Little fiddly things

I've some loose ends that want tying up, without anything so focused as a particular argument or observation.

First, about those pesky pirates that everyone is so up in arms about, and yet simultaneously enthralled by because, after all, who didn't enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean? Somehow the romantic, comical cartoon vision of pirates doesn't quite fit with the terrifying lawlessness and grinding poverty afflicting the tragic non-nation of Somalia, the world's number 1 basket case country. And yet no journalist seems to be able to avoid the temptation of juxtaposing the two in some way.
For me, easily the most enlightening and useful piece on the whole matter, is the testimonial of a young pirate as relayed to the BBC: Why I became a pirate

This seems to be the real tragedy. We're astounded at the numbers of those braving the dangerous seas in ridiculous boats en route to Europe, from Africa. The reaction of the Southern European countries seems to be to either watch them drown or just send them back home again. The journey is perilous and often fatal, and those on the other side could scarcely be less welcoming. Given the choice, any choice, what would you do?

Next, a quick plug for the Big Think - a website I've just discovered that is at once fantastic and frightening (because it seems to eliminate the need for newspapers entirely - now you can also get your dose of opinion/editorials as well as straighforward news online). I especially enjoy watching David Rieff being all disgruntled and armchair-intellectualy on a downer about Obama.

Last weekend I was at the Far East Film Festival in Udine, something I initally resisted on the grounds that "I don't like martial arts". But I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Although on the surface the whole thing appeared quite pretentious, in a way that the African Film festival wasn't (I imagine because the far-east has a more extensive and distinctive tradition of film-making, which many of the people there seemed to be intimidatingly familiar with). But the films themselves were really enjoyable (not so much harrowing ordeals as in Milan, mainly because these were "popular" films, with hearthrob actors and mega-budgets). We saw a rather OTT Hong Kong action thriller and 4 japanese films, which were full of wonderful quirky moments and characters, indicating the Japanese appreciate and understand far better the eccentricities of their own people than we do (like the penchant of japanese girls for "cute" things and the almost excessive politeness of the older generation especially) and manage to use that aspect to comic effect excellently. Instant Swamp (left) deserves a special mention, because I seldom laugh out loud at films, especially at visual jokes, I'm generally much more tickled by word-play and delivery, but this film had moments of genuinely hilarious brilliance. I also learnt the valuable fact that there are some incredibly, achingly beautiful Far-eastern men being most considerately cast by the film-makers out there, such as Mizushima Hiro (below). And I didn't come home empty-handed either, but with 3 japanese horror films as a consolation for missing "Horror day". Mmhmm.

Last thing, I read an article in a certain former broadsheet newspaper last week, essentially criticising the latest media campaign by the charity Women's Aid, which shows Kiera Knightley being beaten up by her boyfriend. Yeah ok, maybe a campaign showing Brad Pitt doing the beating would have been an original twist, but picking on them seems a bit rich, all the same. For me, this one does the job, as in - I'd already read about its precise contents before seeing it and it still managed to give me a good shake. Below it you can catch up on the debate about whether or not, as some devil's advocates claim, Violence against women is a social invention, a phenomenon that has been constructed and detracts attention from the real problem of violence in general. Maybe. I'll have to go away and think about that one.

Getting off on the right foot

It's happening...

I suppose I would've seemed a killjoy back in november if I'd suggested that maybe we should hold off the party until after Obama has succeeded in making the world a better place, rather than pre-emptively. But of course it was never going to be so simple.

You've probably seen this touching little video by now. Ostensibly to mark the occasion of Nawruz, Iranian new year, Obama sends a special message to the peoples of the Middle-east & with a special mention in there for "the leaders of Iran" who should pay particularly close attention, if they know what's good for them.

In the short segment he explains how Iranians (or just their leaders? I'm not too sure) "have a choice" - they have a right to take their rightful place in the international world order, but with that right comes real responsibility (rings a bell... Oh I know, it's a line from Spiderman).

I can only imagine that this video must have left its target audience intensely bemused. I certainly was. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do now? Is this really how international politics works?

No, of course it's not. What Obama is saying and the way he is saying it might seem to be a break with continuity as far as the face of American foreign policy goes, but other, arguably more substantial aspects of it, don't seem to be changing too rapidly at all.
It doesn't seem as if the US is about to radically rethink its disproportionate support (both political & military) for the State of Israel, making it a clear and persistent security threat in the region which the people of Iran and all its neighbours have an obvious reason to be very concerned about. A lesser known American-sponsored threat to the country are the People's Mujahedin, a militant islamic organisation which aims to overthrow the Iranian government, explains Mohsen Rezai in his editorial (of which I've only a paper copy, forgive lack of reference).
Then there's the economic sanctions, which Obama decided not to lift. This might just have some bearing on the everyday lives of Iranians as well, given how it in no small way contributes to stunting the development of the country & its economy. In fact he's even contemplating tightening them. (So hardly surprising to learn that Ali Khamenei should react by asking "what change?", more on his response over here.)

