As the UN report that China and India have together lifted 125 million people out of slums in the last decade, fears will continue to grow over the generation of 'Climate Change Refugees (CCR)' who will have to relocate to slums after the impact of climate change.
As India lifts many millions of people out of slums, they will now have to compete with the growing number of refugees fleeing the drowning lands of Bangladesh. Where can they live? And will India support the influx of CCRs? By the looks of things, no. India are still preventing their Eastern neighbours travelling over the border with their 2,500 mile barbed wire fence - unfortunately this doesn't stop those fleeing from trying to get over.
Climate change can also be blamed for the rise in natural disasters, which have devastated communities in Haiti and Sri Lanka. Without appreciating the seriousness of climate change and the potential devastation it will cause, how will the UN development goals to reduce the amount of people living in slum conditions actually be reached?
Films such as Slumdog Millionaire were scrunitised for glamorising slum conditions, however as the National Geographic reported, the number of people travelling to Mumbai increased - potentially resulting in people pledging donations to their cause.
Photographer, Jonas Bendiksen, displayed a good insight into life in the slums with his exhibition The Places We Live, where he not only photographed people living in the slums but spent two years experiencing them for himself.
He focused on the positives, stating his reason for the project as:
"When one thinks of a slum, one has this monolithic image of it is as a den of hopelessness, crime and poverty. But one billion people live in them today. I thought this bleak picture could not really be the case for everyone."
Although obviously the lack of sanitation in these conditions can lead to fatal diseases such as cholera, Benikson's exhibition gives a different perspective, it looks through the eyes of people living in slums.
Monday 22 March 2010
No, the BBC were right not to sugarcoat the issue of homosexuality in Africa
As the court in Malawi approves prosecution of engaged gay couple today and aid donors continue to condemn their imprisonment as well as the fact that homosexuality remains a crime in Malawi, the debate arises again about homosexuality in Africa.
The National Union of Journalists magazine this month commented that Peter Horrocks, the BBC's head of global news, had apologised for the corporation's approach to the debate on proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda.
The debate ran under the title, 'Should homosexuals face execution?' Which they later changed to 'Should Uganda debate homosexuality?'
The debate came about because the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was being debated that week by the Ugandan Parliament, which if agreed on would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. The original title was used by the BBC to “reflect the hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.”
Although the question was condemned for being too stark and offending, the issue of how African governments deal with the issue of homosexuality is one that needs to be discussed openly and honestly, not sugar-coated for those who can't handle the brutal reality.
The religious foundations many of the countries in Africa base their values and rules on is seriously affecting the freedom and democracy of citizens who are homosexuals. However disturbing and conflicting the question, 'Should homosexuals face execution,' is in our society, this is what the African communities regard as an acceptable punishment for a crime against God. The BBC World Service reaches out to audiences all over Africa and this question, for them, is a very topical debate which they are restricted from discussing in their own country.
It is essential we don't enter a discussion like this with the rational that the 'white man' knows best - otherwise this would be patronising to a continent that is trying to escape their reliance on the West. The discussion by the World Service meant that gays and lesbians from Uganda could openly discuss the implications the legislation has on their lives and this is the bottom line - the debate provided an opportunity for different opinions; the title of the discussion really is irrelevant in comparison to this.
The National Union of Journalists magazine this month commented that Peter Horrocks, the BBC's head of global news, had apologised for the corporation's approach to the debate on proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda.
The debate ran under the title, 'Should homosexuals face execution?' Which they later changed to 'Should Uganda debate homosexuality?'
The debate came about because the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was being debated that week by the Ugandan Parliament, which if agreed on would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. The original title was used by the BBC to “reflect the hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.”
Although the question was condemned for being too stark and offending, the issue of how African governments deal with the issue of homosexuality is one that needs to be discussed openly and honestly, not sugar-coated for those who can't handle the brutal reality.
