The funeral of Zahrah Manuel was a true celebration of life. Zahrah died suddenly at the age of 22. She had endured cerebral palsy for all her life yet during that time with the support of her mother Preethi lived life to the full.
Life though was a struggle, not so much in terms of the cerebral palsy but the way in which our increasingly inhumane society reacted. Preethi has been a devoted mother to her daughter, giving up her career and committing her life to getting the care support needed on a daily basis. She has also had to fight for her daughter’s most basic rights.
The first battle was to get into a primary school. The school had been adapted for disabled people but did not want Zahrah. A sit in by 25 people at the education authorities offices in Camden helped ease the way to Zahrah being accepted.
A similar thing happened come the time for secondary education. Again Preethi fought the battle this time going to the high court after the school her daughter was going to turned her away on the first day, saying they were unable to cope.
They again won but Zahrah decided she did not then want to go to a school that so clearly did not want her. Instead another school that was most inaccessible, spent over £100,000 adapting their premises so that Zahrah and other disabled children could attend. The head and staff at this school clearly understood what sanctity of life really meant in practical terms.
Preethi and Zahrah’s battles really centred around the right to be included. One individual in the opposition camp on inclusion is Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr Cameron opposes the idea of inclusion, preferring instead that disabled people be treated seperately, so are educated together in special places. Preethi publically challenged Mr Cameron to come and meet Zahrah but he never took up the opportunity.
Inclusion of disabled people is such an important issue that goes to the heart of our humanity. It shows people care and have solidarity with one another. It sets us apart from the jungle. Seperating people out marks a backward step to the world of asylums and locking people away, who don’t fit in with societal norms.
People with disabilities in the view of society also have amazing abilities. World renowned theoretical scientist Professor Stephen Hawkings has suffered with cerebral palsy all of his life, yet has a brilliant mind. Had Hawkings been shepherded off to an asylum at an early age, the world would be a far more ignorant place in terms of the understanding of the workings of the solar system.
Kim Peak, who died last December, was a savant with a truly remarkable memory. He could read and memorise books. His abilities became known internationally with the story of his life, played brilliantly by Dustin Hoffman in the film Rain Man.
The life of Kim Peak marked another move forward for people of disability. His life could have been very different if it were not for his father Fran. When Kim was a child his condition was known as “idiot savant” which in those days meant he would spend the best part of his life in a mental institution. But Fran was not going to let this happen and became his son’s primary carer and guide through life.
Preethi played a similar role for Zahrah, devoting her life to that of her daughter. The battles that they won together have moved things forward for disabled people across the UK.
It is important to remember that despite commentary to the contrary we live in a quite ignorant and intolerant world. The gains for disabled people have been achieved by the hard struggle of the likes of the Manuel, Peak and Hawkings families. The advances do not come about because some government minister or think tank suddenly decide it is the right thing to do. In this world, rights have to be fought for, won and then defended.
Zahrah may now have passed on but the number of friends and relations who attended her funeral are testimony to the fact that she will never be forgotten. Others who have never known her will owe much in terms of the quality of life that they are able to enjoy.
Friday, 28 May 2010
Friday, 21 May 2010
Students case tests coaltion over human rights
The reaction of the coalition government to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) decision will determine how serious it will be on human rights.
Siac's ruling that the two students Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan cannot be deported to Pakistan, while labelling the former as an al-Qaida operative, underlines the total injustice of the secret evidence system.
The two men were part of a group of 12 originally arrested at Easter last year over an alleged terror plot. All the men were released within three weeks without charge, with those who weren't British citizens served with deportation orders on the basis of them being a threat to national security. Most have gone back to Pakistan but a few stuck it out, Naseer and Khan challenging the deportation.
The decision exposes many of the vagaries of the system of justice based on secret evidence that has grown up here since September 11 2001. It also creates a very dangerous precedent whereby individuals can be effectively tried on the basis of information they cannot see or challenge. A judgement is then reached which places them in a state of limbo - labelled terrorists but effectively trapped in Britain. There can be no appeal because they won the case.
Sarah Kellas of solicitors Birnberg Peirce, who represented the men, summarised the situation: "The decision of Siac today in respect of the two students we represent is in fact, for them, the worst of all worlds.
"On the basis of secret evidence which it refuses to disclose to the students, the court tells the world, in its judgment, that they are closely connected to an al-Qaida plot to cause explosions in the UK.
"The court acknowledges they have not been told why it comes to this conclusion, yet these young men have been branded publicly and thereby exposed to personal danger for the rest of their lives.
"Siac moreover refused them permission to appeal against its decision on the basis that they had 'won.'
"At the same time Siac has decided that neither can be deported to Pakistan without the probability that he will be tortured.
"The risk of such a fate has, of course, been heightened but in all likelihood created by the Secretary of State's claim and Siac's decision."
The latest judgement, coming at the start of the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, represents an immediate challenge.
The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, opposed much of the paraphernalia of the secret state built up by the Labour government over the past decade. They voted against the renewal of the control order regime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - the Conservatives abstained - and against the extension of pre-charge detention to 90 days and then 42 days.
The Liberal Democrats have also opposed the detention of children in immigration centres. Liberal Democrat MPs like Sarah Teather were good in opposition at raising the question of Britain's complicity in torture abroad and involvement with extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay.
The test now comes in government as to whether they will act to end the system of justice based on secret evidence.