But Obama didn't mention any of this in his little video greeting card. Instead of confronting the conditions which breed terrorism, he contents himself with asking them nicely to stop it. If this method doesn't work, when America finally loses patience, those Iranians won't be able to say they were not warned!

In Turkey, as all across Europe, over the past few days Obama has been welcomed with open arms, greeted with cheers and euphoria. He may be black, a democrat, and below the age of 60 but he is above all the President of the United States. There seems to be a generalised case of amnesia on this. I've just started reading "Dreams from my Father", the earlier of his autobiographies. I'm willing to believe he's a thoroughly nice person with some really commendable ideas. But Obama is not american politics. He will not and cannot change the nature of how power works in the world, and that's the fundamental problem. No matter how noble his intentions he is subject to the formidable range of pressures & influences of those in the world who have power and capital, but don't need to worry about votes or opinion polls.

So why do people seem to think he can or will? The way Obama is being received across the world makes me so uneasy because it's as if he is infallible, and he seems to have procured American policy a new legitimacy which it has done nothing yet to deserve, as far as I can see.

And it's not just naive, it's dangeous, as I wrote earlier in the month. Obama may have a heart of gold but like all politicians he should be constantly under the hammer and above all not given the benefit of the doubt. If anything, those of us who belong the Tony Benn anti-war school of thought should see him as more dangerous than his predecessor rather than less. Because George Bush could never have gotten away with starting another war after Iraq. But Obama CAN. He certainly has never had the courage to categorically rule out a military intervention, as Roger Cohen points out.

If in five years the world is a safer, fairer and more peaceful place, I will be the first one at the party, eating my words with relish and toasting to change.

Stories you couldn't make up

I'm just back from the African Film Festival of Milan, which was on all week. We were due to go up for a day to get the films we need for our own African film festival, which starts tomorrow, but I ended staying for 3 days because the catalogue was so intriguing.

The word most frequently used by the Italians to indicate films they'd appreciated is "bello" - which of course generally translates as beautiful, or nice.

After having watched some of the films recommended under this epithet for myself, I couldn't help feeling that such a qualification was terribly inappropriate. These films aren't nice and and with a few exceptions, they aren't beautiful either. They depict some of the ugliest, most miserable, desperate places & situations on earth. Prisons, shantytowns, warzones, slums, ghettos, refugee camps... The kind of environments that could strip any human being of their spirit, but yet in the midst of which glimpses of humanity occasionally appear, which makes it all the more poignant & unbearable.

I learnt pretty rapidly that the films I watched at the festival would not be noted on my next christmas list. You wouldn't want to watch films with scenes of murder, torture, rape & incest over & over, first because its too upetting, but also because seeing it again would make it less shocking, less traumatising, the initial effect is the most important, after which a second view would make you somewhat immune, & desensitised.

The two which stood out for me, in terms of provoking just this kind of trauma, delivering the kind of punch in the stomach that leaves you twitching for days, were these:

To See if I'm Smiling (Israel) - A documentary made up of interviews with young female Israeli soldiers. In Israel, apparently, military draft is obligatory for all youths as of the age of 18. I think this goes a long way to explaining the collective mentality of the country, as I see it. Why Israelis never seem to be capable of measured, rational debate, but never fail to hop on the defensive, to react as if under attack when criticised. To see themselves first & foremost as Israelis whatever the context. When every single member of a population has experienced being in that defensive position, of insecurity and fear, where there is no empathy whatsoever with the people regarded as the "ennemy", it's quite logical that they should become reactionary as a result, and lose all perspective. When an entire population has suffered the trauma of war & combat, this is the result.

Leonera (Argentina) - I won't try to review it but all I can say is I left with a feeling in my chest of actual physical tightness that I can't quite describe properly. A film about how "ordinary" people can be drawn to the depths of desolation, how normality can become hell overnight, and humanity can vanish in a second.

The films I saw at the festival, especially these two, weren't films that make you cry, like Titanic, Cold Mountain, or Love Actually.

Rather, they just leave you feeling limp (in the sense Chinua Achebe describes in "Things Fall Apart"), drained in the face of the unfathomable horror of it all - the unbearable lightness of death, as one of the Israeli girls puts it.

Films like these are not a pleasant experience so much as an ordeal. Within them play out scenes that leave you at a complete loss, about everything, because they are just so difficult, and so ambivalent. Scenes of the awful things people do to one another, and others of the incredible sacrifices they can make. Stories that portray human fragility and human resilience, but don't answer the question of which ultimately wins out most of the time. All this paints a disturbingly complex picture where good & bad are impossible to distinguish, a million miles from the easy Manichaeism of Hollywood & its reassuring conclusions about the state of universe.

Watching the films and hearing the directors speak about them got me to thinking about the relationship between film-making and activism. I suppose shedding light on injustice is a laudable endeavour, but spending millions on film-making somehow seems excessive. I suppose it can depend on the concrete results, Blood Diamond for example, has lead to massive raise in awareness of the ties between the diamond mining industry and civil conflict in Africa. The result has been a much greater interest in obtaining ethically sourced diamonds. There is an argument to be made for art for the sake of art, of course, but that particular can of worms I'll save for another post.

