Lessons from India's Climate Movement

All right, a really quick post about Climate Justice from really fab article from latest New Internationalist. NI can be a bit of a hit and miss most times, but what stops me from canceling my sub is that they get it spot on sometimes, plus gotta support the thinking press out there. Sunita Narian, one of India's leading environmentalists writes really honestly about climate change and how the movement's developed differently across the globe and the fact that real fundamental changes are needed in the ways that we respond to climate change.

“There is a fundamental difference between the rich and poor's response to climate change. The environmental movements of the rich world emerged after periods of wealth creation and during their period of waste generation. So they argued for containment of the waste, but did not have the ability to argue for the reinvention of the paradigm of waste generation itself. However, the environmental movement in India has grown in the midst of enormous inequity and poverty. In this environmentalism of the relatively poor, the answers to change are intractable and impossible unless the question is reinvented.”

The reality remains that people are not interested in sacrificing anything to secure the future of this planet. Economic growth is everything and possessions, money and luxury lifestyles are somehow god-given rights that people feel they shouldn't be forced to trade in for anything. I was talking to Marc recently who argued that maybe environmentalism was an extreme policy as it really tackled the very foundations of what of our world is based on... sadly, consumption. Narian declares this very boldly:

“the environment movement of the relatively rich and affluent is clearly looking for small answers to big problems. Today, everyone is saying, indeed screaming, that we can 'deal' with climate change if we adopt measures such as energy efficiency and new technologies. Their message is simple: managing climate change will not hurt lifestyles or economic growth. It's a win-win situation where we all benefit from green technologies and new business.”

“It is ironic that, despite the science telling us that drastic reductions are needed, no country is talking about limiting its people consumption. Yet efficiency is meaningless without sufficiency.”

Speak up for Gaza

In 60 years of conflict, it is not often that shock reverberates so deeply amongst the international community.

After years of occupation, illegal Israeli settlements, theft of land and vital resources, house demolitions, the construction of an illegal Apartheid wall, the brutal blockade of Gaza it seemed that we had all become subdued by a steady ebb and flow of violence directed against the Palestinians.

Yet this Saturday, Israel launched a deadly attack against the Palestinians of Gaza which can never be forgotten. “Operation Cast Lead” began a deadly assault on a siege-crippled people and has already been declared as the bloodiest day in all sixty years of conflict. The death toll on the first day climbed from 200 deaths and hundreds injured to 360 killed and at least 1,000 injured- the military assault continues for the fourth day with a threat from Israel that the onslaught in Gaza could last for weeks.

Rather than condemning this blatant Israeli brutality, US policy makers seem to weaving webs of utter lies and contradiction- basically giving Israel their implicit support.

Rice, the US Secretary of State declared that:"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza,"

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe also echoed:"The United States understands that Israel needs to take actions to defend itself,"

"In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire."

And Obama? Well, he was 'monitoring' the situation...

All blame was therefore neatly placed on Hamas, as if they had gone round killing the Palestinians themselves.. Now, I'm no huge fan but I'm pretty sure that's not what happened- so WHY isn't the UK and US directly condemning Israel?

Another thing, Johann Hari of the Independent states that Hamas has made diplomatic moves which have either been forgotten or simply ignored:

"Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms."

If our government's have let us down with their pathetic attempts to stop these attacks on Palestinians, then the protesters and demonstrators have really spoken. Across the world, people have taken to the streets chanting protests and showing solidarity for the Palestinian people. Here in Manchester, an emergency protest was called outside the BBC on Oxford Road (Sunday 28^th at 1pm) to object to the attacks on Gaza which was attended by approximately 400 people. Vigils are also being held there for every day that the conflict continues...

Says It All

Sometimes, Cartoons are just amazing....Here I was complaining about how the whole-shoe-meets-Bush and how the journalist should be commended for his honesty and expressing a real opinion for once...then Bendib comes out with this.. enjoy!

A Journalist's Courage? Bush, Shoes and Objective Reporting

In your face!! well,...almost. Whilst the whole shoe-throwing incident was pretty hilarious and will be over-reported in respect to its actual impact, I really hope that Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is gonna be okay. Judging by the treatment that he got in the seconds after the incident (very heavy-handed) its hard to say that he isn't going to be made an example of...Another major thing that has been slightly annoying is people stating that it isn't his place as a journalist to be doing such things...One Blog commentator stated “whatever happened to objective reporting???”