The latest decision of the Siac certainly represents a challenge because it points to some sort of control order style detention/surveillance for the two students concerned, possibly in perpetuity.
This case represents an early test of the new government's human rights credentials. Will it act to truly role back the secret evidence system of injustice or lapse back into continuing to progress the authoritarian model of justice based on secret evidence?
The decision it takes will be a good indicator as to just how seriously the new coalition government does take human rights
Siac's ruling that the two students Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan cannot be deported to Pakistan, while labelling the former as an al-Qaida operative, underlines the total injustice of the secret evidence system.
The two men were part of a group of 12 originally arrested at Easter last year over an alleged terror plot. All the men were released within three weeks without charge, with those who weren't British citizens served with deportation orders on the basis of them being a threat to national security. Most have gone back to Pakistan but a few stuck it out, Naseer and Khan challenging the deportation.
The decision exposes many of the vagaries of the system of justice based on secret evidence that has grown up here since September 11 2001. It also creates a very dangerous precedent whereby individuals can be effectively tried on the basis of information they cannot see or challenge. A judgement is then reached which places them in a state of limbo - labelled terrorists but effectively trapped in Britain. There can be no appeal because they won the case.
Sarah Kellas of solicitors Birnberg Peirce, who represented the men, summarised the situation: "The decision of Siac today in respect of the two students we represent is in fact, for them, the worst of all worlds.
"On the basis of secret evidence which it refuses to disclose to the students, the court tells the world, in its judgment, that they are closely connected to an al-Qaida plot to cause explosions in the UK.
"The court acknowledges they have not been told why it comes to this conclusion, yet these young men have been branded publicly and thereby exposed to personal danger for the rest of their lives.
"Siac moreover refused them permission to appeal against its decision on the basis that they had 'won.'
"At the same time Siac has decided that neither can be deported to Pakistan without the probability that he will be tortured.
"The risk of such a fate has, of course, been heightened but in all likelihood created by the Secretary of State's claim and Siac's decision."
The latest judgement, coming at the start of the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, represents an immediate challenge.
The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, opposed much of the paraphernalia of the secret state built up by the Labour government over the past decade. They voted against the renewal of the control order regime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - the Conservatives abstained - and against the extension of pre-charge detention to 90 days and then 42 days.
The Liberal Democrats have also opposed the detention of children in immigration centres. Liberal Democrat MPs like Sarah Teather were good in opposition at raising the question of Britain's complicity in torture abroad and involvement with extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay.
The test now comes in government as to whether they will act to end the system of justice based on secret evidence.
The latest decision of the Siac certainly represents a challenge because it points to some sort of control order style detention/surveillance for the two students concerned, possibly in perpetuity.
This case represents an early test of the new government's human rights credentials. Will it act to truly role back the secret evidence system of injustice or lapse back into continuing to progress the authoritarian model of justice based on secret evidence?
The decision it takes will be a good indicator as to just how seriously the new coalition government does take human rights
Thursday, 13 May 2010
New Government must address poverty on the streets
The Cardinal Hume Centre is situated in Westminster, just around the corner from Whitehall and down the road from Parliament.
The powerful and wealthy share the same streets with the homeless, drug users, the undocumented and unemployed. The problem is that the powerful and priveliged seem oblivious to those around them who struggle to get by on a daily basis.
This sanitation process between the two groups was nowhere more in evidence than at the recent general election when the issue of poverty rarely came up in a contest that at times came to resemble a series of the X-factor.
This is in a country where more than one million children live in overcrowded accommodation, drug addiction is on the increase and 500,000 plus undocumented workers struggle by in the twilight zone. All of these people can be found on the streets around the Palace of Westminster and many finish up at the Cardinal Hume Centre (CHC).
The Irish descended chief executive of CHC Cathy Corcoran is appalled at what she has seen. “I am genuinely ashamed, at the depths of poverty in this country,” said Corcoran. “When a mother does not know where the money is coming from to feed her children, it is the same poverty as is seen overseas. When we did a survey of people coming here, it was shocking the number caught up in that situation.”
The CHC comprises a 32 bedroom hostel for 16 to 21 year olds and an eight bed hostel for people in recovery from substance misuse. There is a one year limit on staying in the hostels, with the emphasis on moving people to live independently and get employment. There are english classes, IT training , adult literacy, parenting and life skills, immigration and employment advice plus work experience available.
The family centre is where women can bring their young children, then attend other classes in the building. The drop in primary healthcare service has a GP and psychiatrist available. It offers general counselling and alcohol/drug counselling and treatment. The CHC also runs a mentoring system.
The problems faced are numerous and varied. Nian Baban attends the family centre most days with her three year old. She also has a nine and seven year old and lives in a one bedroom flat with her husband. The family have been living in the flat for 11 years and have been seeking to get larger accommodation. Baban explains how difficult it is for her and three children to all sleep in one 10 x 6 ft room. Her husband sleeps on the sofa. “We are nearly divorced, our relationship has suffered due to these conditions. I have depression,” said Baban, who is one of 2.3 million people living in overcrowded conditions in the UK, according to the National Housing Federation. 3,000 households in Westminster are living in temporary accommodation.
