Pondering on Beliefs

This erratic blog! 

Ah well, instead of putting it off (as usual) or doing multiple posts on Twitter, here’s today’s pondering:



TFTD, NB Christians

“To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude).

.. It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).”  (Re http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm)

Put another way, 

To live “well” is to hold high a system of beliefs that values each human, the good in each of us and in the world we live in. This Love, this *Charity* is what enables us to uphold our beliefs, our values, by 

- *moderating* our perceived/inflicted needs/appetites;
- standing up for the *justice* in those values and moral truths; and

- taking care to *discern* so that our path and values are not subverted or misrepresented.

MUCH to relate to 21stC Earth. 

But seems we’re missing it. 

What is it about #moderation #justice and #discernment?

There are writings on the wall: #climatechange #POTUS #Brexit #migrants and the myriad of effects and consequences of each of those, to start with. 

For further thought:

(From Pope Francis’ prayer at the Way of the Cross in Rome on Good Friday)

Lord Jesus, help us to see in your Cross all the crosses of the world:

The cross of those who hunger for bread and for love;

The cross of those who are alone or abandoned even by their own children and family members;

The cross of those who thirst for justice and peace;

The cross of those who do not have the comfort of the faith;

The cross of the elderly who are bowed down under the weight of years and loneliness;

The cross of migrants who find doors closed because of fear, and hearts sealed by political calculations; 

The cross of the little ones, wounded in their innocence and purity;

The cross of humanity that wanders in the darkness of uncertainty and in the darkness of the culture of the fleeting moment;

The cross of families broken by betrayal, by the seductions of the evil one or by murderous lightness and by selfishness;

The cross of consecrated persons who tirelessly seek to bring your light into the world and feel rejected, mocked and humiliated;

The cross of consecrated persons who, along the way, have forgotten their first love;

The cross of your children who, believing in you and trying to live according to your word, find themselves marginalized and discarded even by their families and their peers;

The cross of our weaknesses, our hypocrisies, our betrayals, our sins and our many broken promises;

The cross of your Church which, faithful to your Gospel, struggles to carry your love even among the baptized themselves;

The cross of the Church, your bride, who feels continually attacked from within and from without;

The cross of our common home that withers seriously before our selfish eyes that are blinded by greed and power.

Lord Jesus, rekindle in us the hope of the resurrection and of your definitive victory against all evil and all death. Amen!

When the writing's BOLD on the wall

Click to see article

Really don't see why this reality 'crisis' over Theresa May is so surprising. After all those years at the Home Office -- draconian immigration rules, rushed bills denied proper scrutiny time, "cat" and other inaccurate, untrue accusations, "go home" vans, *attitude* towards Human Rights Act (an important cornerstone of what can be seen as UK's "written" constitution based on values of the older unwritten one), invisibility even absence when major issues arose (inc Brexit ref) -- the writing was bold on the walls.

May's management style so far has appeared more self-preservation than innovative, letting others take the flack. Still, the buck does stop at the top. #nowheretorunnowheretohide 

Though history also shows *rulers* who have built self-protection defences, put others in the firing line (literally and not) and still claimed success (from the jaws of defeat). 

In all that, it is still we the citizens, people, voters who must live with any and all consequences. Communication systems now allow us to widen our knowledge, to check, to discern, to realise our own truths. To decide. To engage or not. And how to. To choose.

If we do look to history, even that of the last 100 years, we can see the patterns, the human foibles, the psychology used by leaders, of them and between us. We can also recognise we are equipped emotionally and intellectually with capacity to make sense of these within ourselves and the wider reality. In 2016, surely our human existence has progressed enough, we are equipped enough, to discern and deliberate a choice -- for integrity and honest behaviour. 

Perhaps the current pace of growth and life has done us a disfavour by reducing our capacity to slow down for reflection, to discern. That may be where we need to re-establish some equilibrium. 

I hope our instincts lead us to choose Life that has room for all living beings and things, that nourishes and nurtures our abilities and individual beauty; that recognises we all have a part to play in holding up our 'sky', in any one moment in time. That if any part is left, let down or fails, it diminishes us all and weakens the structure of our existence. Seems to me, the challenge is to find how to hold up that 'sky' while Time marches on unperturbed by our human dilemmas. 

We can not turn back Time. We can learn from our past, our decisions and actions: accept them because we lived through them, allowing them (even in disenfranchisement) to happen. But recognising we have a choice in how to move forward. 

Even if it is merely by a conviction just to hold up our individual bit of Sky, as a living, respectful, sentient being.

