For those who might not be aware, 2006 was the year of worker mobility.
2008 will be the year of intercultural dialogue.
2007 would appear entirely void of symbolic significance - oh, except that it marks 40 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, in the UK.

In light of this, it seems rather fitting that one of my main tasks at the FYEG office last week was to draft and edit a letter to the Croatian prime minister, in the aftermath of the Zagreb Pride march, some weeks ago. The letter in full has been published here, and the European Green Party have also issued a press release about it on their website.

Zagreb is the most recent in a string of incidents related to Gay Pride events in Eastern and South Eastern Europe over the past few months. Marches have taken place in Moscow, Warsaw, Riga, Zagreb, etc - all with varying degrees of counter-demonstration and reactions of varying hostility. None, however, have been entirely without violence, abuse. This coupled with the implicit nods from the gouvernment who refuse to actually call the attacks hate crimes is a worrying state of affairs, especially in countries that are now full EU members.

My "boss" Judith Verweijen, office coordinator of FYEG has attended a number of marches in areas such as these, and I'd recommend a look at her blog if you're interested in a good description of the kind of climate that accompanies such events, it's quite an eye-opening evaluation, detailling, for instance, how protestors were often escorted out of the city after the march for fear "releasing" them back into the public way would inevitably endanger their lives.

At this stage, very early stage of acceptance, it is not a question of sexual preference, it is first and foremost a fundamentally political issue. Rights are rights, and oppression is oppression, whomsoever is directly concerned and targeted, because where it exists, it touches everything, it is pervasive of all areas of life, and it dictates & sets a very distinct tone and climate. This is why solidarity is so important, whether with minorities, women, the handicapped, under-priveleged, any particular race or religion... it's not fighting someone else's fight, it's fighting your own because making a stand against discrimination is an action in its own right and has far wider implications than any one small segment of society's battle. As the final part of our letter stresses in no uncertain terms...

We sincerely hope that you share our profound conviction that there can be no freedom where people, especially those belonging to vulnerable minorities, exist in conditions of injustice, intolerance and fear... Therefore, we urge you, Mr. Prime Minister, and the Croatian government to firmly and publicly condemn the homophobic attacks at and after Zagreb PRIDE and to urgently take the necessary measures to promote the full respect of the inalienable European values of equality, non discrimination, and freedom of expression throughout Croatian society.

And its such an important point for the Greens especially because it hangs on all those core issues, equality, freedom, civil liberties, dignity, respect - and it's about shifting paradigms and changing mindsets and if anyone is aware of how important and how feasible that is, it's the Greens, because being so progressive is what sets them apart from all the other political "families".

It's true. In glorious Western Europe we do now have widepsread tolerance framed in law, and many other nations are following suit. But complacency is enemy number one, and you can still detect little things that
aren't right. Like Chris Moyles using "Gay" as an insult, to 5 million listeners at 7AM in the morning. And nobody is more aware of these little things, than the people who are most entitled to feel aggrieved by them - the gay demographic.

Philip Hensher of The Independent writes: "It used to be commonplace to read newspaper articles extolling the virtues of the gay best friend for the girl about town who wants to choose some new cushions. Now that
it has dawned on even the most slow-witted of lady columnists how very offensive that is, its been replaced by articles asking what there is for gay people to complain about how they've got everything they ever asked for."
Clearly these columnists (I'll leave aside the misogynistic overtones) have never been to a Gay Pride March in the Balkans. Sometimes it is an honest lack of knowledge about how immense the disparity is between countries when it comes to same-sex policy.

Or sometimes it's just a new, perhaps even more malevolent kind of homophobia. Like the perfectly vile Alain Soral, who is definitely top 5 on my hit list at the moment, asking one gay man what his problem was because "You would love to think that there's opposition, but the truth is - nobody has a problem with you anymore" and calling it a "faux debat" (false debate). Not only is it flagrantly untrue, it's obscenely offensive. WHO IS HE to say it, anyway?!