The drug culture that it is so easy to get caught up in can destroy lives as the story of Kerry Norridge proves. Brought up in a stable family in Oxford, Norridge fell into the drug culture during his teenage years. By the age of 20 he was addicted to heroine. “I found I couldn’t hold down a job or sustain relationships,” said Norridge. “I became parasitic with girl friends. They provided somewhere to live, food and a mother figure. I did driving jobs, worked on building sites, they never held my attention for long.”
In the end in his late 20s he left his partner and cut off from his family in order not to cause anymore hurt. He then did various jobs, like selling the Big Issue, just to pay for the drugs. “I was running away, never dealing with the issue. It got dark and lonely and I felt very isolated,” said Norridge, who admits to reaching an all time low when he thought he was about to die in “a sad lonely way.”
A fellow hostel dweller encouraged him to go to Narcotics Anonymous and it was from here that the long road to recovery began. He applied to Westminster Substance Misuse team who then put him into detox and rehabilitation. He came to the CHC. “This was a fantastic move for me, they are positively focused at getting people into a meaningful life,” said Norridge, who while living in the hostel learned basic things like washing his clothes, housekeeping and budgeting. He is now living independently in a flat in north London and is on a drama course to become an actor. “At Easter my parents came down. I made food, we went sight seeing, it was beautiful,” said Kerry, who is keen to stress that if the right type of help is offered people in his situation can get out of the underclass and start building a life.
The CHC sees a lot of undocumented workers around the area, working in the twilight zone, often exploited. One policy that would help this group is a regularisation (or amnesty).
Amina Shor came to the UK from Lebanon in 2003. She is struggling to bring up three children, having split from her husband. She has learned English and wants to contribute. “I am on income support but want to get out to do something for the future. After August I am going to apply for citizenship,” said Shor.
It must now be hoped that with the election over, that members of the government can find their way down the road to CHC and others dealing with the symptoms of poverty in our society. It is no good for those who hold power to occupy the same pavement space as the poor and conduct a dialogue of the deaf. Real change can only happen if the two sides come together genuinely committed to finding solutions.
The powerful and wealthy share the same streets with the homeless, drug users, the undocumented and unemployed. The problem is that the powerful and priveliged seem oblivious to those around them who struggle to get by on a daily basis.
This sanitation process between the two groups was nowhere more in evidence than at the recent general election when the issue of poverty rarely came up in a contest that at times came to resemble a series of the X-factor.
This is in a country where more than one million children live in overcrowded accommodation, drug addiction is on the increase and 500,000 plus undocumented workers struggle by in the twilight zone. All of these people can be found on the streets around the Palace of Westminster and many finish up at the Cardinal Hume Centre (CHC).
The Irish descended chief executive of CHC Cathy Corcoran is appalled at what she has seen. “I am genuinely ashamed, at the depths of poverty in this country,” said Corcoran. “When a mother does not know where the money is coming from to feed her children, it is the same poverty as is seen overseas. When we did a survey of people coming here, it was shocking the number caught up in that situation.”
The CHC comprises a 32 bedroom hostel for 16 to 21 year olds and an eight bed hostel for people in recovery from substance misuse. There is a one year limit on staying in the hostels, with the emphasis on moving people to live independently and get employment. There are english classes, IT training , adult literacy, parenting and life skills, immigration and employment advice plus work experience available.
The family centre is where women can bring their young children, then attend other classes in the building. The drop in primary healthcare service has a GP and psychiatrist available. It offers general counselling and alcohol/drug counselling and treatment. The CHC also runs a mentoring system.
The problems faced are numerous and varied. Nian Baban attends the family centre most days with her three year old. She also has a nine and seven year old and lives in a one bedroom flat with her husband. The family have been living in the flat for 11 years and have been seeking to get larger accommodation. Baban explains how difficult it is for her and three children to all sleep in one 10 x 6 ft room. Her husband sleeps on the sofa. “We are nearly divorced, our relationship has suffered due to these conditions. I have depression,” said Baban, who is one of 2.3 million people living in overcrowded conditions in the UK, according to the National Housing Federation. 3,000 households in Westminster are living in temporary accommodation.
The drug culture that it is so easy to get caught up in can destroy lives as the story of Kerry Norridge proves. Brought up in a stable family in Oxford, Norridge fell into the drug culture during his teenage years. By the age of 20 he was addicted to heroine. “I found I couldn’t hold down a job or sustain relationships,” said Norridge. “I became parasitic with girl friends. They provided somewhere to live, food and a mother figure. I did driving jobs, worked on building sites, they never held my attention for long.”
In the end in his late 20s he left his partner and cut off from his family in order not to cause anymore hurt. He then did various jobs, like selling the Big Issue, just to pay for the drugs. “I was running away, never dealing with the issue. It got dark and lonely and I felt very isolated,” said Norridge, who admits to reaching an all time low when he thought he was about to die in “a sad lonely way.”
A fellow hostel dweller encouraged him to go to Narcotics Anonymous and it was from here that the long road to recovery began. He applied to Westminster Substance Misuse team who then put him into detox and rehabilitation. He came to the CHC. “This was a fantastic move for me, they are positively focused at getting people into a meaningful life,” said Norridge, who while living in the hostel learned basic things like washing his clothes, housekeeping and budgeting. He is now living independently in a flat in north London and is on a drama course to become an actor. “At Easter my parents came down. I made food, we went sight seeing, it was beautiful,” said Kerry, who is keen to stress that if the right type of help is offered people in his situation can get out of the underclass and start building a life.
