Sunday 25 December 2011

Hansard - Straight from the Horses Mouth


The picture of the legislative process in the House of Commons and the House of Lords that we see in the media is, sadly, a cartoonish, soundbite ridden, sensationalised version of what actually goes on.

Sometimes only a few dozen seconds are given to coverage of a debate. BFTF can't explain how to make a omelette in that time, so it seems unlikely that a complex discussion can be distilled down to such a short timeframe!

Fortunately, modern technology offers us a way of bypassing the media and listening dorectly to what our lawmakers are saying, often at great length, detail and passion.

You can listen to them on the Parliament Channel - perhaps the most unexpected delight of the digital television revolution. Indeed I am listening to it in the background even as I write this!

And one can read about what has been said in Hansard, the written record of the debates in Parliament.


Below you can find a little information on two debates that BFTF has seen. The first relates to a House of Lords debate on Christians in the Middle East; the second relates to a Select Committee hearing regarding the HMRC (i.e. Revenue and Customs)

House of Lords debate on "Christians in the Middle East" from 9th December 2011.

You can read the full account of the motion here, hopefully you will find it as thought provoking as BFTF did.

But, if you are someone who is a bit pressed for time, below are a few of the comments from the Most Rev Rowan Williams, Lord Sacks and Lord Ahmad.

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Opening Comments
. . at the present moment, the position of Christians in the region is more vulnerable than it has been for centuries. The flow of Christian refugees from Iraq in the wake of constant threat and attack has left a dramatically depleted Christian population there, and perhaps I can say in passing how very glad and grateful I was to have stood alongside the Grand Mufti of the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo at a press conference here in London some three years ago joining in condemnation of attacks on Christians in Iraq. Similar senior voices from al-Azhar have been heard more recently in condemnation of anti-Christian outrages in Egypt itself . .

. . . No one is seeking a privileged position for Christians in the Middle East, nor should they be. But what we can say-I firmly believe that most Muslims here and in many other places would agree entirely-is that the continued presence of Christians in the region is essential to the political and social health of the countries of the Middle East. Their presence challenges the assumption that the Arab world and the Muslim world are just one and the same thing, which is arguably good for Arabs and Muslims alike. They demonstrate that a predominantly Muslim polity can accommodate, positively and gratefully, non-Muslims as fellow citizens, partners in an enterprise that is not exclusively determined by religious loyalties even when rooted in specific religious principles. . .

. . .One of their real grievances is what they experience as the twofold undermining of their identity that comes from a new generation of Muslim enthusiasts treating them as pawns of the West and, on the other hand, from a western political rhetoric that either ignores them totally or thoughtlessly puts them at risk by casting military conflict in religious terms. Talk of crusading comes to mind. . .

Lord Sachs
. .It was Martin Luther King who said:"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends". . .

. . .We have already heard today about the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt, of Maronite Christians in Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon, of the vast exodus of Christians from Iraq and of the concern of Christians in Syria as to what might happen there should there be further destabilisation. In the past year, we have heard of churches set on fire, of a suicide bombing that cost the lives of 21 Christians as they were leaving a church in Cairo, of violence and intimidation and of the mass flight of Christians, especially from Egypt. .

. . . we make a great intellectual mistake in the West when we assume that democracy is, in and of itself, a step towards freedom. Usually, that is the case, but sometimes it is not. As Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill pointed out in the 19th century, it may merely mean the "tyranny of the majority". That is why the most salient words in the current situation are those of Lord Acton, in his great essay on the history of freedom, who said: "The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities". . .

. . . religions that begin by killing their opponents end by killing their fellow believers. In the age of the Crusades, Christians fought Muslims. Between the Reformation and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, Christians fought Christians-Catholic against Protestant. Today, in the Middle East and elsewhere, radical Islamists fight those whom they regard as the greater and lesser Satan, but earlier this week we mourned the death of 55 Shia worshippers at a mosque in Kabul and another 28 Shia who were killed in a terror attack in Iraq. Today, the majority of victims of Islamist violence are Muslim, and shall we not shed tears for them, too? The tragedy of religion is that it can lead people to wage war in the name of the God of peace, to hate in the name of the God of love, to practise cruelty in the name of the God of compassion and to kill in the name of the God of life. None of these things brings honour to faith; they are a desecration of the name of God. . .

The Archbishop of Canterbury (Closing Comments)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful for a debate that in both variety and quality has not disappointed expectations. Wider points have emerged, and I shall touch on one or two. . .

. . .The definition of religious liberty, we have been reminded, is not always a simple matter. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter pointed out that we are speaking not simply of the liberty to worship but a liberty of conscience - a mental liberty. That includes asking some difficult questions about the rights of conversion, which many noble Lords have raised in their contributions today. . .

. . .I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, quote the late Lord Acton on the test of liberty being the treatment of minorities. It was the same Lord Acton who observed that a coherent doctrine of religious liberty was at the foundation of all serious talk about political liberties. We have a number of issues there worth taking up and holding in our minds. . .

. . .We have also been reminded by a number of noble Lords about the significance of education and adequate communication in this field. Points have been made about the poisonous effect of certain kinds of school textbook, for example. . .

So there you go. BFTF was surprised that there does not appear to be any Muslim Imam in the House of Lords to represent the Muslim community and, perhaps more importantly, Muslim thinking. So BFTF sent an email to the local MP asking why this was the case.

Select Committee Hearing on the HMRC
Moving on, quickly and briefly, to the second debate that BFTF heard which was oral evidence submitted to the Public Accounts Committee's session on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Standard Report with Antony Inglese, General Council and solicitor, and Sir Gus O'Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, from Monday 7 November.

You can read the full transcript here.

BFTF just wanted to bring you the beginning of the hearing, when Antony Inglese (from HMRC) got an absolute mauling from committee member Richard Bacon:

Antony Inglese (AI): There are conventions in Parliament about what can be answered on legal privilege-Ministers, for example. There are various ramifications of the legal privilege point. At the moment, there is a judicial review being brought against HMRC.

Richard Bacon (RB): Oh, really? Can you give us the case number, please?

AI: We have had the pre-action protocol letter by a pressure group and we are now looking at our response.

RB: Are there any proceedings?

AI: Proceedings are imminent.

RB: What is the answer to my question?

AI: The way judicial review works-

RB: What is the answer to my question, Mr Inglese? Are there any proceedings?

AI: For the purposes of the sub judice rule, we have had a letter before action-

RB: Yes, I understand that you have had a letter before action. Once again, what is the answer to my question: are there any proceedings before the courts?

AI: Proceedings are imminent.

RB: Are there any proceedings before the courts now? Yes or no?

AI: At this moment, no.

It's cracking stuff and great to see HMRC being held to account.

So, dear reader, there you go. The tools are there to hold your elected representatives to account and to praise them when they do the right thing.

Sunday 27 November 2011

20mph limits in Nottingham and Portsmouth


Earlier this week, the Nottingham Post ran a series of articles on the Councils proposals to impose 20mph speed limits on some streets in Nottingham (Incidentally, the term “impose” is itself a loaded term (see here)).

The council has chosen Sherwood as the pilot area because it "includes everything throughout the city which could benefit from a 20mph limit, such as residential areas, steep streets, major bus routes, industrial areas and wide and narrow streets."

