Nar fityai*

It still amazes and irritates me in equal doses that some Western journalists think they can visit countries in Africa for relatively short periods, return home and and sum up complex societies with multiple cultures, people, and languages in a 1000 words or less. Even more incredulous is that these 'so-called' experts have spent all of a few months  or even weeks in the country, do not speak the local language nor understand the cultures and yet are quite comfortable writing accounts full of inaccuracies or worse still, laced with racial stereotypes.


One such article comes from a Simon Akam, Reuters correspondent in Sierra Leone who had been in the country for less than a year when he wrote this 'in depth' piece about the locals: http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/akam_07_11.html


Fortunately someone, a British resident, who has spent years in Sierra Leone and has had the opportunity to witness change and observe the country beyond the superficial and often sensational accounts often found in the Western media saw fit to respond to Mr. Akam regarding his article.


Mike Warburton took issue with a number of inaccuracies in Mr. Akam's piece and wrote to him initially making general observations:

I have seen your recent piece on Sierra Leone. As a British resident of Freetown (as opposed to a short-term contracted ex-pat worker) I can say that it comes across as a typically superficial piece by a Western journalist who has spent his time in bars listening to the complaints and rumours of non-residents. It contains so many howling inaccuracies (which are too numerous to list) that, despite its upbeat ending, it has caused considerable offence among those of the local community unlucky enough to read it.

To pick only one gross error at random, your description of St George's Cathedral as a "colonial relic" hardly fits a thriving church where attendances number hundreds of local people including senior public figures, and a dynamic clergy who are far from being slavishly subservient to Canterbury. Your stylistic device of attempting to link the Victorian English of the cathedral memorials (which are the subject of great historical pride to the descendants) with aid agency jargon and Krio seems merely pretentious and serves no purpose.

In response to Mr. Akam's challenge for him to point out the inaccuracies in his article, Mike went on to say:

The nearest match to your use of "relic" to describe Freetown Cathedral that I can find in my various dictionaries is in Collins, " an object or custom which has survived from an earlier age". I dare say that Stonehenge fits this description, but you would not describe Heathrow Airport as "a relic of the early fifties" unless you were being pejorative.

The problem with the article is that it is couched entirely in terms of your short-term perceptions, rather than taking account of what has actually taken place in the recent past. I stress that I have no party political allegiance in Sierra Leone (or elsewhere), but you make no mention at all of the strenuous and fairly successful efforts of the Koroma government to encourage international investment in the last four years. Were you aware of, and did you attend the government's investment forum shortly after you arrived? I did, and it was well organised and well attended by potential investors from both in-country and abroad. It was a good opportunity to get a broad perspective of the Koroma government's economic development programme, as well as hearing how it is "spun" for international and domestic consumption. In terms of the infrastructure alone, progress has been considerable in the last four years. In default of a properly thought out platform, the opposition SLPP are courting the international media to try to represent that Sierra Leone has retreated from the golden age of their last term in office, which is, of course, nonsense.

There are not "countless" NGOs in Sierra Leone. There is a list which can be obtained of all NGO-type agencies. There have been very substantial reductions in recent years from a peak in about 2004. At that time, I organised an informal traffic survey which tended to show that 13% of all vehicles on the roads were owned by the UN, NGOs, etc, which had a major adverse effect on traffic. Clearly there has been a great reduction in this area. There are no longer any UN troops in Sierra Leone. The most telling indicator is that the UN have downsized their headquarters here from the Mami Yoko Hotel at Aberdeen, a very large modern hotel, to the Cabenda, a fairly small family-owned hotel in Signal Hill which the UN now leases.

Regarding your comments about NGO-speak infiltrating the local language, this is by no means a unique issue to Sierra Leone. All languages are subject to outside influences. English is particularly vulnerable to journalistic cliché, for example. "Capacity building", while a hackneyed expression, is the real issue here because of the tendency to hire in expatriates on short-term contracts who then do the project, trouser the money and go home. The real need is for people who can commit longer-term to ensure that the Sierra Leoneans who take their places can be mentored until they are fully up to speed in their roles.

Your description of sensitisation as white people telling black people not to do what they have always done is typical of the lazy, patronising attitude of many in journalism and academe where African matters are concerned. Your assertion that wife-beating is rife is not born out by the facts. It is a current issue which the government and police are taking measures to deal with. Certain areas of the country are historically more prone to this for cultural reasons, but it is certainly not endemic. One might as well say that wife-beating is rife in London or Glasgow. It undoubtedly takes place, but it's not a national sport as you imply.

I have met Aminata Forna and I have read some of her work. I have to say that, having had recent administrative dealings in both the UK and Sierra Leone, my experience is that bureaucratic processes here are usually easily accomplished, often with considerably courtesy. It is Britain whose large institutions, both public and private, are creaking with staff cuts, arbitrary reductions of service, etc.

The Western diplomat who suggested to you that local people believe NGO jargon has near-mystical powers was either joking or else he should get out of his office more. There is a minority of expatriates who live in expatriate suburbs and never dare or deign to go into the centre of Freetown. If you know London, this is like living in Cockfosters without ever going to Whitehall or Piccadilly. I have always found that most Sierra Leoneans are extremely politically aware.