Some of these MEPs are good at that as well, as in a recent debate on Homophobia at the in Strasbourg, a certain Dutch female MEP rose to give an impassioned tirade against those in the chamber who felt that homophobia shouldn't be discussed about in the European Parliament plenary. "You can be for or against," she said, "But don't tell us we're not allowed to talk about this - do not distort the debate!"

Everybody loves a circus...

Next week marks the tearful farewell to the European Parliament, as my second internship draws to a close. From Socialists in Strasbourg to Greens in Brussels, the experience has been entirely enriching, if not entirely consistent. (NB. in case anyone feels as if they've missed something, a blog entry giving my reasons for my treachery is currently in the works, as I try to think of enough reasons to justify myself).

Given that I'm now no longer dependant upon the Parliament's presence in Strasbourg for a job, I'm at last free of any vested interets and able to take a more impartial, or critical, view on the matter. But I can only imagine the fallout following Sarkozy shooting down the by now rather formidable attempts to reform the double-seat structure of the EP and the monthly trek backwards & forwards it entails (the "travelling circus" as its been endearingly dubbed). The One Seat campaign, has gathered an impressive million+ signatures, MEPs themselves are generally rather influential people but this something that they just can't seem to budge. And as we know, Sarkozy is not one for beating around the bush, he doesn't say ask me later, he just says No. Never. Not now, not in a million years. cf. Turkish accession, for exemple. So much for the bold reformer, but he certainly has a knack for bold outright rejection. No no no. Veto veto veto.

And yet, there had been high hopes, hopeful whispers that Sarkozy, for all his sins, was a progressive-thinker, a moderniser, in favour of moving forward. In favour, even, of efficiency, time-saving, and good old-fashioned common sense. But of course it wasn't long before those aspirations bit the dust, and Sarkozy went as far as reaffirming the symbolic status of Strasbourg - of franco-german reconciliation, of European unity. I didn't write down the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of: discussing Strasbourg would amount to discussing the very basis of Europe - the precarious equilibria on which it is founded. "L'Europe - ca ne se discute pas." We won't mention of course, the arrogance and inaccuracy of talking about "Europe" as a whole, as opposed to the EU.

I find it difficult to grasp what exactly he's refering to, what this immobile, unchanging, eternal foundation consists of, in his eyes. If he is refering to the nature of the founding agreement, the ideas on which Political Europe was built in its very early stages, what are we basing ourselves on, exactly? A strictly economic mutually beneficial agreement between 6 small nations on matters relating solely to coal and steel production? Oh the unbridled idealism!

Or perhaps he's referring to more recent history, which if anything shows just how malleable & transient the EU structures are, if you take a look at all the changes, structural reforms, upheaval, enlargement, twists & turns over the past 10 to 20 years.


This all would seem to suggest that the foundations, like the borders, are entirely up the discussion, in fact, what is the EU if not one long discussion, negotiation, compromise, to claim it as static at the base is as nonsensical as suggesting the political consensus in general is. When has anything political ever be set in stone, least of all something in constant evolution, progressing by trial & error, like the european project.

Sarkozy can call the shots on his own turf, and we've already seen he isn't shy about doing so. But the EU forum necessitates a little more "give" even among the big players. Now that my internship contract has been safely brought to term, I'm quite happy to deplore the Strasbourg Circus like the rest of them. The arguments generally fall into 3 main categories:

1. The cost issue - tax payers money argument costing them 200million euro a year alledgedly
   
2. The environmental and carbon footprint issue
   
3. The plain hassle & bother issue

I suspect the majority of the dissenting voices are spurred on in their crusade by the sheer inconvenience inccured, while the Greens highlight the carbon footprint aspect. It distresses them a lot, firstly because of the C02 munching involved, but also because of the hypocrisy - the EU presents itself as a leader in envrionmental policy but fails to lead by example.

