Diversity dividends

"There's been a few incidents involving Islamic centres springing up around the city and also more mosques..." says Mickey Bayliss, on the English Defence League (EDL) decision to march in protest in Bristol this summer (see story and comments/debate here). What on Earth makes an Islamic centre springing up, or a few more mosques, 'incidents' ?? Just how does this add up to 'extreme Islamist terrorism' and 'preaching hate and terror' and 'Islamification' which is what the EDL are - apparently - opposed to?? Mr Bayliss reveals his prejudice and what he is really about in his own words, even though in the story he is doing his best to be guarded and 'reasonable'.

One of the defenders of the EDL (torysarecool) posted this comment on the Post story - "The fact is, the EDL simply don't like foreigners changing England and it makes them resent their presence. Who can blame them for thinking that? As others have mentioned, it often feels like foreign people, who speak little of our language and with whom we share few similarities are actively changing our home..."

This country has thousands of years worth of being a place where people from many different countries and of many different ethnic origins have come. Stone age people migrating from the Iberian peninsula and south west France, Celts, Scandinavians, Anglo Saxons, Normans, people from all over the Roman Empire, people from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan...Our home is what it is because of this and our home has always been one that changes over time. Whats the problem??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Planet, people, problem

Bit of discussion on population between me and rocketbob here following some letter about countryside protection from development. Here's my most substantial contribution:

Yes rocketbob population is a very sensitive issue in many ways, as you say for religion and racism, to name just two. All the more reason for wide-ranging, inclusive debate before any changes are decided on. It wont be easy. I would propose we aim for optimum population by reason, information, education and any changes we can establish a reasonable consensus on. This has the advantage of breaking the taboo on this debate and being less controversial but the disadvantage of perhaps not being enough to achieve meaningful change fast enough. Its better than no action at all and allowing problems to build such that we are forced into draconian action by events. The point is on a finite planet and in a finite city resources available are limited and so there are limits to population size and growth rate whether we like to acknowledge them, as you do, or not.

Dont take my word for it. In Sir David Attenborough’s view, there is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder — and ultimately impossible to solve — with ever more. We must find agreed ways to achieve optimum population in cities, countries and around the globe and especially those with already high populations, those with intense impacts and those with very rapidly growing population and impact intensity. See: http://populationmatters.org/

______________________________________________________

*We [Bristol] have a population of about 441,300 - the largest city in the South West.

*Bristol's population is expected to reach 559,600 people by 2028

*http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/4169

*World population reached an estimated 7, 000, 000, 000 ie 7 billion last month.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

*2 extra people every second, that is 200,000 each day or nearly 80,000,000 per year is human population growth on this planet - all needing food, water, warmth, shelter and aspiring to have good choices and a decent life.

Royal Wedding - Do you give a damn?

Royal Wedding - Do you give a damn? - I share Peter Tatchell's view (below), * "An ICM poll poll published in March, found that 79% of the British people are largely indifferent or don't care about the Royal Wedding. One-third of councils have no applications for Royal Wedding street parties and two-thirds have five or fewer applications. There is no great public enthusiasm for William's and Kate's nuptials. Monarchy is losing its lustre. It's becoming just another strand of celebrity culture and soap opera," said human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell. * "We should start thinking about the post-Elizabeth II era. It's time there was a serious public debate about the alternative to the monarchy - an elected head of state, chosen by the people and accountable to the people. * "This is an issue of democracy and human rights. The monarch is our head of state. The monarchical system is anti-Catholic, sexist and, by default, racist. Catholics are barred. For the foreseeable future, no black or Asian person can be our head of state. First-born girls are passed over in favour of younger male children. These discriminations are out of step with the values of modern, liberal Britain. * "I would prefer a democratically-elected, low-cost and purely ceremonial president, with no political powers and with any citizen being eligible to stand for the post, regardless of their race, gender, class, faith or sexuality. * "Our head of state ought to be chosen based on merit and public endorsement, not on the grounds of privileged parentage and inheritance. They should be subject to periodic election, so they can be replaced if they fail to fulfill their duties as expected. * "Monarchy is incompatible with democracy. It's a relic of feudalism and of a bygone aristocratic, imperial era. The time has come to consign royalism to history," said Mr Tatchell.

Spot the odd one out

"We come in the traditions that have marched in peaceful but powerful protest for justice, fairness and political change.

"The suffragettes who fought for votes for women and won. The civil rights movement in America that fought against racism and won. The anti-apartheid movement that fought the horror of that system and won."

And the radical message was...

