2012 is for Fabulousness

The last day of the year makes one reflect and look ahead. It’s a bit odd; just because some pope back in the 16^th century told us that this is how we should divide a year we now get horrible worked up about a day we call the 31^st of December. You should’ve seen the queues at Tesco this afternoon; as if there won’t be an opportunity to buy groceries in the whole year of 2012. But because some pope told us so, I do reflect and look ahead. We had revolutions in the Arab world. Former despots fled, are put on trial or were killed. Many battles are still to be fought. The überlord of phantom organisation el Qaida was capture and executed, but we’re still have to carry our liquids in plastic see-through bags when we’re flying. London was on fire for four days in summer. The UK press has been revealing its dirty laundry and despite protests, high unemployment and continuing economic uncertainty the British public thinks Cameron is doing rather well. Not that they asked me. After four years I said goodbye to mature student life and have set my first tentative steps on Big Career Road. I am grateful for what I have and what I have been able to experience and I am dissatisfied at the same time. I want more, better, bigger, more profound fabulousness in my life. So here is to fabulousness. That you may have joy, focus, health, happiness, success, inspiration and lots of fabulousness in 2012. Happy new year y’all.

Dark Fairy Blessings

images: duy.im

Blair’s Turd

As some of you might know I’m a recovering news junkie, but I’m probably in denial. I evaluate news articles for a living so it’s a bit like a recovering alcoholic working in a pub.

In the office I can read the news for leisure – yeah, it’s still that bad- pretending I’m working. You would think considering the nature of my job, that news doesn’t wind me up any more, especially taking into to account that I mainly evaluate coverage for financial institutions. Yet, I couldn’t help myself when I read an article in my leftist newspaper that Tony Blair, who is the special envoy for the Quartet on the Middle East mind you, argues in favour of supporting western-orientated liberals in the Arab world to prevent the Islamists from taking over, as they (Islamists) don’t want what we (the West) want. It’s not the call for support for the poor, marginalised, unorganised Arab liberals itself, it’s the reason behind the support that makes me wonder whether the man is just naïve, a big fat hypocrite or perhaps both. Blair states that he does regret the lack of support for democratic tendencies in the Arab world in the past, but I’m afraid it’s too little too late.

Chances are indeed great that a political area dominated by Islamists will leave little room for pluralism and other so-called western values and attitudes. Yet,firstly, Mr. Blair forgets that these Islamists are or have been elected in free and fair elections in Egypt and Tunisia respectively. Secondly, Mr. Blair and other Western leaders before and after him, have condoned authoritarian regimes in the region evoking anti-western sentiment amongst the population. Western-inspired and backed regime have brought the people nothing but oppression and economic misery. If liberals are not able to sell the message, the people have good reason to choose those who can and have offered support and comfort in the form of religion and practical assistance when Western- backed, non-democratically elected leaders failed to do so.

There might have been a revolution that no one had seen coming, yet the ‘special envoy’ is by no means abandoning his neo-imperialistic attitudes. He talks about what we the West want and that Islamist governments are not good for us. What about the people of the Arab World? Surely it’s up to them to decide what is good for the region?

The liberal democrats of the Arab world are the western orientated elite and are a minority. Economically and intellectually influential perhaps, yet by no means are they representative for the whole country. In a true democracy the majority rules acknowledging the wishes of the minority. However, it seems rather undemocratic to support a minority in order to suppress the wishes of a majority, whether this majority is Islamist or not.

Blair and the West have all reasons to be scared and all are free to express this fear. That he calls for assisting a liberal-democratic minority in their organisation and articulation of their vision in a new political landscape might seem like a noble endeavour. However, if he is doing it for the West’s sake rather than for the people of the Arab world, he has truly learnt nothing from the past. With his argument he leaves a big fat turd on a newly constructed democratic process and tells us what we already knew. Democracy is only that fabulous ideal when it suits that tiny minority called the Western political elite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/29/tony-blair-liberals-islamist-regimes