This is all well and good, but BFTF was interested in the evidence behind this proposed course of action. How have 20mph trials performed in the past? What criteria will the criteria use to decide whether the pilot study will be a success or not?

Let’s start with some terminology:
“20 mph Speed Limits” indicates the use of speed limit signs alone (without traffic calming measures)
“20 mph Zones” indicates indicates the use of signs and traffic calming measures.

Before moving on to what do the “pro” and “anti” groups say?
You can find out about the case against 20mpt limits at :
http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Road_Safety.htm

And the case in favour for 20mph limts at:
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

AAnd then looking at the evidence that 20mph limits work?
Much of the evidence for 20mph limits relates to the experience of Portsmouth, who implemented a 20mph speed limit (without additional traffic calming measures) in many of the city’s residential areas. A report on the effects of Portsmouth’s 20mph limits can be found here:
Interim Evaluation of the Implementation of 20 mph Speed Limits in Portsmouth
Final Report - September 2010


Before the scheme was implemented accidents stood at 183 per year, whereas afterwards they were at 142 per year, a 22%drop. During that period casualty numbers fell nationally by about 14% in comparable areas.

Vehicle speeds were also measured before and after the intorduction of the 20mph limits:

It has to be said that the report very carefully omits mentioning that the speeds of vehicles in the sites that had a speed “before” the trial of 20mph or lower actually INCREASED during the trial (BFTF estimates by perhaps 1-2mph).

Accident statistics were aslo presented "before" and "after":

It is important to note that some variability is to be expected when the number of annual accidents is low, so the increase in KSA figures is not necessarily significant. For a more extreme example of this, the report stated that the number of school children injured increased from 5 (3yrs prior to change) to 7 (2years after change). BFTF can see that Daily Mail headline now : “20mph speed limit results in 40% INCREASE in children being run over”.

If the Mail actually has someone on the staff who understands numbers then one can imagine them working it out on an annual basis “20mph speed limit results in 110% INCREASE in children being run over”. . .

Lastly, the report also compares the speed reductions achieved in Portsmouth with those in two other speed reduction schemes, in London and Hull. It is worth mentioning that these schemes included were much better funded than the Portsmouth scheme and included traffic calming measures:

So there you go, a bunch or relevant data all in one concise package. Shame the reporting in the mainstream media isn’t like this. . . .

BFTF will leave you to draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness of 20mph limits, as with most things in life, it’s complicated.

*************************

Update Nov 2018 : Noticed this RoSPA newsletter on the subject. Also new research summary from DoT here (shame none of the news articles (e.g. The Guardian, The Evening Express, The Manchester Evening News) linked back to the original study.

Monday 10 October 2011

Dafur (2008)


This post was written in 2008 and formed the basis of an article in the Invitation Magazine. At the time the humanitarian crisis in the Western Sudanese region of Dafur has shot to the top of the news agenda, but news reports did not always do a good job of explaining what is going on.

The Background
Since its independence in 1956, Sudan had been beset by coups and civil wars, with almost constant unrest since 1983 between government forces in the north and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM, led by John Garang) in the south. A painstakingly slow peace process was undertaken between 2002 and 2004 which resulted in a peace deal being signed in May.

Meanwhile, the last 15 or so years had also seen unrest in the western region of Dafur, where incidents between local farmers and largely northern nomads were common. Conflict escalated in 2007 when two armed groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), emerged from the local population. The groups demanded a better share in the national wealth, just as the southern rebel groups had done. They quoted statistics showing that some 80% of the government posts were allocated to northerners, who only composed some 5% of the population.

The current situation
The government, whose army was tied up in the south, supported militias known as the Janjaweed who attacked town and villages of the tribes, often with the support of army personnel and the airforce. Indeed, the respected organisation Human Rights Watch states that :

“The government-Janjaweed partnership is characterised by joint attacks on civilians rather than on the rebel forces. . . Many assaults have decimated small farming communities, with death tolls sometimes approaching one hundred people. Most are unrecorded. . . Villages have been torched not randomly, but systematically—often not once, but twice. . . The uncontrolled presence of Janjaweed in the burned countryside, and in burned and abandoned villages, has driven civilians into camps and settlements outside the larger towns, where the Janjaweed kill, rape, and pillage—even stealing emergency relief items—with impunity.
Despite international calls for investigations into allegations of gross human rights abuses, the government has responded by denying any abuses while attempting to manipulate and stem information leaks.. . . The government promised unhindered humanitarian access, but failed to deliver. Instead, reports of government tampering with mass graves and other evidence suggest the government is fully aware of the immensity of its crimes and is now attempting to cover up any record”.

The Charitable sector
After months of trying, charitable organisations had finally are now being given access to the area.

Two of the Muslim charities active in Dafur are Muslim Hands (Nottingham) and Islamic Relief (Birmingham).

BFTF talked to the Islamic Relief Regional programme manager for Africa, Makki A. Mohamed about the causes and effects of the conflict. He commented that:

“A number of interacting factors, including ethnic conflict, an increase in armed robberies, drought and the perceived marginalisation of Darfur has led to the formation of two political military opposition movements. The situation has been aggravated further by the appearance of the Janjaweed militia supported by the government but it seem that now they lost control over them and the fighting became more tribal in nature”, he said, adding that “initially access was very difficult (due insecurity and bureaucratic obstacles) and it was only when under external pressure that the Sudanese Government allowed NGO’s in Darfur. . The peak of the crisis was in January, when there were some 750,000 internally displaced people (now over 950,000), and 130,000 has fled to Chad”

Mr Makki went on to add that it was both insecurity and fear of violence that had caused this huge displacement of people.

Furthermore, he felt that pressure from the EU, UN and US, the Sudanese Government was now trying to reign in the militias, police the areas and use monitors from the African Union, who had also been stung into action.

The Political Sector
A charge often raised against Muslim organisations is that they only care about Muslims when the aggressor is non-Muslim (such as in Kashmir, Chechnya or Palestine), if, on the other hand the aggressor is a Muslim government or group then Muslim organisations turn a blind eye.

To see if this was the case, BFTF asked the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) if it had any comments about Dafur. Their spokesman was unaware of the conflict, or the 750,000 internally displaced Muslims. When sent information on the situation he suggested that western media can sometimes be a little suspect and that perhaps we should contact the Sudanese embassy.

Charity workers have expressed dismay at the inaction of the governments in surrounding Muslim countries, pointing out that they could have done a lot more, especially in the early stages of the crisis.

The Arab League finally managed to send a delegation in March, although nothing appears to have come of that (including a mission report to the public), whilst the OIC has yet to take any action at all.

Monday 19 September 2011

Nottingham Central Fire Station - Tour Review

September 8-11 this year was "Heritage Open Days Weekend". This is an annual event which, according to the website,
"celebrates England’s fantastic architecture and culture by offering free access to properties that are usually closed to the public or normally charge for admission. Every year on four days in September, buildings of every age, style and function throw open their doors, ranging from castles to factories, town halls to tithe barns, parish churches to Buddhist temples. It is a once-a-year chance to discover hidden architectural treasures and enjoy a wide range of tours, events and activities which bring to life local history and culture."

Having only heard about the event a few days beforehand, BFTF had a quick look through the listings and found that there were oodles of events around Nottingham. Oooh, which one to go to, decisions, decisions. But when BFTF saw that tours of the Central Fire Station were being held on the Saturday, it was clear that search was over. . .