The CHC sees a lot of undocumented workers around the area, working in the twilight zone, often exploited. One policy that would help this group is a regularisation (or amnesty).
Amina Shor came to the UK from Lebanon in 2003. She is struggling to bring up three children, having split from her husband. She has learned English and wants to contribute. “I am on income support but want to get out to do something for the future. After August I am going to apply for citizenship,” said Shor.
It must now be hoped that with the election over, that members of the government can find their way down the road to CHC and others dealing with the symptoms of poverty in our society. It is no good for those who hold power to occupy the same pavement space as the poor and conduct a dialogue of the deaf. Real change can only happen if the two sides come together genuinely committed to finding solutions.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Need to break away from financial dictatorship
The recent riots in Greece that greeted the news of an austerity package for that country could point the way to similar outcomes across the world.
The objection of the Greek people was that events over which they largely had little control, being conjured up by a combination of the financial, business and political stratas, were now resulting in hardship for the many. Cuts to jobs, pay and conditions were all to be born by ordinary people struggling to survive.
The scenario in Greece and other countries is not that different to what is faced in Britain. Here reckless behaviour by bankers has put the country into such debt that it is going to take decades to resolve. Strangely, the perpetrators of this injustice seem to have largely escaped too much public opprobrium due in part to the helpful smokescreen of MPs expenses which blew up at such a time as to distract public attention.
Meanwhile, the bankers have continued largely unaffected, drawing their bonuses, continuing live life in a bubble now largely subsidised by everyone else. The banks have also been helped out by the cutting of interest rates that has enabled them to restore their own balance sheets. So the cuts have been passed on in full to savers while only partially to borrowers. They have also shut up shop on credit for struggling businesses, thereby forcing many of them out of business.
The final act in this tragedy now seems set to take place with the arrival of a coalition government that can declare it is all worse than expected and impose swingeing cuts on public services. Education, health and transport infrastructure are all likely to suffer. There will be real dangers, especially for the most weak and vulnerable in our society.
One of the more irritating outcomes, following the general election has been the constant reference to the money markets and City of London as the arbiters of the countries future. Afterall was it not many of these same people who brought about the crisis in the first place? There are more than 6.5 million people in trade unions in this country, yet there views are rarely given air time. It is almost as if the mood music is being created for the formation of a national government of neo-liberals.
It is time that the unions and other civil society organisations were brought into the debate over the future of the economy in Britain. It is beginning to seem as though the country has become the preserve of some sort of financial dictatorship. Simple justice demands that those who helped create this crisis should be made to pay more fully for the consequences.
Beyond the immediate demands, there must be a whole restructuring of the British economy. There needs to be a move away from dependence on the financial sector. This should include major investment in green technology, which can lead to the resurrection of the manufacturing sector. It is ludicrous at the moment that much of this technology being used in Britain has to be imported from abroad. There also needs to be a move toward a more carbon neutral way of life. A greater emphasis needs to be made on producing from the land.
There is a real danger that instead of using this crisis as an opportunity to chart an environmentally sustainable way forward that the old argument about not being able to afford green development will be deployed. The world has changed the argument of economic growth regardless of environmental consequences no longer stands. The worry is that this penny has not dropped with many politicians who think only in short term time spans. Again the trade unions and civil society need to be heard in this debate. If once again the only voices heard are those of the money markets, this new environmentally sustainable way forward is unlikely to be chartered.Failure to make the voices of the many heard will result only in the present economic crisis being dumped on the most weak and vulnerable with the way forward being plotted regardless of the consequences to the planet and the common good of all.
The objection of the Greek people was that events over which they largely had little control, being conjured up by a combination of the financial, business and political stratas, were now resulting in hardship for the many. Cuts to jobs, pay and conditions were all to be born by ordinary people struggling to survive.
The scenario in Greece and other countries is not that different to what is faced in Britain. Here reckless behaviour by bankers has put the country into such debt that it is going to take decades to resolve. Strangely, the perpetrators of this injustice seem to have largely escaped too much public opprobrium due in part to the helpful smokescreen of MPs expenses which blew up at such a time as to distract public attention.
Meanwhile, the bankers have continued largely unaffected, drawing their bonuses, continuing live life in a bubble now largely subsidised by everyone else. The banks have also been helped out by the cutting of interest rates that has enabled them to restore their own balance sheets. So the cuts have been passed on in full to savers while only partially to borrowers. They have also shut up shop on credit for struggling businesses, thereby forcing many of them out of business.
The final act in this tragedy now seems set to take place with the arrival of a coalition government that can declare it is all worse than expected and impose swingeing cuts on public services. Education, health and transport infrastructure are all likely to suffer. There will be real dangers, especially for the most weak and vulnerable in our society.
One of the more irritating outcomes, following the general election has been the constant reference to the money markets and City of London as the arbiters of the countries future. Afterall was it not many of these same people who brought about the crisis in the first place? There are more than 6.5 million people in trade unions in this country, yet there views are rarely given air time. It is almost as if the mood music is being created for the formation of a national government of neo-liberals.
It is time that the unions and other civil society organisations were brought into the debate over the future of the economy in Britain. It is beginning to seem as though the country has become the preserve of some sort of financial dictatorship. Simple justice demands that those who helped create this crisis should be made to pay more fully for the consequences.