There is a widespread acceptance of traditional healing and magic, but as in any business the practitioners are adept at making inflated claims of their own effectiveness to encourage clients to use their services (see internet). Where did you get the story about the "witch guns" being found at Freetown Airport? This was clearly cooked up for foreign consumption because a "witch gun" is not a piece of equipment. It is the actual spell that the practitioner will put on someone to do them harm, etc on behalf of a client, who will of course pay for the service. What were the traditional healers doing at the airport? Using their magical powers to help Security and Customs detect prohibited items?

My personal opinion is that much traditional medicine/magic is a historical form of social control on the lines of "something nasty will happen if you steal/commit adultery/damage my crops" etc. I have seen a Baton man at work. He is the traditional thief catcher who will do a ritual to find out, say, which of your employees has stolen a missing item. When I saw this done, the body language of the test subjects made it fairly obvious which of the group were the likely suspects. I have also met someone who claimed to be able to turn into a crocodile. I resisted the temptation to say "Go on, then!"

One could make a case either way regarding Krio's status as a "proper" language, but the point is that many people of small education only speak Krio, rather than speaking English and using Krio out of custom. Krio is the day-to-day language for almost everyone in Freetown, and like speaking French in Paris it is regarded as good manners to have some grasp of it. It is very useful as a bridge to the languages of other parts of the country like Mende, Temne and Limba. It should be remembered that Krio has probably only been a written language since World War 2 and wasn't taught in schools until at least the 1970s, so it's development can't be compared with that of English or French. It does have a certain global spread, being spoken in Jamaica, Mauritius, Cameroun and the sea islands of South Carolina where it is called Gullah.

Personally I have never struggled with the orthography of Krio. Having once gone to a church service to find that it was all in Krio, I used the service sheet to identify a hymn with which I was familiar, and after about ten minutes I had understood the pronunciation of the additional characters, and I could take a full part in the service. The Krio word for "breast" is actually spelt "bohbi", pronounced "bobby", "mummy" is spelled "mami" and all my Krio-speaking contacts assert that the Krio word for "sex" is in fact "sex".

Despite the oppressive negativity of most of your article, your final paragraph approximates to an upbeat summary of the current situation. The offensive aspect of your piece is that it completely fails to deal with what has actually been achieved. The fortitude of the people in circumstances which would have many English people running to appear on therapy-based TV shows is a never-ending source of inspiration. A friend of mine was present when Robin Cook came to Sierra Leone as Foreign Secretary. He was taken to see a school where the headmaster, who had had both hands amputated, was energetically putting the school back together. My friend asked him "Don't you ever despair of the situation you're in?" To which the headmaster replied "Well, what do you expect me to do...give up?"

If your article had been written in about 2003 it would have been very accurate, but we have come a very long way since then.

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

In an earlier email Mike had written:

In short, as a guide to current conditions in Sierra Leone, your article is about as valuable as Borat's pronouncements would be to a person seeking advice on modern-day Kazakhstan.

Despite this gratuitous affront to the population of Sierra Leone, many of whom have suffered hardship and danger that you could not imagine, I am very willing to meet you if you are still in country to give you accurate advice on the situation here so that you do not commit the same errors in future writings about this country. Please do not hesitate to contact me. 

I hope for the sake of all Sierra Leoneans that Simon Akam will take Mike up on his offer and if he takes anything away from these email exchanges, it should be his lack of respect for a complex country inhabited by sixteen ethnic groups who each speak their own language reflects more on his journalistic abilities than it does the people he pretends to portray. Just as it would be absurd for a Nigerian journalist with little grasp of the English language, to land in England and six months later attempt to sum up the country's problems in 998 words account which passes itself off as a factual piece, so is it equally absurd for this article to be published and offered up as a respectable piece of journalism.

*'The cheek of it!' (loosely translated from Krio, the lingua franca of Sierra Leone)

Is the jury really still out?

Can I just say in my defence that I've resisted weighing in on the case against Dominique Strauss Kahn for some weeks now. The reason for this was primarily because  there is no shortage of so-called factual accounts and opinion pieces on the matter. Everyone seems to be adding their two cents worth of what they think happened or didn't happen, and who they believe is credible etc etc. I feel as though it's all getting a little tired to use a popular expression. So forgive me for going back on my word but as the media backlash gets nastier with Le Monde deciding to publish a photo of DSK's accusatrice together with an account of a visit to her impoverished village, I can't help but express my opinion and outrage at what's being bandied about in the media, both American and French.

So we've all read theories from the claim that the whole affair is part of a rather cunning plan by DSK's political opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy to the stories of DSK's Accuser being a dishonest sex worker who lied on her asylum application and associated with a known drug dealer. It's been quite a 180degree turn from most of the press; the story started with a woman that was a devout muslim and became one of someone that could not be trusted because she had lied about her asylum application and made reference to her intention to benefit from DSK's wealth in a private conversation. To be fair though, the French media has been consistent in condeming her and doing their best to reveal her identity in order to secure the backlash. Having said that, their stance was in part to do with their rivalry with the Americans and their treatment of the would-be French President; from the dreaded 'perp walk' (the parading of an Accused person for all to see) to the moral high ground many Americans took over French attitudes towards "ow you say...ze sexual indiscretions" of a public figure.