It was fitting really, for the festival to be happening in Milan, which I'd describe as a difficult city itself. There's something incredibly alienating about the place, I don't know if it's the emphasis on the commercial which makes it feel somewhat soulless and superficial, or perhaps the contrasts of the slick city centre a few minutes away from the frighteningly ugly grey tower blocks on the outskirts. I suppose both lack some kind of human quality, in different ways, and it makes the city quite a sad place. Seeing a roma camp on my train ride from the suburbs into the city, with all the squalid little shacks made out of iron and cardboard jostling for space in the darkness of the tunnel under the motorway also came as a bit of a shock. This is northern Italy for goodness sake, not Kosovo. It seems that everywhere has its ugly, shadowy places but in Milan I felt I encountered more than usual.

And everywhere I went I heard foreign languages, which I would try to place... Russian on the metro, amharic in the ethiopian call shop, arabic on the train, polish in the restaurant, something balkan spoken by the musicians on the tram... I couldn't help wondering each time if maybe they had similar stories to those I'd just been watching. In Milan, it seems everyone is an immigrant. Even the italians we encountered seemed to have all migrated from the South. And the result isn't exactly a picture of multicultural harmony. Back in september a black youth was beaten to death by an Italian shopkeeper and his son. But unfortunately, I don't think these are the kinds of people who go to this festival (not to say turnout was lacking - the showings were invariably packed out) which makes me wonder whether such a festival really helps in a city like Milan. With the much loathed Roma stuck hiding in the shadows of the underpass, and poor italian & foreign migrants alike stacked up in isolated high-rise flats, is it any wonder the situation seems on the verge of exploding.

A paradoxical piety

Far be it from me to come across as a religious sympathiser (as my earlier affirmation that maybe the death of religion would make the world a more boring place might have suggested), but I have to agree with what the defenders of Pope Benedict are saying. I.E. that one shouldn't just focus on two lines taken out of context, and ignore the rest of what someone says which qualify an assertion by putting it within a certain paradigm and system of values. It's true that if you read the full speech the Pope actually gave, it lends at least a shred or two of credibility and meaning to a statement that appears otherwise completely absurd, something only an idiot or a madman could say. The Pope thinks condoms make the problem of AIDS worse not because they spread the HIV virus in themselves but because they are a means to having control over one's own sex life, as opposed to being bound by the laws of reproduction, something it's no secret the Catholic Church disagrees with. It may not be right, but it at least has the virtue of consistency and a certain logic. The Catholic Youth such as those who so maliciously and violently attacked Green & Communist youth in Paris a few days ago, have deplored the short-sightedness of the media in ignoring the rest of their Pope's words and merely zooming in on a small but crucial fragment of what he actually said. As someone who tires of media polemics which constantly make "news stories" out of (frequently misquoted) statements from famous people rather than out of actual news in the form of real events that are taking place, I think they have a point.

Communist & Green Protesters outside Notre-Dame last sunday needed police protection

But what they don't seem to understand is that by making this point they've hit on exactly the reason why the pope's words were so irresponsible and deplorable. As someone with access to the internet and many other sources of information besides, I can look up the pope's speech in full after having read the outraged media headlines provoked by his "condoms aggravate the problem of AIDS" statement, should I be so inclined. But many people in Cameroon, Angola, and the various other African nations hosting him during his visit, do not. Therefore if the message extracted from his pious speech is just that: condoms to be avoided at all costs, basically there is little reason to believe the discussion will go any further, for many. Not because Africans lack any kind of cognitive capacity for critical thinking, but it's no secret that information about HIV/AIDS and sexuality in general is hardly widespread, and frequently subject to distortions and myths about how the disease is contracted and cured. We know this.

The NGOs who have been so upset by the pope's words are not necessarily against sexual abstinence, of course, just horrified that in one breath he has no doubt set them back a good few years in their work trying of trying to stem the spread of the disease and educate people about how to protect themselves.

There is no reason to suspect that Africans are not prone to the same tendencies of simplified assumptions and short-sighted thinking as everyone else has been. There is no reason to expect, especially with less access to information and less resources, that they should analyse the pope's words any more deeply than anyone else has bothered to. If Catholics are hoping that the full meaning and nuances of what the Pope was trying to say in terms of promoting abstinence and sexuality reserved for reproduction, will be not only understood but also adhered to by all Africans at risk of contracting AIDS, they really will need to be praying for miracle.

I'm not too optimistic that the Catholic Youth will be able to get their heads around this, especially since they don't seem to realise how physical and verbal attacks on a small group of peaceful protesters desperately undermines their otherwise perfectly legitimate and laudable calls for a more nuanced and informed debate about the issue. But these are just the kind of frequent inconsistencies and blatant displays of hypocrisy that always make me wonder whether people who still, apparently, manage to be staunch Catholics are really just having us all on, and in fact it's all an elaborate hoax.

A European pathology

Upon a first reading of this article (thank you l'Internazionale) I was deeply offended.