images left: guardian centre: subbacultcha-blog.blogspot.com

Denial as a crime

While I was chilling on my sister’s couch, performing my role as funky aunt and sister (in-law), I caught the news story on telly that France is to make the denial of the Armenian genocide a crime. This action infuriated Turkey, that denies that the mass killings of Armenians in the last days of Ottoman rule were genocide, to the extent that it recalled its ambassador in Paris and threatened to expel the French ambassador in Ankara. Well done France and how childish are those Turks I thought initially. But then I thought, how can a democratic country with a free press make the denial of a historic event illegal? In many countries denying the Holocaust is illegal. I don’t agree with that either. I am by no means a Holocaust denier as I believe there is very little proof for the argument that 6 million Jews, Gypsies, gays and other so-called threats to the Third Reich were not really murdered on an industrial scale. I just have an issue with the principle that I am forced to believe a certain interpretation of historic events and questioning this interpretation is deemed a crime.

History is a social science that uses sources from the past to tell a story from the past. This story is open to interpretation. The one who tells his-tory with the strongest argument wins and will make it to the ‘common explanation of history’. Our view of history changes depending which side we’re on and which time we live in. The white man’s burden of ‘cultivating’ the ‘uncivilised’ parts of the world has become quite a different burden as he gets blamed for everything that is currently wrong with the Global South. Colombus setting foot in the Americas is considered a mile stone in European history yet is viewed as the beginning of a great tragedy by the continent’s native inhabitants. The establishment of the state of Israel is seen as the homecoming of a people discriminated and prosecuted for centuries to a land of their own. Others see it as the continuation of a European occupation. If I told you that black folk in the Americas weren’t forced from Africa to work as slaves in agriculture, but travelled there on their own account to assist the white man in his great mission you just think I’m on some bad trip and out of my mind. By no means would you threaten to prosecute me. Yet, why is the explanation of some historic events protected by law and others are just to be fought out  in the realm of social science? I guess the severity of some historic events is considered so great that denial is more than stupidity or a great insult. It’s a crime. Perhaps the denial of the Atlantic slave trade is not a crime because there is no one denying it and even is someone did, no one would feel threatened by it. Even -or perhaps especially- horrific events like the Holocaust or Armenian genocide should not need the protection of the law. Most Holocaust deniers make utter d*cks out of themselves anyway. In a free country there should be room to question the general assumption of historic events, how ridiculous or plausible this might be, without fear of prosecution. Unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide is only recognised by twenty sovereign nations making the acknowledgement of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide a far more disputed issue. The explanation and interpretation of history should not be a matter for the judiciary, but for historians. Believing otherwise means one has not much faith in one’s scholars and intellectuals and especially in a country like France, that would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

image: learnwordlist.com

Dark Fairy Yule Ways

I hadn’t gone to Lowlands Country for Christmas for quite a few years and have therefore been able to avoid tedious yet slightly pressurised family gatherings for quite some time. My dear sister, however, gave birth to her second child last month and as the funky Dark Fairy aunt it is my moral fairy obligation to personally welcome the new born into this brave new world. As I left on the shortest day of the year and was to return on Christmas day- don’t ask, long story- the day that this country is thrown back into the dark ages for just a day as there is no public transport whatsoever and taxis charge double the rate, so a cab fare home from the airport would have cost me the same as a return Lowlands Country with a respectable airline carrier, and being perfectly capable of being the stingy Dutchie at times I was not having any of that b*llocks, I cycled lightly-packed through a dark, rainy and windy London to Paddington station where I parked my beloved two-wheeled baby and told her to be good. In between the meteorological misery of London and Lowlands Country was a trip across a bright blue sky above a sea of cotton wool, which made me think that it’s all about perspective.

I travelled to provincial suburbia to spend a very chilled time with my sister and her family. New Born Nephew is quite a cute and well-designed specimen I can tell you and I’m a rather proud Dark Fairy auntie. Celebrating Christmas as an auntie rather than a daughter and/or a niece creates a different dynamic, one I find rather enjoyable. As Christmas in our family has always evolved very much around food and no presents are given, my sister and her partner made sure fridge and cupboards were well-stocked. As the New Born Nephew needs a present I thought to display my Funky Dark Fairy Sugar Auntiness by providing presents for all.