Too early to feel resigned, surely

I did say it and have done for a while.
It's our turn now - just can't be denied.

We're at the top of the ladder. Next in line.
Every week, perhaps every day, there'll be a passing,
a departure
that stirs our memory, shakes us to the core, reminding
us of our mortality, its brief tenure.

There are no words. Surely it's too early to feel resigned.
It might just be quiet silence, a gentle nod
to say see you on the other side.

Take it easy, Glen Frey.

http://eagles.com/news/266763

The curtain falls
I take my bow
That's how it's meant to be
It's your world now.

(Frey-Tempchin, from Long Road Out of Eden)

Sway to the music

Listening to Ziggy play his guitar.

You never think of mortality when you grow up with people and events. Life in the moment is always more important. Perhaps we just don't want to think that far ahead.

Sure enough, it is not that far after all.

I remember an elderly aunt saying how all she did in the later years was read the obits. It sounded pretty morbid to me, in my youthful ignorance/arrogance. But I stored the knowledge, even in the dreading of the day I'd be doing the same.

The day's arrived. And I won't seek out the obits -- they'll come to me, media being the way it is in the 21st century. From now on, there will be days like these, almost everyday.

Not quite like December 8, 1980. The (other) day that the music died. That was pure disbelief, "tragic to be taken so young, so unexpectedly."

Or the day a 14 year old school friend died, from skateboarding on her neighbourhood pavement.

Henceforth, there'll be sadness that is poignant, self-reflective, foreboding too. Who'll be next? Him. Her. Me?


Too sad to be *sad* this day.
Let's sway
Sway through the crowd to an empty space....

Once a migrant...

The movement of People is increasingly fascinating to a wide range of individuals and communities, including political parties and academic researchers. Is it a human instinct, a survival mechanism, a basic need that has happened since the species began? Or is it a modern day social construction designed to irritate those 'put upon', to impose on their good will, to siphon diminishing resources to incomers away from those who 'belong'?

The debate rages on. (Who 'belongs' anyway?)

This caught my eye today: a report has found that low-skilled immigrants (read Mexican men) "were generally more likely ... to leave for a job opportunity." Some good money would have been spent on this by the (US) National Bureau of Economic Research to declare what seems to be the 'bleeding obvious'.

In my experience, when you understand the importance of feeding your family and yourself, of having a better life or prospect of one, you have tough choices to make - one of which is invariably tearing yourself away from your home and all that is 'safe' and knowable, and moving to where you can find the means to support your needs. You migrate. You find means to food, to survival. You find work.

And once you've done this uprooting process once, it gets easier. Especially at the lower skilled, lower income end. But isn't that the way society has grown the world and the economy that goes hand in hand with it. Powered by those prepared to or needing to move.

Which of course includes those at the higher skills level.

However, often it is the 'bleeding obvious' that is the point. Reading beyond the words of the article, I see the risk that challenges humans to move or not to move and the gains and losses each makes along the way. I see that reflected in the nature of society: closed vs open, stagnant vs dynamic, fearful vs hopeful, 'small' vs 'big', regressing vs blossoming. I know the society, the humankind I choose.

Humans have always migrated. Look how far we've come. And not. See how much further we could go.

Did ESOL work for the non-English-speaking 0.3%?

"Miliband says rightly that the ability to speak English is vital to those who plan to stay in the UK. The implication is that not enough do. Jonathan Portes, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, points out that, according to the Office for National Statistics, only 134,000 – 0.3% of the population – don't speak English at all (and won't be helped by cuts to English language courses).”[1]

In my experience as a migrant and working with migrants and their communities, I have never met anyone who does not want to learn English. They may do more listening than speaking, in that universal fear of being embarrassed by their lack of fluency, and compensate by smiling a lot. Recognise yourself in a foreign land?

The ONS figures highlighted above show just how minimal an issue language is in the UK, if one even thinks there is an ‘issue’. Which is exactly what the disinformants choose to do.

Belabouring the point about migrants’ English language abilities merely serves to hide an even more tragic situation: how the very ESOL classes designed to improve immigrants’ language and capacity to “integrate” were not up to the task for that 0.3% of the population.

Too often at grassroots level, I have heard of immigrants dropping out of classes or even completing them without seeing much improvement. Why? Because the classes were too advanced and not pitched at the needs of the specific group or class. This ultimately was not good news to have circulated on the community grapevine. 

What a lose-lose situation; and all that money spent ineffectively attempting to make the so-called “hard to reach” learn English.