Saturday soon came around and BFTF plus kids found themselves at the entrance to the station, along with about 15 other members of the public. The tour was conducted by David Needham, a retired Fireman and was fascinating. So fascinating that it is probably best to break it down into parts.

The Building
The Fire Station was built in 1940, but you would not think it to look at the style of the interior, which is full of art deco touches from the 1920's. It felt a little bit like being in the skyscraper from King Kong, or as Dave Needham commented, being in a Hercule Poirot movie.

Two stone lions (again very much in art deco style) adorn the stair handrails on the first floor. One asleep and one awake they represent the two watches (shifts) of the station.




Gordon Bennet, that was a tough shift, time to turn in for the night

Grrrrr, just 5 more minutes sleep please


The bays where the Fire Engines live are full of little reminders from years gone by such as the floor covers that covered electrical leads previously used to keep the engines warm and ready to go, or the small named hooks on the doors for fire crew leaders long since departed. The brickwork surrounding this area has had numerous lumps knocked out of it, described by Dave as "the signatures of our less skilled drivers"

" the signatures of our less skilled drivers"



The Station has a number of levels below ground and one of these houses the social club. The walls here are decorated with all manner of fire fighting memorabilia, including pennants from fire crews around the world. On one side of the room is a large wooden wheel, perhaps 1.5m in diameter, with wooden spokes radiating from the central axle. It looks for all the world like something that belongs in the 19th century, along with Queen Victoria and flintlock rifles.

Last used in the 1890s, 1930s or 1980s?

But no, it turns that this is one of two wheels that were attached to ladders used on "pump escape" vehicles (like this) up to as late as 1987.

The station also has an air raid shelter that was used during WWII by non-essential station staff and by local residents. Dave described how these shelters could only protect the people inside to a certain degree and that a large calibre bomb would typically penetrate the ground to the depth of the shelter and then detonate, with predictably devastating consequences. This actually happened to another shelter in the city and Dave described how the casualty list made very sad reading, with grandparents, mothers and children of a single family all being killed in that single explosion.

Working Conditions
By 1939, the firemen had managed to win some significant concessions from the station management. They now had a full 1/2 day off work a week !
But, no sooner was this achieved than the UK was at war, and conditions went back to the 128hr weeks that had been the norm before.

Working conditions were very different back then. Firemen tended to live in a terrace of houses owned by the Fire Brigade and located close to the Station. Living in this accomodation had it's down sides. For example, couples needed a pass from the Station Commander if they wanted to stay out late. But that intrusion into their personal lives pales into insignificance when one hears that if a fireman wanted to marry, both he and his prospective bride were interviewed to ensure that she was "suitable". Crikey.

Perhaps inevitably, Dave described how things were much harder in his day than is the case for firefighters today. For one thing, he was expected to get changed on the way to the fire, which meant that the engine could be out of the station within 30seconds. This occasionally led to Firemen injuring themselves as they were knocked about the drive to the fire. To prevent this happening, firefighters now don their protective gear before they set off, which means that it now takes a leisurely 90seconds for the engine to leave the station.

Technology has also made a big difference, in Dave's day hoses would rot if left in a wet condition, so needed to be dried after use. This was done by laboriously hauling them up the training tower so that the water could drain out. Modern hoses are rot-proof so this is no longer required, and in any case the tower now has powered hose hoists (what luxury! when I were a lad. . . .)


World War II
Dave was particularly knowledgeable about the work of the station during WWII and, of the many stories he recounted, two have stuck in the mind of BFTF.

The first relates to a fireman who was on night look-out duty, scanning the city for signs of fires. Located on the roof of the station, he had no wall or shelter to protect him. As he was looking over the city an air raid siren began to sound and then, a little while later, he began to hear the sound of metallic objects landing on the roof around him in the pitch darkness. Alarmingly, these were not spent shell casings or similar ariel detritus but rather were 1kg incendiary bombs landing around him. Forbidden from leaving his post, he took a compromise approach of staying where he was, but lying down to minimise the chance of being taken apart by shapnel from the exploding bombs !

The second story relates to the bombing of Coventry, Dave describes how the air defense network knew that there was going to be a big air-raid somewhere in the south of the country, but not exactly where. So fire engines across the north of England were gradually being moved southwards so that they would be closer to the target, wherever that was.

Soon enough, of course, it became clear that the Coventry was the target, and a look-out described how, even from Nottingham, he could see the glow on the horizon from the fires. He described the sight as "like peas boiling in a pan", which is a pretty evocative turn of phrase. Dave explained that the "boiling" was due to the shock and blast waves from the bombs as they landed.

Conclusion
Well, BFTF certainly found the tour to be very interesting, and hopes that you, dear reader have managed to find a few nuggets of useful information in this summary.

Thanks are due, of course to Dave Needham for taking the time to be involved in the Heritage Weekend.

And thanks are also due, very unexpectedly to Number One and Number 2 sons. When BFTF got home, these two were asked to jot down bullet points of all the things they could remember from the tour. To BFTF's utter surprise the resulting lists were very comprehensive and have been used as pointers and reminders whilst writing this post. Well Done!

Wednesday 31 August 2011

Plain Cigarette Packaging

Australia (which BFTF is always minded to pronounce as Auuussstrraaaaliaaaa in the style of a famous 1980s BT advert) recently introduced draft legislation that would remove all branding from cigarette packaging as part of efforts to reduce the level of smoking in the country.

The response of the tobacco industry was to launch a multi-million dollar campaign against the changes. Simon Chapman (Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia) has summarised the arguments of the tobacco industry before, very easily, demolishing them in a article in the New Scientist. In essence, the tobacco industry suggests that :

a) there is "no real evidence" to support the policy
b) Use of plain packaging would represent a "seizure of their intellectual property"
c) Plain packaging would result in a rise in counterfeit cigarettes

This is of relevance to the UK because the Government here is also considering similar legislation. A government report earlier this year (report earlier this year ("Healthy Lives, Healthy People") contained a number of disturbing statements suggesting that the government was taking the views of the tobacco industry seriously.

In turn, this has provoked BFTF into writing the following message (with slight amendments as required) to both Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health (web form here) and to Stephen Williams MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (email : stephenwilliamsmp@parliament.uk)

Dear Mr Williams
I would like to thank the Government and the APPG on Smoking and Health for setting targets for smoking reduction (as outlined in the Healthy Lives, Healthy People report of 9th March this year) and hope that you are able to achieve the reductions aimed for.

One aspect that does cause concern, however, related to proposals for plain cigarette packaging. . .

I note that the “Healthy Lives, Healthy People” report expresses concern regarding the efficacy of plain packaging, the increased risk of counterfeiting, and the issue of “competition, trade and legal implications”. Simon Shapman (professor of public health at the University of Sydney, Australia) has discussed some of these issues in a recent article in New Scientist (“Time to pack it in”, 30th April Issue, P22). As you are no doubt aware, Australia has released draft legislation to remove branding from cigarette packaging.

Efficacy
Regarding the efficacy of plain packaging he points out that, in Australia, Tobacco companies have poured some $10million into “a proxy campaign against the plan. . . from the hitherto unknown ‘Alliance of Australian Retailers’”. He adds that many Australians are wondering “if it won’t work, why is the industry bothering to waste its money campaigning to hard against it?”