And it's not all a lot of hot air, either. Numerous reports have been published stating exact facts and figures about energy consumption, of which this one by the Greens-EFA group appears to be the most concise, compact and comprehensive

For me the issue is less than clear-cut. Yes the waste of energy is a scandal, but it's a scandal that's been going on for a while now, so a lot of people have gotten used to it. Also, having just finished my erasmus year in Strasbourg, I have to say the town does now occupy a special place in my heart, which prevents me from dismissing the whole idea as entirely stupid. And God knows what we'd do with that awful building... european college, museum, science park, circus anyone?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, or at least - we should

You'd be forgiven, after last week, for suffering from a touch of "concerts for a cause" fatigue, what with the Princess Diana concert so closely followed by Live Earth, and the echo of Live 8 still ringing in the not so distant past.

With Live Earth, along with such trendy campaigns as MTV Switch, Pop culture meets environmentalism, in much the same way as it met poverty during Live 8 in 2005, just as it had two decades before. Good intentions, I think we can safely assme, I'm just not quite convinced about their methods yet.

The main focus appears to be raising awareness, rather than asking outright for donations. Clearly, the music industry believes it has a special & unique power for good, that it can use at will to alter the public consciousness, to stir up outrage and outcry, to summon support, or in some cases dissent. But ultimately, in the case of live 8 for example, it's poverty-fighting organisations like Oxfam & others who put in the groundwork, who actually get food to people who are starving, who actually ACT rather than wallow in their heightened state of musically-inspired awareness. And to do that, they need the funds, whether from private donations or public gouvernment spending money. That's how it works. In theory.

But climate change isn't a charity. It's a problem of a radically different nature and as such merits a good deal of reflection on how it should be tackled most effectively. Yes awarenesss needs to be raised, yes it needs a higher profile, and yes hearts and minds do need to be won. But the similarities end there.

This is not a problem that money can solve. Poverty, if in theory rather than in practice, is. Even if it's not sustainable to try to solve it in the way the Western world currently is, and even if the systems in place are inherently flawed and unfair. It does not, technically, necessitate a complete overhaul of our industry, of our conception of growth and progress, of our daily household & personal habits. Maybe it should, but no earthly force is going to bring about that transformation. In the case of Global warming, perhaps one just might.

Trevor Nelson, one of the presenters, said it was nice to have someone more informal than Al Gore, in his suit and tie, pushing the message of environmentalism. But are they really? Isn't this another cause? Like Diana gig, only days before, and all of live8, celebrities latch onto a cause brought to the forefront of public consciousness – they don't put it there! and the vast majority of them it seems, are also completely incapable of talking about the subject in any kind of remotely articulate terms. And they're hardly about to convince people of anything if they don't even appear to know why they're there. And even if they did, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not saying their intentions aren't golden, or that their hearts aren't in the right places, I'm just really not convinced that this is the way to save the planet.

And it doesn't really impress me either, to see Russel Brand making sarcastic cracks about feeding baby rhinos. Surely one of the most basic of token efforts made by these "celebrities" ought to be to take the whole thing seriously at least, especially given the lack of consensus (political, not scientific) on the subject.

That's not to say of course, that one can't take a light-hearted approach, or have a sense of humour about it all. Those science twins managed that pretty well:

"Skeptics say global warming is being caused by... The SUN
Answer: Get rid of the sun.
Aviation is responsible for much of the CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because holidays are nice.
Cars are responsible for pollution and also CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because public transport is for poor people.
Etc."

Especially with a question that potentially involves so much science, there's nothing wrong with bringing it back to basics, making sense of it all, and putting it in rational terms. Surely this format is the most effective way of changing attitudes and changing habits, when seeking to adress "the general public".

But beyond eliciting a few laughs with ironic quips, how do you actually entice them into actually doing anything, in concrete terms? To me it seems the most straightforward approach is to translate these large principles into actions and rationalise those actions in terms that make them appear self-evident. Everyone's come across these lists of things you can do to play your part, and so here's my selection, complete with what's in it for you.

Some Golden rules...

