India, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, backwards societies in a modern world

Being a westerner it's taken for granted there are certain rights a person has, to an oppinion, to freedom of expression, to not suffer from torture, rape, murder without there being a consequence. For a civil society and laws which the masses abide by and respect. If they don't respect then they are made to account for their actions.  Yet these rights do not exist in the entire world, it is different in some places and the most recent countries in the news are India, Pakistan, Sudan and Nigeria. 

India in Uttar Pradesh state has been the recent report of 2 young girls who were gang raped and murdered.  Their bodies were then hanged in a tree.  These girls were part of the low caste called dalit. Some Indian news reports use the term "alleged" however there is video on the internet of these young girls hanging from a mango tree and crowds of hundreds of people, mostly men I should add.  In this caste system, murder, rape, thuggery is used to keep lower caste people in their place. The girls were only 14 and 16 years old, they were cousins and had to go out to the fields to toilet.When one of the fathers of these girls went to the police he was first asked what caste he belonged to and when they found out it was the lower "other backwards classes" they just made fun of him. One of the abusers was also with the police. 

In Pakistan this week a woman was stoned by her own relatives after she left a Lahore court building. She was 30-year-old Farzana Bibi, and had attended court to confirm she got married to the man she loved rather than to a man her family wanted her to marry.  She went against the societal norms.  This type of killing is called a honour killing, but there is certainly nothing honourable about it. About 20 relatives crowded around her, they pulled her to the ground and then bashed her with rocks in their hands.  In this case, there were Police in the vicinity and the husband went to them begging for help and they did nothing.

In Sudan a woman has been sentenced to be hung until she is dead, because she was in their eyes a Muslim woman who committed apostasy by saying she was Christian.  Even though she argued she had been Christian all her life.  She was pregnant at the time of the sentence so was allowed to have her baby and will be allowed two more years of life before the sentence is carried out. What I don't particularly understand here is why she and her husband didn't leave the country and seek asylum before this happened.  Meriam Ibrahim has also been sentenced to receive 100 lashes because she committed adultery.  Another trumped up charge because she'd married a Christian in a Christian ceremony.  

Lastly the news continues with headlines of the 230 school girls who were kidnapped by a Nigerian fundamentalist group called Boko Haram.  It would be misleading to think Nigeria known to be the wealthiest and most prosperous developing African nation has civility.  As we see yet another instance of religious right wing and power crazy enthusiasts flexing their muscles.  The Nigerian army we are told are barely paid a living wage and have very little in the way of weapons, they are effectively demoralised. In radio broadcasts by Nigerian officials we hear blatant lies told, you can tell because they had not been rehearsed and don't hold up to questioning or any kind of logic.  It is the result of institutionalised corruption which I have been told runs through the veins of Nigeria.

Just when you think the world is coming to some kind of intelligent state you realise it never will. Lack of education, poverty and social systems seem to all get together to keep subgroups of people in their place. If it's not these factors then it is religion and religious leaders using biblical texts to their own needs.  A shepherd can only be followed if there are sheep.

Panorama - Don't Cap my Benefits, questions not asked

On BBC1 there has just been a program by Panorama it was called "Don't Cap My Benefits." It was about benefits claimants who were receiving so much money in benefits they now fell under the new regulations which meant those benefits would be capped. If in a family they only get £500 and if single parents it is limited to £350 per week. In this program claimants from Brent were followed to show the human face of how benefits cuts had effected them. In all cases it meant their rent would not be fulfilled by Housing Benefits, the shortfall would result in being evicted.  They in turn had no choice but to move home. In many instances they were offered alternative accommodation but it was out of London. Away from family, friends, the schools their children had been attending. Of the people followed on camera, there were a number of single parents.  Their plight really was painful to watch, especially seeing the upheaval from their homes in London to places like Birmingham. If not they were put through a psychological torture which pulled them apart in having to try and make a decision to move or not to move. However, in the instances of the number of single parents which were being capped their benefits, there was one question which kept coming to mind the program had omitted to enquire or even answer in any way.  It is a simple question. Where were the fathers?

