margaret thatcher is dead, and as can be expected, there is a lot of reaction to that news. there is the normal expected reaction of the present british prime minister, praising her achievements and her qualities. there are the tributes from other leaders around the world. there are the expressions of grief from conservatives.
but there are also the opposite: those who say they won't mourn her, those who are prepared to review the severely negative impacts of her legacy, and those who are actually celebrating her death.
about the latter, there has been much righteous indignation, both from the left & the right. it's considered in bad taste, nasty, disrespectful. even criticism of her policies and her beliefs has been sidelined with a "we shouldn't speak ill of the dead". even by those who fully understand the effects of those policies and the
widespread suffering it has caused. even by those who sympathise with
the poor & dispossessed.
the celebrations and reactions of glee reminded of similar reactions in iraq at the fall of saddam hussein & in libya with the capture & death of muammar gaddafi. those pictures went around the world and we didn't see too much criticism about such celebrations being disrespectful or nasty. the overwhelming opinion appeared to be that people were right to celebrate the removal of a tyrant, and that it's ok to be happy about the death of someone who had caused so much harm.
there was a similar, pretty global, reaction to the death of osama bin laden. a lot of the reaction was of a celebratory nature.
yet a similar reaction by people who directly experienced the tyranny of ms thatcher's policies is getting a completely different reaction.
i can say that i was never supportive of celebrations of death - for example, see here and here. i felt pretty much the same when saddam hussein was hanged & no, i don't think actually celebrating margaret thatcher's death is a good idea. and it's possible that some of those who are against the celebration of ms thatcher's death were also against the celebration of the deaths of these others i have named. but the majority of people who have been complaining today are showing an appalling double standard - cheering the death of some but not accepting that others would cheer the death of a british leader for similar reasons.
but this notion of not speaking ill of the dead, i have a different view about that. i think there is a public good over-ride to that rule, and particularly when someone has had such an overarching influence on a global scale. i think people should have to live with the consequences of their legacy, that the pain they left behind should be remembered at the time of their death. i don't think it's right that their history should be described in glowing terms in the first few days after their death, thereby making it difficult to correct later on. especially in a world where every record is more or less permanent.
this sentiment was best expressed by the widely-shared glenn greenwald piece in the guardian:
This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's
death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill
of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it
is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure,
particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.
"Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if
one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the
protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse
about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at
length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule
about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously
violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can
read my reasoning here.
i'd strongly recommend reading the piece with his "reasoning", where he talks about the events after ronald reagan's death and makes the powerful point:
How they are remembered is not strictly a matter of the sensitivities of
their loved ones, but has substantial impact on the culture which
discusses their lives. To allow significant political figures to be
heralded with purely one-sided requiems — enforced by misguided (even if
well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of
their bad acts — is not a matter of politeness; it’s deceitful and
propagandistic. To exploit the sentiments of sympathy produced by death
to enshrine a political figure as Great and Noble is to sanction, or at
best minimize, their sins. Misapplying private death etiquette to public
figures creates false history and glorifies the ignoble.
more than this, it's disrespectful of all the people who have suffered and continue to suffer because of the political decisions of the deceased. to sideline that suffering is to hide it at the time when there is the greatest opportunity to highlight the consequences of the deceased's actions. while we are ready to consider the pain of the family of the deceased, why should we not equally be willing to openly acknowledge the pain of thousands, sometimes millions of others, those who were innocent and hurt through no fault of their own, but only because they had the misfortune to be born in place and time when the deceased had power over them?
the only final point i want to make here is one that is being made across many feminist blogs around the world in regards to ms thatcher, and one that is continuously made regarding any number of women: disagreeing with her politics is ok, attacking her for being a woman is really not ok. there is no need to call her a witch, or any other gendered insult. to do so harms all women, not just this one woman. after all, there is plenty to criticise about her policies, beliefs and actions.
regardless of that, i do not rejoice at her death. i don't wish hell for her or for any other person. i do wish that she is remembered accurately, which includes all the negative aspects as well. RIP margaret thatcher.
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Monday, 8 April 2013
going home
one of the issues that i've written about regularly here is that of belonging. or not belonging. or probably to be more specific, my feeling that i belong here which is not matched by other people's feelings that i don't.
it's a common problem for children of migrants and even great-grandchildren of migrants, and the ones like me who came here at a young age. for the actual people who migrated here, i think it's not such an issue. even though they have chosen nz as their home, they often still feel a very strong association with the place they were born & grew up. it's likely that they have close family and friends at the place they came from; they have strong memories and childhood associations with places, smells, food, language, cultural traditions. all the things that make up the person they are today tend to be grounded & founded in that place they grew up.
so when they travel back to their country of origin, they talk about "going home". home is still that place where the associations are so strong, it's still that place where everything is familiar, and where they feel a strong sense of belonging. home is the place where everything is comfortable and known and understood. patterns of speech, metaphors, cultural markers, typical shared experiences, all make up that feeling of going back to the place where one belongs.
but for their children who were born and/or grew up here, the associations aren't quite the same. that place that their parents call home isn't as familiar as it is to their parents. a lot of that feeling can depend on how often the children travel to their parents' home country, and how long they stay there. how much they are able to immerse themselves in the culture and how well they speak the language. some of these children will strongly identify with their heritage, others won't. but i suspect that most of them, as they become adults, won't talk of "going home" when they travel back to the place their parents were born.