- switch the light off – pay less on your electricity bill
- print on both sides – less to be carried around
- with as many pages as you can possibly squint to read on one sheet – less ink and paper gets used up, less frequently needs replacing
- if the windows are open, the heating should be off – should stop you wasting money on heating bill
- unless the heat is completely unbearable, give air conditioning a miss – you won't get an AC cold, and you'll acclimatise much quicker
- sack the tumble dryer - ruins your clothes, surely everybody knows that?
- recycle, obviously – well there's just no excuse not to in this day and age, is there?
- boycott stuff with too much packaging (i.e. if you can buy loose fruit vs. in a package, you know which to go for) – less trash, always agreeable
- always remember to bring your trusty reusable bag out shopping – chance to show off how trendy/well-travelled/politically active you are, depending on your choice of bag
- cut down the carbon miles, buy local – shopping at markets is a soul-restoring exercice
- buy fairtrade – generally lovely, great quality stuff
- support companies that are making an effort, boycott the ones that clearly aren't – gives you a (misplaced) feeling of control and influence
- boycott the evil multinationals - it might not save the whales but it'll help you sleep at night, and probably avoid obseity as well
- turn the red light off (i.e. don't leave appliances on standby) – again, will help you sleep at night, those things are annoying...
- don't rush to flush if it's just a... you know the rest – erm...
- take the bus, tram, bike or walk – people-watching. enough said. often quicker and cheaper, too. and the latter two are much healthier.
- stop moaning about wind farms – they're lovely, end of.
- and finally, the one I almost can't bring myself to say... try not to fly, unless it's completely necessary – sorry, no benefits. or redeeming aspects. at all. whatsoever. apparently you can meet interesting people on long gruelling international bus journeys, but I'm far from convinced.

What is the blatant correlation that emerges? Environmentally-friendly equals enhanced quality of life, equals more ethical work practices, often equals greater social justice, almost always equals simply a more humane way of living. For that, we first need to push away the dodgy alternative we're being fed, and maybe that requires something of a small revolution.

And who should start that revolution? Answer – the people who usually start revolutions. Leaders, to Politicians. The ones to come, rather than the ones we have. Those who acknowledge the problem, who are informed about it, and most importantly who are willing and brave enough to begin the trend that others will follow – Taking personal responsibility for our actions. This is critical – in the context of Globalisation and I mean that in the sense of the emergence of problems on a global scale. Inescapably, it implies a new conception of multilateral negotiating between states, a new conception of cooperation.

When the planet is under threat, it can no longer be each nation for themselves. Rather it has to be about multilateralism, unity and shared responsibility. I know the word makes me sound like an old lefty Trot but solidarity. No longer an aspiration, it may well turn out to be a precondition of the preservation of our species. And shame on those nations who appear still not to have grasped this obvious transformation, who it appears, want to push backwards the precarious progress that has been made thus far – naming no names Sweden with its threatening noises about leaving the EU, or Britain with its blunt refusals to make any concessions or sacrifices to anyone, ever. But why should they, I mean they used to rule over a third of the world. Try reminding the population of that fact, Gordon Brown, when they're submerged under water, and see how much of a useful consolation it is. Oh wait, most of them already are.

We don't need Madonna gyrating on stage yet again, what we do need is the triumph of common sense (I know, how many times in history has that occurred – the outlook is bleak from the get-go) and a general realisation of what we're up against. Realisation of the collective influence of consumers. It's not complex, in fact the message should be as simple as a slap in the face.
Get your priorities sorted - everybody wins.

Except those afflicted with a love of planes...

This might not cure you, but it's a step in the right direction.

Daydream believer

Given that I'm now working full time at the European Parliament, rather than 3 days a month like I have been for most of the year, you might think I'd have no end of intellectually stimulating and politically cutting-edge tidbits to share with you. Not so.