Perhaps most persuasive are the words of a 2008 cover story in the Trade Journal ‘Tobacco Journal International’ which simply, and presumably accurately, said “Plain Packaging can kill your business”

I could go on – and on – regarding this point, but I hope that is not necessary.

Counterfeiting
Mr Williams, I would not wish to insult your intelligence by pointing out that the world is awash with counterfeiters who can mimic Levi’s jeans, Rolex watches and even entire Apple Computer Stores. They are unlikely to find the manufacture of a small cardboard box graced with a Silk Cut logo a particularly difficult hurdle to clear.

Legal Issues
According to Mark Davison, professor of law at Monash University in Victoria regards the intellectual property argument of the tobacco industry as being, “so weak, it’s non-existent” and that while WTO rules prevent others from using a trademark, they do not provide an absolute right to use it yourself.

In summary, I would encourage the APPG on Smoking and Health to resist the misleading arguments of the tobacco industry and submit legislation for plain packaging at the earliest opportunity.


Update Jan 2015
It's now over THREE YEARS since this post first started to cover the issue of plain cigarette packing, and it sickening that the UK government STILL hasn't introduced the relevant legislation - a tardiness that has not been seen in many other areas of Government health policy.

So exasperated has the UK's medical community become that some 4,000 health professionals have recently signed an open letter to the PM and Health Secretary concerned that PP legislation will not be introduced before the election, as had been expected.

Five times as many signed the letter as had signed a similar open letter supporting a ban on smoking in cars, a measure that the government, in contrast, will actually introduce.

The letter points out that:
"over half a million children have taken up smoking since the government first announced it would consult on plain standardised packaging of cigarette packs in 2011 and every day hundreds more join them”.

and also dismisses government claims that delays are due to the EU.

Meanwhile, in Australia, recent research looking at the effect of the 2012 introduction of plain cigarette (PP) packaging in Australia (see here) concludes that :

"Since implementation of PP along with larger warnings, support among Australian smokers has increased. Support is related to lower addiction, stronger beliefs in the negative health impacts of smoking, and higher levels of quitting activity."

The report also notes that support from smokers to the packaging changes has increased from 28% before the change to 49% today, with the strongest support was among smokers who intended to quit.

Co-author David Hammond comments that:
"The study adds to a growing evidence base that will reassure regulators that the sky will not fall if they introduce plain packaging, as the tobacco companies have suggested".

Sunday 28 August 2011

BFTF Washing Up Index

Whilst they may be great chefs, there is one aspect of cookery that Delia Smith, Jamie Oliver or Gordon "I can swear for England" Ramsey are always strangely silent on - the Washing Up.

Just as some dishes are easy to make and some are hard, so some dishes result in virtually no washing up at all - while other produce washing up that requires the use of jackhammers and a gritblaster to sort out.

Perhaps those celebrity chefs lead a charmed life, where there is always someone else to do the washing up - but BFTF (and no doubt yourself, dear reader) has to live in the real world where it would be good to know what the washing up implications of a particular dish were.

To help out with this, BFTF has compiled a "Washing Up Index", which is shown below. All the recipes on this blog will include a "Washing Up Index" rating, so that you know where you stand.

BFTF "Washing Up Index"
VERY HARDLots of stuff stuck to plates and dishes, significant soaking may be required, likely to clog sink
HARDLots of stuff stuck to plates and dishes, likely to clog sink
MEDIUMGood clean required but everything breaks up easily and does not clog sink
EASYSome care and a little elbow grease required
VERY EASYLittle or nothing to wash, everything comes off easily
It would be great to know if you have any dishes that have unusually low or high Rating on the Index. . .

Tuesday 3 May 2011

Framing the Debate

Framing – What is it?
Framing is an aspect of argument which takes advantage of the fact that words evoke frames (such as images or other information). Even negating a frame results in invoking it, thus telling someone not to think of an elephant results in them. . . thinking of an elephant.

Linguist and Cognitive Scientist George Lakoff , who teaches at Berkely, California (and has a distinctly Democrat leaning political view point), uses this exact example as the title of his book , “Don’t think of an elephant!” (Pub: Chelsea Green) and gives the practical example of Richard Nixon who, during the Watergate crisis, memorably said “I am not a crook” at which point everybody thought of him as a crook !

Lakoff describes this as a key aspect of framing- When arguing, do not use the language of the other side- it will use a frame and that frame won’t be the one that you want.

George Lakoff (source)

Another example given is that of the phrase “tax relief” used by George W Bush. Lakoff considers the framing for the word “relief” and comments that “For there to be relief, there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction, and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent “

Furthermore, “A conservative on TV uses two words, like tax relief. And the progressive has to go into a paragraph-long discussion on his own view. The conservative can appeal to an established frame, that taxation is an affliction or burden, which allows for the two-word phrase “tax relief”. But there is no established frame on the other side. You can talk about it, but it takes some doing because there is no established frame, no fixed idea already out there.”

Perhaps, if the Democratic party had been airing adverts for years to construct their frame, it would now be easier for them to argue their case. Lakoff gives an example of the kind of ad that might have put across a different perspective on taxes, ““Our parents invested in the future, ours as well as theirs, through their lives. They invested their tax money in the interstate highway , the internet, the scientific and medical establishments, our communications system, our airline system the space program. They invested in the future, and we are reaping the tax benefits, the benefits from the taxes they have paid. Today we have assets – highways, schools and colleges, the Internet, airlines that come from the wise investments they made.”

Or the following :
“Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership. If you join a country club or a community centre, you pay fees. . . otherwise (it) won’t be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda are not paying their dues to this country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traitorous to desert our country and not pay your dues”

US Interstate - built by taxes (source)

Lakoff comments that if you are faced with an opponent who is being disingenuous, you should point out what their real goal is and then reframe. For example, suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out the conservatives don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programmes – programs that invest in people, to help people help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on – the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other.”

In a nutshell, Lakoff recommends the following four guidelines for political debate:
Show respect, Respond by reframing, Think and talk at the level of values, Say what you believe

Capacity Building
Lakoff describes how the differing priorities of the conservative and liberal political groups has resulted in the conservatives dominating the media. He comments that “In the right’s hierarchy of moral values, the top value is preserving and defending the moral system itself. If that is your main goal, what do you do? You build infrastructure. You buy up media in advance. You do things like give fellowships to right wing law students to help them through law school”.

He elaborates on this by pointing out that “The right wing think tanks get large block grants and endowments. Millions at a time. . . These institutions build human capital for the future. . . the interns are building lifetime networks. . . These are social networks that will pay dividends for years and years. The conservatives who built the think tanks are not dumb people.”

In contrast, progressive foundations focus on providing direct services to people in need and are focused on providing the most help for the most people – and on ensuring that no money is wasted.

The Conservative Mindset
Lakoff describes the conservative mindset as being the “strict father model” which views the world as a place where people compete to succeed and where there are winners and losers. Critically, this mindset believes that, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant.