for them, as for me, home is here. this is the place i grew up, and where i've lived for 41 years. it's what i know, what i'm familiar with, and if i don't always feel comfortable here, i know i'll never feel more comfortable than this anywhere else.
so when someone who knew a little bit of my background innocently asked me how often i "go back home", the question jarred. because i don't go back home, i'm here at my home. hamilton is home, it's where i belong. it's when i'm overseas that i talk of going back home, and that's when i fondly remember the rolling green hills of the waikato (well, still a little brown at the moment) and the river running not too far away from my house. that's when i think of the familiar streets, the language i grew up with, the friends, the places that all create that sense of home.
but more than that, the question jarred because it meant that the person asking it didn't recognise that i belong here. or at least didn't appreciate it. and this is something i'm going to face a lot as i campaign for the local body elections: how to overcome this entrenched notion in so many people's minds that i'm not a local, that i don't belong, that i'm not one of them. it's insidious and persistent, and is most commonly seen when people use the word "kiwi" to mean people of european heritage. as if the rest of us can't be kiwis. funnily enough, this terminology is used by migrants just as much as locals - they will use the word "kiwi" to means local, white people who are other than them.
it's a concept i consistently fight against. it's something i constantly need to remind people about: that as far as i'm concerned, the word "kiwi" includes me. it's my identity as well. i'm a nz'er, maybe not born, but certainly bred. and this place is home.
it's a common problem for children of migrants and even great-grandchildren of migrants, and the ones like me who came here at a young age. for the actual people who migrated here, i think it's not such an issue. even though they have chosen nz as their home, they often still feel a very strong association with the place they were born & grew up. it's likely that they have close family and friends at the place they came from; they have strong memories and childhood associations with places, smells, food, language, cultural traditions. all the things that make up the person they are today tend to be grounded & founded in that place they grew up.
so when they travel back to their country of origin, they talk about "going home". home is still that place where the associations are so strong, it's still that place where everything is familiar, and where they feel a strong sense of belonging. home is the place where everything is comfortable and known and understood. patterns of speech, metaphors, cultural markers, typical shared experiences, all make up that feeling of going back to the place where one belongs.
but for their children who were born and/or grew up here, the associations aren't quite the same. that place that their parents call home isn't as familiar as it is to their parents. a lot of that feeling can depend on how often the children travel to their parents' home country, and how long they stay there. how much they are able to immerse themselves in the culture and how well they speak the language. some of these children will strongly identify with their heritage, others won't. but i suspect that most of them, as they become adults, won't talk of "going home" when they travel back to the place their parents were born.
for them, as for me, home is here. this is the place i grew up, and where i've lived for 41 years. it's what i know, what i'm familiar with, and if i don't always feel comfortable here, i know i'll never feel more comfortable than this anywhere else.
so when someone who knew a little bit of my background innocently asked me how often i "go back home", the question jarred. because i don't go back home, i'm here at my home. hamilton is home, it's where i belong. it's when i'm overseas that i talk of going back home, and that's when i fondly remember the rolling green hills of the waikato (well, still a little brown at the moment) and the river running not too far away from my house. that's when i think of the familiar streets, the language i grew up with, the friends, the places that all create that sense of home.
but more than that, the question jarred because it meant that the person asking it didn't recognise that i belong here. or at least didn't appreciate it. and this is something i'm going to face a lot as i campaign for the local body elections: how to overcome this entrenched notion in so many people's minds that i'm not a local, that i don't belong, that i'm not one of them. it's insidious and persistent, and is most commonly seen when people use the word "kiwi" to mean people of european heritage. as if the rest of us can't be kiwis. funnily enough, this terminology is used by migrants just as much as locals - they will use the word "kiwi" to means local, white people who are other than them.
it's a concept i consistently fight against. it's something i constantly need to remind people about: that as far as i'm concerned, the word "kiwi" includes me. it's my identity as well. i'm a nz'er, maybe not born, but certainly bred. and this place is home.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
Yom HaShoah
it's been a weekend of back-to-back meetings and events, mostly pretty amazing. the balloon festival on saturday night was lovely with a spectacular fireworks display.
this afternoon i attended a holocaust memorial service, organised by the waikato jewish association & the christian friends of israel. i've attended a similar event once before, which i had found difficult in some ways. i was hesitant to attend this ceremony, because of fears that i would be in a position of not being able to respond to things i was hearing.
and this is where the power of working on interfaith issues becomes so important. i was able to voice my concerns to a friend from the jewish community, and on their part, the organisers took those concerns seriously and undertook to do their best to ensure their event would be an inclusive one, and safe for their guests.
they were successful in doing that - i came away from the event feeling enriched, and also being able to participate by giving my own thoughts. i'll put down what i shared below, but for me, the most important part of this experience was the fact that we were all able to be there and to share in a way that was respectful to everyone present. it's the sort of thing that peace-making is built from, in the sense that we can bring people with disparate views into the same space, and make them feel comfortable.
this is something we try to do locally with islam awareness week, where we are lucky to have representatives of many faiths come together to share views on the theme for the year. but for our event, we only manage to attract people who already subscribe to interfaith values, or people who are curious. it's hard to get people with entrenched views to take part. and it's equally hard to be in a place where i know people have entrenched views which won't be particularly sympathetic towards me.
so i think it was quite a feat by my friends to manage to create the kind of environment they did under the circumstances they were working in. i know it took a lot of work on their part, and all i can do is express my sincere appreciation of that work and how much it means to me. maybe in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't make a lot of difference. it's not going to change the world, and we didn't have dialogue about contemporary issues. but even so, it meant a lot to me. it was another small step on a path that leads to better things.