It must be said that some ESOL classes have benefitted a good number of new arrivals to find their place on the ladder here, as a refresher, transitory or grounding opportunity, or simply as a means to a certificate of achievement to find acceptance in the workplace. I believe this number is not the one objected to by those who harp on about migrants not wanting to fit in.

The “hard to reach”, those who “don’t wish to integrate” may well have had that basic urge to belong knocked out of them, for the n-th time, by well-meaning colleges and providers of ESOL courses who didn’t take into account participants’ education base, perhaps illiteracy; who didn’t consider their personal and life context (family, age, status, experience); essentially who weren’t flexible in supporting the different needs and learning styles of a spectrum of migrants.

In so doing, the marginalized were reinforced into that position – women, the home-bound, those with little or no education, the elderly and so on, who now have less chance of progress in these cost-cutting times, and who will continue to have their ‘lack’ of English held against them.

NB for a bit of extra background to this piece, see last blog below.

---

[1] Editorial, The Observer, 30 March 2013: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/immigration-politicians-dont-stoke-fears?CMP=twt_gu

Still underperforming!

Ah well, the story of my life. Still can't quite get to grips with this blog. Whoever would have thought being a hermit was this hectic.

One itch that's been irritating for a while has finally received some attention and I'll post those paragraphs shortly. It all started around 2004 when I realised how some migrant or black/minority ethnic women were not benefitting from traditional ESOL classes put on in Edinburgh. Largely because they were too 'formal' for those with a low education base, taught in a way that didn't match their participants' daily living context. Shame. The opportunity was lost to some very intelligent women who would have responded much better in a less 'academic' model.

Why Can't We Live Together?

The United Kingdom shames itself when it takes away the dignity and self-respect of the most vulnerable. Those who come here for safety and sanctuary do so out of necessity: we should honour their trust! The UK Government must not exploit their difficulty by imposing destitution and further degrading their humanity. The Government needs to change its approach - in just three simple steps set out in the Scottish Refugee Council’s Stop Destitution in Scotland campaign. Then perhaps the nation can hold its head high.

In signing the StopDestitution campaign petition, I wanted to remember the message (above) I posted. It also led me to think of why there is constant agitation about who’s in, who’s out, who belongs, who doesn’t. Not just in the global environment, it’s even in the tiniest village, perhaps even in the core family unit. How many of us parents agonise about the daughter or son-in-law to be? That’s where the fear starts of course. And it does build, through communities, countries and into the World.

Which is where I started.

Why can’t we live together? There is only one world, one atmosphere, one set of oceans, seas and lakes. We are scientifically only one species of human beings. We have travelled far, across many lands, throughout time. This is all ours, our inheritance, from the first homo sapiens in the Rift Valley.  

So why do we worry incessantly about who fits and do we fit, or how can we fit?

Yes, Britain is a small island. Some are concerned whether we can sustain more lives here. A bit of perspective might be helpful: Britain could easily fit into a third of Namibia, just one country in the southwest of the African continent. Or 13 Britains could exist within South Africa. The doom-mongers will argue its more than geography or even agricultural opportunity; many more resources are needed to support a population of 70 million. Apparently.

But humans are resourceful – we can, we must, we will come up with solutions for how to live together on this blue marble of a planet.

However, thinking only to the end of our noses shows up how small we are. I suppose that’s not too strange, after all we are islanders. We have been big thinkers before though; some great minds over the last 500 years or more have come from this island. Perhaps it was that those visionaries of the past thought bigger and wider, over the horizon and beyond. It is not their colonizer, imperialist mentality we need today. It is the bravery to go beyond ourselves, to embrace the wider world, the Other’s space. In true reciprocity. We are one Earth after all.

Rec.i.proc.i.ty (noun)

The practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organisation to another.  

Dare I suggest “from one person to another”?




To add your name to the StopDestitution campaign click here.

Well, this blog is genuinely irrational! Needs more attention to say the least.

Wonder how it'd be to mark the end of British Summer Time with a resolution. Like a sort of " ... it's a new dawn, it's a new day ..."


Here's to shorter, in the moment blogging! Wish me success, Nina.

What affects how Scotland thinks about immigration

First thoughts on today’s Migration Observatory report on the IPSOS Mori poll on regional support for reducing immigration to the UK

Largely the report presents responses that reflect the general intuitive reaction to immigrants by Scots. A national liberal psyche does embrace new arrivals and does appreciate the desire for everyone’s capacity to contribute to the overall good and welfare of the nation.

