when we use negative terms against others, we are actually demonstrating our fears, our insecurities, our low self-esteem, prejudices and, most of all, our feeling of power over them. We have the power to say such remarks, so we do it. Otherwise, why would this man, who has a job many would die for, wish to say something so awful about vulnerable women far away he didn't even know - comparing Black beauty to White beauty which is culturally incomparable.

Finally, his responsibilities. Don Imus has a radio programme which goes out to a diverse community with sponsors from that community. When he disparagingly talks about certain people in such racist ways, what message is he giving to his Black listeners about their worth and value? Most important, how does he expect those listeners to react who thinks him worthy enough for their time in tuning in to his programme? Sometimes, as we get so bloated with our own power, we forget about respect to the people who put us where we are. The word RESPECT has sensitivity at its core. Where was Imus' sensitivity to his diverse audience?

However, the comment which summed up the real effect of Don's offensive remarks came from Senator Barack Obama about his children and went straight to the heart of the issue with its simplicity. "He didn't just cross the line," Obama said in an interview. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women.....that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment...."

Imus abused the authority placed in him as a public announcer, one who is supposed to be serving ALL members of his public, not just the White section of it. If he decides to make racist fodder out of others, he should know that carries consequences. By showing little sensitivity to his diverse audience and supporters with those awful sexist and racist remarks, he effectively relinquished the authority vested in him to act in an unbiased way and forfeited that respect. It depends on the society we seek if we can actually condone such discriminatory behaviour in the 21st century. The world has moved on a lot with our global interaction, a point that certain old hands are ignoring and resisting until they are foced to acknowledge it. Perhaps for the first time in his life, Don Imus is learning that certain actions have consequences, and free speech actually carries responsibilities for ensuring the rights of everyone.

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.

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.