The news from Sri Lanka is both shocking and saddening. The death toll as I type is set at 290, but so many were injured, I won't be surprised if it rises even further.
Bombing churches on Easter Sunday was always going to have a devastating effect. Devout Christians were clearly being targeted. I thought the trouble with the Tamil Tigers had been settled, so looked at Wikipedia to see if I had been mistaken. I hadn't.
However, what I did see was a report of violent attacks last year on Muslims in Sri Lanka by Buddhists. Buddhists are the majority in Sri Lanka and, although there is no state religion, Buddhism officially occupies a special place.
In recent months, there have also been shootings at synagogues and mosques. I am not a fan of organised religions - generally I see them as part of the patriarchy, trying to keep the little people in order - but I'm also not a fan of killing those little people.
Most religions promote a peaceful way of life - I'm thinking of the moderate branches here, not the extremists that have carried out these recent attacks. There was a meme a couple of days ago on Facebook (I can't find it now, naturally!) drawing attention to all the different religious perpetrators of mass attacks on those of other religions. It summarised it with "Religion is not the problem; violence is the problem."
I'd really like to believe that. But in these days of increasing polarisation, it seems that religions are also falling foul of the same issue, and it is the silent, moderate, majority that are suffering, while the strident minority push for ever more drastic steps to achieve dominance.
Easter is supposed to be a time of new life, Passover celebrates continuing life. For far too many in Sri Lanka this year, that message has been subverted. The silence needs to change.
Monday, 22 April 2019
Sunday, 14 April 2019
When a compromise isn't really that at all
It seems Theresa May is finding it so hard to get the support she needs for her 'deal' from her own party that she is negotiating with Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.
I should find the idea of cross-party talks comforting. The idea suggests compromise, something not too extreme in either direction. The coalition government should have managed this (except the LibDems gave away too much in the first place) though we were not aware at the time of just how extreme the Tories would have liked to have been.
But a compromise that would be acceptable to a majority on this particular issue? It seems unlikely. What is even more irksome is that they still seem to be debating the details of a deal for exiting the E.U. They just don't seem to understand that the other 27 countries need to agree with the details and if any of them don't, then it's back to no deal or no Brexit.
Strength is in numbers. The E.U. was set up in such a way as to make it hard for any country to leave without losing out, and there are 27 other countries there to make sure that happens. If we stay in, there are 28 countries in a negotiating bloc, whether for economic/trade deals or for diplomatic stands. That's a pretty large bloc. And the little information emerging now about the details should encourage many leave voters to wonder if they voted the right way, and to consider that another referendum would at the very least be considerably more informed.
I should find the idea of cross-party talks comforting. The idea suggests compromise, something not too extreme in either direction. The coalition government should have managed this (except the LibDems gave away too much in the first place) though we were not aware at the time of just how extreme the Tories would have liked to have been.
But a compromise that would be acceptable to a majority on this particular issue? It seems unlikely. What is even more irksome is that they still seem to be debating the details of a deal for exiting the E.U. They just don't seem to understand that the other 27 countries need to agree with the details and if any of them don't, then it's back to no deal or no Brexit.
Strength is in numbers. The E.U. was set up in such a way as to make it hard for any country to leave without losing out, and there are 27 other countries there to make sure that happens. If we stay in, there are 28 countries in a negotiating bloc, whether for economic/trade deals or for diplomatic stands. That's a pretty large bloc. And the little information emerging now about the details should encourage many leave voters to wonder if they voted the right way, and to consider that another referendum would at the very least be considerably more informed.
Friday, 5 April 2019
A Punishment of Biblical Proportions
The news broke yesterday that the Sultan of Brunei is implementing a number of Sharia law-based punishments, including (but not limited to) stoning to death for homosexuality.
Brunei is not the only country with a death penalty for homosexuality. It joins a list that includes Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, parts of Nigeria, parts of Somalia, parts of Syria and parts of Iraq, though it is unclear how exactly that death penalty may be administered. Homosexuality is illegal in many other countries but 'only' punished with a jail sentence, countries that include many members of the British Commonwealth.