When translated to government social programmes, this mindset believes that “It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because they will then not develop discipline and will become dependent and immoral. . .if there are a lot of progressives in Congress who think that there should be social programmes, and if you believe that social programmes are immoral, how do you stop these immoral people. It is quite simple, what you have to do is to reward the good people - the ones whose prosperity reveals their discipline and hence their capacity for morality – with a tax cut, and make it big enough so that there is not enough money left for social programmes. By this logic, the deficit is a good thing. As Grover Norquist says “It starves the beast”’

Activating Models
Most people have both “strict father” and “nurturant” models to some degree. Thus, liberals are able to understand a John Wayne movie, whilst conservatives are able to understand a program like the Cosby Show. In addition, many people have different models in different aspects of their lives, for example “Reagan knew that blue-collar workers who were nurturant in their union politics were often strict fathers at home. He used political metaphors that were based on the home and family , and got them to extend their strict father way of thinking from the home to politics.”

An example of how this is done is given in the form of Frank Luntz, a conservative language expert. One of Luntz’s recent books of language guidlelines commented that the science was increasingly going against the conservative position on global warming, but that this could be countered by using the right language. “People who support environmentalist positions like certain words. They like the words “healthy”, “clean”, “safe” because these words fit frames that describe what the environment means to them. Therefore, says Luntz, use the words healthy, clean and safe whenever possible, even when talking about coal or nuclear power plants”

It’s the values, stupid !
Many politicians believe that if they just tell people the facts, then people will act according to their best interest and vote for them.

Yet, this is not what happens. For example ”In the 2000 election, Gore kept saying that Bush’s tax cuts would go only to the top 1% and he thought that everyone else would follow their self-interest and support him. But poor conservatives still opposed him.”

Cognitive scientists such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have shown , that people do not necessarily vote in their self-interest. Instead, they often vote their identity, or values, or who they identify with.

Results of the 2000 US election (source)

Foreign Policy
Regarding the “collateral damage” the has come with Us military adventures since 9/11, Lakoff comments that ““The argument the killing civilians in retaliation would make us as bad as them works for liberals, not for conservatives. The idealistic claim of the Bush administration that is the they intend to wipe out all terrorism. What is not mentioned is that the United States has systematically promoted a terrorism of its own and has trained terrorists, from the contras to the mujahideen, the Honduran death squads and the Indonesian military. Will the US government stop training terrorists? Of course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity? Not in terms of conservative morality and its view of good versus evil and “lesser evils (such as collateral damage and support for dictators)”. Indeed, Newt Gingritch has commented on the Fox network that “Retribution is Justice”.

Lakoff further describes the Iraq invasion as being viewed by the Bush administration as an invasion that “furthers our self-interest in controlling the flow of oil from the world’s second largest known reserve, and in being in the position to control the flow of oil from central asia. This would guarantee energy domination over a significant part of the world. The United States could control oil sales around the world. And in the absence of alternative fuel development, whoever controls the worldwide distribution of oil controls politics and economics”
*********************************

Thought it might be worth mentioning one of the most powerful examples of framing that BFTF has ever heard...

It comes from the Submarine Thriller "Crinson Tide" starring Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington, who play the Captain and Lt Commander respectively.

At one point they are having a formal dinner with the other officers and Washington is being quite cagey with some of his answers to questions, which provokes Hackman into saying the followng line :

"I don't mean to suggest that you're indecisive, Mr. Hunter. Not at all. Just, uh... complicated."

And, of course, what pops up in the viewers mind, despite Hackmans protestations, is that Hackman views Washington as being "indecisive".

Awesome.

Tuesday 22 February 2011

Families Forum



The Families Forum / Parents Circle is an organisation consisting of several hundreds of bereaved families, half Palestinian and half Israeli. The Families Forum has played a crucial role since its inception in 1995, in spearheading a reconciliation process between Israelis and Palestinians. The Forum members have all lost immediate family members due to the violence in the region. They campaign - very effectively - for peace and reconciliation and to promote the cessation of acts of hostility and the achievement of a political agreement

In 2006, two members of this organisation (Robi Damelin and Abu Ali Awwad) undertook a speaking tour of the UK, including two talks in Nottingham. BFTF was lucky enough to attend, record (and later transcribe) one of these events.


More Information on the Families Forum - Parents Circle can be found here:
UK Friends of the Bereaved Families Forum
Main Families Forum - Parents Circle Website

Robi Damelin:
So, there has to be something practical to this as well. I'm going to tell you a little about the work of the Parents Circle so that you get the idea that we are not such a huge group but we make a big noise.

One of the big dreams that we had was to get to a wider audience of peopel who wouldn't give a damn actually about what happens to Israel or the Palestinians. They're interrested in football, or Eastenders or the equivalent in Israel.

So we went to quite a middle of the line advertising agency. We decided to not go to a left advertising agency because they would come up with the flowers and the bad poetry. The agency came up with an idea for a TV series which would be a fictional drama something like, I don't know if you can remember, they had a programme called "Roots" which was abour African Americans and it made a huge impact in America on opinions.

This was a very expensive project so we applied to the Americans, very much tongue in cheek, but they actually gave us the money - nobody was more surprised than us! The second channel in Israel agreed to give us the other amount, not because they are such nice guys but it's because they have to make quality programmes - it's part of the agreement for them to get the licence to run their channel. It's the most popular channel and it (the series) is going to be broadcast on prime time. It will be in Arabic and Hebrew, which is unheard of on Israeli television on prime time. It will have Palestinian and Israeli actors.

It's going through teething pains as it has to be approved by both sides, the Palestinians have to agree and that there are no cultural faux pas in it and the Israelis have to agree and, you know, if you put three Israelis together they each have a different opinion and if you put three Palestinians together the same thing happens. so you can imagine that my grey hair started getting bigger by the month - but it's a wonderful project !

They will interweave some of the stories of the Parents Circle into the drama without people knowing that we had anything to do with it and at the end of the series they will show 'the making of' and then people will see that actually a lot of the stories are true and that's a good way for us to go out into the community and start spreading the message to people who have not listened to us before.

Mainly, we work in schools with 17yr old kids - we choose 17yrs old because it's the year before they go into the army. Over the year 2005 we did more than 1000 classroom dialogues. Which is a lot of kids, you can multiply that by 35 which is the average class.

The thing that we discovered was that these kids had never met a Palestinian in their lives (the ones in the Israeli schools) and the ones in the Palestinian schools had never met an Israeli out of uniform or who isn't a settler. It's extraordinary, you go into a class with a Palesinian from Dehaisha refugee camp and you ask these kids "Hi, this is Rehad Faraj from Bethlehem. He lives in Dehaisha refugee camp. Do you know what Dehaisha is?". They havent the faintest idea. "Do you know what a refugee camp is?" They also don't know (that). So through his personal narrative, Rehad tells them where he came from in 1948; what his daily life is like in Dehaisha; what his children live through every day. When they say that children learn to hate Israelis - they don't need to learn, they just need to walk around the streets of Dehaisha a little bit. I don't think they wold be terribly fond of us.

These school classroom dialogues are very valuable because what happens is that the same thing happens in Palestine. These kids have never met an Israeli out of uniform, as I told you, and they might say something outrageous to me like 'your child deserved to die' but you see, when soneone says that you need to look and see why they said such a thing. You know, if you were to look into the eyes of people who have lost children or family members you will see a certain look about them. And when I asked this girl why she was so angry and who did she lose in her family and she told me and then I realised why. And I asked her 'how was your mother throughout this whole thing and how did your aunt behave?' and, you know, we all experience the same pain. She came to me afterwards to say sorry. Most of the kids ask to meet each other and that is the incredible thing. It's like I have come here tonight and you could all go home, like after a sad television programme and do nothing or your could take responsibility for your own lives to protect yourselves in the future. Very much of what happens in my country affects your lives - and very muchof what's hapening could become very sad. I'm not here to tell the British what to do but I can say that what happens here affects me and that the life of Palestine and Israel is very much in the hands of America.