Then followed the new experience of travelling on Christmas day. Let me tell you, I’ve become a fan. Travelling by train to the airport, checking in, going through customs and security, boarding, going through UK customs, it all was a pleasant summer breeze as there are not that many people around and working folk tend to be in a pleasant mood. I took the rather pricey bus replacement service for the Heathrow Express from the airport taking us to Paddington station where my vehicle had indeed been good and she brought me home safe and sound through a very quiet London.

Wishing you peace and light and a blessed Yule

Who Are You Calling European?

Despite an under-sea tunnel connecting mainland Britain to continental Europe and housing the biggest and culturally most diverse city in Europe, the UK still suffers from island mentality occasionally. You would’ve thought the days of splendid isolation as a foreign policy have long gone. Yet, Prime Minister Cameron went to an EU summit last week with the aim to save the euro. He came, he saw and returned to his Island rather isolated in not such a splendid fashion.

Many a Conservative backbencher is crying the country should have a referendum on EU membership as they find the nation is giving away its sovereignty for nothing or very little in return. Cameron argued at the time that there could be no question of a referendum when the priority is to save the euro. On last Friday’s EU summit to do just that, Cameron came, saw, played and lost, as he found the interest of a few bankers more important than the general prosperity of the country. The British economy depends greatly on the country’s financial sector and it has given us great prosperity in the boom years. However, claiming the City’s interest are the country’s interest is a fallacy. The prosperity of the boom years happened to be build on air and reckless behaviour and many in society are now reaping its sour grapes. After the fall of Lehman inciting the global economic crisis, the argument was that banks needed to be bailed out or profit considerably from other forms of government support to save the economy from collapse. The sector was saved, however, the economy crippled. In the process many lost their jobs and businesses weren’t able to borrow. Meanwhile senior bankers paid themselves generous bonuses for failure. Many British banks haven’t done too badly in the last quarter despite so-called challenging economic circumstances. Yet, further job cuts have been announced, businesses are still struggling to obtain funding and the economy is moving at snail’s pace if moving at all. Besides all that the FSA has recently come to the conclusion that no one can be held accountable for the collapse of RBS that has taken the economy hostage. So are we truly to believe that the City’s interests are the interest of us all?

Cameron’s tough stance might be celebrated by the eurosceptics of his party, but his veto has given him nothing in return. Merkozy don’t seem that bothered that Cammie doesn’t want to play game. The vast majority of EU country’s have agreed to a treaty within a treaty and those who haven’t were diplomatic enough to take the issue to their respective parliaments rather than saying just flat out no. Cameron did not get the guarantee for the City he wanted and any room to wield any influence on the issue of Europe and saving the euro has gone up in smoke. The Prime Minister is very aware that the country can’t do it alone. The special relationship with the US is really not that special and the Island won’t be that much of interest to the US, or any one else for that matter, if it refuses to actively engage in the EU. The time has come for Cameron not only to clearly define his commitment to the European project, but also what exactly is truly in the nation’s interest.