In Europe, the major initiative against homosexuals was instigated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century, though of course it had been forbidden in the Bible (collated by Roman Catholic Clergy in the 6th and 7th century) since the time of Leviticus. Even in Leviticus, however, it is marked as being merely 'detestable' (NIV) - there is no mention of a death penalty.
In the UK, good old Henry VIII oversaw the criminalisation of sodomy in 1533, punishable by hanging, a punishment that was only repealed in 1861. Nothing to be proud of, indeed, but there is a vast difference between hanging and stoning to death.
A number of celebrities, most notably Ellen de Generes and George Clooney, have called for a boycott of hotels in the Dorchester Collection, a group owned ultimately by the extraordinarily wealthy Sultan of Brunei. (The list is here, if you want to know.) But boycotting these hotels - which is not an option for most of us as we couldn't afford to go there in the first place - only punishes the immediate employees rather than their employer, who can probably afford to sell a luxury hotel or two off cheap like last year's Monopoly pieces.
How to respond, then, to the announcement from Brunei? I don't know what the answer is. But it seems terribly sad, at a time when Saudi Arabia is finally allowing a small element of the twentieth century into its ranks with women drivers, that Brunei thinks it appropriate to lurch back to the standards of two millennia ago.
Brunei is not the only country with a death penalty for homosexuality. It joins a list that includes Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, parts of Nigeria, parts of Somalia, parts of Syria and parts of Iraq, though it is unclear how exactly that death penalty may be administered. Homosexuality is illegal in many other countries but 'only' punished with a jail sentence, countries that include many members of the British Commonwealth.
In Europe, the major initiative against homosexuals was instigated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century, though of course it had been forbidden in the Bible (collated by Roman Catholic Clergy in the 6th and 7th century) since the time of Leviticus. Even in Leviticus, however, it is marked as being merely 'detestable' (NIV) - there is no mention of a death penalty.
In the UK, good old Henry VIII oversaw the criminalisation of sodomy in 1533, punishable by hanging, a punishment that was only repealed in 1861. Nothing to be proud of, indeed, but there is a vast difference between hanging and stoning to death.
A number of celebrities, most notably Ellen de Generes and George Clooney, have called for a boycott of hotels in the Dorchester Collection, a group owned ultimately by the extraordinarily wealthy Sultan of Brunei. (The list is here, if you want to know.) But boycotting these hotels - which is not an option for most of us as we couldn't afford to go there in the first place - only punishes the immediate employees rather than their employer, who can probably afford to sell a luxury hotel or two off cheap like last year's Monopoly pieces.
How to respond, then, to the announcement from Brunei? I don't know what the answer is. But it seems terribly sad, at a time when Saudi Arabia is finally allowing a small element of the twentieth century into its ranks with women drivers, that Brunei thinks it appropriate to lurch back to the standards of two millennia ago.
Friday, 29 March 2019
Leading us out of this mess
My niece is currently staying with us while she does a PGCE. It's very hard work (probably the hardest thing *I* ever had to do) but she is enjoying it most of the time, bouncing down to breakfast today for her last day on her current placement but excited that she now knows which school she will be at for her final teaching practice.
While I have largely stopped watching the news for the last couple of years, you would think that, having a trainee teacher in the house, I would be aware of news in the field of education at the very least. Yet I have no idea who the Education Secretary is at the moment. Drowned out perhaps by all the other drama in the political world.
I do however remember the name of Michael Gove. In a pretty dire shower of Education Ministers while I was teaching full time, he was one of the direst. I base this assessment not just on my own recollection of his imposition of new schemes without bothering to test them out first, but also on an almost unanimous vote of no confidence in him in 2013, from the NAHT, the NUT, the NASUWT and the ATL, the NAHT accusing him of creating a climate of fear, bullying and intimidation.