It takes two to tango. Yet there were single women with children, either two or three children and the youngest appeared to be under the age of one.  These women had made choices, not just once but multiple times which had resulted in another child. There were no questions about this aspect of the program. Where was the fathers?  They could of been in the background and undeclared, for a single parent on her own with children from multiple fathers would be a pretty unfortunate situation to be in. Of course it happens, yet at the same time these women were claiming large amounts of money from the state. Especially if the sums involved are multiplied over months and years, they then become phenomenal.  Amounts which are eye watering. Another question failed to be asked by this program was what about the responsibilities to all the other tax payers in the UK who support those who claim benefits. There is a onus for them all to try to work, to try to make their situation better.  However, it was as though they had become settled into being single mothers, into accepting the handouts of the state and they'd rather not work or make their lives better. I couldn't help notice in two cases the single mothers involved either got a job working with children or in another did voluntary work with children.  The thought came to mind was they just wanted to be baby machines, and not contribute to the social contract or social expectations of paying your own way.  To which I can only return to the original question, where were the fathers and why were they not supporting the mother of their children?  Personally I would find it incomprehensible not to support the mother of my children. There is no doubt a question of suspicion raises its head.  Were the fathers on the scene but out of view? Again this is something Panorama did not go into investigating, when it really is part of the story as well.

The benefits cap is not just about reducing the national deficit and the benefits bill.  It is also about people taking responsibility for their own life.  About working, about contributing to society and paying their own way. The cultural norm of some parts of society to be unemployable or subsisting on state benefits for years on end has to come to an end game at some time.  Unfortunately for a lot of these claimants, the pressures of this end game are starting to bite.  Fortunately for the rest of society, the more people off benefits the greater the reduction in the deficit and the better prospects for the country.  Without this reality the future is bleak.

The Fiasco of Parliament's Question Time

Every time Prime Minster's Questions is aired democracy is turned into a pantomime. There is consistent jeering and booing from both halves of the house, but more than this Cameron engages in trivialising politics. It is like he has read an issue of a tabloid paper and his replies become juvenile retorts. These are not answers a democracy requires, they are not honourable for a political environment which is supposed to be representative of the people. Politicians then congregate into the respective parties and proceed to shout distractions to what is said from the other side of the house. Perhaps the reason for this is because they do not perceive what is said as serious. When listening to a question or to an answer it then appears as scripted with a quip in the tail meant only to disgrace the opposition. This is clearly not a question for the public to hear, it is one meant to score a point, but does the public really want to listen to this?  I don't, I'd prefer like to hear serious discussion and serious answers, not scripted.

The speaker jumps in, he shakes his finger at the benches he feels are being more vocal than they should be. Doing his best to get order but it doesn't work. Berkow, just doesn't have the real power to for anything else. His voice becomes nothing more than to temporarily pause to proceedings, I can't help think he should have some other power. One which gelds the questioners who act like diving footballers doing their best to pick up a penalty, they are making it a fiasco.  Shouts, interruptions, boos, these are group behaviours citing one section against another, they are not what politicians should be doing just as the PM's answers to questions quite often fall short of being any kind of answer at all. The opposition engages with this as well, they are not innocent, but neither side are getting it.  How can such people, voted for the people represent the people when their behaviour is worse than school children?  Once in a while a serious question or a serious answer does arise and they seem so few.  One thing is true, there is never a full answer.  If the mud slinging stopped then parliament would be 100 per cent better than what it is now. If the childish retorts stopped we'd learn more.

It is no wonder politics has a bad name for itself, but then we all know it's about power and money.  It's not really about the constituents and more of who can shout the loudest. One day they will be judged, then these alleged representatives will only be allowed to represent themselves.