Firstly, if you knew anything about anything (sorry, but this annoys me!)you'd know that most journalists have accepted that there is NO such thing as objective reporting... It's simply not possible as everything a journalist reports (or ignores) is shaped and coloured by the millions of beliefs and perspective which they hold depending on their age, gender, status, race, etc..
And if your really wanted to have objective reporting than all you could report was a random list of confirmed facts (also again I have my doubts about 'facts' and when they happen to exist and when they are conveniently forgotten..) which doesn't exactly make for interesting reading..

Secondly, journalists have every right to express their opinions, after all they are citizens and as Theodre Glasser (1992) remarks: “objective reporting has denied journalists of their citizenship; as disinterested observers, as impartial reporters, journalists are expected to be morally disengaged and politically inactive”. (From Vincent Campbell, Information Age Journalism: Journalism in an International Context. London, Arnold Publishers. 2004, p166-7.)

It's time people accepted that journalists in fact need to be activists and not neutral witnesses to history; that they can express their opinions without having to question their legitimacy. If all journalists were as honest about their views and about what they experienced as Muntadhar, then maybe more people would trust the media and also encourage them to act (rather than question their professionalism) on any injustices they see..

..also another fantastic cartoon by Latuff

3 Billion for Manchester's public transport... No Thanks!

To be quite honest I wasn't surprised by the spectacular defeat of the TIF bid in Manchester... I got my shock a couple of days earlier when we got the ballot papers through the post and I was talking to friends and family during Eid day about it all...
Well, there I was getting on with my life and thinking that the TIF bid was doing really well, talking to some of my more 'active' friends, the whole debate seemed to be pretty settled.. Public transport is particularly shitty and so three billion would be definitely a good thing... all makes perfect sense.

Common sense, I thought would lead the huge amount of people who have to rely the truly crappy public transport to vote YES...well, no it seemed that something else was afoot. Talking to my friends and family about the possibility that public transport would be improved, led to startled questions of whether I was voting Yes... well, duh!

I rely on public transport for day-to-day travel and trust me some of the stories would actually bring tears to your eyes (they certainly did to mine after waiting for hours in the cold and rain only to be told a million uninspiring stories about why a tram/train/bus was delayed/re-routed/cancelled...).

'But why? Don't you know that you would have to pay 1,200 pounds a year if you had a car? I couldn't afford that!'

Firstly, most of these people don't have cars right now as they can't afford them and if they (or I) were ever to get cars, paying the congestion charge seems a small trade-off for our laziness and helping to poison the planet...

Secondly and most worryingly, they actually know what public transport is like. They have waited hours for a bus/tram that never showed up, they get that public transport needs to be better...so WHY are my working class friends and family, who NEED better public transport voting NO?? I just couldn't make sense of it all.

Digging a little deeper, it was obvious that despite the massive campaigns to help educate the public, there was still loads of misunderstanding (if not total ignorance) about the major aspects of the TIF bid. (Despite the reported £34 million the authorities spent on the whole campaign). The main thing that seemed to surprise them was the fact that the congestion charge was part of a bid for a 1.5 billion grant from the central government ... and that Manchester had come up with the Congestion Charge as a way to pay back a further 1.5 billion loan from government as a way to win the money and improve our public transport. A lot of people seem to believe that the congestion charge was concocted simply to make money to be invested in public transport as its own plan... Others just don't trust local councils to be able to improve the public transport and not abuse the power (and money) that they would get their hands on.. Linked into this lack of trust, another major reason that my friends/family voted no was that they saw private transport as the only real solution to escaping abysmal public transport. Following this logic they didn't want another obstacle (such as a congestion charge) in their path to achieving this...

Although I could understand (sort of) their reasons for voting 'No', in reality it didn't make any sense. The amount of people who rely on public transport from working-class backgrounds is huge and will continue to grow in this increasingly fragile economy. So getting better and cheaper public transport is gonna be vital if we still want to work and study. Hoping that cars become cheaper and more affordable instead is a really bad idea...Also, if we are going to reduce emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change, then public transport has to grow and car-use has to stop..There really is no other option.

In hindsight, the reason these messages didn't reach the people who voted 'No' although better public transport is in their interest, is that they we didn't speak to them in their own language. We didn't state the amount of jobs that would be created (a clear numerical figure to challenge the 1,200 the No Campaigners used) and we didn't highlight the fact that that improved public transport was a real possibility whilst cheaper private transport isn't. Had we addressed, or even recognised, these concerns we could have had a real impact on their final decision.