I did to go a working group meeting (can't remember exactly what the name of the working group was, but it was mostly liberals so it was almost certainly something about rights of some sort) which the president of the EP Hans-gert Poettering had also been invited to, to talk about the place of religion in the EU (apparently a result of Poettering's recent invitation of the Pope to the EP which some members took exception to).

A couple of representatives of the British Humanist association were there aswell, which was very insightful. There's nothing like being presented with the voice of reason every once in a while. Would recommend a look at that, definitely.

Religion for me is a bit like patriotism in its various formes - flags and national anthems. In certain circumstances, and on certain special occasions, their appeal just proves too much to resist, especially where large groups of fellow beleivers/patriots are present, but common sense generally prevails in the end. I would rather describe myself as a fervent beleiver in the virtues of secularity, rather than a God-denier. Although I'm no agnostic. They're almost as bad as centrists (who as we well know, can barely make up their minds which side of bed to get out of in the morning).

One (religious) woman made an interesting point. Separation of church and state does is to be distinguished from the separation of religion and politics which, she claims, is impossible. Presumably because, we cannot remove religion from our politics, because it is one of the fundamental contributing factors that determines these politics, the convictions we hold. Unfortunately, I think she may be right.

But other than that brief foray into the murky world of the metaphysical, I've been mainly concerning myself with what I'll be missing this summer at all those festivals I won't be going to. So far, the investigation has been short of devastating. But here's one thing I came across which might be worth a look.

This is Kate Nash, 19, we'll call her baby Lily Allen. The similarities are rife. That strange gritty sweetness, an ethereal voice with a "butter wouldn't melt" melodious quality - but with words that are frankly rude, crude and unkind. Both representating the East London massive with their refreshingly sharp cockney diction, and both products of the Myspace revolution, not that that's anything to boast about (we'll refrain from recalling the horrors of Sandi Thom, also generated by the same cyber-process).

I can't speak for anything else she's done but as far as this track goes - I just can't stop playing it. I'm a big fan of believable lyrics, as in - sounding like they mean it. It's such a simple formula tune-wise, but it's the words, as if being sung through gritted teeth, and with a breaking voice, which manage to convey a kind of urgent sadness, of humble everyday existential angst. It doesn't have to be anything melodramatic, but songs that convey a particular mood and a feeling, especially an uncommon one are never without some merit. I dont have to identify with them either, just be drawn into it.

The fusion of a light-ish upbeat melody with lyrics that betray the tone entirely, that evoke implicitly or explicitly an acute sense of distress - is something we've encontered recently in James Morrisson's "Wonderful World" - ironic to the extreme. And in addition to the contrast, the words themselves. Tunes are one thing, but in my opinion one cannot over-emphasise the lasting impact of brilliant lyrics. Perhaps this is partly down to the reflection and acting that generally accompanies them, but I also think the language itself is pretty vital. Words that are continually a pleasure to hear and to say, that evoke and that surprise. Songs like "Rehab" by Amy Winehouse, most stuff by the Kaiser chiefs, and anything by Lily Allen - are made by their lyrics, and where the tunes are weak - are saved by them. Clever, witty, unexpected, often funny, & sometimes charming lyrics that roll off the tongue, that remind you that just occasionally music meets character, substance and story-telling.

And it doesn't have to be grandiose or momentous, moralising or philosophising, it can be about the most trivial of occurences as long as it strikes a chord with those who hear it. Songs that endure, for me, endure by their words and by their conviction.

Released

Perhaps because I myself come from a dynasty of journalists that this issue struck a particular chord with me. There are no words to describe the sense relief and the admiration felt by myself and I'm sure a great many others, on july 4th, when Alan was first released after 114 days in captivity, and then went on to give a series of interviews and appearances on television and radio throughout the day. His release, like the man himself, comes as a glimmer of hope, amidst the turmoil of a situation that seems desperate and hopeless.

Le dernier mot

Various things appear to have gotten in the way of maintaining this blog. Exams, goodbyes, the usual initial holiday slump of inactivity... But now that my existance has resumed what might considered as some sort of rhythm, there's chances I might get more disciplined about it.