The religious foundations many of the countries in Africa base their values and rules on is seriously affecting the freedom and democracy of citizens who are homosexuals. However disturbing and conflicting the question, 'Should homosexuals face execution,' is in our society, this is what the African communities regard as an acceptable punishment for a crime against God. The BBC World Service reaches out to audiences all over Africa and this question, for them, is a very topical debate which they are restricted from discussing in their own country.
It is essential we don't enter a discussion like this with the rational that the 'white man' knows best - otherwise this would be patronising to a continent that is trying to escape their reliance on the West. The discussion by the World Service meant that gays and lesbians from Uganda could openly discuss the implications the legislation has on their lives and this is the bottom line - the debate provided an opportunity for different opinions; the title of the discussion really is irrelevant in comparison to this.
Hunger-strike detainees suspend protest
The hunger strike at Yarls Wood ceased after it's sixth week this Friday when detainees put forward their demands to the UK Border Agency.
Unfortunately these demands have failed to surface in British media, and are likely to disappear into the shadows as the Government's embarrassment over the situation triumphs.
The protest was a result of 50 woman being held for over two years in the removal centre after arriving from war-torn/unstable countries such as Nigeria. The detainees claim staff in the centres have physically, mentally and racially abused them, however, David Wood, director for criminality and detention, told the BBC: "All detainees are treated with dignity and respect, with access to legal advice and heath care facilities."
To take Wood's statement and place in alongside the notion of a removal centre, ridiculeshis use of the word's 'dignity' and 'respect.' Surely detaining them in the first place is a crime against humanity? The trauma they have potentially suffered prior to arriving in Britain is magnified if left sat staring at white walls and barbed wire fences for two years.
For years the British Medical Association has called for improved support for asylum seekers when they enter the UK. It determined in 2002 that the psychological impact of torture, rape or war is extreme for those who have fled their own countries - alongside the emotional difficulties of death, leaving their home country and culture differences. As a result of not having the resources or expertise to tackle the psychological issues asylum seekers and refugees experience, Britain could have a huge problem on it's hands in the next few years.
The hunger strike will be recommence if demands are not considered by those who detain them. One demand is:
*To end the detention of children and their mothers, rape survivors and other torture victims, to end the detention of physically, mentally sick people and pregnant women for long period of time.
Henry Porter wrote about the detention of children on his comment-is-free page entitled 'We are shockingly complacent about locking up 2,000 children a year' (The Guardian, October 18, 2009). A good, but very rare article, stating the chilling fact that the children detained by the UK Border Agency are usually held for a longer period than those suspected of terrorism (42 days).
Unfortunately these demands have failed to surface in British media, and are likely to disappear into the shadows as the Government's embarrassment over the situation triumphs.
The protest was a result of 50 woman being held for over two years in the removal centre after arriving from war-torn/unstable countries such as Nigeria. The detainees claim staff in the centres have physically, mentally and racially abused them, however, David Wood, director for criminality and detention, told the BBC: "All detainees are treated with dignity and respect, with access to legal advice and heath care facilities."
To take Wood's statement and place in alongside the notion of a removal centre, ridiculeshis use of the word's 'dignity' and 'respect.' Surely detaining them in the first place is a crime against humanity? The trauma they have potentially suffered prior to arriving in Britain is magnified if left sat staring at white walls and barbed wire fences for two years.
For years the British Medical Association has called for improved support for asylum seekers when they enter the UK. It determined in 2002 that the psychological impact of torture, rape or war is extreme for those who have fled their own countries - alongside the emotional difficulties of death, leaving their home country and culture differences. As a result of not having the resources or expertise to tackle the psychological issues asylum seekers and refugees experience, Britain could have a huge problem on it's hands in the next few years.
The hunger strike will be recommence if demands are not considered by those who detain them. One demand is:
*To end the detention of children and their mothers, rape survivors and other torture victims, to end the detention of physically, mentally sick people and pregnant women for long period of time.