Now, that the votes are in- overall 812,815 (78.8%) voted 'No' whilst only 218,860 (21.2%) voted in favour of the 3 billion- it seems that Manchester's public transport just doesn't need 3 billions.. who knew...

Helping Journalists Report Poverty...Properly.

A certain someone mentioned today that I hadn't put anything up on my blog for a while... god, I hate it when people are right!! :) So, I thought I'd share with you what I got up to today at an event which looked at Reporting Poverty in the UK

One of the most interesting things that was looked at was how poverty is being reported in the media. Recent research shows that basically not a lot of poverty is being reported in the UK and even when it is it's linked in to other 'social problems' such as crime. There is a tendency to 'other' those who struggle with poverty, and report statistics rater than focus on than the very real experience of poverty. The fear is that this kind of reporting creates a distance between those who live in poverty (out there...) and the rest of us who may have had very limited personal experience.

There is also a distinct lack of empathy which supports the notion of a 'deserving poor' who have no one to blame but their own laziness. Quite simply, this isn't accurate and just reflects the journalists limited range of views as well as their white/upper middle-class, sheltered background.

In the current media environment, there is a tendency for journalists to hold certain news as newsworthy and others as simply not interesting. This means that unless some new report or government initiative has just emerged, journalists (and more importantly their editors) just don't have the time/space for a well-written, and important piece on poverty. To tackle this, the third sector needs to play a more active role in setting the agenda and co-ordinating with other charities and organisations to secure this.

Useful things we can do right now:

1. Take time to really listen to and understand the person you're interviewing- realise that trust needs to be built as there is a tendency for the media to flood an area, trash it in the papers and leave that town/city suffering from a bad reputation. This makes people less likely to trust any journalists.

2. Understanding between Media and Third Sector; A practical problem was the lack of understanding between these organisations. For example a lot of charities don't inform media outlets about their events early enough, or provide the right sort of information and a relevant case study. Equally, media outlets don't realise that the charities role is to protect their clients from any potential harm and that they often operate with very limited resources.

3. Language speaks; think carefully about the language that you use in articles about poverty. Don't cover up issues in complex terms and phrases, but also be sensitive about the impact that your work can have on the people directly involved and the perceptions it will create. For example, someone stated that there is no point in talking about fuel poverty, child poverty and social exclusion as separate topics as they are all outcomes/side-effects of plain-old-poverty.

Interesting points to keep in mind:

*Disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty.

*People can be poor in spirit or physically poor. The fact is, physical poverty is likely to lead to spiritual poverty.

*Rural poverty tends to be ignored and marginalised in favour of the stereotype which places poverty in an urban context.

Desi Unity in Salford

Ramadan is now here and as well as a month-long fast from sunrise to sunset, many Muslims will also be looking forward to the Eid celebrations which mark the end this fasting. Whilst this is usually seen as a good reason- and I have to agree!- to gorge oneself with the spicy offerings of the Curry Mile, one women is using it as part of her campaign to bring wider multicultural understanding to the city of Salford.

Jenny Thomas, the leader of the ‘DesiSisters’ campaign is keen to unite ‘Desi’ sisters of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu origin and introduce the wider public to this ‘Desi’ culture. [Desi Culture promotes understanding and embraces people of every colour, creed and all walks of life. It focuses on positivity, the importance of a smile, and the possibilities that can be realised with dedication, empowerment, and strength.]

So, to mark the end of the Ramadan fast DesiSisters will be hosting a combined Eid/Diwali party on the 25^th of October in Eccles Masonic Hall. Open to people of all faiths and beliefs it hopes to further this ‘Desi’ culture of fun and positivity within the community.

DesiSisters encourage women outside South Asian traditions to dress up in saris, experience Henna art, and enter the glamorous world of Bollywood and Bhangra. Creating positive spaces and experiences of Desi or Asian cultures seems to goes a long way in encouraging a “little creative community cohesion, and meaningful positive mutual integration”.

Allowing women to experience new and strange cultures whilst having fun dressing up and dancing, alters the image and perceptions of South Asian culture. It also challenges negative stereotypes which dominate the general public about the supposedly austere and restrictive nature of Asian Culture.

It’s about ‘Putting the Asian into CaucAsian’ claims the self-styled ‘DesiSister’ leader; a real ‘Desification of the Nation’.

For more information see the myspace and website:
http://www.myspace.com/desisisters

http://desisisters.co.uk