As a self-respecting fag hag I can’t help being a tat condescending when people in the Western world maintain their 1950s stance that gay folk should not be allowed to marry. I know several people, who I consider as kind and good human beings, who consider the ‘gay way’ as the path astray. Yet, I don’t believe these people would be discriminating against an individual based on their gayness, because, they believe, as the good people I think they are, that being worthy of human respect has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation.

The Archbishop of York, the second most senior bishop of the Church of England, expressed his opposition against gay marriage in the Daily Telegraph in light of the governments plans to start consultations on gay marriage. He doesn’t think the state has a right to change traditions and an ancient institution like marriage. On the other hand the Archbishop argues that the Church of England should be a better reflection of society and incorporate more black and working class people in its institution. I am aware that the bible states in several verses that gayness is a sin. I don’t, however, fully understand that a tradition like marriage should not be subjected to reform yet an ancient institution like the Church of England, ruled exclusively by white, learned men for a very long time, should. Christians, like members of other religions, come in many different shapes and forms. Some believe that the word of the Holy Bible should be taken literally. So the world was indeed created in six days, woman was born out of man and all sorts of other events that have been disproved by science quite some time ago have all taken place. Yet, others believe Christian teachings should be adapted to the time and place one lives in. So although the bible says being gay is a sin, this is 21^st century Britain and gayness is no longer seen by the vast majority of people as a mental illness for which one is to find a cure. The Archbishop of York seems to have forgotten that in a democracy the state is representing the people. If the people wish to, what he calls, redefine  an institution like marriage, then the state is obliged to follow the will of the people. The issue of a marriage is not the gender of the people who wish to bind themselves to each other in holy matrimony. Marriage is the issue of two human beings wishing to express their love as such that it is recognised by the law. Those who believe that the aim of the institution of marriage is creating offspring should ask themselves if couples who don’t want or are not able to have children should be excluded from this tradition as well. Then there are gay people who do want to have a family and with 21^st century technology – and even without- this is all possible. The Church of England should be asking itself in what way opposing gay marriage goes against its own teachings of loving thy neighbour and blessing meek folk. I guess the Church doesn’t see gays as part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet gay people are voters, tax payers and human beings with a wish and a will that should be considered by a government they did – or didn’t – vote into power to do just that: execute the will of the people.

top image left: ithicalibrary.com

top image right: egnorance.blogspot.com

The festive season might seem long gone and the next opportunity for some sort of celebration is for many still weeks – Carnival- if not months away. Yet use a different calendar and it’s a time to be merry all over again. Today marks the start of the Chinese New Year and it promises to be a year of mythical proportion as this, good people, is the year of the dragon.

 Although the Chinese have been using the western Gregorian calendar for everyday business dealings since 1912, the Chinese calendar is still used to mark traditional Chinese and other East Asian holidays. This system of reckoning time is lunisolar, which means it incorporates both elements of a lunar calendar – the Islamic year for example is lunar- and a solar calendar, like the western Gregorian calendar. Earliest evidence of the Chinese calendar have been found on bones used for divination during the late Shang Dynasty (1200- 1046 BCE). During the Era of the Warring States from ca 450- 260 BCE one started to use a more precisely calculated system due to the advancements made in astronomy and mathematics. During the rule of the seventh emperor of the Han Dynasty Emperor Wu, known for overseeing great territorial expansion and the organisation of a strong centralised Confucian state, several reforms where introduced to the system that are still part of the Chinese calendar as it is used today.

 Unlike western astrology that does have a popular following, but is also often being scorned as silly superstition and pseudoscience, Chinese astrology is linked to Chinese philosophy and is of far greater significance in everyday life and culture of people in China and the wider region. The twelve animal signs of the Chinese zodiac have long been the subject of folktales and the personality traits linked to these animals are common knowledge. Many in the region build relationships and make important life decisions based on the zodiac. According to the teachings of Chinese astrology after the year of the rabbit, follows the year of the dragon, which is to herald a period of prosperity. In Western culture dragons are often associated with evil and the devil taking the shape of a seven-headed dragon in its battle against Archangel Michael in the Book of Revelations is not doing the creature’s reputation any favours. In the East however, dragons are considered to be mythical and divine creatures with superior powers, which are to bring us good fortune. So let the year of the dragon coincide with our year of fabulousness. Here is to the free spirit, the big ideas, the even bigger execution, the prosperity and the divine energies of Dragon that dwell within all of us.

 Mythical blessings

]]> http://darkfairyadventures.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/bring-on-the-magic/feed/ 0 darkfairyadventures dragon http://darkfairyadventures.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/young-queen-of-the-seven-seas/ http://darkfairyadventures.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/young-queen-of-the-seven-seas/#comments Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:35:40 +0000 Dark Fairy Adventures http://darkfairyadventures.wordpress.com/?p=1232 ]]> I few years ago, I came across the story of a then 13-year-old Dutch girl, who wanted to sail around the world single-handed. She had the support of her parents, yet the Dutch authority concerned with children’s and young people’s welfare thought it was a bad idea. An adventure such as the one she wanted to embark on, was considered to have too great of an impact on the teenager’s psyche and she would be missing out on her school work. Therefore a court order prevented this girl called Laura Dekker to go on her big trip around the globe. Laura Dekker became to be known as Sailing Girl Laura and when she turned 15 she finally embark on her solo venture after a Dutch court ruling stated that she was allowed to do so with her parents’ permission. Off she went and returned a year later finishing her monster journey at the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. The story of Sailing Girl Laura caught much media attention within and beyond Dutch borders. Some claimed Laura had pushy parents. Some where questioning whether the state has a right to intervene in a young person’s decision if it is backed by parental approval.