here is what i said (more or less):
first i'd like to thank the organisers for making this an inclusive event, and for allowing us to be part of this time of remembrance and mourning for you. i'd like to share a few verses of the qur'an:
Say: We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, and given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to the Prophets from their Lord; we make no difference between any of them and to Allah we have surrendered. (2:136)
Oh you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, bearers of witness for Allah's sake, even though it be against your own selves or your parents or your kin, and whether it be against rich or poor, for Allah can best protect both. So do not follow your personal desire, lest you be not just. And if you distort justice or decline to do justice, then surely Allah is aware of what you do. (4:135)
O you who believe, stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just: that is nearer to piety and fear Allah. For Allah is well acquainted with all that you do. (4:8)
i'd like to say a prayer for all those who did not receive justice, who had to suffer injustice and oppression. i'm very sorry for your loss.
this afternoon i attended a holocaust memorial service, organised by the waikato jewish association & the christian friends of israel. i've attended a similar event once before, which i had found difficult in some ways. i was hesitant to attend this ceremony, because of fears that i would be in a position of not being able to respond to things i was hearing.
and this is where the power of working on interfaith issues becomes so important. i was able to voice my concerns to a friend from the jewish community, and on their part, the organisers took those concerns seriously and undertook to do their best to ensure their event would be an inclusive one, and safe for their guests.
they were successful in doing that - i came away from the event feeling enriched, and also being able to participate by giving my own thoughts. i'll put down what i shared below, but for me, the most important part of this experience was the fact that we were all able to be there and to share in a way that was respectful to everyone present. it's the sort of thing that peace-making is built from, in the sense that we can bring people with disparate views into the same space, and make them feel comfortable.
this is something we try to do locally with islam awareness week, where we are lucky to have representatives of many faiths come together to share views on the theme for the year. but for our event, we only manage to attract people who already subscribe to interfaith values, or people who are curious. it's hard to get people with entrenched views to take part. and it's equally hard to be in a place where i know people have entrenched views which won't be particularly sympathetic towards me.
so i think it was quite a feat by my friends to manage to create the kind of environment they did under the circumstances they were working in. i know it took a lot of work on their part, and all i can do is express my sincere appreciation of that work and how much it means to me. maybe in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't make a lot of difference. it's not going to change the world, and we didn't have dialogue about contemporary issues. but even so, it meant a lot to me. it was another small step on a path that leads to better things.
here is what i said (more or less):
first i'd like to thank the organisers for making this an inclusive event, and for allowing us to be part of this time of remembrance and mourning for you. i'd like to share a few verses of the qur'an:
i'd like to say a prayer for all those who did not receive justice, who had to suffer injustice and oppression. i'm very sorry for your loss.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
i do not need to be saved by femen
i saw this article on my twitter feed today, and i thought "yes! this. totally this."
if you haven't heard of the group femen yet, i'll leave you to use an internet search engine to find out more about them. let's just say that much of what you'll find is NSFW. it's a form of protest that uses nudity to gain attention. and that it does.
their latest protest is against "islamism", in some sort of attempt to save muslim women. it's a protest in support of tunisian protestor amina tyler, who posed topless to protest against honour killing, and has since been out of contact with femen. but the protest slogans painted on the topless bodies of young, white women are coming across as an bigoted and imperialist attack.
there have been plenty of muslim women speaking back via social media, including the twitter hashtag #muslimahpride. i love this one that appears in the article:
and from looking at those protests, you could never tell that some of the worst problems muslim women face are as a result of invasion, occupation, drone strikes and bombs, carried out and/or funded by the west. no, the femen protesters are working in a paradigm wherein the west can only be liberators, muslim men can only be oppressors, and muslim women can only be helpless victims.
it's hardly surprising that muslim women are saying they don't need this kind of support. because it really doesn't help.
if you haven't heard of the group femen yet, i'll leave you to use an internet search engine to find out more about them. let's just say that much of what you'll find is NSFW. it's a form of protest that uses nudity to gain attention. and that it does.
their latest protest is against "islamism", in some sort of attempt to save muslim women. it's a protest in support of tunisian protestor amina tyler, who posed topless to protest against honour killing, and has since been out of contact with femen. but the protest slogans painted on the topless bodies of young, white women are coming across as an bigoted and imperialist attack.
there have been plenty of muslim women speaking back via social media, including the twitter hashtag #muslimahpride. i love this one that appears in the article:
“Only if Femen and Richard Dawkins would come to rescue us from our oppressive men and religion” said no muslim woman ever! #muslimahprideand this:
— ﺻﺒﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ (@SabihaMahmoud) April 4, 2013
We don't accept the stereotypes enforced on us by the west. Nor do we need #Femen to become our collective mouth piece. #MuslimahPrideand for me, that second one comes to the heart of the matter. i love that muslim women are speaking out and being visible instead of being spoken about and spoken for by other women who think they know best about liberation and freedom of others. from looking at the femen protest, you'd never know that there were muslim women activists working in their countries to fight against honour killings and others crimes against women; muslim women fighting for the right to drive and to work, to achieve and be counted.