However, as is the limitation of any poll, the sample group may not have included the broadest spectrum of opinion, particularly that which receives the high attention of the tabloid media. Today’s Everyman concerns are having as much impact on the ground as elsewhere across the United Kingdom: the difficult conditions in employment and the economy are biting deep. There will no doubt be Scottish opinion coming to light after this Migration Observatory report that declare negative sentiment about immigration and immigrants.

What is most interesting in the Variations Enigma is the standout result that “surprisingly, Scotland has the highest levels of support of any region for reductions in immigration of high skilled workers”.

It is an enigma and there may be a host of reasons why. It really suggests that deeper or different questions need to be asked of the Scottish people.

How aware are we of the skills we need across the nation?

Of the skills we have already.

Of the skills we are being trained or should be trained to achieve?

Of how those relate to national, UK and global, economic and social drivers.

How realistic are we of what we are capable of right now, today?

How and what are we (not just the Government) prepared to do to ensure the future of the country?

As the UK (and of course Scotland) faces societal and global challenges, as we all negotiate our place in 21^st Century reality, net migration has been presented as a cure-all. It may be wise to sidestep the high tension of ping pong between the political parties and look to resolving the many and complex needs of People.

No doubt this includes migrant people in a world that has been created by migration flows over time immemorial.

Facing up to the Real Questions

It's curious that the UK Government asserts authority over people's lives, deeming this or that to be the 'right' thing for citizens, without really looking at the fundamental conditions that are behind all those 'wrong' situations (alcohol consumption, social housing, employment, welfare benefits, 'foreigners').

In her blog on Research impact: thinking outside the tick box, Bridget Anderson looks below the surface of some of the trite even convenient proposals presented in the UKBA's consultation on Employment Related Settlement, Tier 5 and Overseas Domestic Workers and wonders why the real questions are not being asked. These are political and theoretical, she states, but in fact are "the questions that affect us all". I share these musings on the two cited by Ms Anderson:

Do we want a sustainable population strategy?

Britain faces a land, demographic and economic conundrum in which it appears we resort to crisis management according to political whim. Will our nanny state leaders look beyond restrictions and curtailments to the valuing, respectful governors they purport to be? They espouse "integrated, cohesive communities" but these are just words when there is no genuine buy-in from all concerned. 

Now HOW do we achieve that and keep focused on a thriving, successful UK, at the same time! In order to deliver a sustainable populaton (if we had a stragegy), our political leaders need to realise that a comprehensive, holistic and truly inclusive approach across human society and related systems may be challenging but may well work! Sadly, personal agenda will be the price to pay and that may be too high, not just for the politicians and government workers but also for individuals, communities and political parties everywhere. It is a tough call; perhaps altruism is too idealistic, too utopian. Take the handful of leaders who may be considered to have held 'altruistic' ideals: while Gandhi, King, Suu Kyi and Mandela may fit the label, the accumulated impact of their lives' work on humanity and world citizenry is barely recognisable to my cynical eye. 

Still, our difficulty in putting aside personal self-interest is not about to bring the world to its end. It is just a shame our progress as a 'human' species does not match our technological, scientific advances. 

Why is domestic labour not considered work?

That human species that we profess we belong to continues to be at a loss about valuing each other, the assets that we are and the potential that we have to shared coexistence on a tiny blue planet. We may not have come far enough on our evolutionary road as conscious beings to maintain the rational learnings of the 'liberation' and rights movements of the last century. I can only assume we have merely taken the earliest steps on that route, with a very long way to go yet. How else can one explain the arrogant ignorance of those who demean the work of fellow human beings with supporting roles as mothers, carers, cleaners, labourers etc? How can any contribution, however 'lowly', to the fullness of our human existence be considered insignificant, inessential, unworthy or invaluable? Surely every task, every effort impacts on our human endeavour as the sentient beings we believe we are.

Yes, these musings are more philosophical, moral and idealistic, not to mention individual. Nevertheless, they ask fundamental questions of ourselves as a civil, thinking society and should not be swept under any carpet of 'evidence'-led rhetoric based on power or political designs.

Freedom of expression vs Freedom to choose

Everywhere you turn, whether print, electronic or web media, someone is reporting or commenting on underperformance; in education, public sector, business, industry, finance, politics, in fact every sphere of our existence. Such thoughts and vox pop contributions are now the norm of 21^st Century society and the 24/7 media age. They are imbued with an aura, an attitude of blame – it’s all the fault of some other person, community, system, authority, political party, government, custom, culture, even law.