Cable seller of the Crown Jewels

The Lib Democrat conference is on and they are all gathering together to pat themselves on their narrow shouldered backs of how well they had done in a coalition government. Of course we all know they have been appalling.  I noticed though as one famous and nefarious Lib Dem MP was briefly and politely interviewed how no questions were asked about the Post Office sell off.   The Guardian newspaper on the 20.11.13. reported the sell off at 330 pence a share compared with a current valuation of 550 pence a share meant the sale had lost £2.2 billion. Such a phenomenal amount equates the complete negligence on behalf of the coalition government and in particular Vince Cable who was a key player.  Though, personally I can't help feel as business secretary he was given a poison pill by the coalition government. Whatever happened it was going to be unpopular, but the worst thing of all has happened the gross under valuation and sell off of Great Britain's crown jewels.  This seems to be a constant thing which happens whenever a Tory government comes into power and it seems the people who always make the most out of selling public assets are those who are already wealthy and seeking to get wealthier.  Every single one of those shares should of first been offered to the British Tax payers as free shares. The minimal restriction on selling to private investors was so low as to mean this government only wanted to sell shares to institutional investors overseas, they effectively rather give tax payers money to free loaders in different countries than their own population.

It would of made interesting news had the interviewer the bollocks to of asked a difficult question.  I think it should of been more along the lines of "Mr Cable, don't you feel it would be appropriate of you to resign from government after the atrocious short selling of the Post Office?" Or, "Mr Cable, can you explain why the population of the UK should consider voting for the Liberal Democrats when the selling of the Post Office at a vastly under valued level represents exceedingly bad judgement and governance?" A more simple question could also of been, "Do you honestly think your party will ever recover it's reputation as a democratic party after being in coalition?"

Every time there is a Tory government there is always a single guarantee, the poor, the working classes will be pushed into greater poverty.  Cable you and Clegg have your days numbered, watch this space.

Yanukovch brings the Ukraine to it's knees

What do Viktor Yanukovych, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Morsi, Bashir Al-Asad and Hitler have in common?  It's simple, they were or are all power crazy in their own way.  Two are dead, one has absconded, one is in jail and one is still in power. It seems democracy doesn't rule when a country's ruler decides the people under them are nothing more than pawns. However, we see Al-Asad doing his best to play of different nations against each other so he can stay in power.  Whilst unfortunately Victor Yanukovych ran away like a frightened little girl who had been just spooked the three bares and greedily ate all their porridge.  Fortunately for the people of the Ukraine they have formed an interim parliament, unfortunately for them it looks like Putin has now decided to get involved in the game. Perhaps Putin was impressed by Yanukovych's wonderful home, the one with the replica Spanish galleon.  Most of the Ukrainian people didn't like Yanukovych's penchant for corruption, which had permeated through their society.  Further they want to move more towards Europe, whilst he has his sight set on Russia.  Like Al-Asad, Yanukovych to has played off different minority groupings in order to help justify his rule.  As the old adage goes, "divide and conquer" which is certainly what he has done. Although he ran away like a little girl he has found a big brother in the form of Putin.  The problem is Putin is not just a big brother he is a giant and already he is now starting to make his move on the Ukraine again.  It is another power play.  If his friend Yanny wasn't so greedy and wasn't so corrupt he would not be in this position. The reality for Europe is they will not get involved because it is too impracticable, certainly at a military level there is nothing they can do.  The Ukraine could just of found it is now going to be in a fight with Putin.  They may not of liked the corruption, but now their lives could be on the line. Depending on what hostility they show.

So democracy is a freedom in itself, and some people such as Al-Asad and Yanukovych don't know the definition. Unless they happen to think it is something related to fine wine sipped in a Spanish Galleon.  Of course like the greats villains of the world Yanukovych may find he'll one day be in the dock of a war tribunal.

The Niqab and the burka, should they be banned from the UK

In 2012 France banned the public wearing of the niqab and the burka.  This is the only European country at this time which has taken this action.  It may be a purely political decision, but there are a lot of other reasons why wearing a niqab and burka is wrong.  For example, Dr Tarj Hargey from the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford states these coverings are a pre Islamic cultural practice, a throw back to the Byzantine and Persian empires. Dr Tarj Hargey is an Iman and has on demonstrated his dislike of these coverings by burning them in public.  Quite clearly, not all Iman's have the same view on the topic.  However, saying this, there is no mention at all in the Quran suggesting female followers of Islam should follow this practice.  Dr Hargey goes on to state this practice was used by the aristocrats of these early empires to show their ownership of women, by not letting other males gaze upon them.  The Quran instructs men and women to dress modestly the words niqab and burka can not even be found in it.  So it comes down to interpretation which  then gives sholastic Iman's the influence and power to preach to their flock, as to what they should wear or how they should react to the rest of the world.  Dr Hargey and many Europeans also agree on one thing, these coverings make women appear as second class citizens who have to follow the words of men.  The directions to cover up are misogynistic and offensive.