Beyond the immediate demands, there must be a whole restructuring of the British economy. There needs to be a move away from dependence on the financial sector. This should include major investment in green technology, which can lead to the resurrection of the manufacturing sector. It is ludicrous at the moment that much of this technology being used in Britain has to be imported from abroad. There also needs to be a move toward a more carbon neutral way of life. A greater emphasis needs to be made on producing from the land.
There is a real danger that instead of using this crisis as an opportunity to chart an environmentally sustainable way forward that the old argument about not being able to afford green development will be deployed. The world has changed the argument of economic growth regardless of environmental consequences no longer stands. The worry is that this penny has not dropped with many politicians who think only in short term time spans. Again the trade unions and civil society need to be heard in this debate. If once again the only voices heard are those of the money markets, this new environmentally sustainable way forward is unlikely to be chartered.Failure to make the voices of the many heard will result only in the present economic crisis being dumped on the most weak and vulnerable with the way forward being plotted regardless of the consequences to the planet and the common good of all.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
If the Pope is to be prosecuted it is for Catholics to do it
As a result of the ongoing abuse scandal it seems to have become open season on the Catholic Church worldwide.
Most recently this saw a leaked Foreign Office memo discussing the possibility of Pope Benedict opening an abortion clinic, attending a civil partnership ceremony, apologising for the Spanish Armada and having a brand of condoms named after himself. The explanation for this memo, that the intention was not to amuse but part of a blue sky thinking exercise, conjures up vistas of people in holes continuing to dig.
Prior to the Foreign Office contribution came the initiative from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins to prosecute the Pope during his visit to Britain in September for crimes against humanity over child abuse.
This latter action has the feel of yet another publicity seeking trick from two individuals who have never been slow to take any opportunity to have a go at people of faith generally and the Catholic Church in particular.
The interesting point arising from both of these events is that they reveal how far the reputation of the Catholic Church has fallen in such a short time. Not so long ago, such ideas would never have been thought let alone put down on paper and in the case of the prosecution proposal potentially enacted. Who knows what the standing of the papacy will be come September, if the abuse scandals continue to roll on across the world?
What is crucial at this juncture is to define between those secular critics of faith generally, who will take any chance to have a go, and people genuinely concerned about what has happened who seek the best outcome for all concerned - especially the victims.
The response of some Catholics has been to seek to shoot the messenger, pointing out that those raising these issues are opposed to the Church. It is all a secular conspiracy. These individuals have about as much credibility as those secularists using the crisis and its victims to settle old scores against the Church.
The media coverage of the scandal does seem to some degree to be drawn from people emanating from the two polarised extremes. Recently, this has developed on the critics side into something of a pack mentality with the overarching aim being to “get the Pope.” This broad brush media approach has also sought to simplify things down to the unhelpful and inaccurate shorthand that all priests must be abusers.
The real objection in all of this is that the authentic Catholic voice is not being heard. It is Catholics who in the main have been abused. It is Catholics who now, via their collections and ongoing support, are paying out compensation for the abuse committed. Yet somehow, particularly in the British media, Catholics have been denied a voice to articulate their own concerns.
To put it bluntly if anyone is going to prosecute the Pope it should be Catholics not the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.
It is important here to differentiate between what has happened over abuse in Britain and Ireland. When abuse hit the headlines in Britain a decade ago, Lord Nolan was called in to investigate and make recommendations. His report was enacted, to the degree that some may consider that child protection procedures have gone to such a level that they dominate the Church agenda to the exclusion of all else. This is not to say that there must be abuse here going back years that has not been revealed and that much more will come out. It is fair to say though that the level of abuse and cover up is not the same as has occurred in Ireland and other countries. Ironically, this may be because Britain has been so hostile to Catholicism for so long.
It was though a relief recently to see the Bishops Conference of England and Wales make a direct apology to the faithful over the abuses committed. They spoke of these “terrible crimes, and the inadequate response by some church leaders,” the suffering of those abused and the need for reparation. “We recognise the failings of some bishops and religious leaders in handling these matters. These, too, are aspects of this tragedy which we deeply regret and for which we apologise. The procedures now in place in our countries highlight what should have been done straightaway in the past. Full co-operation with statutory bodies is essential.”
The statement was uncompromising and uncomfortable to hear read out in Churches across the country. It was afterall admitting that many of those revered by Catholics countrywide had committed crimes and abused the most innocent of our people. It was a heinous crime that must shame all Catholics.
How serious the bishops are about addressing the question of abuse will be seen over the coming months. The benchmarks will be how victims are treated, what processes are put in place to discover other abuse and what happens to change the structures of the Church.
It is afterall the authoritarian hierarchial structure of the Church that has allowed this abuse to occur. The laity also need to grow up and take responsibility. There must be structures of accountability that become filled by grown ups who will hold those working for the Church to account.
These though are matters for Catholics. Let’s remember that as Irish Catholics it is our Church. We put in the plate, our children attend the schools. It is for us to sort out the problems, not those seeking to make cheap points at our expense.
Most recently this saw a leaked Foreign Office memo discussing the possibility of Pope Benedict opening an abortion clinic, attending a civil partnership ceremony, apologising for the Spanish Armada and having a brand of condoms named after himself. The explanation for this memo, that the intention was not to amuse but part of a blue sky thinking exercise, conjures up vistas of people in holes continuing to dig.
Prior to the Foreign Office contribution came the initiative from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins to prosecute the Pope during his visit to Britain in September for crimes against humanity over child abuse.