Is this where democracy has taken us? Not just that we all have the right to views and to make them known (even as I’m doing here), which we do. But that in taking that right (of expression), we forego the capacity to see and acknowledge our complicity in the society we have created? Behind the blame and excuses lies an apparent belief that “I’m not able to do … whatever I’m supposed to… because you are doing something to obstruct me in doing it”.

What about my own autonomy, that other right of freedom to choose? To choose to do the best I can with my little patch of sky (or blue marble under that sky)? My own integrity to know therefore and to say that “I have a part in this and my part will help make the rest work”. As one tiny cog in the wheel, which if it sees itself as a wedge risks stalling the whole machinery.

Think of the various health, equality, education, employment, religious, responsibility (social/corporate/political) conundrums we are faced with. Then top them all with the ultimate social paradox that we have contrived – the power that we give (away) to those we believe to be of power, the politicians and leaders in our communities. What is it with humans that we think others may know us better than we know ourselves and therefore give them the right to choose for us?

It then proves stranger still when, having given away the right to choose, and politicians and leaders dictate our existence, we descend into that blame game and all collude to wallow in our ever-present human condition.

Irony of ironies, and this is why humankind is so wonderful, there exists even in that condition, the capacity to choose to be different.

Integrity hasn’t become obsolete but it has kept a low profile recently while selfish democracy, based on selfish rights, rights that have no cognition of their co-dependence with others’ rights, has had its day. A resurgence is set to happen, surely? The relentless dramas, whether natural or human-made, that are besieging us barely a decade into the new century, do threaten and paralyse us. They also hold the potential to release the humanity and integrity our race possesses by sheer dint of having a ‘superior’ intellect. So called.

Wish you knew you were Good

Looking out at a wonderful Perthshire scene bathed in warm summer sunshine, it has such beauty and stillness. Tranquility that I hope Amy Winehouse can now be part of. I think of her music and I hear Billie Holiday's Lover Man. Don't know why but guess Amy will not get to put her versions of those classics down anywhere now.

That is unless she has done a tune or two in recent recordings with Tony Bennett. How fortunate to catch that interview with him on the Radio the other day. Can't even remember which programme. But I'm glad because I'll now make sure I get hold of it - surely the last recording of the husky, raw Winehouse. Bennett said he thought she was the most natural jazz singer around today. They'd better press more copies of Duets II!

We all should have known things would end this way. Maybe we did but never dared say. Or maybe we were enthralled with the passion and talent so hot and bright, like children with a captivating sparkler that burns and is then no more.

Maybe someone told her not to mind the press, the nastiness, the uncertainty of fan-dom. Perhaps she couldn't hear.

It is such a tragedy. But it is the way of legends.

Thank you, Amy. May you now find your peace.

Exceptional talent or extremely Small Society?

It's rather curious the UK Government chooses to instigate policies that blatantly serve to undermine and work at cross purposes with each other! This 'exceptional talent' route is set to pit talents/skills and different migrants against each other, in exposing a contrivance of inequality and pre-judged (rather than equal) opportunities. More immediately, it positions its elite status even across the four ‘competent bodies’ selected to select who should or should not be granted admittance to the UK as such 'talent'. It seems other organisations were not competent enough to be considered in a fair and open process in deciding the 'brightest and best'. Not sure what that says about Scotland. Or Wales. Or Northern Ireland.

So that’s two policy areas, equality and procurement, at odds with the projected outcomes of the UKBA’s new immigration controls. A further two are integration and cohesion. High profile, contentious but well-meaning, these policy areas count for nought when it comes to ‘protecting UK borders’. The settlement proposals currently under consultation aspire to restrict or curtail the rights of individuals and families in ways that are likely to diminish their sense of belonging, of being part of our society, of being included and welcome.

How is being ‘set apart’ conducive to establishing an integrated, cohesive society? By the sheer fact of the ‘setting apart’, of placing one against the other, will disaffected communities thrive.

Besides, whatever happened to “joined up government”? Went the same way as the Small Society I guess.

BIG Society

Been meaning to put thoughts down about this for ages! Figure it won't happen unless I start somewhere, so here goes: version 1 -

To me, a Big Society is about everyone's participation in human society, feeling and playing our full part, not for personal gain but knowing there will be bountiful benefits to be shared all round.

It is not about volunteering as a chore, task or job to do any government's or authority figure's work. It is not about money, the economy or balancing fiscal budget. It so not about counting the cost!