So, these kids ask to meet each other and that's absolutely the most amazing thing that could happen. We have a team of close to 50 people working on the education project going into the schools. We have a pilot project now, of meeting and spending the weekend together from Palestine and Israel and we discovered, of course, that they weren't really happy with each other. But now they have started to write to each other and they have started to invite each other with nothing more to do with us and that is the main thing, that's the most important thing - if they let us go and get on with it themselves.

We have a similar project which is sponsored by the European Union for adult education, because they did a lot of research in Ireland and they found that you have to work with adults as well - it's not enough to just work with kids. And we have had meeting is the refugee camps and in the posh areas of Israel - and it works! Ali works works with me on occasion and nobody wants to let him go afterwards.

And the same thing happens with the film - I hope we will be able to bring it to England - it's a film called Encounter-Point. It is made by an Israeli/Palestinian/American production team. You can look up their website, it's called justvision.com. They interviewed 180 Israeli and Palestinian peaceworkers and chose three organisations which they followed around for two and a half years and we were one of them. Ali and I went to the premiere in New York. There were 800 cynical New Yorkers there but they still clapped for half an hour.

When there are two sides talking with one voice - it works.

I hope that you can see it at the University. They promised that they will get at least 50 Jews and 50 Muslims - that there would be an equal number from both sides for the screening of this film. I hope that you get to see this film because it's a sense of inspiration that you get to do something in your own community. It's terrible easy to sit back and do nothing and wait for the Messaih. But he isn't coming soon from what I can see and we can't wait for any leaders to help us. It has to be people to people.

Ali and I have been thinking a long time about what to do in the Palestinian side to make a really good impact and we came to the conclusion that one has to go and talk to the political prisoners- because they have a tremendous influence on their own people. I went to a wedding the Minister of the Interior was there and I don't have any shame any more, I just do what ever I need to do for the organisation. It's incredible how I don't have any fear. You can put me anywhere, it doesn't matter. I said 'you know we have this kind of a project that we are thinking about and we want to work in the jails' and he said 'yes, it's a wonderful idea'. I was amazed.

So we are going to show the film to all the heads of the police when we get back and I am hoping that we can start looking at jails pretty soon and I'm very happy about that.


*********************************

An Israeli story

My name is Robi Damelin. I come from Tel Aviv and I lost my son David. He was a student at Tel Aviv University and he was studying for his masters in the Philosophy of Education. I don't suppose anyone can really understand what it is to lose a child. It's beyond anyone's comprehension actually because I thought that I understood and that I had empathy because there are many families in Israel and Palestine who have lost children and I make these kinds of visits but afterwards I apologised to other bereaved parents because I realised that I didn't understand what they were talking about and that my life would never be the same. And then I decided, 'What would I do with all this pain?' There are many choices that you can make.

When the army came and knocked on my door, the first thing that I said, which is really weird because I only heard about it afterwards was 'You may not kill anybody in the name of my child' and I suppose that that was already the beginning of the path that I was going to take.

All my life I have been working for causes of co-existence, you have probably already picked up the fact that my accent is South African. I came to live in Israel in 1967 and in those days, if you had said to me after I had fought in the anti-apartheid movement all through my life - my uncle was Nelson Mandela's lawyer - if you had said to me that blacks and whites would sit in the same room and look for a way to reconcile I would have said that you were insane. In fact this miracle actually happened and it is a miracle of South Africa. It isn't that South Africa is now this wonderful land of pink dreams - it's not. There is a lot of crime but when you think of the alternative of what could have happened there then you begin to realise that it was the miracle and I think the miracle could happen for us as well.

After David died I didn't know what direction my life was going to take. I didn't know that I couldn't go out on a path of revenge because in fact there is no revenge that you can take that will bring him back. Who would I kill? Who would I blame? Where does the anger come from? Did the sniper kill David because he was David? He killed him because he was a symbol, because if he had known David he could never have killed him.

The process of forgiving and reconciliation is a long and very painful one. It's a very personal journey that has a tremendous rippling effect. You will never know where it's going to take you. You see when you do this work there is a sense of having to know whether you are being completely honest. I spend a lot of time looking for anger and whether I was being genuine about what I was saying. And then the big test arrived.

The big test was that they caught the sniper that killed David. I though 'what am I going to do with all of this because if what I am saying is what I mean, then I have to go on a path to see whether I can find a way to reconcile and that's almost impossible. I was very influenced by the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa. I watched the movie, which I highly recommend to anybody, called "The long nights journey into the day" - it's not "a long days journey into the night". It's a documentary about the truth and reconciliation commission and discovered I could identify and I suddenly realised that by giving up on this anger or by looking for a path to reconcile, in many ways you stopped being the victim because you know, all the anger and the connection to the person that perpetrated the crime is really being under some kind of power that they have over you. It's so hard to explain because its something that much more "experiential" and not so much something that I can quantify and explain to you. So I think that in many ways if I read you the letter that I wrote to the family of the sniper, it might give you an insight into this path, because the path is not only personal, it has a rippling effect.

The rippling effect of forgiving is quite incredible. When I looked at South Africa I really realised that this is what they were doing, because it wasn't only for the mothers, the people who had lost children, it was also for other people to see that it was possible and it was looking for the humanity on the other side because we only see evil and good, we don't see grey in the middle. We just see bad and good and we don't see the story of the sniper - which we will come to - we don't see why people do these mad violent things. Look, I'm not a rainbows, flowers, bad poetry sort of person, but I do see the possibility. I do see that giving up would be the most terrible thing. It's quite extraordinary because when you see people who are the least likely of anybody you could ever meet in Israel or Palestine to go on this path and suddenly they are talking with once voice, it has an extraordinary effect on people. It brings a sense of hope and that maybe they can make a difference in their own communities.

We were in the university this afternoon and I was so moved by the meeting because there were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Palestinian, Palestinian Christian in the audience and we finished after an hour and they threw us out of the lecture hall and we all went to the cafe because they wanted to continue talking. We sat and spoke and I discovered that these kids had never ever spoken (to each other). A Palestinian had never spoken to a Jewish student. They started to stand in a group and they started talking to each other and taking each other's Emails and they decided that they were going to have a dialogue group. I got them to get off the politics and they are all going to tell their personal narrative for the first three or four weeks to get the empathy because you see, we are not a political organisation. Of course we are all political people but we are not affiliated to any political party and that is really very important for us because we don't want to be labelled as anything, and their are various opinions within the parents circle in any event.

So these kids suddenly discovered the humanity, they were talking on another level altogether and they promised me that the first few meeting would be to get to know each other.

There were kids there from Gaza. I know what it is to live in Gaza but I promise you that the kids in this meeting had never heard the pain of a kid living in Gaza, never heard his fear for what would happen to his parents if something happened.

And the Jewish kids would start to tell their stories about where they came from and why their parents left Lithuanian and how they got here and what happened to them and how they feel as a minority group.