The arrogance of one yank undertaking the psycho-analysis of an entire continent - classified as "schizophrenic" and afflicted with "stockholm's syndrome" is breath-taking. The characterisation of the collective European personality as completely neurotic, not to mention cowardly and naive, desperate the hide under the skirt of mother America, seems almost too provocative to be taken seriously at all, more like satire. It reminds me of the name-calling and insults that were targetted against the European countries that decided not to go to war in 2003.

On a second reading, this time in my own language (thank you the Times Online), I like it. It rains on the parade of the kind of Obamaphilia and euphoria that I was never really convinced by. I mean yeah, this kind of thing is poignant but you know it's just too good to be true. Obama's speeches always made me somewhat uneasy, because of the religious overtones (a million people chanting back "yes we can" in repetition is just too close to the chorus of "amen" after every line in a sermon) and because of their poetic, vague, and abstract nature.

That said, in our defence, I think Europeans can be glad Obama was elected even though we know he isn't going to be any kind of saviour or great redeemer. Of course he is not going to eliminate all the injustices in the world. He is a politician and as such part of the establishment, and as George Monbiot points out in Bring on the Apocalypse, you simply can't expect to acheive global justice or attain goals such as "making poverty history" without confronting the current global order and distribution of power. It's really inconvenient.

But! If the United States were to start showing signs of engaging with the rest of the world, to seriously commit to tackling climate change and cutting carbon emissions, to close Guantanamo bay, it seems to me these would already be significiant improvements and evidence of progress towards making the world a safer and fairer place. It is not as if the politics and actions of a country like the US have no bearing on the rest of the world, and affect, directly or indirectly, the quality of life of billions.

In this sense, Obamamania is not misguided, nor it "idiocy" or "political blunder". It might be excessive, and over-zealous, but it is at least somewhat justified. Besides, part of the euphoria and air of celebration is also to do with saying goodbye and good riddance to Bush which, after 8 years, I think justifies a party. Or at least a drink.

Rieff certainly doesn't mince his words when it comes to harshly criticising Europeans, in all their naive idiocy, for supporting Obama because he will not act in a way that serves their best interests. But what he doesn't focus enough on are the dangers of such a collective attitude, not just for Europeans but for everyone who lives in the world (including Americans - because who said he can solve all of their problems anyway?).

It reminds me of the "Spice Girls argument", a theory a friend of mine came up with. The theory goes that it's actually very dangerous when apparent improvements and progress seem to be occuring, because it tips people into complacency, into thinking the problem is on its way out. For example, the Spice Girls did more damage to the feminist movement than anything because they made people THINK this was evidence of gender equality and female empowerment, which in fact it wasn't, or at least - might have been only at a very limited, and superficial level.

Applied to this case, it holds that Barack Obama is very bad news because people will "go back to sleep" as Rieff puts it, stop criticising and scrutinising the US as they did when Bush was in power, even though in reality, american politics will probably remain business as usual, in many ways. Now America has got its credibility back. The old-school "Fuck Bush" anti-americanism is muted if not defunct entirely, and the most worrying thing is that maybe now a page has been turned. Perhaps our memory will not stretch back to the awful, fatal mistakes of the Bush administration, because they are seen as belonging to another era. This is the danger, that perhaps next time America, with its brand new face, suggests going to war to its Western allies, we will give them the benefit of the doubt.

The circus is in town

The placards have gone up all around the city, and outside the station near where we live there's men in strange uniforms giving out those fluorescent-coloured leaflets to the people in cars stopped at red lights.

This must have been what inspired whoever came up with a new campaign from the European Commission, called "Do you know what social Europe can do for you?"

You can decide for yourself, but to my mind, the set of 6 little cartoons, although being extremely cute and amusing and definitely worth showing to all european citizens up to the age of 6, doesn't really answer the question it sets out for itself.

It seems the Commission still hasn't quite managed to nail the delicate balance between rendering its endeavours comprehensible and accessible, while avoiding boiling down a point so many times you end up insulting the intelligence of 99% of your audience.

Another underrated war

Consciousness-raising seems to be a several-fold process. It doesn't happen overnight or in a flash, rather, it evolves through a series of encounters of various kinds. Little fragments here & there, the combination of which culminates into a kind of intriguing void, a question mark, the beginning of a search for answers, and a better understanding. And in parallel, the developing realisation, the troubling discovery that something isn't been spoken about nearly as much as it should be, given what's actually happening.

But of course, selective attention shouldn't be something that surprises me anymore, and yet it does - for instance the way the media & goverment in west european countries seems to still focus mainly on events in their ex-colonies (as opposed to other developing countries). Media coverage and governments statements of outrage or solidarity in any country seem then to be correlated essentialy with the proportion of the population there with origins back in that country, rather with the level and scale of oppression, violence and/or conflict taking place. Case in point - Mugabe turns out not to be the household villain name he is in the UK, in France for example, where on the other hand they tend to talk far more often about Senegal, Mali... Maybe this sounds normal but in any case it's worth bearing in mind when assessing the relative gravity of the most lamentable plights of people around the world - i.e. that any such assessment is bound to be a million miles from objective.