Without wanting to go into the merits of the case itself, there are some issues that I feel in desperate need of a healthy dose of realism.

Starting with the District Attorney's doubts about her account which have stemmed from the lies she told on her US asylum application - which somehow means that she could not be truthful about a rape and by extension anything else, even if a rape allegation is supported by physical evidence. In effect what such a conclusion suggests is that if there was bruising consistent with someone having grabbed her private parts (which is what was alleged), this would be worthless evidence because she had lied on a matter completely unrelated to these events.

Secondly there's the issue of a private conversation she had a day or two after the incident which reveals that she was at that time aware of DSK's status and wealth and hoped to benefit from it - for argument's sake let's assume she is in effect a gold-digger. If my memory serves me, there have been countless women who approached rich men (assuming this was the case although there's no evidence to suggest it), and were subsequently raped by them - remember Mike Tyson who was convicted of raping a beauty pageant queen who visited him in his room at 2 a.m. Likewise English footballers will attest to the countless women who've accused them of rape which often took place in these men's hotel rooms. Yet the location and the women's  motives for going there in the first place did not dissuade prosecutors from bringing rape charges. Perhaps the standard for rape has since changed but the last time I checked, telling lies in an unrelated matter and being a gold-digger does not bar a person from being a credible rape victim, ...until now that is.

The notion of having lied on one's asylum application is too laughable to even discuss in detail. It's like being told that people lie on their CVs...... - to which my response would be: "no shit Sherlock" . Yes people lie on asylum application because their futures are on the line - often times it's a choice between economic hardship and opportunities to better their lives and the lives of their families. How is that any different to the countless middle class parents who lie to get their children into one school or the other? Surely lying for personal benefit whether it's to secure the right to remain in a country or to secure a better furture for our children is something we're all familiar with whether we care to admit to it or not.

Another matter that has me asking 'wtf' stems from the fact that Dominique Strauss-Kahn has never denied having sex with his Accuser. So whether this was a set-up or not, his lawyers can confirm that she didn't make up the fact that there was some kind of sexual act; the question that arises is whether it was consensual or not. Now while I appreciate that tastes vary, can someone please confirm the number of times they've seen a young attractive woman jump on an old pot-bellied man simply out of an uncontrollable sense of attraction? Granted there may well be exceptions to the rule but generally the older man-younger woman equation involves atleast one other element, - money. Yet DSK is not saying that he paid her for sex or that she even asked him for money and he refused but that consensual sex simply happened So I have to conclude that she found him so irresistible that she thought 'Yeah...why not random old naked man in room I'm cleaning, why don't I just have sex with you, that sounds like a fun thing to do.' I mean really? Really people? What are the chances? Or have I missed a new trend? Are old men the new Brad Pitt/Boris Kodjoe?

Whatever the outcome of the trial, if in fact the case goes to trial, I wish the media would just stop the hypocrisy and double standards. Either we have certain standards that we uphold regardless of who we're dealing with or we don't. We cannot have a 'No means no!' motto for certain victims of rape and have a 'Well it depends on what kind of a person you are' for others. Let's deal with the facts pure and simple and if race and power are going to come in to play then for goodness sake, let's call it like it is instead of hiding behind lies and false theories.

If this is Capitalism, then call me a Socialist!

Tomorrow will mark two years since Barack Obama took office as President of the United States and today the House Representatives voted to repeal his Health care reform bill which many will argue is his greatest achievement to date.
So why repeal it?....to most Europeans it seems like a 'no-brainer' to use an American term, yet the US population are divided on whether everyone should have the right to decent and safe healthcare irrespective of their financial situation. To be very frank I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm missing something but I find myself asking whether this is what true Capitalism looks like?

Simply put Capitalism is defined as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." (Source Oxford Dictionary Online) Socialism on the other hand, advocates public or common ownership and management of resources.
With Capitalism comes a tendency for a more individualistic society - as money is king ultimately, we must all work towards making more of it, even if this is to the detriment of others. Contrary to what Fox News would have their dimwitted audience believe, countries in Europe follow the Capitalist model rather than the socialist one, however most Europeans understand and appreciate the need for the State to intervene in order to protect vulnerable members of society. Hence Europeans' bewilderment about public opposition to the US Healthcare reform bill. I suspect there is also a widely held belief shared by most decent human beings that certain rights must not be compromised, rights such as access to  food, education and yes healthcare!
In African societies, it is a given that we take care of our extended families - and although this can prove burdensome at times for able-bodied and better off family members, it results in closer and stronger family bonds and everyone in society from the young to the old feel cared for.
In European countries where nuclear families are more common,  people still accept that they have an obligation to contribute towards a better society, i.e. by paying their taxes or other social contributions. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people don't complain about this or at times about able-bodied people who 'sponge off' society, they certainly do. Nonetheless I've yet to hear someone bemoan the fact that unemployed or poorer members of society are receiving free healthcare which their taxes pay for. It just seems like a very odd thing to me in a so-called civilised and developed country. Such an attitude furthers the rich poor divide and although such disparity is something the Western media documents as representative of developing countries, the images post Hurricane Katrina tell us quite something else. I wonder though if the Americans who complain about having to fund healthcare simply choose to ignore the adverse effects of a society where companies thrive at the expense of the poor and sick or where the wealthy can afford the best medical treatments while the poor and struggling have to choose between their health and say the roof over their heads.To date the main and only valid argument I've heard from those opposed to Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is that it will mean a rise in their taxes. Although there are other gripes, such as the fear of government using healthcare funding for abortions and the government taking over and operating a second rate healthcare system - such arguments have been rebutted unequivocally. The crux of opponents' argument therefore is that they are expected to susidise through their taxes those with the greatest need which simply put reflects an 'everyman for himself' attitude.