“There is a need for difficult choices, and some cuts. But, this government is going too far and too fast...”

...not radical at all! In fact the same as the Coalition Government but a little less and a little slower

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/colleagues-defend-miliband-rally-speech-2254550.html

Kick sexism out of football

Sexism should be kicked out of football and I'm fed up of hearing people make excuses for it. Sexism should be treated as seriously as racism, homophobia and other forms of unfair discrimination. Organisations need to ensure that they have adopted and are enforcing effective policies and procedures. They should be developing and encouraging a culture of respect and equality throughout the game, in boardrooms and out, from respect for rules, referees and assistants, to fans, and viewers... Great to see that Kenny Dalglish and Rio Ferdinand have spoken out against discrimination. It may be that dinosaurs like Andy Gray, Richard Keys (pictured) and their ilk need kicking out...

Sky Sports duo Andy Gray and Richard Keys have been stood down from Monday's game between Bolton and Chelsea after their comments about a female official.
Believing their microphones were off, Keys and Gray agreed that Sian Massey and other female assistant referees "did not know the offside rule".
The remarks were made before Saturday's match between Wolves and Liverpool.
Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports, said: "Their comments were totally unacceptable."
Keys and Gray have been the face of Sky Sports football coverage since the satellite broadcaster started showing English top-flight matches in 1992.
Speaking ahead of the game, Keys added: "Somebody better get down there and explain offside to her."
Gray quipped: "Women don't know the offside rule."
...Host Keys and pundit Gray also discussed comments made by Brady in the Sun newspaper on Saturday about the levels of sexism in football.
"See charming Karren Brady this morning complaining about sexism? Yeah. Do me a favour love," stated Keys.

For further details click links below.

BBC Sport - Football - Sky discipline Andy Gray & Richard Keys over comments

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9371000/9371476.stm

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/222856-football-pundit-gray-is-sorry-for-sexist-jibe/

Time to kick sexism out of football | Beatrix Campbell | Comment is free | The Guardian

Excellent piece about sexism, racism, football, Rooney, Ferguson...

Time to kick sexism out of football Beatrix Campbell Comment is free The Guardian

Football has dealt with racism on the terraces, but still ignores sexism among the players

The News of the World devoted its first five pages today to yet another sleazy story about a footballer's private life (sordid allegations about Wayne Rooney this time). But for all the sound and fury, footballers' misogyny is apparently sanctioned. When footballers sexually exploit women, go to lap dancing clubs, buy sex or "harvest" local girls to line them up for shagging parties, it still doesn't count, somehow, as sexism. It attracts only a fatalistic sigh; a notion that there's nothing you can do about young men with more money than sense – often shadowed by a kind of class contempt that these working-class heroes can't cope with the ludicrous wealth that people who are born to rule somehow manage instinctively.

The campaign against racism – once routine, embedded and sanctioned in football – has been a triumph. What was once regarded as ungovernable and inevitable in popular culture has been transformed – football's governing bodies have been forced to confront it. Now, clubs, players and fans all know what racism is, what it does and why it won't be tolerated. Everyone has been enlightened, and football culture has been redeemed. Why then does sexism – an equivalently embedded culture of contempt – attract so little interest, so little comprehension? Why does anti-sexism carry no commitment or confidence in football?

Footballers' ridiculous and indefensible earnings apparently generate a sense of masculine entitlement. And there's nothing in the club culture that challenges that: managers don't engage with players about what sexism is, or why it is unacceptable, nor do they take responsibility for helping these young men "not to be sexist and not to behave like a pillock", as one Man U fan put it.

Clubs do not, it seems, include sexism, sexual exploitation and sexual betrayal in the portfolio of their duty to care. They certainly don't see it as part of their duty of care to the game itself. It is as if blokes cannot be blamed for blokey bad behaviour.

But racism was once an ingredient of popular culture, too: racism and sexism were the vernacular of sport talk. Now racism has lost its legitimacy. Fans explain that booing the black players in the other team lost its logic when black players acquired critical mass, when all the great teams hired black players. Mark Perryman, the convener of the London England Fans supporters' group, reckons that the anti-racism is fragile, but agrees that it became nonsensical with the rise of black players.

Perryman does see some cultural shuffles around sexism, however. Ashley Cole lost his allure not because of his performance as a player but because of his performance as a man, he says: "Cole was very rich, very bling, but he became one of the most unpopular players in England because of his treatment of Cheryl Cole."

Sexism may not yet be recognised for what it is, but something about masculine attitudes to morality is shifting on the terraces. Men taking their kids to the game don't want them to hear the c-word any more than they want to hear the n-word.