I'm ashamed to say that before I did a minimum of reading up on the matter, I didn't know that Sri Lanka has been marred by a vicious civil conflict for over two decades. Lately there has been a steady trickle of news stories on the BBC website about the situation, for instance, containing tentative predictions that the Sri Lankan government forces are on the verge of victory against the Tamil Tiger rebels.

But overall, perhaps for the absence of petrol, pirates or a prominent enough position on the axis of evil, the ongoing conflict doesn't seem to warrant all that many news inches, or much discussion at all. Atrocities such as suicide bombings, children & civilians engaged on the frontlines, and assassinations on a massive scale (dare we say - genocide?) quitely play out as if there was nothing urgent nor untoward about the situation at all.

I'll recount the fragments which first triggered my subsequent reading-up on the matter.

First, there was the interview we did, as part of our research/documentary on the lives of immigrants in our quarter of town. It was with the owner of the Sri Lankan restaurant opposite the port, a tiny little place but probably the best place to eat in this town for its quality to price ratio, and run single-handedly by an absolute gem of man known to most as "Lal" (Sri Lankans seem to want to continually outdo each other in terms of the maximum number of syllables that can be crammed into their given names, so please forgive my ignorance for failing to recall the entirety of his.)



In our interview Lal recited a refrain that was strangely familiar in that we heard it several times from various interviewees (Somalian & Kurdish, notably), something along the lines of "I had to leave because, in my country, there is a war going on" and afterwards more or less leaving it at that without following up the statement with any additional details or sentiments.

Then there was the article I came across the other day in L'Internazionale (italian publication which gathers articles from the world press). It was by a certain Lasantha Wickremantunge and absolutely astonishing in that it denounces the Sri Lankan authorities for their hand in his own murder, which would take place only a few days later, as well the general brutality and oppression of the regime. You can read the full article on the IFJ's webpage: And then they came for me.

And finally there is M.I.A., whom I discovered over the summer thanks to my travel companion (whose blog you can read over on the left, incidentally). An appreciation of her music (for the lyrics and the distinctiveness of the sounds rather than for its "listenability") led me to read up on her background which subsequently led me to wish I hadn't. Turns out that M.I.A. (or Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam - what a name), in addition to having an enviably revolutionary background, is an accomplished graphic artist, fashion designer, music producer, singer/songwriter and, as of about a week ago, mother. All by the tender age of 31.

Furthermore, in her music she accomplishes something quite amazing - producing energetic electronic music for the raving masses, while at the same time managing to engage in quiet and subtle political commentary.

"Nobody wants to be dancing to political songs. Every bit of music out there that’s making it into the mainstream is really about nothing. I wanted to see if I could write songs about something important and make it sound like nothing. And it kind of worked."


M.I.A., perhaps because of her background and personal convictions (which I tend to believe are always strongly linked) seems incurably political, kind of despite herself. It is almost as if she has to hide it, overcome it to be a successful musician, but for those who do search for politics in music, it satisfies this desire for substance and meaning, while hiding it from those who would rather not know.

But of course, there's two sides to every story. An article describing criticism of M.I.A.'s alledged political positions as interpreted from her music, contains some harsh criticism. In it M.I.A. is suggested as being "an apologist for the separatist Tamil Tiger rebels".

"Sri Lankans who have seen her videos say they interpret some parts as showing support for the Tigers, or at the very least glorifying their cause."

The debate about the Media in Sri Lanka, the bias of foreign news sources, musicians or other outlets, illustrates the level of sensitivity of Sri Lankans to what some may perceive as a biased portrayal of the various factions involved in the conflict. Even the BBC has been criticised for allegedly failing to keep to proper norms of neutrality as the following article describes.

But according to the article containing the criticism, M.I.A. isn't all that well known in Sri Lanka, and outside of the country the impact of such resonances is muted since there is so little information and discussion about the ethnic conflict.

Aside from the depths of the entrenched divisions, what is clear is that both sides are guilty of unspeakable crimes of war, and ruthless fighting, at unfathomable cost in terms of human suffering and loss of life. Under such circumstances, where human rights are abused as a matter of course, is absolute and total neutrality really the first priority when dealing with the topic?

Whatever interpretations one lends to the music of M.I.A., linked to her background, personal experiences, and opinions (to which we are all entitled), perhaps the real and first "call of conscience" ought to be to pay attention to, and talk about what is happening, rather than denounce arguable, and often well-motivated, symbolic demonstrations of partisanship.

God doesn't exist. Now start thinking.

Yesterday on the Italian news there were reports about the Athiest Bus Campaigns, in London and Spain. For the next few weeks buses in London will be displaying the following friendly advice: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying, and enjoy your life."

Controversial, of course, although many of the big religious leaders claim to be pleased because it stimulates a debate about the metaphysical, an "active conversation about life's big questions" (Theos). Perhaps they see it as an antidote to religious apathy in the UK.

You'll notice the little avatar in the sidebar that links to the homepage of the camppaign. Maybe I'd feel offended if it was the other way around, but this is my camp so here's a cause that I can latch onto. I don't believe, and therefore I agree with spreading this idea, because like little Olivier Besancenot, I am fighting for my ideas to become more widespread in the majority.