Before the Act came in last year, 46 million Americans were without health insurance, children with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage, and insurers could cancel your policy retroactively because of an unintentional mistake on your application. The Act has addressed these and many more issues so what exactly is so objectionable about it?
I understand that American Society thrives on hard work and for many people, success has come as a result of sheer drive and determination. This is an admirable quality and why the country is still viewed as the land of opportunity. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that the 'lazy and privileged' also exist. There are those who were born into 'money' whose paths have been carved for them and who are where they are today simply because of their heritage. I can think of a few former US Presidents to illustrate this point. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that the vulnerable among us should be denied assistance when there was never a level playing field to begin with. If we all started on an equal footing, this argument may be somewhat persuasive but even then.... as we say in Africa 'No one knows what tomorrow will bring'. There are times when in spite of our best efforts we find ourselves in need of a helping hand; there have been stories of people whose lives were turned upside down following a redundancy. There are those who recognise that all  it will take is a few missed mortgage payments for them to find themselves without a roof over their heads and in need of assistance.

It's one thing to deny people financial support but quite another to refuse them healthcare when they are at their most vulnerable. Healthcare should be a right not a privilege and if supporting a system that provides a more equitable system where companies are not allowed to exploit the vulnerable, means being accused of Socialism, then that is a badge I will proudly wear.

Cyberspace - the new mask for hatred

They call themselves critics or commentators, I prefer the term cowards. I refer to those who hide behind cyberspace in order to voice their hate-filled and often obscene ideas. Pick any website from news sources like guardian.co.uk to gossip ones like dailymail.co.uk to Youtube, social networks like Twitter; take a moment to read some of the comments made by people in response to contributors' opinions and postings and chances are your blood will run cold.

Human beings seem capable of expressing such loathsome ideas, and of so much hatred often in response to some of the most trivial things when there is no fear of them having to defend their ideas publically. It reminds me of the Klu Klux Klan and their masks as they carried out lynchings and like that, it smacks of cowardice whichever way we look at it.

I am a firm believer in standing by your convictions, however unpopular. If you believe in something you should have the courage to defend it. If however a person is simply harbouring hateful ideas which have no place in society and cannot be defended then rather than using the internet which can be a positive and progressive tool, they should consider keeping those thoughts locked in their warped mind or better still think about speaking to a professional about their issues.

I enjoy using the internet, emailing, blogging and keeping in touch with friends and family; my work is almost entirely reliant on this medium. Yet the internet also frightens me ....quite a lot; hence the decision to not include my personal details in this blog. In the past, I've been the object of hateful and anonymous email messages whose origin I have no idea of, more than two years later. I also limit my children's exposure to the internet because of the number of psychos who I believe reside in cyberspace.
I once found a Youtube video of the Little Mermaid which started with the character Ariel singing only for it to morph into some 'nutter' launching into his own version of 'Part of your world' whilst gyrating in front of his webcam. Clearly he did this in order to lure children who would expect to see a full version of the Disney classic and would instead end up viewing some deranged grown man clearly in need of his medication or locking up for all our sakes.
On another occasion I pulled up a video again on Youtube of the Kidz Bop version of the song 'Hey, I love you' which a friend posted on her Facebook only to be confronted with comments that included obscene name-calling of children in the group whose music is aimed at 3-10 year olds. More recently I happened upon Rihanna's twitter page and saw an exchange between her and a 'follower' where the latter made a misogynistic comment in response to a positive message the singer had posted. Clearly not wanting to seem like a spoil-sport, she responded to him; although my approach would have been to simply 'block' the moron!
Call me naive but does it not go without saying that as human beings we wont all share the same opinions or find the same things appealling? And if that is accepted as a given, then why subject yourself to something you dislike only to lay into it? For instance, I don't care for rock music so it would be insane of me to watch an Aerosmith video only to post insults directed at the band because their music 'sucks' to use a common cyber term.

I think debate is healthy and yes by all means critique someone's work but using real parameters not simply your personal like or dislike. If someone writes an opinion piece, it is simply that, an opinion piece, they are not reporting the news, they are simply giving their opinion on something, therefore the analysis should be based on whether that opinion was well-presented, balanced or convincing. If someone has 'left-wing' ideas you can be certain they are not setting out to convince a 'right-wing' reader. So for that reader to accuse them of being liberal or leftist is really to state the obvious; to go further and spout hateful words or try to discredit their professionalism simply on the basis of a difference of opinion is childish and to do so from the comfort of a barren living room where only the 'critic' and his lonely computer sit...quite pathetic.