We are all in it together…

top image: BBC

left: redrag1.blogspot.com

Egypt and the Brotherhood: Fear of yet another -ism

After days of unrest and protesters demanding the resignation of SCAF (Supreme Council of Armed Forces) as the country’s ruling body, elections did go ahead last week. SCAF is still the daddy and the first round of post-Mubarak parliamentary elections passed by without any notable events. The Muslim Brotherhood did well, as expected, while liberals, who got the whole revolution going in the first place, suffered at the polls due to a lack of unity and weak campaigns. Westerns and liberal Egyptian alike fear the might of the Islamists as this may mean an end to their booze- filled and flesh-rich (mis)adventures at the Red Sea and the bars of Cairo. These, mostly affluent, liberals might be living the western life style – or may want to do so- the case is that they are a minority in their own country. Up until the 1970s Egyptian society wasn’t that much different from any western society. People, especially in the cities, wore more or less the same clothes, very few women wore the hijab (islamic headscarf, not to be confused with the all- except-the-eyes-covering niqaab) and gender roles were clearly defined. While the power woman hit the scene and society started to oversexualise in the West, Egypt aimed to define itself as different from the Western forces that were dominating the country. When Nasser’s dream turned into Sadat’s assassination and Mubarak’s stubborn authoritarianism, the people started to realise that a western influenced and backed regime were not doing them any good. Corruption, unemployment and poverty are a few of many social problems that have dominated society for decades and the regime didn’t seem to care. Islamism has not only offered an ideological alternative to this, but also a practical one. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, despite having been banned by the pre-revolution regime, always had a extensive network of social enterprises supporting the needy in the community. It shouldn’t be a surprise that large sections of the population have high hopes for Islamists movements to give them the prosperous and fair society they deserve. The Muslim Brotherhood has previously expressed to be commited to the democratic process and therefore to – I pressume- pluralism. In what way this statement was just meant as an apeacement and will not be taking into practice once Islamist parties have a firm foot in parliament remains to be seen. Do Egypt’s liberals and Westerners have good reason to be worried? Maybe so. There are quite some occasion in which Islamist movements have waged wars against more liberal, western and/or secular factions of society. The actions of FIS, the Islamic Salvation Front, in Algeria during the 1990s is a particularly nasty example of this. But then Egypt is not Algeria. Egypt could be like Turkey where an Islamist ruling party is functioning well within a democratic system. The prime minister’s wife might have created quite a stir wearing a hijab as the ‘first lady’ of a strictly secular society while it’s ‘western-style’ business as usual in the bars and clubs of Instanbul and at the beaches of the Med. Now, Egypt might not be 1990s Algeria, neither is it Turkey in the 21^st century. Egypt is to follow its own route. And if Egypt’s liberals want to protect their values and lifestyle, which entails more than drinking alcohol and wearing skimpy clothes, from Islamist inluences they’d better get organised. Not only for their own sake, but for the sake of the democratic process they worked so hard for to initiate.

image: news.nationalpost.com

The Press, The Weather and Jill Scott

UK end-of-year weather hasn’t displayed any freak symptoms just yet. However, this year round autumn weather has really taken me by surprise as dropping temperatures and diminished hours of sunlight have been seriously affecting my mood and energy levels. It’s not only that one winter at the African Med, which seems like a lifetime ago, can throw you off course, it’s weather in general being all over the place all year round due to la niña/ el niño, global warming or global terrorism that confuses one’s constitution. But life goes on. The chancellor might have been blaming the slowing economy on the weather, but in general the blame game gets you nowhere.

The Leveson enquiry into the ethics and practices of the UK press is revealing a more and more sinister side to UK journalism that goes far beyond the scandalous entertainment the NOWT hacking story was giving us over the summer to deflect our attention from dire economic circumstances and Arab revolutions. In the last few weeks celebrities and ordinary people alike have been giving evidence to the committee, lead by Lord Leveson, regarding their dealings and experiences with the press. The phone hacking scandal had already revealed that politician across the political spectrum felt hijacked by a large section of the press called News International consisting of the now-defunct News of the Word, The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times. The police made a catastrophic mistake by deciding not to further investigate phone hacking at the News the World beyond the one reporter who had been jailed for his phone-hacking actions. Former Sun and News of the World editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson have admitted to having paid police for confidential information. The UK press has always been known for its ruthless methods compared to press practices in, for example, main land Europe. Police and politics have been infected and perhaps in this case we are all in it together. Broadsheets aiming to provide balanced stories and offering the general public a window to the injustices in the world are ailing commercial enterprises as we, the UK public, prefer to read and pay for celebrity b*llocks rather than a well-written story on the dealings in Westminster. We might be keen on consuming celebrity b*llocks, but would we really miss it and demand it if it wasn’t in our lives? Do we really want it that badly that we don’t care how the stories we consume are obtained?

Free press is a good thing, but what do we do if some of the press can’t handle that freedom. And is the press really free if the loss-making more ethical side of UK journalism has to be subsidised by the money-making part of the UK press, that part that seems to have very low moral standards? Or is freedom, like everything, just in the mind of the beholder?

Jill Scott entertained and inspired at the Brixton Academy last Wednesday. Truly fabulous woman

top image: bbc