— Sana Adnan (@ConfusedEmpath) April 5, 2013
and from looking at those protests, you could never tell that some of the worst problems muslim women face are as a result of invasion, occupation, drone strikes and bombs, carried out and/or funded by the west. no, the femen protesters are working in a paradigm wherein the west can only be liberators, muslim men can only be oppressors, and muslim women can only be helpless victims.
it's hardly surprising that muslim women are saying they don't need this kind of support. because it really doesn't help.
Thursday, 4 April 2013
on council paying a living wage
one of the issues that has come to the fore in hamilton politics is the living wage campaign. councillor dave macpherson came out in the medai supporting the campaign and calling for the council to move to paying a living wage to all staff.
he got a considerable amount of pushback, starting from the mayor, and continuing on with various letters to the editor. the usual line against the policy are twofold: one that it would be too expensive & rates are high enough as it is. the other is that all other wages would have to move up to keep the differential.
the latter point is spurious, as far as i'm concerned. the difference in wages between the highly paid & the lower paid workers is far too great in our society. there is no need for it to be so great. and i subscribe to the notion that we should value human labour enough that every person is able to earn enough to live on from working a reasonable number of hours (which really shouldn't be more than 40 per week).
the fact is that the living wage campaign actually takes into account working for families payments, so that the $18.40 only becomes a living wage because government is subsidising employers. actually, if we believe that humans beings should have a decent quality of life from the fruits of their labour, then wages need to be much higher than that.
but let's go with the $18.40. the differential in wages represents higher levels of skills and training. i'd agree that there should be some differential to account for the fact that some people have taken time out of the workforce to gain a higher level of competence in a particular area. the crucial question is: how much more should they earn? because, at a certain point, the differential is no longer about remuneration for a increased level of skills and experience, and becomes more about elitism.
i don't see why we should pay for elitism, and particularly not from our rates. so, as far as i'm concerned, reducing the differential is a good thing - it's a way to remove unnecessary inequality from our society.
then there comes the question of affordability. the article i linked to above puts the cost for hamilton city council at $170,000. given the size of the budget of the city council, this is hardly a large sum. and the benefits - not just for the individuals who will receive that higher wage but for the city - are actually going to be spread across the city.
this is because we know that people on lower wages, when they get a pay rise, will be spending that money rather than saving it - usually because it's a matter of necessity. that money then circulates through the local economy, stimulating growth. of course $170,000 won't stimulate too much growth, but if it encourages other employers to raise their wages, then you get a flow-on effect with more people at the bottom end of the economy having more money to spend.
but mostly, on this issue, i really find it hard to figure out how people can justify in their own minds the payment of wages at a level that leave people in poverty and distress. if you can't work your way out of poverty, then there is no hope, no future. it leads to hopelessness and helplessness, and from there to frustration and anger. why would you not prefer to have a society where people are healthy and comfortably off? it makes no sense to me.
he got a considerable amount of pushback, starting from the mayor, and continuing on with various letters to the editor. the usual line against the policy are twofold: one that it would be too expensive & rates are high enough as it is. the other is that all other wages would have to move up to keep the differential.
the latter point is spurious, as far as i'm concerned. the difference in wages between the highly paid & the lower paid workers is far too great in our society. there is no need for it to be so great. and i subscribe to the notion that we should value human labour enough that every person is able to earn enough to live on from working a reasonable number of hours (which really shouldn't be more than 40 per week).
the fact is that the living wage campaign actually takes into account working for families payments, so that the $18.40 only becomes a living wage because government is subsidising employers. actually, if we believe that humans beings should have a decent quality of life from the fruits of their labour, then wages need to be much higher than that.
but let's go with the $18.40. the differential in wages represents higher levels of skills and training. i'd agree that there should be some differential to account for the fact that some people have taken time out of the workforce to gain a higher level of competence in a particular area. the crucial question is: how much more should they earn? because, at a certain point, the differential is no longer about remuneration for a increased level of skills and experience, and becomes more about elitism.
i don't see why we should pay for elitism, and particularly not from our rates. so, as far as i'm concerned, reducing the differential is a good thing - it's a way to remove unnecessary inequality from our society.
then there comes the question of affordability. the article i linked to above puts the cost for hamilton city council at $170,000. given the size of the budget of the city council, this is hardly a large sum. and the benefits - not just for the individuals who will receive that higher wage but for the city - are actually going to be spread across the city.
this is because we know that people on lower wages, when they get a pay rise, will be spending that money rather than saving it - usually because it's a matter of necessity. that money then circulates through the local economy, stimulating growth. of course $170,000 won't stimulate too much growth, but if it encourages other employers to raise their wages, then you get a flow-on effect with more people at the bottom end of the economy having more money to spend.
but mostly, on this issue, i really find it hard to figure out how people can justify in their own minds the payment of wages at a level that leave people in poverty and distress. if you can't work your way out of poverty, then there is no hope, no future. it leads to hopelessness and helplessness, and from there to frustration and anger. why would you not prefer to have a society where people are healthy and comfortably off? it makes no sense to me.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
standing for council
so i've been pretty slack at posting here at my own blog of late, though there have been a few sporadic posts over at the hand mirror in the interim. but i have a reason, and here it is.
i have made a decision to put my name forward for hamilton city council elections. i'll be standing in the hamilton east ward. it has been a big decision for me, and a scary one. i know it's normal for women in situations like this to have doubts: will i have what it takes? can i convince people that i'm able to do the job? but mostly, can i convince them to vote for me, with my hijab and my skin colour, my so obvious difference?