On this blog, I choose to moderate comments not because I don't welcome criticism but simply because I refuse to provide a forum for the frustrated and borderline insane to air their questionable opinions.
I read a number of blogs and sometimes I agree with what the person says, other times I don't, if a piece is well written I will say so. If I dont think it is then I simply wont post a comment because I know that there are others out there who will beg to differ. I also think it's morally wrong to belittle the work of someone or worse defame them while hiding behind some ridiculous cyber name.

Fortunately there is an increase in cases of internet slander or internet libel so people will be forced to think twice about what they post on the internet 'anonymously'. Likewise there is an ongoing debate about incitment to hatred on the internet which while recognising that Freedom of expression extends to the internet, acknowledges that it carries with it the same responsibilities as it does in the real world.

Help! I’m surrounded by narcissists

At what point did everyone become so self-absorbed? I may have been off travelling somewhere or may have simply missed the memo that said that it was okay to talk yourself up constantly. It obviously has a lot to do with the popularity of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter which gives everyone the false impression that other people could care less what they ate for breakfast or that they think they look good in a newly purchased designer outfit. It wouldn’t be so painful if it just happened in cyberspace but now people do it in real life, in front of me where I can’t even cringe without hurting their feelings or worse still being accused of jealousy. Oh drat! Now what’s a self-confessed self-deprecating gal to do?

You’ve probably noticed it too unless you are one of the narcissists I’m referring to in which case you were probably completely oblivious, at least up until now. Soz about that but someone has to tell you. Right? No point going through life annoying people with your constant Facebook status updates that scream look at me and how successful I am or your expertly expert CV that you update constantly on Linked-In. The thing is I do think we should all big ourselves up at times – note I say at times.

To give you an idea, I would suggest when attending a job interview and trying to impress your prospective employer. Not however when you’re already in the job and showing off to your colleagues who despise you more with every name drop and line about how good you are at x, y and z.

And yes it’s perfectly acceptable to announce good news……

1. You just got a new job….. great!
2. You just got a new dress….uh not so much.
3. You’re moving to a new city – fantastic, lucky you!
4. You just got back from your 10th work trip this year….yeah whatever!
5. You’ve just started a new relationship which looks promising….brilliant, I’m keeping my fingers crossed for you!
6. Your husband/wife just declared their undying love for you again…yawn yawn!

I hope you’re following me. I’d like to think it’s not that complicated.

I know some people by the nature of what they do – e.g. artists - have to publish their accolades and that’s fine especially if it’s not an everyday occurrence. If however you’re singing at the local nightclub for the 14th time this year then I think it’s safe to say this no longer qualifies as news, unless of course you’re inviting me to come along.

A couple of weeks ago I bumped into someone I hadn’t seen for a couple of years and after the usual pleasantries, I had to spend over two hours (stood) listening to his long list of achievements. I learnt about how much money his business was making and how he had embarked on building his own house as well as countless other very impressive projects. How he had the President on speed dial on his brand new smart phone. I even got to see the super photos ‘said’ phone takes. Admittedly I was impressed during the first 15 minutes after which I just prayed for a fire to break out in the next room so I could escape. The odd thing was that he was completely oblivious of the fact that he had not learnt a single thing about me or that he was describing himself (I would argue falsely) as something of a Super Achiever à la Bill Gates.

On a separate occasion, I was introduced to a friend of a friend’s who within five minutes of meeting her, had told me about the incredible job she just landed as the head of a department and that she was about to go on an exotic holiday to Bali no less with her new gorgeous rich boyfriend. She added that this new company was so lucky to have her because she had been head-hunted by another company and chose this particular one. To which I responded ‘That’s nice’ (and under my breath…’for you’). If it sounds like ‘sour grapes’ perhaps it is or it could just be my good ole’ fashioned upbringing which says that you should do more ‘showing’ than ‘telling’.

I love giving kudos to people for the things they do, if credit is due, I will be your biggest fan. My philosophy is simply that the more successful people there are in this world, the merrier. The majority of people I have as friends or that I meet are not in direct competition with me so wishing them failure has no bearing on my success at all, so why on earth would I?

 Granted not everyone can be like me, I confess that I am very bad at marketing myself and yes I can be overly modest but I also love receiving compliments from people. Although I don’t necessarily see my own talents (presuming of course I have some), I am grateful when other people recognise work that I’ve done as good or even exceptional and I can certainly take a compliment. I just think it feels better coming from someone else and rather than talk myself up and not deliver, I would much rather say little or nothing and let my actions speak for themselves.