Henry Porter wrote about the detention of children on his comment-is-free page entitled 'We are shockingly complacent about locking up 2,000 children a year' (The Guardian, October 18, 2009). A good, but very rare article, stating the chilling fact that the children detained by the UK Border Agency are usually held for a longer period than those suspected of terrorism (42 days).
In an interesting turn of the table, Porter dips into the mind of a child asylum seeker and states:
"These experiences of loss and capture and imprisonment are at the centre of every child's nightmares and here we have the British state, spurred by all the bureaucratic malice of the Labour era, acting in the manner of Roald Dahl's child-catcher."
Another British journalist to consider life from the other side is Chris Cleave who wrote The Other Hand: a novel based on a young Nigerian girl who flees her country, is placed in a detention centre and then escapes.
Chris Cleave was one of the first people 'from the outside' to enter Yarls Wood, he took the job of caterer there while he was at university. Cleave didn't know what the centre was for and when I interviewed him, he spoke about how he kept asking the detainees what terrible things had they done to end up in there. It was only when he came out he realised what the detention centre was for and since then has been protesting against it's removal.
Although the government have been critised for the use of removal centres, a report on the UK Border Agency website last year confirmed more removal centres will be put in place:
Expanding the number of removal centres is a critical part of the UK Border Agency's plans to increase the rate of removal of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, and to allow the fast removal of those who come to the United Kingdom and break the rules.
So for now, this seems to be the only method Immigration see feasible, and if the public continue to overlook the atrocities that take place in the centres then the border agency can rest assured their actions won't be questioned.
The Altruists?
In an interview for the position of aid worker with the International Committee of the Red Cross applicants are asked, “What are you running away from?” For someone to uproot their lives and travel to third world countries, they must have passionate or slightly unusual motives. To some the idea of visiting a post-disaster environment or seeing poverty first-hand would be about as appealing as Delhi-belly, for others it’s their lifeblood. Hannah Gurney looks at what motives people have for moving to third world countries.
Over the years, the number of people travelling to developing countries to volunteer or offer their expertise in work placements is on the rise. VSO, a charity that has about 1600 professional volunteers travelling to 42 of the world’s poorest countries, found the number of enquiries into volunteering with them had doubled from 2007 to 2008. But why do people have the desire to leave their home and be placed in uncomfortable, sometimes distressing environments?
Sandy Scott, life coach at Vive ut Vitas, believes there are two stages when people seek out the experience of volunteering in developing countries.
She says the first stage is, ‘Middle aged people who have worked hard their whole lives but have become disillusioned and feel there is no point in carrying on. Many have stayed with the same company for years and expected to be there until retirement but during the recession they have lost their jobs and feel there is little hope of finding another similar position.
‘It’s very common for people in this situation to look for something meaningful in their lives and somewhere they will be respected and feel useful. Working or volunteering in developing countries can give them a renewed sense of purpose and increase their self worth by giving back a form of status they lost when they left their job.’
Throwing it all up in the air
Sarah Griffith, 51, is founder of the Bridge to Sri Lanka charity. She has visited Sri Lanka 31 times in five years to help rebuild the lives of those affected by the tsunami. She recently took volunteers over to Haiti to provide aid and support to the earthquake’s victims. Her story draws similarities to Sandy’s ‘first stage’ theory.
“I had a job I was disillusioned with, my father had just died, my marriage had broken down, I was in a bit of a hole really. As I watched the Asian tsunami from the comfort of my sofa feeling sorry for myself, I realised my problems were fairly insignificant in relation to theirs,” Sarah explains. ‘And so I thought, “Bugger it, I’m just going to throw it all up in the air!”’
Prior to setting up her own charity, Sarah worked with local charities including Multiple Sclerosis Society and Relate Ltd, a marriage guidance organisation. She admits her decision to focus her efforts globally was due to the breakdown of her relationship, but since volunteering in post-disaster zones she has a different outlook on life.
‘My house is going to wreck and ruin because I would rather spend money on those less fortunate than on material pleasures. I am driven by what I see and do everytime I go over to these places and that’s my motivation to carry on,’ Sarah expresses.