It's so extraordinary when you tell that personal narrative. You can get off the history because we all live in our historical narrative. 1948 is the war of independence for the Jews and the state of Israel and it's the 'Nakba' (Catastrophe) for the Palestinians. And so we all read history as we wish. Look at the Balfour Declaration - you will see the two sides interpretation. Everything is seen through your own eyes. Now, when you know someone else's narrative - it doesn't mean you have to agree with it - but at least you know.

I mean, we live probably from here to where those cups are away from a Palestinian - and we never sat down to have a conversation.

Nobody knows the pain of the other. Nobody understand why Israel started and why all these people ran away and why it is a necessity to have a state at all.

Nobody sees the pain of the Palestinians. Nobody knows what the daily life is of having to cross a roadblock, of having the humiliation of having to always show papers, of having to ask permission to come to Israel.

Where do we have the empathy, this joint empathy, where we can look at both sides and say 'they have a shared pain'? You see, for Ali and I to sit together, we do share a pain- it's the deepest pain that you can have. We have also paid the highest price to say what we say and we are very lucky in that from many points of view the people in our communities are willing to listen to us because neither of us can be doubted as being loyal to their own countries - but still wanting a moral solution. So I think I'm going to read you the letter and I really ask you not to take sides. Please do not be pro-Israeli, please do not be pro-Palestinian. Just open your heart to a message that might bring a sense of empathy because where are we now - Nottingham? - you can have all these wonderful opinions but your children are not dying and your children are not standing at roadblocks. And you don't have to make these terrible decisions on a daily basis of what to do, and how to live your life and how to be moral. I know that you have had a little taste now of veils and crosses and everything to do with religious symbols. I am not all religious but I promise you that if someone said tomorrow morning that I could not wear the star of David I would go out and buy a star of David the biggest size I could find and I would walk around with it hear (on my chest) because you are pushing me into a corner - tell me I can't do something and I immediately feel threatened and that's when I'll immediately do it. So don't tell me I can't wear a veil, or I can't wear a cross or I can't do this. Come and talk to me. Come and tell me why it's painful. Come and explain why you are frightened of my symbols. Come and talk to me about labels and then maybe I won't feel so threatened that I have to wear a big symbol.

Do you know how many Muslims in the US started to wear the veil after 9/11? One needs to ask oneself why. Did they feel threatened? Was it suddenly having to announce your ethnic identity?

I was brought up in a very non-Jewish environment, in a convent believe it or not - nobody believes that when they know the way I behave! - and there were two Jewish kids in the whole convent and I was going to be Catholic because I thought it was much more romantic. I liked all the symbolism. When you are 13-14 it is much more sexy! But, just don't threaten me. Just accept me and talk to me and ask me why I feel the need now to show my symbol. Why is so important that I go off to my British Airways job with a large cross on my cravat? Why am I doing that? What makes it necessary for me to show you who I am?

Robi reads the letter she wrote to the family of the sniper who shot her son:

"This for me is one of the most difficult letters I will ever have to write. My name is Robi Damelin and I am the mother of David who was killed by your son.

I know he did not kill David because he was David. If he had known him he could never have done such a thing. David was 28 yrs old and he was a student at Tel Aviv University doing his masters in the Philosophy of Education. David was part of the peace movement and did not want to serve in the occupied territories. He had a compassion for all people and understood the suffering of the Palestinians. He treated all around him with dignity. David was part of the movement of officers who did not want to serve in the occupied territories but nevertheless; he went to serve when he was called to the reserves.

What makes our children do what they do? Do they not understand the pain they are causing? Your son by now having to be in jail for many years and mine who I will never be able to hold and see again. Or see him married. Or have a grandchild from him.

I cannot describe to you the pain I feel since his death and the pain of his brother and sister and girlfriend and all who knew and loved him.

All my life I have been spent working for causes of co-existence, both in South Africa and here. After David was killed, I started to look for a way to prevent other families, both Israeli and Palestinian, from suffering this dreadful loss. I was looking for a way to stop the cycle of violence. Nothing, for me, is more sacred that human life. No revenge or hatred can ever bring my child back.

After a year I closed my office and joined the Parents Circle Families Forum. We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian families who have all lost an immediate family member in the conflict. We are looking for ways to create a dialogue with a long-term vision of reconciliation. After your son was captured I spent sleepless nights thinking about what to do. Should I ignore the whole thing or will I be true to my integrity and to the work that I am doing to try and try to find a way for closure and reconciliation. But it is not easy for anyone and I am just an ordinary person, not a saint

I have now come to the conclusion that I would like to try and reconcile. Maybe this is difficult for you to understand or believe but I know that in my heart it is the only path that I can choose. For if what I say is what I mean then it is the only way.

I understand that your son is considered a hero by many of the Palestinian people. He is considered to be a freedom fighter, fighting for justice and for an independent viable Palestinian state.

But I also feel that if he understood that taking the life of another may not be the way and that if he understood the consequences of his act, he could see that a non-violent solution is the only way for both nations to live together in peace. Our lives as two nations are so intertwined. Each of us will have to give up on our dreams for the future of the children who are our responsibility.

I give this letter to people I love and trust to deliver. They will tell you of the work we are doing and perhaps create in your heart some hope for the future. I do not know what your reaction will be. It is a risk for me, but I believe you will understand as it comes from the most honest part of me.

I hope that you will show the letter to your son and that maybe in the future we can meet. Let us put an end to the killing and look for a way, through mutual understanding and empathy, to live a normal life, free of violence"

Thank you

************************************

A Palestinian story

Good evening. I would like to thank you for coming here because I think we are all involved in this conflict and this conflict has touched everybody, not just Israel and Palestine, but the whole world around.

My name is Ali Abu Awwad and I am from near Hebron. I came from a refugee family. I grew up in a very political house. My mother used to be very active in Fatah and she has been arrested four times. She was in prison for five years.

During the first intifada and I grew up and opened my eyes. I was 16 so I joined the intifada. It was my reaction against the Israeli occupation. I threw tonnes of stones and have done many things and have been in a prison for four years. My brother also and my other brother. Actually we have been very active.

After the Oslo agreement came we supposed that this agreement will give us peace and that it will also bring security for Israel but the Palestinian independent state has not been established through the agreement. Also the Israeli security was not perfect, so this agreement fell down and it took with it the whole hope of the people.

So people get to be involved and the second intifada was more violent, more hatred, more anger and today we have reached a number of five thousand families who are bereaved from both sides. Most of them are children and women.

One of them was my brother. He was killed by an Israeli soldier and he left a son and daughter. He was 31 years old. We were very close to each other. He used to take care of us. While we were in prison he left his school and he tried to help my father but even with the prison, even with being under occupation, it's different to losing somebody. So when I lost Yusuf, I lost the place of hope in myself. I came to be full of anger and hatred. I was angry with myself. I was angry with the Israelis, with the Jews, with the Arabs, with the peace - because all of those couldn't save Yusuf, including me. Yusuf was killed in an inhuman way. He was shot 70cm away from his head. I was in Saudi Arabia at the time because I had been shot by an Israeli settler in my knee. I still have 12 pieces in my leg reminding me of that, carrying them wherever I am going.

I couldn't imagine being allowed to go back to the same place where they kidnapped my brother, and for what? To cross the checkpoints again? To see the settlers again? Or to join Hamas or Fatah?

What to do?