It's about being BIG - open, expansive, broad-minded, compassionate, forgiving, welcoming, sharing, giving, contributing, mindful, respectful - with each other and ourselves.

It's about you and me, individual and separate yet together and for each other.

The Placebo of Politics

Why do politicians think they are magicians?

Promising this that or the other to win votes has long been their tactic to appeal to and to appease the electorate. They take advantage of our hopes to paint glossy pictures of how they will solve all our fears and needs. Over the years, we have believed them.

But with technology to hand, we have become more savvy. Or think we are, with the help of Twitter, facebook, blogs and 24 hour news. Increasing awareness of our 'rights', perhaps even of our 'responsibilities', also contribute to the general sensation that we are able to shape the world we live in. Still, for every 'jasmine revolution' there is a clampdown; in Bahrain, Syria, China - does it matter where? For every progressive thought, there's a fundamentalist backlash.

I don't suppose I am unique in feeling 'kettled' in by a shrinking world, a broken economy and 21st century values of our own making. No wonder the pressure is building. However, magic can't be the answer. Illusion only serves to hide things under the carpet, storing up grim realities for an even harsher day.

Politicians in the Scottish elections want us to believe their manifesto promises will bring more jobs, more policemen on the beat, better care for the sick and elderly, better education, better everything. All I get is a huge whiff of unreality. The money in the bank just will not stretch that far! There are no easy ways to get all we want or think we want. Never have been.

In fact, the law of unforeseen consequences is quick to show just how narrow authority-led pronouncements can be. A current key example is the controversial dictat from Westminster of a cap on overseas student numbers which started life as a way to contain net migration. Somehow, it didn't occur to our leaders that such policy would impact on the viability of Scotland's tertiary & education sector, on our economy, demographics, the job market, our international standing and more. The coalition government, for all its aspirations of new hope, transparency and 'listening' in a Big Society, has yet to acknowledge the full meaning of impacts for the UK overall.

There is an opportunity at this point in our collective history to connect the emerging factors in 21st century life, factors that reveal, even underline our inter-dependence and inter-relatedness as a human society. We can choose to look beyond magic mirrors and illusions towards the genuine article of a society in which each human person or group of persons is working at the potential we have with each other, for each other, for the country.

Or we can be beguiled by the magical offerings of the political parties and their election candidates. Four years may be a long time to rely on a placebo.

Woke up last Thursday to be told flight to Birmingham was cancelled. Because of a strike, I assumed. No, volcanic ash. Erhm, we've had April's Fool already.... Nope. It was no joke.

It's exhausting to think of all the natural occurrences of recent months. Blizzards and snowdrifts beyond living memory, earthquakes on three continents, now volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Seems relentless. Yet each time, we find ways to cope. The fighting human spirit, the dogged determination to get through, to get by, to get up and out.

Oh the effort of it! And for what. Make way for the next natural disaster.

But what if we bring all that good training, that instinct for survival, to bear on the un-natural economic 'crunch'. I suspect the seismic debt could succumb under sheer human will.

It seems to easy a 'way'.

Rights and Reasons

Seems such a simple thing to do -- believe that human rights or a human rights-based approach is the core value to live by. So why is it so hard? And why do groups, organisations or institutions find it so hard to uphold such a fundamental principle?

When my thoughts filter down to "It's the human condition", I can just hear scientists pooh-poohing my 'evidence base'. It has become crucial in 21st century World to have verifiable answers to everything, but the necessity of burden of proof means we can still fall foul of self-made rules when we conjure them into boxes whether they fit or not.

I guess the tension between my rights and your rights will always be the sticking point. Can there ever be such as thing as (unqualified) freedom? What happens when mine meets yours head on? It's the sort of encounter that brings on and perpetuates The Other as the undesirable, the problem.

So.

How do we as a civil society get to the point of truly valuing each individual for exactly what she or he is?

I think it is a tricky question. But one that has a first solution in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Surely.

Tunisia September 29 - October 4 2009

What still stays with me, even though it's nearly two weeks since we've been back, is an amazing connection I have made with a bunch of inspiring, concerned individuals of varying ages from Tunisia.

Never thought I'd have the opportunity but the British Council made it possible for me to visit this North African country with four others from Scotland. Over five days of 'Interaction', a leadership exchange programme, a dialogue has started that must not be allowed to fade.

So much energy. Passion. Shared beliefs. So many ideas for making a difference.

Watch this space as developments happen.

Where has time gone?

I really don't use this site enough. Guess I'll catch up eventually.