While some people need a change in their lives after experiencing certain crises, Sandy described another stage in life when people crave the challenge of volunteering overseas.
‘They are in the twentysomethings category, they’re people who have seen their parents conform to expected behavior their whole lives and have seen them experience divorce, redundancy, stress and illness. Many have simply decided this is not for them and their failure to find the jobs they aspired to after graduation has left them in search of something they consider worthwhile,’ Sandy determined.
So instead of ‘running away’ from broken marriages or claustrophobic jobs, Sandy sees volunteering as enabling them to combine travel with new experiences and to put off any thoughts of settling down or growing up until much later in life. This could be associated with the rise of people taking gap years and career sabbaticals.
Resisting conventions
Fresh from graduating at Cardiff University, Hannah Furby, 22, was heading for a career in cognitive psychology; she set up her own fundraising idea, The Happy Bus, instead. Her plan is to buy a bus and drive round Africa, teaching English, playing games and doing activities with the children she encounters on the way.
‘The attitude people have of, ‘What difference can one person make?’ Is why I disagree with certain attitudes of people in the West. People use the excuse that charity starts at home, but then those people aren’t even donating money to local charities. If I can bring happiness to just one child in Africa, even if it’s only for a short time, then I’ll carry that with me forever.’
Will it 'make a difference'?
Mark Aquilina, however, believes that going to third world countries with the objective to ‘make a difference’ could leave volunteers disappointed.
Mark, 50, is a doctor from the Shetland Islands. He spent two years working with VSO in Namibia, 15 years ago.
‘I knew what I didn’t want to do and that was to have my life in the UK set out in front of me. I had the chance to experience things in Namibia that I would never have had to deal with as a doctor in the UK. You end up gaining far more than you give back without even realising.
‘I use the analogy of a hand in bowl of water, it will create lots of mess but when you take your hand out the water soon calms down. That’s the affect people have to the communities they work in, any changes made will soon disappear after they’ve left.’
Anne Sieve, the Southern counties representative on the UK board of United Nations, has dedicated her life to looking at the long-term rather than short-term solutions of improving conditions in the third-world.
‘The VSO volunteers used to teach English to all former British colonies, to people who were the elite of the country because if you could speak your tribal language and English then you were more likely to receive an education. So VSO only actually touch a tiny, elite minority of whichever country they go into. ‘
'You do what you can where you are'
After spending years involved in International aid charities, Anne now involves herself in more domestic charities.
‘You do what you can where you are. I had an international career and my husband and I thought we would have an amazing life going abroad, but my husband developed dementia and I became a carer – that’s why I set up the charity AdvoCare which protects the rights of people living in residential care facilities,’ Anne said.
People’s motives for travelling to developing countries to volunteer or work can differ from person to person. What is perhaps somewhat ironic is that by going away and offering help to people living in poverty, the volunteers are arguably gaining far more than they put in. Sometimes what can be disguised as a selfless act actually has dark intentions? Such as the ten members of The Baptists' Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission who illegally tried to adopt 33 children out of Haiti and into their religious organisation. However, with this example aside is volunteering or working in developing countries for personal gain such a bad thing if an impoverished community benefits? No, because as Sarah Griffith said, by gaining something from it you will always the best bits of yourself.
Sunday 17 January 2010
No excitement. No edge.
I just read this quote by Rian Malan, the South African journalist and author, who once made a spiky defence of Johannesburg in a British newspaper (as quoted in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/15/sterkfontein-caves-south-africa)
"Foreigners think we are nuts, coming back to a doomed city on a damned continent, but there is something you do not understand: it is boring where you are.
"You will probably live longer than us and acquire more possessions, but there is no ferment in your societies, no excitement, no edge. Your newspapers are bland and your politics are inconsequential, so many storms in teacups."
I think there's a lot of truth behind these words that goes hand-in-hand with the proverb:
"it's better to live one day as a tiger than a thousand as a sheep."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