Lowlands country is known as a land of many rules and regulation and these rules are by no means meant to be broken (You can imagine my great cultural confusion in Egypt when a rule is never a rule and money can buy you permission to or exemption form practically anything). These rules are meant to assist us leading our lives in an orderly fashion, but can be experienced as overly restricted, paralysing and patronising. Should rules be able to be bent in some extraordinary cases? Sailing Girl Laura was born on a boat, lived a sailing existence during the first years of her life and when settling on land she ate, dreamt and slept sailing. Choosing to go on such an extraordinary mission at such a young age was to be expected. Is it not something to be admired and supported if a young person wants to do something outstanding, especially if her parents, who would be able to judge best what she would be capable of, support her? It is a great good that the state cares about the welfare of its children and young people. Yet, not all people, young or old, are the same. Lowlands country is a country of equality and where the aim is of us all to levitate to a sort of middle ground. The rich get taxed enough not to be disgustingly wealthy, the poor receive enough support that a life on the streets can be avoided. In principle everyone has access to the same schools and there is no such thing as Oxbridge or a Russell Group. Cronyism exits in every country, yet those sometimes paralysing and patronising regulation for all, go a long way when it comes to equality in restrictions. All are equal, but not all are the same. I do acknowledge that when a rule is not a rule for all, where is the line to be drawn?

However, with her accomplishment Sailing Girl Laura is the youngest person to have sailed around the world single-handed. Although I understand why Guiness is not to mention Laura’s achievement in its book of records not to encourage young people to embark on risky undertakings, Laura Dekker’s odyssey is a true achievement of which I am sure she is very proud. She is an inspiration to young and older people alike. In times of economic gloom and cultural pessimism we need proof that the human species is capable of extraordinary things and I believe the state should acknowledge and support this. I hope Sailing Girl Laura will realise that the world has more to offer than sailing alone and that she understands the value of a good education she might have missed out on. Yet, Dark Fairy salutes you. I certainly have your sense of adventure. I hope that I also share your courage and determination to achieve great things.

Hail the Young Queen of the Seven Seas!

image: copyblogger.com

Why so serious?

So we are half way through the first month of 2012 and the year just gone seems to lie in a long forgotten past. The start of the new year is quickly followed by my birthday – never fails- which is a reason – or excuse- to celebrate, reflect and look ahead. I’m still riding the fabulousness train and I discovered I’m not the only one who aims to rebrand themselves in order to get ahead: The bookseller Waterstone’s announced it is to become Waterstones as part of a rebranding campaign quote to reflect a ‘truer’ and confident picture of the business unquote . What’s in a name and what difference does the non-presence of the apostrophe really make you might say, yet grammar purists got themselves all worked up. Besides giving grammar freaks something to whine about – someone has to do it- what is the omission of the apostrophe really going to do for the bookmonger? Is the action another example of having no respect for language and the ‘dumbing-down’ of society? Or is its decision the first step of a master plan, that is to unleash Waterstone’s fabulousness once more?

Booksellers across the country – if not large parts of the world- are suffering as competing against the likes of Amazon and downloadable versions of books seems hard work. An entire industry is changing and all, oldies and newbees alike, need to keep track. The power of reinventing oneself when the going gets tough – and even when it isn’t, ask Madonna- can be seen as an explanation of the survival of the fittest. Not necessarily in the sense of adapting to one’s environment, but to let go of the current if it isn’t working for you. Everyone’s a critic so if you feel the need for reinvention, whether you’re Waterstone’s/ Waterstones or Dark Fairy, your name is your name and the world your moldable oyster to be shaped to your liking. And in this instance I would say: don’t mind the grammar geeks.

image: Geoff Cook

How patience can be unbearably painful yet still some how pay off.

When we were still living in 2011 two men were standing trial for a senseless, racist murder of a  young black man. They were accused before and acquitted by lack of evidence never to be able to be put on trial for the same offence again.

Coming from Lowlands Country to the British isles in the early noughties the name Stephen Lawrence and what his murder meant to society and British consciousness was completely unknown to me. In the decade that past I anglified and learned and my heart lifted when I read the news that after 18 years some justice had been done. I can’t begin to imagine the pain and sense of injustice Stephen’s parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, must have endured. After intense campaigning, a public inquiry, a change in the law and advancing techniques a case against two of the suspects was reopened resulting in the conviction of both suspects.  Only last week the judge urged for the jury to make a clear-headed decision based on evidence alone and I worried for moment. What if these men are to be acquitted again? I thought, even if the evidence is (still) inconclusive these men need to be convicted. For the sake of Stephen Lawrence, his parents, his friends and the nation. I thought if these men were to walk free yet again there would be riots across the country making last summer’s public disobedience look like a minor disturbance.

Once upon a time five men where splashed across the front page of the Daily Mail accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence. Non of them sued the paper for liable. Why? Two of the five, who have been convicted and are to be sentenced today, claim forensic evidence found on their belongings was due to contamination as the belongings of both the accused and Stephen Lawrence where stored in one bag (that was the 20th century). The now-convicted murders did not use an expert witness to argue their case. Why? Can someone displaying the foulest racist language and action change their ways and thinking entirely within 18 years? Possibly. Yet, it doesn’t matter. Although the convicted still need to be sentenced – and they were minors at the time of their crime- painful patience and dignity has some how paid off.

May you rest in peace Stephen Lawrence.

image: 4wardeveruk.org

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

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 learned 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

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

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

Despite an under-sea tunnel connecting mainland Britain to continental Europe and housing

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 posperity 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