The face is an intimate tool of communication. It is said in language the message is 90 per cent non verbal from the actual words spoken.  In verbal communication there is a phenomenon known as the McGirk effect, where viewing the lips of a speaker helps to actually hear what they say. This is because in part we lip read as well as listen to the words spoken.  Covering up the face in any way is the kind of thing racing drivers, motor bike riders and bank robbers do.  It is associated either with anonymity or with safety in the form of a visor.  It is anonymity which comes across in public as being offensive. I've seen young males cover their faces with pull up scarves, the don't want people to see them to recognize them because they may have a nefarious intent. It is to protect themselves, because they may well be in the process of committing a crime. Which then makes me ask are these Islamic following females about to commit a dastardly deed when they cover up?  Of course not.  Yet, do they understand how this may be seen and viewed by others? I doubt it.  There is a liberal freedom in the UK to wear what you want, in most part.  Yet at the same time there is a recognition you would not walk down the street with an offensive or racist slogan written on a t-shirt.  While in another instance hiding a face if not for safety reasons is also an offensive act, in being a factor of male domination and anti-social terms, but yet it is not banned in the UK. It could very well be the UK is too liberalistic.  For, here all types of fundamentalist views are allowed to be held within the law, they coexist at the same time even if they are disliked. While then advocating it is the law of the land and justice which reigns supreme, when in fact we all know it is more of who has enough money to buy the best lawyers and then they are the ones who reign supreme.

For a Muslim woman the wearing of these coverings may be based in additional reasons than just religious.  Men will and do like to oggle women, especially if they are attractive. Or attractive to the man.  Wearing a full body covering and face covering doesn't give a man a chance to see an features of a woman at all. In so doing a woman may feel they are no longer being judged either by men or other women for what they wear or on how attractive they are.  The coverings become a shield, endorsed in the guise of religion or culture. Or indeed it could be a very self enlightened freedom of expression.  It could be said a woman wearing this covering does so through choice and free choice, but it could also be argued in Islamic circles wearing these coverings is not just a choice it is a social norm and there is a degree of social pressure, where women are coerced into this attire. In this instance the full hijab and niqab becomes a standing moving coffin. Others will argue it is not for the state to dictate what an individual wears and all persons should have freedom of choice. Which is ludicrous because if I chose to walk down the street naked it would only be a matter of time before I am arrested for indecent exposure.  People would find it offensive, but in the same instance the acknowledgement of public decency and offensive undress should apply to offensive full dressage.

The UK is celebrated as a secular country, and it's current laws are such to allow freedom of expression unless of course the intent of this freedom is abused to cause harm to other persons.  However, this harm is considered primarily when it is a real physical threat.  The law to a lesser degree tackles psychological harassment, but it is a much lesser degree. To the extend if one wishes to be offensive to other people by demeanor then it is fine.  The world is made up of a  mixed bag of people and there will always be those who are idiots, it's a fact, but probably an interpretive fact.  The bottom line is wearing a face covering is an alien aspect to the UK society, historically you will probably only find it when used to protect the face, such as in war.  It is not an every day aspect of life.  Therefore it does appear offensive, because the face is a major communicative tool and facial expressions tell a lot about a person.  So why should one person show their face while another keeps it covered up?  The answer is because the UK has now become a multi cultural society and societies within societies are both allowed to exist and at the same time be contradictory and offensive to those not part of the in group.  Ultimately it is down to the individual what they wear.  However, like the phenomenon termed Stockholm syndrome, where a kidnapped victim begins to identify with their kidnappers, the same mental bending can be interpreted of those adherents of some religions.  Unless of course you happen to be living in France in which case, being covered up in a black clothed coffin is probably known as locked in syndrome. 

Viva La France.