I am therefore less than heartened by a rumour that Gove could become the next leader of the Tory party, and thus the next Prime Minister. I'm not impressed by Theresa May's offer to stand down as party leader if her party will vote in favour of her deal - it smacks of party before country, and echoes Cameron's abject flight after losing the referendum. Gove would just be adding insult to injury - though to be fair, I'm not sure that Johnson or Rees-Mogg would be any better (doubtless they would disagree).
On a lighter note, therefore, a brief word on the importance of putting punctuation in the correct place; which is more appropriate - "there's a maypole dancer" or "Theresa May - pole dancer"? Apologies for the image you now have in your mind....
While I have largely stopped watching the news for the last couple of years, you would think that, having a trainee teacher in the house, I would be aware of news in the field of education at the very least. Yet I have no idea who the Education Secretary is at the moment. Drowned out perhaps by all the other drama in the political world.
I do however remember the name of Michael Gove. In a pretty dire shower of Education Ministers while I was teaching full time, he was one of the direst. I base this assessment not just on my own recollection of his imposition of new schemes without bothering to test them out first, but also on an almost unanimous vote of no confidence in him in 2013, from the NAHT, the NUT, the NASUWT and the ATL, the NAHT accusing him of creating a climate of fear, bullying and intimidation.
I am therefore less than heartened by a rumour that Gove could become the next leader of the Tory party, and thus the next Prime Minister. I'm not impressed by Theresa May's offer to stand down as party leader if her party will vote in favour of her deal - it smacks of party before country, and echoes Cameron's abject flight after losing the referendum. Gove would just be adding insult to injury - though to be fair, I'm not sure that Johnson or Rees-Mogg would be any better (doubtless they would disagree).
On a lighter note, therefore, a brief word on the importance of putting punctuation in the correct place; which is more appropriate - "there's a maypole dancer" or "Theresa May - pole dancer"? Apologies for the image you now have in your mind....
Friday, 15 March 2019
Consensus in the chaos?
I've tried to avoid discussing either Brexit or Trump as I find both topics deeply depressing. It's getting harder to avoid Brexit in the UK news as each day brings fresh demands and votes from the various sides. And apparently even Trump has weighed in with his opinion.
My husband has a Russian colleague based in Germany who has been trying to follow the news. "I don't understand it," he said. "Can you explain it?" He is not alone.
Whichever way you voted in the referendum, I find it hard to believe that you were expecting the level of uncertainty that we are currently enduring. Some people are not travelling in or out of the UK as they aren't sure how their plans will be affected since we don't know if we will be exiting the EU on 29th March or not, and if we do, whether there will be a deal of some sort. The exchange rate is suffering as traders in other currencies ditch their sterling for something more solid. Various companies are putting hiring plans on hold until they know which country will be their best option for a new HQ. People who *are* travelling after the end of March into Europe with their pets have had to organise certificates well in advance that weren't previously necessary - and may yet not be. These are just some of the repercussions of the uncertainty.
Two years from the triggering of Article 50 to resolve all the various legal and practical issues never seemed like very long to me. The suggestion that the current deal should be thrown out and replaced with a new one in the next two weeks is simply absurd. I've seen extensions of three months mentioned in the press - I fail to see how three months will help us to resolve something for which two years was insufficient.
In or out, I'm sure we can all agree on one thing: the current situation is a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, with no sign of imminent resolution.
My husband has a Russian colleague based in Germany who has been trying to follow the news. "I don't understand it," he said. "Can you explain it?" He is not alone.
Whichever way you voted in the referendum, I find it hard to believe that you were expecting the level of uncertainty that we are currently enduring. Some people are not travelling in or out of the UK as they aren't sure how their plans will be affected since we don't know if we will be exiting the EU on 29th March or not, and if we do, whether there will be a deal of some sort. The exchange rate is suffering as traders in other currencies ditch their sterling for something more solid. Various companies are putting hiring plans on hold until they know which country will be their best option for a new HQ. People who *are* travelling after the end of March into Europe with their pets have had to organise certificates well in advance that weren't previously necessary - and may yet not be. These are just some of the repercussions of the uncertainty.