This latter action has the feel of yet another publicity seeking trick from two individuals who have never been slow to take any opportunity to have a go at people of faith generally and the Catholic Church in particular.
The interesting point arising from both of these events is that they reveal how far the reputation of the Catholic Church has fallen in such a short time. Not so long ago, such ideas would never have been thought let alone put down on paper and in the case of the prosecution proposal potentially enacted. Who knows what the standing of the papacy will be come September, if the abuse scandals continue to roll on across the world?
What is crucial at this juncture is to define between those secular critics of faith generally, who will take any chance to have a go, and people genuinely concerned about what has happened who seek the best outcome for all concerned - especially the victims.
The response of some Catholics has been to seek to shoot the messenger, pointing out that those raising these issues are opposed to the Church. It is all a secular conspiracy. These individuals have about as much credibility as those secularists using the crisis and its victims to settle old scores against the Church.
The media coverage of the scandal does seem to some degree to be drawn from people emanating from the two polarised extremes. Recently, this has developed on the critics side into something of a pack mentality with the overarching aim being to “get the Pope.” This broad brush media approach has also sought to simplify things down to the unhelpful and inaccurate shorthand that all priests must be abusers.
The real objection in all of this is that the authentic Catholic voice is not being heard. It is Catholics who in the main have been abused. It is Catholics who now, via their collections and ongoing support, are paying out compensation for the abuse committed. Yet somehow, particularly in the British media, Catholics have been denied a voice to articulate their own concerns.
To put it bluntly if anyone is going to prosecute the Pope it should be Catholics not the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.
It is important here to differentiate between what has happened over abuse in Britain and Ireland. When abuse hit the headlines in Britain a decade ago, Lord Nolan was called in to investigate and make recommendations. His report was enacted, to the degree that some may consider that child protection procedures have gone to such a level that they dominate the Church agenda to the exclusion of all else. This is not to say that there must be abuse here going back years that has not been revealed and that much more will come out. It is fair to say though that the level of abuse and cover up is not the same as has occurred in Ireland and other countries. Ironically, this may be because Britain has been so hostile to Catholicism for so long.
It was though a relief recently to see the Bishops Conference of England and Wales make a direct apology to the faithful over the abuses committed. They spoke of these “terrible crimes, and the inadequate response by some church leaders,” the suffering of those abused and the need for reparation. “We recognise the failings of some bishops and religious leaders in handling these matters. These, too, are aspects of this tragedy which we deeply regret and for which we apologise. The procedures now in place in our countries highlight what should have been done straightaway in the past. Full co-operation with statutory bodies is essential.”
The statement was uncompromising and uncomfortable to hear read out in Churches across the country. It was afterall admitting that many of those revered by Catholics countrywide had committed crimes and abused the most innocent of our people. It was a heinous crime that must shame all Catholics.
How serious the bishops are about addressing the question of abuse will be seen over the coming months. The benchmarks will be how victims are treated, what processes are put in place to discover other abuse and what happens to change the structures of the Church.
It is afterall the authoritarian hierarchial structure of the Church that has allowed this abuse to occur. The laity also need to grow up and take responsibility. There must be structures of accountability that become filled by grown ups who will hold those working for the Church to account.
These though are matters for Catholics. Let’s remember that as Irish Catholics it is our Church. We put in the plate, our children attend the schools. It is for us to sort out the problems, not those seeking to make cheap points at our expense.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Community organisers must beware political co-option
Community organising has become flavour of the month with political parties as they jostle for public goodwill before the election.
David Cameron was the most recent convert, promising that a future Conservative government would fund national centres for community organisers.
Prior to the Tories' conversion, former work and pensions secretary James Purnell announced he was to train as a community organiser when he stepped down from Parliament.
This presents the rather intriguing possibility of a new Conservative government paying for the retraining of a former Labour Cabinet minister.
Community organising is about bringing people together and empowering them to achieve change in their own lives through political activism. It began in the US, with Purnell describing Saul Alinsky as "the godfather of community organising." Its most famous son was President Barack Obama, who trained as an organiser.
This form of organising took root in Britain in the mid-'90s. The first organisation, the East London Communities Organisation (Telco), was set up in the East End of London in 1996.
It brought together different faith groups, schools, trade unions and other community-based bodies. The organisation has grown since the early days, setting up South London Citizens and West London Citizens, which together with Telco now form London Citizens.
There are 150 member organisations, many of which come together for the showpiece public assemblies. The last assembly at the Barbican in London drew in 2,000 people with plans to take community organising country-wide.
Telco's living wage campaign was British community organising's first big breakthrough. Members of London Citizens exposed how people working in low-paid sectors, such as cleaning and security, were having to do two or three jobs just to stay above the poverty line. Many worked in the twilight zone of the economy and were afraid to be associated with trade unions.
Funded by Unison, Telco commissioned research and came up with a living wage figure that amounted to what was required per hour to live above the poverty line. A successful campaign followed, involving direct meetings with public and private-sector companies.
There were also very public disruptive actions, such as members going into banks in the West End of London on a set day with lots of small change to bank.
The campaign won converts, with Barclays Bank and a number of NHS trusts and colleges taking on the living wage ordinance. Then London mayor Ken Livingstone embraced the idea, setting up a living wage unit in his office to set the rate each year.
Workers for the Greater London Authority were to be paid the living wage. Boris Johnson followed suit, most recently setting the rate at £7.60 an hour.