well, i'll never know until i try. what has persuaded me is the number of people who have been encouraging me to put my name forward and who do have faith in my abilities. i'm humbled by their kindness, and very much dependent on their support. so i'm putting my name out into the public arena, in a way that is very different to standing on the list.
hamilton city council is in a unique position this year, in that a number of existing councillors will be retiring this year. in hamilton, it has proved very difficult to unseat existing councillors, so this year there is a window of opportunity open. there is also the concerned citizens campaign, in which businessman ray stark has taken it upon himself to unseat as many of the existing councillors as he can, while not formally supporting or endorsing any candidate. it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
so into this environment i throw my hat (or headscarf, as it were). i firmly believe we need diversity on council, and i know i have a strong history of working with NGOs and community organisations, as well as political experience that will help. i can add to that my financial skills, and a passion to build community ie to build up a sense of people who look out for each other and want to develop a society which is about making sure everyone does well.
so, some time soon i will have a website for my campaign. and if anyone is interested in donating time, money or even moral support, it will be most gratefully received. you can let me know by making a comment to this blog, and because it's moderated, the comment won't be published until i approve it. just let me know if you wish your comment to be confidential.
and in the spirit of local body campaigning, here's an issue i feel strongly about: the city council is currently seeking to implement a new liquor policy, whereby they will "limit the number of new suburban liquour outlets by imposing tougher rules, and potentially dry areas." this is something i completely agree with, particularly since there tends to be a much higher level of liquor outlets in lower socio-economic areas. but it's also about giving local communities more of a say about what happens in their area, greater democracy if you will.
the current council are seeking to fastrack approval of the policy, in an attempt to ensure it gets passed before the election. there is a fear that a new council might not support the policy. i can at least say that i definitely support it now, and would support it if i was part of the new council.
i have made a decision to put my name forward for hamilton city council elections. i'll be standing in the hamilton east ward. it has been a big decision for me, and a scary one. i know it's normal for women in situations like this to have doubts: will i have what it takes? can i convince people that i'm able to do the job? but mostly, can i convince them to vote for me, with my hijab and my skin colour, my so obvious difference?
well, i'll never know until i try. what has persuaded me is the number of people who have been encouraging me to put my name forward and who do have faith in my abilities. i'm humbled by their kindness, and very much dependent on their support. so i'm putting my name out into the public arena, in a way that is very different to standing on the list.
hamilton city council is in a unique position this year, in that a number of existing councillors will be retiring this year. in hamilton, it has proved very difficult to unseat existing councillors, so this year there is a window of opportunity open. there is also the concerned citizens campaign, in which businessman ray stark has taken it upon himself to unseat as many of the existing councillors as he can, while not formally supporting or endorsing any candidate. it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
so into this environment i throw my hat (or headscarf, as it were). i firmly believe we need diversity on council, and i know i have a strong history of working with NGOs and community organisations, as well as political experience that will help. i can add to that my financial skills, and a passion to build community ie to build up a sense of people who look out for each other and want to develop a society which is about making sure everyone does well.
so, some time soon i will have a website for my campaign. and if anyone is interested in donating time, money or even moral support, it will be most gratefully received. you can let me know by making a comment to this blog, and because it's moderated, the comment won't be published until i approve it. just let me know if you wish your comment to be confidential.
and in the spirit of local body campaigning, here's an issue i feel strongly about: the city council is currently seeking to implement a new liquor policy, whereby they will "limit the number of new suburban liquour outlets by imposing tougher rules, and potentially dry areas." this is something i completely agree with, particularly since there tends to be a much higher level of liquor outlets in lower socio-economic areas. but it's also about giving local communities more of a say about what happens in their area, greater democracy if you will.
the current council are seeking to fastrack approval of the policy, in an attempt to ensure it gets passed before the election. there is a fear that a new council might not support the policy. i can at least say that i definitely support it now, and would support it if i was part of the new council.
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
census
so i've filled out my census forms dutifully, and very happy that i was able to do them online. makes life that much easier. i didn't have any problems with any of the questions personally, in terms of my own ability to answer nor objections to answering them, though i know that they haven't been designed so well for other people who don't fit into categories so easily.
i'm thinking that maybe the census people should have some kind of online discussion forum on their website, say 18 months before the census, where people can write in about their issues with particular questions, the general designs of the forms or any other issues around the census. then other people can have a discussion about that and the census people can have a think about the wording/design of the form based on the feedback they get.
i know that online discussion forums privilege a certain type of person: ie those who are literate in the english language, have access to a computer & internet connection, and the time to write out the things that bother them. but still, some kind of public feedback mechanism is better than absolutely no feedback mechanism and no place to have these discussions where the people with decision-making power will actually be paying attention.
how glad am i that we didn't have to have the whole "why-do-i-have-to-put-my-race" and it's first cousin the "why-can't-we-all-just-be-new-zealanders" discussions this census. possibly because mr brownlee and mr quax were otherwise occupied this year & no-one else could be bothered to lead the charge? or because people are beginning to accept that there is such a thing as discrimination/disadvantage that is a result of being the "wrong" skin colour? and one way to collect this information is by accurately answering the ethnicity question (or as accurately as possible given that many people have more than 1 ethnicity).
i don't care what the reason is, i'm just glad that it's no longer a major issue. there was a discussion around the religion question over at the standard. to which i had this response, which i'll leave you to read in context over there. also, if you don't have time to go through all the comments, i'd recommend this one.