Two years from the triggering of Article 50 to resolve all the various legal and practical issues never seemed like very long to me. The suggestion that the current deal should be thrown out and replaced with a new one in the next two weeks is simply absurd. I've seen extensions of three months mentioned in the press - I fail to see how three months will help us to resolve something for which two years was insufficient.
In or out, I'm sure we can all agree on one thing: the current situation is a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, with no sign of imminent resolution.
Friday, 8 March 2019
World Book Day (a short rant)
Back in 1998, when the UK moved its celebration of the newly-created World Book Day to early March, so that it wouldn't clash with Easter, it was a fun thing. There were £1 book tokens given to every school pupil, a limited selection of £1 books were stocked for the spending of said tokens, and in an effort to promote the whole idea of reading books, some (and I emphasise the *some* here) schools allowed the children to dress as a character from a book for the day. And some of the kids did, utilising things they had in the house already.
I was teaching a Year 4 class at the time (eight year olds, for those unfamiliar) and was known to be heavily into books. So although I'm not generally one for dressing up, I did on this occasion. Black trousers with a tail safety-pinned to the back, a black top, some cardboard ears attached to a hairband, whiskers drawn on with an eye-crayon - and of course, a cardboard box so that whenever anyone looked in my direction, I could put it over my head since I was the cat from My Cat Likes to Hide in Boxes. I think the whole outfit involved an outlay of about £2, for the hairband.
Now it seems to be obligatory that not only the pupils but also the staff dress up. Some start preparing weeks beforehand (I know at least one mum who did). Judging by the photos on Facebook, quite a few are costumes either hired or purchased - I suspect the supermarkets do their best to encourage that avenue. One student teacher I know spent Wednesday evening making a costume out of cardboard and tape so that she could dress up for her Year 1 (five year olds) the following day. (She had talked about buying some props beforehand, but being a student teacher, she's on a budget and overworked).
I'm all in favour of encouraging reading. Giving the schools some support when they are struggling with funding for the basics is also to be encouraged. But to put pressure on schools and families to spend time and often quite a lot of money is not acceptable. Peer pressure can be toxic, so the optional nature of the thing has to come from the school's leadership team. Teachers can lead by example - they are supposed to model acceptable behaviours, so this could be just one more.
And I really hope that one meme I saw on Facebook isn't true - that some families spend more on costumes for World Book Day than they spend on books in a year.
I was teaching a Year 4 class at the time (eight year olds, for those unfamiliar) and was known to be heavily into books. So although I'm not generally one for dressing up, I did on this occasion. Black trousers with a tail safety-pinned to the back, a black top, some cardboard ears attached to a hairband, whiskers drawn on with an eye-crayon - and of course, a cardboard box so that whenever anyone looked in my direction, I could put it over my head since I was the cat from My Cat Likes to Hide in Boxes. I think the whole outfit involved an outlay of about £2, for the hairband.
Now it seems to be obligatory that not only the pupils but also the staff dress up. Some start preparing weeks beforehand (I know at least one mum who did). Judging by the photos on Facebook, quite a few are costumes either hired or purchased - I suspect the supermarkets do their best to encourage that avenue. One student teacher I know spent Wednesday evening making a costume out of cardboard and tape so that she could dress up for her Year 1 (five year olds) the following day. (She had talked about buying some props beforehand, but being a student teacher, she's on a budget and overworked).
I'm all in favour of encouraging reading. Giving the schools some support when they are struggling with funding for the basics is also to be encouraged. But to put pressure on schools and families to spend time and often quite a lot of money is not acceptable. Peer pressure can be toxic, so the optional nature of the thing has to come from the school's leadership team. Teachers can lead by example - they are supposed to model acceptable behaviours, so this could be just one more.
And I really hope that one meme I saw on Facebook isn't true - that some families spend more on costumes for World Book Day than they spend on books in a year.