Except, that it's not as simple as that. Especially when it comes to the uneasy combination of "evangelising" and anti-religious sentiment.

After reading some of the views of supporters of the campaign, on the boards of the campaign's facebook group, for example, it seems the primary motivating factor is a "desire to stand up & be counted", to be "organised" atheists as a counterweight to organised religion. This strikes me as a dissapointingly banal explanation. Is it really community, safety in numbers we want? But aren't these the same people who go around saying such organised religion is a sign of weakness, that convictions about God or his absence are something fundamentally personal? Isn't organised religion public ennemy number one for atheists, rather than just people who believe in God? If you've read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", you'll know he sees them as part and parcel of the same loathsome and unpallatable phenomenon. I'm sure Dawkins has other motivations than adapting the principles of organised religion to the Atheist cause. I'm also sure that raising his own profile is one of them, but maybe that's just being cynical.

To tell you the truth, if I see leaflets being handed out in the street telling me to "Repent" now before it's too late, I go out of my way to pick one up, take it home and keep it.

It doesn't take long to realise that it's not just the poor and uneducated who believe. A book that examines this precise fact in more depth that I could really get my head around, is Orhan Pamuk's Snow. If I had my copy here I would quote it at you profusely but unfortunately I don't. In any case, I cannot but be humbled by the presence of so many believers in the world who are far more mentally capable, and far more aware of the mechanics of the world and of human beings than I can ever hope to be. What I find jarring about Dawkins is the way in which he flatly dismisses them all out of hand.

Also, the slogan troubles me a little. There's no god, so stop worrying? The second part doesn't seem to follow. And enjoy your life? The third part follows even less.

Howard Jacobs' criticism of the campaign is slightly harsher than I'm altogether comfortable with, but overall rather insightful:

"Some of the least worried people I know are unworried precisely because they believe in a benign creator who takes individual care of them. Ivan Karamazov on the other hand, is misery incarnate, unable to enjoy a moment of mental peace because he cannot see how, if God does not exist, anything can be deemed unlawful. SINCE THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD it would say on the bendy bus Ivan hires to drive around St Petersburg, START WORRYING BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Your liberal atheist would have trouble following the moral logic of that because he thinks everything should be permitted. ENJOY YOUR LIFE he says, as though the mere fact of freedom from ethical or religious restraint is a guarantee of enjoyment and enjoyment the only measure of a life well lived."

I'm not a believer myself. But I don't pretend that leaves me better equipped to lead either a good life or a happy one."

Sometimes I wonder, if I could click my fingers and have everybody stop believing right then & there, would I? The world might be simpler, we might have more consensus on some things, but neither of those are certain. It is very doubtful whether most the violence and conflict across the world is really to do with "God" or faith at all. It seems to come from something a lot more material, a lot more substantial, and intrinsically human.

What is certain is the world would be a lot more boring. It's not that I enjoy being told I'm going to burn in hell for eternity by the fire&brimstone Godsquad. I just think I might miss the wondering, the thoughts provoked by the metphysical gridlock encountered whenever dicussing the existence of God with any of my believing friends, one in particular.

I enjoy those conversations. I even like reading the "Quick, Repent!" leaflets, that's why I go looking for them. I collect tacky catholic memorabilia because I am amazed that such objects can mean such a great deal to people, can influence their behaviour, give them strength. For me the priority, is not for all this to vanish.

So I might question the aims of "Breezy universal atheism" as Jacobs disparagingly but quite aptly labels it.

I think it's a shame that atheists have hopped on the defensive. Not least because of the backlash it is likely to provoke. But also because I believe that belief or non-belief is a profoundly personal matter.

"Is it not enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it as well?"

These words of Douglas Adams are the kind of rare & subtle wisdom that inspires and underlies some of my most deeply held convictions, they sum up that which gives me confidence and peace of mind in my disbelief. To see them trivialised emblazoned across a double-decker on route 149 is almost too much to bear. I'd sooner have kept them to myself.

But it is not disbelief or lack of faith alone that guides my view of the world and my place in it. That's only a particle of a whole ecosystem of convictions and credences, one with very murky waters, and which is often foggy and nebulous but definitely not inhabited by a supernatural overlord or omnipotent creator.

The campaign will soon come to Italy where buses will bear the slightly less instructional, and less reductive turn of phrase, which manages to be at once braver and less conclusive:

"La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona, è che non ne hai bisogno."

That bad news is that God doesn't exist. The good news, is that you don't need him to.

All JEF wants for Christmas is a Superstate

So it's 2009 now, and that can only mean one thing - the year of intercultural dialogue is finally over (or "just words" to quote my esteemed mentor Dr. Finlay) , giving way to the even more inspiring Year of Creativity and Innovation. Yeah. Think I might sit this one out if it's all the same to you. But of course, if innovation isn't really your thing, there's always the European Parliament Elections to look forward to. All politicos of all walks of life are by now gripped by European election fever. None more so than the Young European Federalists (JEF), a pan-European organisation of young euro-enthusiasts, not politically affiliated but sharing the same dream of the establishment of a European Federation.