On a certain level, I admire people who are so confident (I’m trying to resist saying overly) that they are constantly blowing their own trumpet. The drawback however is that more often than not when you talk yourself up so much, you don’t actually deliver. This reminds me of a conversation at a wedding this summer, a group of us around the table bemoaned the fact that we weren’t able to tick all the boxes in our respective professions, either money was good and the job wasn’t fulfilling or the job was fulfilling but the money or location wasn’t so great. A random girl (who none of us knew personally) jumped in and said “Oh I don’t have that problem, my job is brilliant and I earn really good money, it’s everything I could possibly wish for.” I don’t think any of us found this statement particularly farfetched but of course we were curious to know what she did. At this point she started backtracking with ‘Oh well you might not agree and it might seem quite boring to you actually’. Surprised by her reaction, we continued to coax her into telling us what it was she did. Her response was ‘I wish I hadn’t said anything now because you might think its silly when I tell you.’ After a few minutes of this, we gave up and concluded she was worried we’d all switch professions to hers and then try to infiltrate her organisation. It was amusing that after making such a bold statement she suddenly felt as though her value judgement may not match ours. Ironically if I were in her position, I would have been proud to say what I did even if I were a road sweeper if that is what made me happy, I may not have added the bit about earning loads of money though just incase the person next to me was the next Richard Branson. I don’t consider that stating you love your job is talking yourself up as it’s essentially about what makes you happy, and that is a very subjective thing. This is quite different from boasting about your £500k house to someone who may live in a £750k house or talking about your company’s turnover of $1 million dollars to someone whose company makes a profit of $5 million. When people talk themselves up, they don’t make subjective statements about their sense of pride in what they’ve achieved but rather objective and sweeping statements that deal with tangibles. As a result they leave themselves open to comparison with others and possible criticism when they fall short of others’ achievements.

Narcissism is a dangerous place to reside and it requires a very thick-skin because you are bound to come across someone who not only thinks they’re smarter, richer, more accomplished but is also quite vocal with it. When that does happen, the humble among us, will sit quietly in the corner with a knowing smile as we watch your over-inflated egos battling it out.

Post racial my a**

I find the expression which some American Journalists employed to describe with optimism the climate when President Barack Obama was elected into office preposterous. Call me controversial and by all means feel free to disagree but I am of the firm belief that when it comes to race relations, the more things change the more they stay the same.

It gives me no pleasure to hold that belief and took me coming back to the UK after a decade living in countries where Black people were the majority, for me to reach that conclusion. When I moved back to London two and a half years ago, I noticed that things were as they were when I had left. Most of the middle class White people I work with have no Black friends and the Black friends I socialise with have no White friends. Everyone interacts at work and oftentimes on a one to one basis but you would be hard pressed to see a crowd of people, say friends at a restaurant and find a fair representation of people from different races. Someone is always the token race….and that token friend is usually the Black person among White friends.
While I think Black people have spent a number years learning and immersing in White culture, I wonder if the lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation for Black culture as diverse as it is, is not borne of the fact that White people do not see enough about this culture or see true representations of Black people and therefore are still uneasy about certain aspects of a culture that may still seem quite alien. I’m baffled that the question of why my hair was longer yesterday and is short today or why the texture changed when I jumped into the pool still gets asked. The Western media seems afraid to show different images of black people - ones that reflect the multiplicity of our race whether it be the darker skinned or natural haired, head wrap wearing etc. etc. - these are facets of who we are yet the majority of White people still have no clue because they are fed images of people who look like slightly tanned version of them.

When it comes to retailers- the story is the same. The images we’re sold are as close to what White people look like as possible. It may be that it is considered less threatening for us all to aspire to one beauty aesthetic. Although I have no idea why I should find an Indian woman with a earring in her nose or a Jamaican with dreadlocks threatening.

UK clothes retailer, Next for instance has a gorgeous Brazilian as their main female model, yet aside from her darker complexion, there is very little that sets her apart from the White models she appears alongside. Marks and Spencer’s the quintessentially British institution has a Black model who is light enough to not cause any raised eyebrows and wears her hair or rather a weave - straight. On every single advert that appears on television you will see scores of either light skinned or mixed race models or actors negating the existence of Black people, the majority of whom do not look like those models. So is it any wonder that someone who is a darker shade of brown with afro hair will be viewed with some trepidation. Perhaps it seems as though I exaggerate but the fact that Producers, Directors, Retailers constantly shun darker skinned, African-looking models and actors tells me a lot more than their declarations of commitment to 'diversity' ever could.

Recently I found myself combing through websites and making frantic calls in search of 'skin' coloured tights; despite living in this country for 60 plus years, retailers are still convinced that black people's skin is dark grey hence the only option most offer the dark skinned customer is 'nearly black' - think charcoal grey- tights.

Before you dismiss this problem as trivial or purely British - let me get more serious and move to Europe, France in particular where recently French perfumer, Jean Paul Guerlain described himself as 'having worked like a negro' in an interview. I presumed that meant he worked hard but in order to clear up any doubts I may have had, he added "well I don't know if negros ever work that hard". I'd be lying if I said I wasn't taken aback by this comment...I know French people tend to be blunt, tactless even....but to make such an openly racist comment with no regard for an audience that is obviously made up of not just White French people; to voice such vile ideas and to not even think twice about the disdain that the use of the word 'negre' which could also be translated as nigger depending on which dictionary you use. Guerlain’s scorn is for the same 'negres' who fought alongside the French in World War II, who have lived and worked hard in France for decades, whose countries have served the French and continue to do so.

Wow! I thought...and had to remind myself that I was indeed living in the 21st century, nearly 200 years since the abolition of slavery, and more than 40 years since the American Civil Rights movement and at least 30 years since citizens of former colonies were encouraged to migrate to France.