Friday, 1 March 2019
When someone you like does something you don't - or vice versa.
I'm reading a highly entertaining book at the moment called 'The Book of Bad Virtues'. It's a collection of anecdotes, poems, and mini-essays extolling the, well, virtues, of disobedience, greed, slacking and so on. It's a book that can be dipped into, or read cover to cover, and is good for reading short extracts out loud.
It's also very clever.
I was so struck by the intellectual humour that I googled the author. His pedigree is strong, starting off in the Cambridge Footlights, being an early writer for Spitting Image, and then departing to the US where he continued to write, act and produce.
But his career seems to have ground to a halt more recently, round about the time an allegation was printed in a major US newspaper regarding sexual impropriety and one of his children.
If the allegations are true, then he has a very seamy side. He would not be the kind of person that one would want to support, and I'm a tiny bit relieved that the book was passed on to me for free and that no further money went in the author's direction.
But in the light of other stories about, for example, Ryan Adams and fans wanting refunds on their tickets (and today it was announced that he has scrapped his UK tour) following unsavoury rumours in the press, it is something that is very relevant.
It can be very difficult to separate out a person's skill from their personal behaviour. We have enough difficulty distinguishing between actors and the characters they play, or their public persona from their private selves, so that is hardly surprising.
But does it matter? If someone has a history of being, say, a sex offender, should we support their artistic endeavours, thus putting money in their pockets? If only the accused were involved, it would be an easier decision. But that is not always the case, and therein lies a problem.
There is a boycott being proposed in the theatre world in the US over the licensing of differing versions of 'To Kill a Mockingbird', in which the lawyers of a more recent one have forced the closure of a number of community theatre productions rather than face legal action. Who is harmed by such a boycott? Certainly, the name at the centre of the legal controversy is harmed, but so too are the employees of the Broadway theatre, the cast of the play, and a whole load of other people associated with the production but completely uninvolved in the threatened lawsuits.
At what point does our moral outrage at the behaviour of one individual outweigh the need to support the livelihoods of totally different people? And all this, of course, assumes that the one individual is in fact guilty of whatever the behaviour is that has caused such offence. A potentially big assumption....
It's also very clever.
I was so struck by the intellectual humour that I googled the author. His pedigree is strong, starting off in the Cambridge Footlights, being an early writer for Spitting Image, and then departing to the US where he continued to write, act and produce.
But his career seems to have ground to a halt more recently, round about the time an allegation was printed in a major US newspaper regarding sexual impropriety and one of his children.
If the allegations are true, then he has a very seamy side. He would not be the kind of person that one would want to support, and I'm a tiny bit relieved that the book was passed on to me for free and that no further money went in the author's direction.
But in the light of other stories about, for example, Ryan Adams and fans wanting refunds on their tickets (and today it was announced that he has scrapped his UK tour) following unsavoury rumours in the press, it is something that is very relevant.
It can be very difficult to separate out a person's skill from their personal behaviour. We have enough difficulty distinguishing between actors and the characters they play, or their public persona from their private selves, so that is hardly surprising.
But does it matter? If someone has a history of being, say, a sex offender, should we support their artistic endeavours, thus putting money in their pockets? If only the accused were involved, it would be an easier decision. But that is not always the case, and therein lies a problem.
There is a boycott being proposed in the theatre world in the US over the licensing of differing versions of 'To Kill a Mockingbird', in which the lawyers of a more recent one have forced the closure of a number of community theatre productions rather than face legal action. Who is harmed by such a boycott? Certainly, the name at the centre of the legal controversy is harmed, but so too are the employees of the Broadway theatre, the cast of the play, and a whole load of other people associated with the production but completely uninvolved in the threatened lawsuits.
At what point does our moral outrage at the behaviour of one individual outweigh the need to support the livelihoods of totally different people? And all this, of course, assumes that the one individual is in fact guilty of whatever the behaviour is that has caused such offence. A potentially big assumption....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)