Last june I campaigned alongside JEF in the campaign for the YES side in the vote on the Lisbon Treaty, in Ireland. At the time I felt their position of taking European integration all the way towards an inevitable federalist conclusion was perfectly in line with my own views. The fact that they were participants in a campaign run by the governing party in Ireland, Fianna Fail, an unpleasant bunch of conservative right-wing nationalists, didn't even trouble me too much at the time, since I felt we were at least all campaigning for the same result, albeit perhaps with different motivations.

Now JEF have launched their campaign "It's time for change, it's time for Europe", not with a view to getting any particular candidates elected, but rather with the aim of encouraging all elected candidates to support a series of proposals, contained in their Manifesto. Reading through their list of demands, a number of things sound alarm bells in my mind, which I'll go through briefly...

The demands on JEF's Christmas list...

"A European Economic Policy for ensuring growth, employment and sustainable
development, in particular to benefit young people;"

One could question the wisdom of establishing a common economic policy given that a one-size-fits-all model for an area with such political and structural disparities as Europe can hardly be appropriate just yet. In my opinion, development needs to come first. This is acheived by way of concrete initiatives that target areas of weakness, for example improving transport networks, or weeding out corruption. The EU has acheived its best results when focusing on acheiving specific objectives at regional level, keeping local concerns and circimstances in mind. Cf. Ireland over the past 10 years. A broadbrush single economic policy would surely be massively ineffectual in comparison.

"A European Energy and Environmental Agency for ensuring global leadership in the battle against climate change and managing a European Energy Reserve to guarantee a strategic independence of the EU;"

Shame about the second half, I'm all for the first bit. The words "strategic independence" disturb me first for their unattainable pretensions and also because they mirror exactly what the US is attempting to do by drilling to the earth's core. The idea of a European Union that is constructed with "strategic" ends in mind makes me distinctly uneasy. By all means let's work together to try to find solutions, but it's not as if we live in a world where we can cordon ourselves off anymore, though this is, unfortunately, so often what the EU has tried to do.

"A Solidarity Clause to ensure Member States protection against terrorism and natural catastrophes;"

Solidarity... but only within Europe. And enforced solidarity, since if it is written into EU law, not respecting such obligations would surely lead to sanctions of some kind. This one really sums up the idea of a united Europe that exists to preserve itself, its position in the world order, and to secure benefits for European citizens.

"European Blue Helmets enabling the EU to contribute to peace-keeping in the world in the framework of a real European security and defence policy;"

As if the UN Blue Helmets weren't responsible for enough chaos and human rights violations, as it is. Do we really want to expand on a formula that has proven to be so fraught with abuses? And I can only imagine and shudder at what a "real European security and defence policy" would mean, but with Russia and USA playing missile chicken with one another already, I doubt the assertion of a European defence policy would be much of a force for constructive progress in the whole equation.

"A Citizens’ Right of Initiative in order to listen to the voice of European citizens;"

A good idea. Just need to iron out some of the more fundamental details, like ensuring citizens would be aware of such a right and how to instrumentalise it, and to avoid the privelege being abused by other actors, such as lobbyists or companies, as happens all the time with the European Court of Justice.

"A European Civilian Service to promote EU citizenship among young people;"

So we can indoctrinate European youth with a strong sense of pride and belonging to the glorious motherland Europa? This one's just scary...

"European symbols to be officially recognised by all European institutions."

Fatuous, really. Besides, worrying about symbols is the first step towards shooting people who spit on flags. And then we really are going backwards.

Oh JEF! And yet so much of what is written in their mission statement I could not agree more with.
Why then have they produced such a list of demands that so plainly betrays the uglier side of their ambitions - the irony of substituting one kind of nationalism for another.

I suppose my views have undergone a significant amount of transformation over the past few years, especially thanks to the debates around Lisbon, where I was exposed to considerable intelligent and pertinent criticisms of the EU.
It didn't take me long to recognise the unsophisticated crudeness of the US "hard power" = BAD, EU "soft power" = Good dichotomy, as laid out in Mark Leonard's book (Why Europe will run the 21st Century). Whereas in The European Dream, Jeremy Rifkin managed to approach the issue with far more subtlety whilst still retaining a positive slant on the EU.

I still have that positive view overall, even though I now feel a cynical twinge whenever I hear of EU initiatives, especially where youth are concerned. That's down to my experience over the past few months, as a failed EVS volunteer, though not for want of trying. Much more then debates and hearing all sides of the argument, it is hard evidence, in the form of personal experience, that shapes one's held views, it seems to me.

I think the main danger of the supranational organisation which the EU institutions engage in, is the machinistic approach where procedures are followed blindly and to the letter, which brings with it a complete disregard for the nature of specific cases, communities or individuals being dealt with.

The things I dislike most about the EU - the incomprehensible Eurojargon, the ruthless and inhumane immigration policies which have earned the continent the title of "Fortress Europe", the famous democratic deficit... are all symptons of the failure of this approach - based on an obsession with procedures. This in itself may be well-intentioned, but it is accompanied by a more sinister undercurrent of inbuilt xenophobia, a desire to keep out that which may threaten the security and prosperity of European citizens.