Just when I thought it was safe to pack my bags and emigrate to the US where things were more progressive, then came the US mid-term elections with tea-party supporters branding Obama as everything from Hitler to the Devil. Even if we dismiss them as a bunch of 'clinically insane' fanatics, we still can't discount the reprehensible nature of their words and their blatantly racist rhetoric. The tea partyers aren't simply affronted by Obama liberal politics; they are outraged by the colour of his skin coupled with his position of power. They cannot see past the fact that he is a black man in such a position and I cannot help but wonder if they would have questioned his American nationality or his wife's patriotism had they both been White. I don’t recall anyone ever accusing Bill Clinton of being unpatriotic or un-American so it would appear that rather than confront a Black President on his politics, the tendency is rather to question his right to consider himself American. The colour of his skin becomes evidence that he is; he must be in fact an outsider.
What's makes the post racial myth even more nonsensical is that the preoccupation is less with one’s actions but rather avoiding the label of being….wait for it… a Racist. The recent hoo-hah with George Bush saying that Kanye West accusing him of being a racist was the lowest point of his presidency just goes to show how ridiculous we have become. Rather than worry about his actions or lack of and regret the way victims of Hurricane Katrina were treated, Bush is more concerned about preserving the appearance of being a Non-Racist at all cost. We now live in societies where people are less worried about the nasty things they say or do, such as discriminating against people on grounds of the colour of their skin and more preoccupied with being ‘called out’. I for one will dare to call you a Racist if that is what you are – because I will judge you on your actions not the deep feelings of love and tolerance you profess to have for all race, creed and colour.

I will judge you on the things that you do and say and until those actions say otherwise I put it to you that we still live in a society that is full of racist people!

Supporting black talent or lack thereof

There was a time when I used to catch every black film that was released, and buy every book written by a writer of African origin....then came Nollywood, Tyler Perry and the likes of E. Jerome Dickey - and I decided it was time to draw the line. As time goes by and I guess I get older, more cynical and hopefully more discerning, I find that I am becoming less tolerant of mediocre work from artists, even if I do happen to share the same skin colour as them.


Recently I picked up a book called Bitter Leaf as it was being discussed at a book club that covers work from African writers, of which I hasten to add there are many exceptional ones; it has taken me four painful weeks to force myself to finish 400 pages of what I consider badly written, badly researched and extremely pretentious crap.

At the book club we discussed the book and it seemed as though most people in the room who like me were supporters of African writing and anxious no doubt to attest to an African Renaissance, were making excuses for the writer. Rather than say they didn't like her writing or found it mediocre at best, some struggled to find positive things to say and suggested that perhaps it was because we simply didn't get it. Could this be an example of Amos Tutola's Palm Wine Drinkard of the 21st century - a work that was misunderstood and ahead of its time? Could her blatant lack of regard of the cardinal rule of writing to show rather than tell be a sign that she is fully aware of the norm and chooses like Jazz music to flout it? Being a child of plain speaking, I felt then and still feel now, that it is simply a badly written book. The writer creates a so-called African setting without wanting to call it that, and jam packs each page with one cliché after the other; her characters like her setting are neither believable nor interesting. There is no depth, in fact I would go as far as to say it is the literary equivalent of 80% of Nollywood films or if I want to be generous a modern day Disney Fairytale. Yet you sense that as she writes, she is trying to impress the reader with references to languages and cultures that she has no doubt come across but which have no place in the story and render it even less authentic than it would have otherwise been had we dealt with one language, one culture and one clearly identifiable and credible story.

When I finally got to put the book down, at the back of my shelf, I decided that a break from bad black talent was in order and went to a screening of Up From the Bottoms, African American Migration to Muskegon , a documentary narrated by Cicely Tyson which was fantastic, and went some way to make up the 400 page fairytale torture. For some strange reason, however the organisers decided to show a short British film about the 'politics' of oral sex in the Black British community called Morally Speaking (get it?) on the same night. Once again I was reminded of the importance of being selective when supporting black talent. The film, albeit a short and clearly a low budget production was so badly done, I could hardly face the director who obviously felt proud enough of his work to pop in for a question and answer session afterwards. It got me wondering - who on earth are these people who call themselves artists catering for? Do they presume that other Black people are so simple-minded as to be impressed by talentless nonsense? Are we as Black people so starved that we will accept any one-dimensional work that is fed to us?

This takes me to the Tyler Perry phenomenon. Like the majority of what comes out of the Nigerian film industry, I can’t help but marvel at the number of seemingly intelligent people who support his work time and again. I've seen three Tyler Perry films and feel as though that is enough to last me a lifetime. I recognise of course that Hollywood is not known for churning out quality; and can see that for black film makers it’s a numbers game too. Get them out fast and get the money. The difference however is that a lot of smart people I know shun crap that comes out of Hollywood, in fact the intelligent world prides itself on shaming insultingly rubbish productions. We even have 'The Golden Raspberries' in case the box office figures weren't enough to tell the film makers and stars of films like Gigli and Swept Away what a terrible job they did.