Another related campaign, known as Strangers into Citizens, aimed to provide regulation for undocumented workers, and was backed by sound research. Johnson also came on board as a supporter of some type of amnesty for undocumented workers.
So far, so good. There is a risk, however, that the goals of community organisers will be co-opted by mainstream political parties. Cameron's plans to create national centres for community organising and fund the training to be carried out by "independent third parties such as London Citizens" might be seen as an attempt at such co-option.
Leaders of London Citizens responded saying that they expected government to listen to the concerns of civil society just as it did those of business and the trade unions.
Those who are sceptical about community organising might surmise that London Citizens has more in common with the voluntarism agenda espoused by the Tories' Centre for Social Justice than with the demands of over six million trade unionists. That accusation feels unfair. The strength of community organising lies in its ability to bring together different groups who then seek to speak truth to power.
If there is a Tory government, one cannot simply refuse to converse with the new bosses. In broad coalition terms, however, what will public-sector trade union branches from the likes of Unison and PCS think of an organisation that they help fund having such close relations with a Conservative leader?
This critique will become more pressing if a Conservative government starts putting those trade union members out of work.
So far organisers at the heart of London Citizens have managed to unite a broad span of civil society to speak out on behalf of the poorest, without being politically co-opted by Westminster factions. It must be hoped that they continue to show such good judgement, so they can continue to deliver social justice for London's neediest citizens.
David Cameron was the most recent convert, promising that a future Conservative government would fund national centres for community organisers.
Prior to the Tories' conversion, former work and pensions secretary James Purnell announced he was to train as a community organiser when he stepped down from Parliament.
This presents the rather intriguing possibility of a new Conservative government paying for the retraining of a former Labour Cabinet minister.
Community organising is about bringing people together and empowering them to achieve change in their own lives through political activism. It began in the US, with Purnell describing Saul Alinsky as "the godfather of community organising." Its most famous son was President Barack Obama, who trained as an organiser.
This form of organising took root in Britain in the mid-'90s. The first organisation, the East London Communities Organisation (Telco), was set up in the East End of London in 1996.
It brought together different faith groups, schools, trade unions and other community-based bodies. The organisation has grown since the early days, setting up South London Citizens and West London Citizens, which together with Telco now form London Citizens.
There are 150 member organisations, many of which come together for the showpiece public assemblies. The last assembly at the Barbican in London drew in 2,000 people with plans to take community organising country-wide.
Telco's living wage campaign was British community organising's first big breakthrough. Members of London Citizens exposed how people working in low-paid sectors, such as cleaning and security, were having to do two or three jobs just to stay above the poverty line. Many worked in the twilight zone of the economy and were afraid to be associated with trade unions.
Funded by Unison, Telco commissioned research and came up with a living wage figure that amounted to what was required per hour to live above the poverty line. A successful campaign followed, involving direct meetings with public and private-sector companies.
There were also very public disruptive actions, such as members going into banks in the West End of London on a set day with lots of small change to bank.
The campaign won converts, with Barclays Bank and a number of NHS trusts and colleges taking on the living wage ordinance. Then London mayor Ken Livingstone embraced the idea, setting up a living wage unit in his office to set the rate each year.
Workers for the Greater London Authority were to be paid the living wage. Boris Johnson followed suit, most recently setting the rate at £7.60 an hour.
Another related campaign, known as Strangers into Citizens, aimed to provide regulation for undocumented workers, and was backed by sound research. Johnson also came on board as a supporter of some type of amnesty for undocumented workers.
So far, so good. There is a risk, however, that the goals of community organisers will be co-opted by mainstream political parties. Cameron's plans to create national centres for community organising and fund the training to be carried out by "independent third parties such as London Citizens" might be seen as an attempt at such co-option.
Leaders of London Citizens responded saying that they expected government to listen to the concerns of civil society just as it did those of business and the trade unions.
Those who are sceptical about community organising might surmise that London Citizens has more in common with the voluntarism agenda espoused by the Tories' Centre for Social Justice than with the demands of over six million trade unionists. That accusation feels unfair. The strength of community organising lies in its ability to bring together different groups who then seek to speak truth to power.
If there is a Tory government, one cannot simply refuse to converse with the new bosses. In broad coalition terms, however, what will public-sector trade union branches from the likes of Unison and PCS think of an organisation that they help fund having such close relations with a Conservative leader?
This critique will become more pressing if a Conservative government starts putting those trade union members out of work.
So far organisers at the heart of London Citizens have managed to unite a broad span of civil society to speak out on behalf of the poorest, without being politically co-opted by Westminster factions. It must be hoped that they continue to show such good judgement, so they can continue to deliver social justice for London's neediest citizens.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Immigration debate must take positive note
The subject of immigration looks set to be a major campaign issue in the general election campaign.All of the three main parties seem to be vying with each other as to which can keep the most people out of the country.
The Conservative Party favours quotas, with a seal on the number of migrants who can enter from outside the European Union (EU). Critics have highlighted the impractical nature of this policy for a business that opens or suddenly needs workers with certain skills. If the quota were full then that business could not fill its skills gap and could go to the wall. The Conservatives argue that there will be planning to cover such eventualities but the neo-liberal market which the party so strongly favours does not work that way - it is spontaneous and often unpredictable.The Labour Party favours its points system, only letting in workers with certain skills from beyond the EU. This again is not a favourite with business, which sees it as potentially putting obstacles in the way of it obtaining the requisite skills.