I came back after 3 months and I realised, after 1 year, why I couldn't kill somebody. Today I know that very well - costing somebody else the same pain that I have is not easing my pain. Killing 1 or 2 or 10 Israelis is not leading my people to independence.

The other thing is that anything that I do will not lead to a psychological solution for myself, so I closed myself until I met the Israeli families and when I saw the religious Israeli father whose son had been kidnapped and killed by Hamas, I realised that if this man can, with all the price that he has paid, understand the rights of the Palestinian and if he can deal with this heavy pain of losing a son then everybody can.

Buy it depends, what is the way that we should follow, as Palestinians, to allow the Israelis to understand like this man, and what should the Israelis should do to understand our case.

So I found myself in this organisation, the Bereaved Families Forum, and day-by-day I became more understanding and open. I realised what is on the back of the soldier, what he is carrying when he comes to be an occupier. I think that before he becomes and occupying soldier he is carrying all the history of his people. He is carrying a fear, the holocaust and everything.

On the other hand, what is making somebody blow himself up in a bus, a restaurant? How can someone not care about his life or that of others? Is he a human or not. I think he is a human, but his guy has reached a point where, for him, life and death are the same. He doesn't care about his life - how can he care about others?

On the other hand, for all the things that we are talking about - to stop the suicide bomber or to remove the soldier from the checkpoint - we need to convince the soldier that occupying the Palestinians is not getting the Israelis security or to convince the suicide bomber that blowing yourself up is not leading to independence.

How to do this?

I think that all the people there, most of them, they want peace but the problem is that part of those people is smiling when there is a suicide bomber or giving an excuse for the occupying soldier.

Both behaviours are illegal, so why are we doing this?

I realised that is because we cannot deal with the pain because we don't know where to put the anger. The easiest way is to throw it to the other side. And the problem is that everybody is right. This side is right and that side is right.

So where is the wrong?

I think that because of this argument between the two sides who are right, the truth disappears.

I think that before forgiveness, being in a reconciliation process is so complicated because the life of both sides is not the same. It doesn't matter who is suffering more because pain is pain, tears do not have different colours, blood is the same colour. So losing somebody is the same from here or from there.

But because we do not know how to connect to this identity, we don't know how to be involved in our nationality, we are giving our behaviours the right to do whatever they want to do to each other, to do the most terrible things to each other.

But in the end, the end of life, nobody is taking Israel with him and nobody is taking Palestine with him. We are going the same way we were born, we aren't even taking our clothes with us.

So why. Life has more worth than death.

But to convince the people of that, people have to live and we will never live so long as we are not allowed to understand each other. It is not that the army will be able to stop the suicide bomber or the violence. It is not that the violence will lead to an independent state.

It is a decision for both sides. It is both sides understanding of the narrratives of each other, of the pain of each other.

If people are not even allowed to say hello for peace, peace will never happen. Even to sit together. I mean you can be angry, you can argue, you can fight, through your mouth - it's legal, because nobody dies in this war.

But being silent is costing us death. So why, why are we not allowed? Sometimes we are ashamed to even be in a peace movement in front of our people. It seems like we are performing a crime, like the peace movement became a crime - because we cannot deal with this hatred and anger.

And I think this is the time to finish and this is the time to have our responsibility because at the end, nobody will disappear. We have more than 12 million people there. I don't care which kind of political solution there is. If it is one state then there has to be a condition - you cannot decide for the other side and ask him to be convinced. The solution needs to come from both nations. If the Palestinians and Israelis agree to leave the area, that is okay!

Thank you very much.


***************************

Q&A
Robi Damelin:
Just one thing, I want to address the one state solution - not from a political point, as I told you, we would agree with anything that is agreed by both sides. What I do say about a one state solution is that in an ideal world that would be incredible. What you don't get is the Jewish psyche. What you don't get is that who will take the million Russian Jews and who will take the 200,000 Jews from Ethiopia and who will take the French Jews who are coming now and who will take the Argentinian Jews.

You see, if - in an ideal world- I could know for sure that England or, I don't know, France or Germany or Italy or any of these countries would immediately open their doors to refugees of Jewish background, nobody would be happier than me to have a one-state solution. Sorry, the Jews need a homeland - as sad as that is.

And I think, knowing what the Palestinians tell me, that at this point they also want an independant Palestinian state.

I wish it was an ideal world. If it was, was wouldn't be sitting here.

Question from the audience: Did you get a response to your letter?

Answer:
Robi Damelin:
Ali went along with someone to deliver the letter. Of course, they were very surprised. Ali told them about the families forum, told them about David, told them about me and then read the letter.

They were very moved and they said that if everyone could sign on that letter, there would be peace and they said that they were going to write me a letter, but it's going to take time. They have to go to their village, they have to talk to people, they have to be sure that their son want that and he has just finished his trial right now so I am hoping that it will happen. If it does it's the next step and its very painful.

This isn't something that jsut happens and you do it, its painful. The last time that Ali went to visit them my stomach was just going round the whole day. What happens if they don't want to? What happens if they do? How will I handle it? What will I do next?

I think that's your answer and I think that it works in a very rippling effect.

Ali Abu Awaad:
I'm showing (the letter) everywhere. I went to the Al-Aqsa Brigade and the military wings of Fatah because I know both of them very well - we have been in prison together. I went to them twice and I talked to them about Robi and the letter and the non-violence and so on.

People do not understand, not because of the hatred but because they cannot deal with their injustice. I cannot go to a Palestinian who is closed inside his village. . .sometimes I feel like I live in a Zoo, closed in - even for people who want to go to hospital.

These people want me to open the checkpoint tomorrow. I tell them that what I am doing is really to remove the checkpoint but can they promise me that the next day their will be no suicide bomber, for example?

And it is not the case that I am stopping you from defending yourself. You know, I'm Palestinian. I want my state, I'm against - absolutely 100% against - this occupation but the problem is that we have to live by the way that we react. So they need to see some understanding from the other side, otherwise don't ask the Palestinian who is living in this kind of life to understand your pain.

So this letter is allowing me - even today, Palestinian students came to Robi and to me and they told me "this is the first time we have heard an Israeli talking about our suffering under the occupation, and then she felt guilty because both sides have their reasons.

But I'm telling you, peace for Israelis is a continuation of life. Peace for Palestinians is to start living. We are not alive.

So this letter is allowing me to go to my people to show them that it could be effective. It works.

Through non-violence the hatred will not disappear, I cannot stop the anger, but we can use the anger for our humanity, not by killing each other. It's okay to be angry, you don't have to love the other side to make peace with them.

These are deep things that are very complicated, it is like lighting a candle in a dark tunnel. The candle will not make the darkness disappear, nor will it light up all our surroundings, but it CAN light your steps to get out of the tunnel.

It's not okay that the darkness will continue but until we can see our next step we cannot move from the darkness.

Until we understand what violence is doing for us as Palestinians, the occupation will not be ended.

Until Israelis undertand what it means to occupy another people, the violent behaviour will not stop.

So every side had its duty, not by saying a compliment, I'n not trying to be nice with the Israelis and I'm not asking the Israeli soldier to give me a flower because I know and I understand this deep feeling of being the son of a Holocaust survivor, or a Palestinian under occupation.

Saturday 15 January 2011

The First Post

This is the first post on the 'Building for the Future' blog.