another issue though: i had a call from someone at the local mosque, and it turned out there were a whole bunch of people there tonight for evening prayers who hadn't received a form and/or didn't know anything about the census. which leads me to wonder about the process to deal with particular communities who might not watch much television, don't listen to the radio or buy local newspapers. many of them might have english as a second language, but it's clear that they didn't know what the census was about or why it was important.
it makes me wonder about budget cuts to the dept of statistics - could it be that some of the "backroom bureaucrats" who might usually have carried out this function weren't hired this year? or is it that the DoS just didn't think to do community outreach to people who haven't grown up here or who don't interact with the media? or that the community outreach they have done just isn't successful?
i know that our muslim association president made many announcements at the mosque about the census, but somehow the message didn't get through. maybe because we're dealing with some people who don't understand what "census" means, because they've never had to do one in their country of origin or in the refugee camps where they may have spent well over a decade. and it's not a word that would come up in the conversations they normally have.
again, i'm not sure about the source of the problem, but it's certainly one that needs to be looked at & attended to. i rang the 0800 number and got some good advice on how to deal with the issue, but just find myself annoyed that this happened and am wondering about other communities that don't have regular communal gatherings like ours. how many of their people will miss out?
i'm thinking that maybe the census people should have some kind of online discussion forum on their website, say 18 months before the census, where people can write in about their issues with particular questions, the general designs of the forms or any other issues around the census. then other people can have a discussion about that and the census people can have a think about the wording/design of the form based on the feedback they get.
i know that online discussion forums privilege a certain type of person: ie those who are literate in the english language, have access to a computer & internet connection, and the time to write out the things that bother them. but still, some kind of public feedback mechanism is better than absolutely no feedback mechanism and no place to have these discussions where the people with decision-making power will actually be paying attention.
how glad am i that we didn't have to have the whole "why-do-i-have-to-put-my-race" and it's first cousin the "why-can't-we-all-just-be-new-zealanders" discussions this census. possibly because mr brownlee and mr quax were otherwise occupied this year & no-one else could be bothered to lead the charge? or because people are beginning to accept that there is such a thing as discrimination/disadvantage that is a result of being the "wrong" skin colour? and one way to collect this information is by accurately answering the ethnicity question (or as accurately as possible given that many people have more than 1 ethnicity).
i don't care what the reason is, i'm just glad that it's no longer a major issue. there was a discussion around the religion question over at the standard. to which i had this response, which i'll leave you to read in context over there. also, if you don't have time to go through all the comments, i'd recommend this one.
another issue though: i had a call from someone at the local mosque, and it turned out there were a whole bunch of people there tonight for evening prayers who hadn't received a form and/or didn't know anything about the census. which leads me to wonder about the process to deal with particular communities who might not watch much television, don't listen to the radio or buy local newspapers. many of them might have english as a second language, but it's clear that they didn't know what the census was about or why it was important.
it makes me wonder about budget cuts to the dept of statistics - could it be that some of the "backroom bureaucrats" who might usually have carried out this function weren't hired this year? or is it that the DoS just didn't think to do community outreach to people who haven't grown up here or who don't interact with the media? or that the community outreach they have done just isn't successful?
i know that our muslim association president made many announcements at the mosque about the census, but somehow the message didn't get through. maybe because we're dealing with some people who don't understand what "census" means, because they've never had to do one in their country of origin or in the refugee camps where they may have spent well over a decade. and it's not a word that would come up in the conversations they normally have.
again, i'm not sure about the source of the problem, but it's certainly one that needs to be looked at & attended to. i rang the 0800 number and got some good advice on how to deal with the issue, but just find myself annoyed that this happened and am wondering about other communities that don't have regular communal gatherings like ours. how many of their people will miss out?
Thursday, 14 February 2013
race relations commissioner
so we're coming up to the end of an era: race relations commissioner jorid de bres is to retire on 1 march, after spending 10.5 years in the role. the diversity action programme newsletter provides details of some of his achievements.
i hadn't met any race relations commissioners (or conciliators) before mr de bres stepped into the role. i'm not sure if that's because he has had a much higher level of community engagement or because i didn't get out much in the years before 2003. probably a combination of both!
the diversity action programme and the annual human rights diversity forums have, i think, had a significant impact in bringing community activists, NGO's, academics and central and local government institutions together. great for networking, for sharing ideas and learning about projects, for informing others about issues faced by various groups in the community.
but more than that, the race relations commissioner & his staff has played a huge role in managing issues of racial conflict and tension, and in advocating at government levels for changes in policy and practice. i have to say that i have, on the whole, been heartened by the response in nz to the comments by mr prosser. that people have been so willing to lambast his comments on a wide range of media & social media must, i think, reflect some of the work that has been happening in communities throughout nz.
it is therefore a matter of some concern that the amendment to the human rights act that is currently going through the processes of parliament proposes to disestablish the position:
the Act will no longer name the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. Instead, they will be appointed as Human Rights Commissioners to reflect that Commissioners are first and foremost members of the Commission and operate at all times on behalf of the Commission. To ensure the formalised leadership roles are retained in the areas of race relations and equal employment opportunities and an additional role is created in the area of disability rights, the Act will provide that there must be a Commissioner (other than the Chief Commissioner) appointed to lead the work in each of these priority areas.
it's all very well to say that, under the proposed new structure, the commissioners will undertake the same duties without the specific designation. if that's the case then i don't understand the need to remove the designations, and thereby the visibility of the work they do. what purpose does it serve? it's not like we've solved all problems of discrimination by race, it's not like there are no longer disparities in income, in life expectancy, in access to employment and housing, in just being able to go about our daily business.