A great deal of recent migration has emanated from the mainly East European new accession countries. It has been the Poles Lithuanians and Slovakians who have made up much of recent migration, though this has lessened as the economy has taken a downturn. The Liberal Democrats favour dispersal of migrants to different parts of the country, with a points based regional policy. This also appears somewhat illogical given that migrants only go to areas where the work exists.
The Liberal Democrats are prepared to let asylum seekers work while in the country, something the other two parties oppose.The far right parties of UKIP and the British National Party further stoke the tenor of the debate on restricting immigration.
The immigration debate generally is a morass of misinformation. The lead off point for the debate should be that inward migration has been good for the economy over the years - it is a positive thing.All the different migrant groups coming into the UK over recent decades - including the Irish, the West Indians and Africans, the Asians and East Europeans - have contributed to the economic well being and cultural diversity of the country.
Economically Britain needs migrants. It is a rapidly ageing population, with the ratio between young and old rapidly changing. University of London academic David Blake found that there needs to be 500,000 immigrant workers coming to the UK to retain the pension at its present levels. The alternatives are higher pension contributions or working longer. The most recent net figure was 163,000 for 2008.
Neither do migrant workers come here to take benefits and jump the housing queue.
Migrants coming here to work do not qualify for benefits. The economy has massively benefited from the inflow of east European migrants recently as many have come to work for a short period, paid taxes and returned home. The majority are single people who have not received the public services that their taxes have gone to fund.
The most authoritative study Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities from the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year found that around 2 per cent of those taking social housing had been in the country less than five years. Nine out of 10 people in this form of housing were born in the UK. Two thirds of those who arrived within the past five years live in private rented accommodation.
The migrants in private rented accommodation are often living in what was council housing before being sold off.
None of these facts effect the myths peddled in much of the right wing media about benefits and housing. These myths have also provided the fertile ground for the BNP and UKIP to exploit. So for example the BNP have been able to campaign in Barking and Dagenham about migrants taking housing and welfare. It turns community against community along race lines.
What is required over the election campaign is a proper open debate on immigration policies. Economic migration needs to be separated from those who come here seeking asylum having fled their home countries. What really does need to happen is to move away from this negative mindset that frames the immigration debate only in terms of reducing the number of people coming into the country. Immigration is in the main a positive thing for all concerned, not a threat to anyone’s way of life.
The Conservative Party favours quotas, with a seal on the number of migrants who can enter from outside the European Union (EU). Critics have highlighted the impractical nature of this policy for a business that opens or suddenly needs workers with certain skills. If the quota were full then that business could not fill its skills gap and could go to the wall. The Conservatives argue that there will be planning to cover such eventualities but the neo-liberal market which the party so strongly favours does not work that way - it is spontaneous and often unpredictable.The Labour Party favours its points system, only letting in workers with certain skills from beyond the EU. This again is not a favourite with business, which sees it as potentially putting obstacles in the way of it obtaining the requisite skills.
A great deal of recent migration has emanated from the mainly East European new accession countries. It has been the Poles Lithuanians and Slovakians who have made up much of recent migration, though this has lessened as the economy has taken a downturn. The Liberal Democrats favour dispersal of migrants to different parts of the country, with a points based regional policy. This also appears somewhat illogical given that migrants only go to areas where the work exists.
The Liberal Democrats are prepared to let asylum seekers work while in the country, something the other two parties oppose.The far right parties of UKIP and the British National Party further stoke the tenor of the debate on restricting immigration.
The immigration debate generally is a morass of misinformation. The lead off point for the debate should be that inward migration has been good for the economy over the years - it is a positive thing.All the different migrant groups coming into the UK over recent decades - including the Irish, the West Indians and Africans, the Asians and East Europeans - have contributed to the economic well being and cultural diversity of the country.
Economically Britain needs migrants. It is a rapidly ageing population, with the ratio between young and old rapidly changing. University of London academic David Blake found that there needs to be 500,000 immigrant workers coming to the UK to retain the pension at its present levels. The alternatives are higher pension contributions or working longer. The most recent net figure was 163,000 for 2008.
Neither do migrant workers come here to take benefits and jump the housing queue.
Migrants coming here to work do not qualify for benefits. The economy has massively benefited from the inflow of east European migrants recently as many have come to work for a short period, paid taxes and returned home. The majority are single people who have not received the public services that their taxes have gone to fund.
The most authoritative study Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities from the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year found that around 2 per cent of those taking social housing had been in the country less than five years. Nine out of 10 people in this form of housing were born in the UK. Two thirds of those who arrived within the past five years live in private rented accommodation.
The migrants in private rented accommodation are often living in what was council housing before being sold off.
None of these facts effect the myths peddled in much of the right wing media about benefits and housing. These myths have also provided the fertile ground for the BNP and UKIP to exploit. So for example the BNP have been able to campaign in Barking and Dagenham about migrants taking housing and welfare. It turns community against community along race lines.
What is required over the election campaign is a proper open debate on immigration policies. Economic migration needs to be separated from those who come here seeking asylum having fled their home countries. What really does need to happen is to move away from this negative mindset that frames the immigration debate only in terms of reducing the number of people coming into the country. Immigration is in the main a positive thing for all concerned, not a threat to anyone’s way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