The EU is guilty of strangling itself with the unending red tape tentacles of an immense bureacratic machine, where responsability is shifted up and down the line until everyone completely loses sight of everything and general confusion prevails.

Having been on the receiving end of such treatment throughout this past autumn, I am well aware of how frustrating it can be. When I and my co-volunteers wrote a letter condemning this treatment and testifying to our experiences here, of being continuously overlooked and never listened to, the response was fitting - a brief note from a Commission robot thanking us for our time and telling us absolutely nothing.

It may seem a sad way to begin the new year - in such a state of disillusionment and loss of faith. But for the same reason I am no longer member of a political party, I don't want to toe the European line either. Instead of being stuck in the compromising position of being obliged to turn a blind eye to the mistakes and flaws of any one group, or being gagged when it comes to criticising one's "own side" - for now I am happy to remain on the outside, to applaud the successes where they occur, as well as to condemn and denounce, where it is warranted, without reserve or hesitation.

Nothing like a bit of sacrilege at Christmas

Maybe it's a sign of progress that I haven't felt sufficiently sure of my opinions over the past few months to feel comfortable setting them out in written article format and broadcasting them to anyone who'll read.

Indeed, the last half of 2008 was a period of rethinking some of my established views, such as my staunchly europhile position, but that will be for another entry, but also re-evaluating myself, to a certain extent. New context - new light. These things take up time, energy and mind-space, it turns out.

But the blogging I did before was useful, as a means of processing the immense amount of information around me, the various discourses shovelled around by the media and politicians, trying to keep a critical eye on matters and explore some of the current questions which drew my attention and provoked me to ponder. This is why I'd like to make the effort to re-activate and sustain this blog, in order to keep a record of some of the themes we've been dealing here at the Circolo Culturale Africa, in Ancona, where I'm currently working.

But first - to begin with something more light-hearted, than talk of detention centres and racially-aggravated murders.

This christmas was dominated by a great controversy the likes of which has not been seen this side of the 20th century. No, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the great Hallelujah debacle of '08.

For those who may not be aware (that is, anyone living outside of the UK or Ireland), for the past 5 or so years now the christmas number 1 in the UK pop charts has been hijacked by the annual winner of a music "talent" programme called the X-factor.

The final show is timed in just such a way that immediately after the winner is chosen, the new record is released and crateloads of copies are shipped into every highstreet music/book/media shop, strategically placed near all the check-outs, with row upon row stacked in the shop windows, so that enough people will buy it in order to get the lucky winner to number one, for christmas. Cynical, I know. This sort of shameless commodification of dreams can be tolerated for one year, but by now the routine is beginning to get tiresome.

Subsequently, the winner is never heard of again, with one exception - Leona Lewis, who appears to be rather good at milking her 15 minutes of fame for all they're worth and thus hasn't quite sunken into obscurity just yet. Unfortunately.

Anyway, this year the song released by the incumbent winner, Alexandra Burke, is the controversial choice of Hallelujah, first written and recorded by Leonard Cohen somewhere back in the 80s, and has been covered and re-covered umpteen times since in a myriad of different styles.

Cue outrage and indignation from music aficionados everwhere, especially Jeff Buckley fans who launched a reactionary campaign to try to get his version to number 1. Unfortunately, it came runner-up to the X-factor version, at number 2. While Cohen's original lagged behind, way down in the 30s somewhere. Probably because the only thing that version has going for it is the fact that it is the original.

Others who've recorded the song include Rufus wainwright, Allison Kraus, K.D. Lang, John Cale, Imogen Heap, etc.

It's almost too banal to call Buckley's my favourite, because that seems to be the general consensus. At least listening to it again brought me to discover Buckley's album, Grace. Which contains some stuff that borders on being too complex and heartfelt to be listened to at all. "Lover you should've come over" is a gem, mainly for its entrancing and raw nerve lyrics. All very understated. I would recommend.

I have to say I'm also a big fan of the Imogen Heap version, because its so melancholic, and not too polished or sing-songy. Although I felt it was used very inappropriately in that final episode of the O.C. as Mischa Barton lay dying in a pool of blood on the tarmac (Clearly THAT was the moment to use "Forever Young"). As is my beloved who insisted on listening to it on loop for a week after selecting it as his favourite from a choice of 3 - hers, Buckley's, or k.d. Lang's, which is nice but, well, just nice.

But you're not meant to listen to it too often because it's a "classic", apparently. In any case, Buckley's can be listened to forever, whereas Alexandra's I couldn't stick even till the end of the first play. I think it had something to do with the fact that she herself alledgedly confessed to not being too keen on the song. I wouldn't like to think of myself as a pretentious music appreciator but there are some things even I cannot accept.

Money-spinning exploitation of young & innocent/stupid talent aside though, nothing was quite so annoying as hearing Fearne Cotton repeatedly pronouncing the word without its first letter - 'Allelujah, while the chart was announced. Now there is a massacre.