i can't make any definite statements in relation to crime against people of colour, because while police record the ethnicity of convicted criminals and we regularly get to hear all about the percentages, they refuse to record the ethnicity of victims of crime. and so we don't have data about race-based hate crime, we don't know if it's increasing or decreasing, we don't know what areas are most dangerous. when you refuse to record a thing, then you can easily pretend it's not a problem.
there is still plenty of work that needs to be done by the human rights commission. to take away the name and the current structure is to take away the importance of that work and the importance of these issues in our society. but more than that, this move may be a way to cut funding and cut the work of the commission in this area without it being so visible.
it's an unnecessary move, but it's likely to happen within the next few months. hence the delay in appointing a replacement for the current commissioner, and why he has been continuing in his role after his term ended in september. i don't know what can be done to stop the bill from passing in it's current form, but in the meantime i want to wish mr de bres well for the future and give my heartfelt thanks for the work that he has done to make our lives better.
i hadn't met any race relations commissioners (or conciliators) before mr de bres stepped into the role. i'm not sure if that's because he has had a much higher level of community engagement or because i didn't get out much in the years before 2003. probably a combination of both!
the diversity action programme and the annual human rights diversity forums have, i think, had a significant impact in bringing community activists, NGO's, academics and central and local government institutions together. great for networking, for sharing ideas and learning about projects, for informing others about issues faced by various groups in the community.
but more than that, the race relations commissioner & his staff has played a huge role in managing issues of racial conflict and tension, and in advocating at government levels for changes in policy and practice. i have to say that i have, on the whole, been heartened by the response in nz to the comments by mr prosser. that people have been so willing to lambast his comments on a wide range of media & social media must, i think, reflect some of the work that has been happening in communities throughout nz.
it is therefore a matter of some concern that the amendment to the human rights act that is currently going through the processes of parliament proposes to disestablish the position:
the Act will no longer name the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. Instead, they will be appointed as Human Rights Commissioners to reflect that Commissioners are first and foremost members of the Commission and operate at all times on behalf of the Commission. To ensure the formalised leadership roles are retained in the areas of race relations and equal employment opportunities and an additional role is created in the area of disability rights, the Act will provide that there must be a Commissioner (other than the Chief Commissioner) appointed to lead the work in each of these priority areas.
it's all very well to say that, under the proposed new structure, the commissioners will undertake the same duties without the specific designation. if that's the case then i don't understand the need to remove the designations, and thereby the visibility of the work they do. what purpose does it serve? it's not like we've solved all problems of discrimination by race, it's not like there are no longer disparities in income, in life expectancy, in access to employment and housing, in just being able to go about our daily business.
i can't make any definite statements in relation to crime against people of colour, because while police record the ethnicity of convicted criminals and we regularly get to hear all about the percentages, they refuse to record the ethnicity of victims of crime. and so we don't have data about race-based hate crime, we don't know if it's increasing or decreasing, we don't know what areas are most dangerous. when you refuse to record a thing, then you can easily pretend it's not a problem.
there is still plenty of work that needs to be done by the human rights commission. to take away the name and the current structure is to take away the importance of that work and the importance of these issues in our society. but more than that, this move may be a way to cut funding and cut the work of the commission in this area without it being so visible.
it's an unnecessary move, but it's likely to happen within the next few months. hence the delay in appointing a replacement for the current commissioner, and why he has been continuing in his role after his term ended in september. i don't know what can be done to stop the bill from passing in it's current form, but in the meantime i want to wish mr de bres well for the future and give my heartfelt thanks for the work that he has done to make our lives better.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
here we go again
somebody says something stupid about muslims. then it has to be picked up by every media organisation who rush around for comments. of course they'll find some muslims who will be angry and upset, given the serious stupidity of the comments. then the media report how OUTRAGED those muslims are, as well as interviewing the original culprit to give more air to his views.
today they couldn't get the original culprit so they went for people with similar views, who then get a chance to put out more stupidity, while the interviewers put on the appropriate expression of incredulity at such ridiculouness, and continue to ask more questions designed to increase the level of such.
then you have the flow-on effect - talk-back, twitter, facebook. and that's where the damage gets really done, and we go to have another go of the merry-go-round. freedom of speech. but what he's saying is true. look at all these awful things muslims have done.
we go through this once every 6 months or so. if it's not women wearing burqa's banned from buses, it's cartoons, it's various politicians or authors. some little spark and "we" get to have "the debate" all over again as to whether muslims are good or bad, happy or sad. leaders of political parties get to have their faces in the news and posture about inclusiveness and to express OUTRAGE at such terrible remarks. let's see how many political points we can score on the back of this current incident.
frankly, i'm sick of these conversations and i'm sick being used as a political tool. and that is exactly what happened in this case. the whole story started with david farrar, who wrote an oh-so-supportive post expressing his OUTRAGE, knowing very well what will happen in the comments section, and very much expecting that it will be picked up by other media. his objective? to drive a wedge between nz first and parties of the left, to make a coalition of the left unpalatable to the left-voting public and thus for right-wingers to be able to push the line that a vote for the left is a vote for nz first in government.