A need for housing which is not being realised

The UK has an ever increasing problem. There simply are not enough properties to house the population. Probably one of the truest facts of life is, everyone needs somewhere to live. We all need a home. Without a home everything else falls apart. A roof over your head is everything, it also helps to have money to pay the bills and enough to warmth and comfort to satisfy the basic human needs. Food, friendship or family, adequate shelter.  When I say home I don't mean something which is temporary, it has to be permanent and preferably not rented from a private landlord. The best choice would be owned.

There are many reasons why the UK does not have enough properties.  The population is increasing every year.  This is not organically either, immigration is higher than net migration.  Over the last two decades or even more, the number of new build properties in the entire UK has not kept up with these population increases.  It has been pitiful no matter what government has been in power.  There has always been a proportional trend for citizens of the UK to purchase their own home, so once in ownership it will stay in ownership for many years. Families no longer live in the cohesive units they used to live in. They break up. There is not the social pressure for partners to stay together.  This is a good thing for those who want to get out of a relationship so they can do so.  Unless they happen to believe in a religion which sees marriage break ups in a poor light.  Individuals and organizations own more than one property, those excess properties are used as cash cows by renting them out, we see an ever growing set of entrepreneurs have developed in an ever growing buy to rent market.  There should be a maximum number of domestic properties any single individual can be allowed to own in the UK.

As people buy their own homes, it means taking out a mortgage and a number of years paying this back.  Home owners hope the valuation of their property increases every year.  Over time the actual mortgage level drops lower than rental values and they win out on two fronts.  For banks and for home owners there is an interest in keeping property valuations high and consequently there is also an advantage in more properties not being built and synchronized with the needs of a growing population.   In a catch 22 like situation, the fewer people own their own homes the better it is for those who do own their own home.  Property ownership is static wealth, those with high mortgages are tied to banks with their burdens.  The higher demand the higher property valuations but this comes at a caveat, if interest rates increase home owners may have difficulty in paying back their mortgage.  Those with interest only mortgages actually become the most vulnerable.  In a time of recession which has been more than a decade, being in work is also one of the most valuable factors anyone can have.

The solutions can only come from a multiple fronts.  Especially when looking at the interdependent link between banks, mortgages and home ownership, which is insidious to the entire country.  A nationally owned and nationally ran bank, not one of those which has been bailed out might  be an option, but is unlikely to happen.  More stringent regulations on allowing mortgages, interest rates, the even the failure of banking institutes should be considered.  In an ever chaotic financial situation it is unfair the tax payer has to bail out banks because they are too big to fail.  If they  really are too big, then they need to be broken up, their capital held increased and the culture of awarding massive financial rewards to the few ceased.  House builders should be forced to either sell back the land banks they have or to actually build on them.  Local Authorities should be given permission to purchase and to build their own housing again, their role has previously been central in stabilizing the housing crisis, but they have been shut out. A new rent regulation should be introduced, the maximum level of rent any private organization can charge is then capped. No matter where the property is situated.  Empty and abandoned properties should also be examined, with forced purchase orders come into play given owners had sufficient time to act. 

The introduction of apprenticeship schemes which are only a few weeks long are worthless to everyone. The definition of an apprenticeship should be defined with a minimum period and a minimum standard of education associated to it.   Universities and colleges must create courses centred on vocational skills should provide vocational qualifications and those who go on these courses given financial support. The agism of apprenticeship schemes should also be examined.  People of any age should be given an equal chance to go on these schemes. You are never too young to learn, if the retirement age is increasing it stands to reason older people need to be included higher in new workforces. The UK no longer produces goods in factories and through engineering to the degree it used, the entire field of private sector industry must be encouraged and supported. Through reduced business rates, increased financial support, tax breaks and long term R & D investment.  The future of the UK has to be considered beyond the term of one or two governments.  We now should be looking 30 to 50 years ahead.  This can only be done a little bit at a time.

More jobs for more people at a higher level of skill and education will ensure they are able to have a better standard of living and so purchase their own house or afford to rent.  However, the idea is to bring down rent levels and increase numbers of available homes. These are just a few ideas some of which have been mentioned in previous BLOGs.