But if there is a critique of sordid, cheating, whoring sexism, then it isn't coming from the places with the institutional power to do something about it: club management.

When Sir Alex Ferguson was asked at a press conference to comment on the scandal involving an estimated 30 Manchester United players whose Christmas 2007 bash resulted in allegations of rape and "roasting", he said he had nothing to say about it, except that he'd been "dealing with situations like this for 21 years. I know exactly what to do." He fined the players – who included Rooney – and ruled that the next Christmas knees-up would be a family affair. The club announced: "He doesn't expect them to be virtual saints but he puts a lot of store in them involving partners, and knows it will keep them all on the straight and narrow."

The fact is, Ferguson doesn't know what to do. He refuses to know: "I will not be guided or instructed by anyone," he said after the Christmas bash. And so he continues to rely on the Wags to sort out a cultural crisis that he won't confront.

Diverse and unified; different and equal; changing and constant

Behind the idea of growth and progress is out of date, straight line, mechanistic, scientific and technical thinking based on the philosophy of breaking things down and analysing them in isolation. This stresses qualities that help us distinguish between people and things. It portrays difference and diversity as opposite, antagonistic, negating extremes: natural v social; human v animal; economy v environment; mind v matter; female v male; black v white; heterosexual v homosexual; old v young; science v art; left v right; objective v subjective; dynamic changes v stability...

This has its place and its usefulness but its very often an either/or trap that is at odds with reality. It is preventing us from acting on the fact that uniqueness, diversity and difference are vital, connected, complementary qualities. Reality is interdependence – the natural and social, human and animal, economic and environmental and so on, are both unique and part of the whole simultaneously. The social emerges from the natural. This is what we are learning from joined up thinking - systems thinking - that is a feature of the newer, fast developing branches of science such as ecology.

The value of diversity and difference can and should be emphasised to counter the trend to political, economic, social and cultural uniformity. Diversity within and between species, habitats and ecosystems brings multiple interactions, with species compensating for each other in the face of change. Avoiding confusion, ie differentiating what is not different and identifying what is not identical, is vital. Difference stressed at the expense of and devoid of solidarity, cooperation and connection can become magnified, resulting in: neglect; blame; anxiety; racism; sexism; abuse; and oppression.

Awareness of this issue that results in action would mean better decision making, better problem solving and better ability to take opportunities. Connections would be recognised and accounted for and complexity better managed.

For the moment though we persist with predominantly straight line thinking: the more economic growth the merrier; its the amount that counts; not much of a selective, controlled approach or much breadth or subtlety in the way we think through, measure and assess growth and progess. High growth, high energy and resource use (especially non-renewables), high waste and pollution, loss of biodiversity (such as the species we've made extinct - sample pictured) – damage to the quality, security and stability of human life.

The 'thoroughly unpleasant and really creepy' Nick Griffin

The BNPs Nick Griffin...extra-ordinarily racist, thoroughly unpleasant, really creepy, a nazi, wicked, viscious, misguided, repulsive, a twit.

Refugee protection

Greens want a sustainable society. A crucial aspect of sustainability is fairness: within our society; from generation to generation; locally and globally. Greens are opposed to discrimination on grounds of: age; ethnic group; gender; sexuality; class; nationality...Progess in our society is measured not only by wealth but by our capacity to act in a humanitarian way.

My committment: There is no place for racism and xenophobia in modern British politics. Nor is democratic debate advanced by the denigration of the most vulnerable in our country, including children and asylum seekers who do not enjoy the right to participate in elections. I promise to remember the importance of refugee protection, even in free and wide-ranging debates about immigration policy. I will never play fast and loose with the proud tradition of a nation that must always offer succour to those in genuine fear of persecution.

See: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/

Councillor Brown made "racial slur" and "breached code of conduct" but no sanction is required!?!

Can you square these two statements in todays local paper report about the council officer investigation of the 'coconut' slur used by Cllr Brown against Cllr Jethwa (pictured)? The council official first says,

"I am of the view that Councillor Brown breached the code of conduct for members in that she failed to treat a fellow councillor with respect by using a racial slur during the full council debate on February 24."

But goes on to say,

"If I am asked to recommend a sanction then I would say that no further action is required given that Councillor Brown apologised for her comments."

Rules for behaviour mean little or nothing if they are not enforced - ask any parent, teacher, lawyer...We need to expect and demand more from people elected to represent us, whether its over expenses, behaviour and language use in debates, behaviour that is reasonably consistent with policies they are advocating for the rest of us, or whatever.