Perhaps it was after May 6th, the day when everything officially became possible, that I was too disheartened to face the prospect of political commenting for a while.

As a result, this should have been posted a good 2 months ago, and although the ship may have sailed (or yacht, whatever it was) I feel as if I should just put it up, if only for posterity.

The French election was eye-opening indeed, in terms of shedding some light on the French attitude vis-a-vis politics in general, or rather the act or "civil duty" of casting ones vote. The notion of people making the trip to the polls expressely to turn in a blank ballot (or "voter blanc") gave me something of an insight as regards the rapport with democracy the French in general seem to have - a very healthy one. This was evem recognised by the Independant, following the 1st round, which listed a number reasons why the french election was reassuring (makes a nice change, the media admitting everything might actually be going ok, rather than milking a perceived "crisis of representation" for all it's worth).

I have to say when I did check the results on May 6th, after putting it off for as long as I could, my heart sank, more than I was expecting, given the honest expectations of the outcome which I think were shared by most. The awful tragedy of such a close-run election (not in relative terms perhaps but 47-53 sounds fairly well proportioned to me) - 16,8 million people are dissappointed, are unhappy, are discontent, are afraid, are insensed at the result, all the way down the political spectrum.

In the aftermath, place de la bastille is burning, and the looks of absolute terror and dread in the eyes of some of he Segolene supporters make my blood run cold. Personally, I've been exile for about 2 weeks now. But what about them?

Millions upon millions of people who weren't convinced by this notion of swapping la "culture du partage" for the "culture de la croissance", the triumph of firmness over compassion, who felt uneasy about the appointment of a minister for "immigration & national identity", who saw through the scare-mongering, who questionned his blunt veto to Turkey, who were worried by an attitude to immigration that regards it as welcoming "toute la misere du monde" into the french territory, who anticipated the dangers of "zero tolerance" policy, and who questioned the threat of deconstruction of the social model (which sarko explicitly referred to when he asserted that people ought to be living off the products of their own work, not aids & benefits, because before we can distribute we need to create "la richesse" - absent in France, according to Sarko, when, as Olivier Besancenot frequently reminded us - there has never been so much wealth in France). What about us?

And what about the absolute scandal of people who don't even live in France being able to vote, while so many people who do and are directly affected are disenfranchised and unable to.

I deplore the people who voted for Sarko because they share in his vision of how to reform French society, but most of all I deplore the people who voted for him, despite twinges of fear, of unease, despite the alarm bells ringing at the back of their minds, because they told themselves "he won't be gouverning alone". Those who, it appears, are willing to let the country go up in flames, for whom the appeal of good firm leadership proved just too much to resist.

And I'm not saying the French haven't got a clue, on the contrary I think they're remarkably
well-informed, remarkably "conscious" politically, mobilised and rational, and I wouldn't insult the intelligence of the vast majority by insinuating that those who voted for Sarkozy aren't completely aware of what he stood for, down to the very fine details.

Sarkozy keeps claiming the French people have voted for change, for "la rupture", despite his party being the one that's been in power for the last 5 years. But this is entirely consistent with the general contradiction that has been running through his campaign right from the start, in his slogan as in some of his frequently offensive and bizarre statements. My personal favourite is his touching assertion that "People who beleive are people who hope".

Well M. Sarkozy, I'm no beleiver but I have, on occasion, been known to hope. I think the best we can hope for now, is that things will essentially stay the same.

I'll leave you with the sombre reactions of Liberation...

"There is great disappointment after so much fervour, so much passion and so much hope in renewal. France has made a clear choice... Nicolas Sarkozy is a legitimate president... The other France will seek compensation in the parliamentary election. In the meantime, sick at heart, it ponders defeat intent on hope in spite of it all... This setback should rouse the forces of
imagination and modernization, that bring together daring and reality. For its
part, Liberation embarks upon this task from today. The values of competition
have won the day but the values of solidarity and justice remain."