it worked swimmingly in 2008, and it will no doubt work again. and there's the added bonus of being able to bag the MMP voting system, as if no fools ever get elected through electorate seats. bob clarkson, anyone? and the reason this tactic works so well is because voters who vote for parties on the left tend to be less tolerant of discrimination than parties on the right. and parties on the right are not going to lose their voters by coming out and condemning this kind of thing, because those voters are never going to vote for lefties.
this was a very calculated move by mr farrar, and i certainly don't feel the need to give him cookies for writing a post supportive of the muslim community. because i actually don't think that's what it was. it was rather a post against a political opponent, a strategy. and once again, we have to sit and watch people use the muslim community for their own political gain, while they have very little care about the wider impact on our lives.
but this strategy only works when the media decide that it's a story. when they choose not to ignore the rantings of an outlier, but instead make a big issue out of it. and yes, i know the argument about shining a light on this stuff so that it can shown up and countered. and yes, twitter was pretty good in terms of speaking out against these particular comments. but on the other hand, the comments on the seven sharp facebook page were not so nice. and comments in other places, and on talkback? still pretty awful. still influencing people - the sort of people who will make decisions about who will get a job or who will get a rental house; people that will be teaching our children or providing us health services. there isn't enough light to counter the darkness caused by this stuff.
i'd much rather the media didn't play along. but i guess it tends to be a ratings winner, it certainly gets people talking and engaged.
so what's the answer? how do we stop political types taking advantage of our community for their own political goals? well i don't think there's a country in the world which has solved that problem. but at very least, we can be honest about what's happening here, and call it out for what it is.
Monday, 11 February 2013
7#
well, i've had a nice break from blogging. as summer rolled in, the words emptied out of my mind, and while there were a lot of things that were going on, i just didn't feel the need to say anything about them. i managed to write a serious post last week at the hand mirror, about waitangi day.
not feeling so serious today, so i thought i'd write about the replacement current affairs show on tv1, 7#. clearly not a serious news show, but then, from what i heard, it wasn't meant to be. i watched the first episode last week with low expectations, and wasn't overly impressed. i managed to catch the one on the kawhia food festival, which is reasonably close to home for me, especially since i have totally fallen in love with ocean beach this summer:
i enjoyed hearing from temuera morrison as well, and am totally looking forward to watching mt zion soon.
i thought tonight's episode wasn't bad actually. which is good, because i do actually want to give this programme a go. i do want it to succeed. probably because i like the presenters, and because i really never was a fan of close-up. i think the latter was infotainment pretending to be news, and at least this is honest and up-front about being infotainment. there is no duplicity here. and because i never looked to close-up for my news, i don't miss it at all.
i have been watching a lot more of campbell live over the last year, especially because they have been doing a lot of serious news - on kim dotcom, on novapay & the closure of christchurch schools and on poverty. if i'm planning on watching news, then yes, campbell live are doing the job reasonably well. and if i want infotainment, then 7# aren't doing it very well, but i think they're improving. and i think there's potential.
today's story about sexting was quite a sad one, particularly in terms of the pressure young women were feeling to send images, and the rather callous views of the young men who didn't seem to care at all about these women as people. the thought that one of them thought it was ok to have these images in case the young woman "turned mean"? ugh. there is plenty they need to learn about basic humanity and the real question is who is going to teach them.
they're clearly not getting it from their parents, and the internet doesn't seem to be of any use at all. so how exactly do we teach young men that women aren't a thing to be used and manipulated, and humiliated just because they can. 7# never gave any answers, but it did ask the questions. it's a start.
oh, and if you're ever planning to visit ocean beach, be warned there is a huge sand hill to climb before you get to the beach. and wear solid closed shoes until you get near the water, because black sand. but once you get there... enjoy.
not feeling so serious today, so i thought i'd write about the replacement current affairs show on tv1, 7#. clearly not a serious news show, but then, from what i heard, it wasn't meant to be. i watched the first episode last week with low expectations, and wasn't overly impressed. i managed to catch the one on the kawhia food festival, which is reasonably close to home for me, especially since i have totally fallen in love with ocean beach this summer:
i enjoyed hearing from temuera morrison as well, and am totally looking forward to watching mt zion soon.
i thought tonight's episode wasn't bad actually. which is good, because i do actually want to give this programme a go. i do want it to succeed. probably because i like the presenters, and because i really never was a fan of close-up. i think the latter was infotainment pretending to be news, and at least this is honest and up-front about being infotainment. there is no duplicity here. and because i never looked to close-up for my news, i don't miss it at all.
i have been watching a lot more of campbell live over the last year, especially because they have been doing a lot of serious news - on kim dotcom, on novapay & the closure of christchurch schools and on poverty. if i'm planning on watching news, then yes, campbell live are doing the job reasonably well. and if i want infotainment, then 7# aren't doing it very well, but i think they're improving. and i think there's potential.
today's story about sexting was quite a sad one, particularly in terms of the pressure young women were feeling to send images, and the rather callous views of the young men who didn't seem to care at all about these women as people. the thought that one of them thought it was ok to have these images in case the young woman "turned mean"? ugh. there is plenty they need to learn about basic humanity and the real question is who is going to teach them.
they're clearly not getting it from their parents, and the internet doesn't seem to be of any use at all. so how exactly do we teach young men that women aren't a thing to be used and manipulated, and humiliated just because they can. 7# never gave any answers, but it did ask the questions. it's a start.
oh, and if you're ever planning to visit ocean beach, be warned there is a huge sand hill to climb before you get to the beach. and wear solid closed shoes until you get near the water, because black sand. but once you get there... enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)