Admittedly in the 80s the argument was that our films were so few and far between, our books just not getting published so when one got through, we had to show our support so more could come. But that was then, today we have countless incredible African and Diasporan writers like Helon Habila, Aminatta Forna, Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie, Petina Gappah, Nii Ayikwei Parkes, Edwidge Danticat, Andrea Levy to name but a few. As far as films go if we look beyond the obvious glossies from LA, we'll find some phenomenal works from the likes of Raoul Peck, Eric Kabera, Abderrahmane Sissako, Mama Keita, Sanaa Hamri and many many more.

Personally I think it’s high time we call out the poor excuses for artists in our community, tell them to go back and polish their talents and above all to stop taking for granted that the colour of their skin and apparent lack of competition will be enough for us to support them. I for one will continue to separate the wheat from the chaff and call out anyone who puts themselves forward as an artist, be it literary or visual because if I were in their shoes, I would expect no less from a discerning audience.

The angry black woman

I watched a film called 'Not easily broken' with Taraji P Henson and Morris Chestnut and was taken aback by how unpleasant Taraji's character was. As the wife of the handsome, sweet-tempered Mr Chestnut, she spent her time either shouting, no make that shrieking, nagging or rolling her eyes. It was horrible to watch and got me asking the question - is this stereotype of an angry black woman a reality?


I recall quite vividly when the US media tried depict Michelle Obama as another bitter angry black woman who would end up holding her husband back because she couldn't hold her tongue. It was infuriating to watch especially when the despicable Fox News (where the word news is used very loosely), repeated their racist and misogynistic slander suggesting that she was this way because all black women are angry with the exception - they conceded - of Oprah. It was clear as day that there was nothing bitter nor aggressive about the stunning, incredibly smart and supportive Mrs Obama, yet the Republican-backed media did their utmost to sell us an image of a angry black woman, who was racist to boot. Fortunately they didn't succeed in their smear campaign.

But that was then, this is now and this film is based on a novel by Bishop T.D Jakes so try as I might, I cannot find a motive for him wanting to portray black women in a negative light while at the same time portraying black men and white women in a starkly different and positive light. Aside from looking too handsome for his own good, Morris Chestnut is an incredible husband, supportive, caring and hard working. The only white female character in the film is a single mother who dotes on her son and has a positive outlook towards life; in contrast to the black women she is down to earth, kind and thoughtful. Aside from the main female character, there is the mother-in-law who is yet another angry black woman who has nothing nice to say about her ex husband as well as the character of the black female friend who confesses to infidelity and in the same breath suggests fighting any woman who goes after her friend’s man. So in a nutshell we learn that black women are either angry, bitter or aggressive.

Having seen such portrayals time and again, I’m left asking the question - are there really women like that out there? I mean don't get me wrong, I can throw a tantrum or two like the best of them especially when the dishes you promised to wash haven't been washed, the creaky door is still creaking two months after I asked you to fix it and even worse, you show up at midnight having forgotten to tell me you were going for drinks after work. I suspect anyone would lose their temper in such circumstances, be they white, black or yellow. Aside from that I think I'm quite even-tempered and when I think of my friends and family, I cannot find a single one who fits the bill of this angry 'for no apparent reason' black woman.

One of the reasons given in the film for the character's bitchiness, let's just call it by its proper name now, was that she had not been taught how to love by her mother who had an abusive husband who left her angry and bitter about men in general. Like so many women in happy balanced relationships, I was raised by a single woman who taught me to love and respect men starting with my father. I guess the angry mother raising an angry daughter being angry at men may simply not be my reality so I shouldn’t discount the existence of such women. Yet it seems a little hard to believe that a black woman or any woman for that matter will do everything to sabotage her relationship with a near perfect man for no apparent reason which is precisely what this woman does. The man is hard working, though not as successful as she is, he loves and respects her and cannot wait to have children with her and she belittles him, refuses to sleep with him and shows a completely lack of respect at every given opportunity. I mean you'd have to be pretty self-destructive in an age where the pickings are slim and getting slimmer by the day to scoff at a near enough perfect man.

I will stand corrected if someone gives me an example or two of black women who are angry for no apparent reason and live each day this way but I still think this stereotype is a misogynistic and racist myth which sets out to portray us as irrational beings with a chip on our shoulder and a grudge at life. That is not me, nor the beautiful, loving, caring and often selfless women I know as friends and family.

Let's keep our beliefs to ourselves

It's always best to avoid discussing religion if you can help it. Even when cornered by people eager to learn and quiz my religious beliefs, I go out of my way to say either as little as possible or nothing at all. The reason for my uncompromising approach is that I know for a fact that religion is probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest divider of people. Co-workers appear to interact effortlessly until of course one person takes offence at another's religious beliefs or lack thereof.


In the West there are those who equate atheism with intellect and therefore by process of elimination would argue that anyone who believes in the existence of God or Buddha for that matter must be a simpleton. It transpired by error rather than design a few months ago that I subscribe to the notion of a higher being and a colleague with whom I often have heated political debates sniggered in disbelief. He even asked if I was joking, thinking I presume that I was someone of sound mind who had somehow been brainwashed. He was proud to call himself an Atheist which I could just as easily found laughable but instead respected as his well thought out rational belief. This sense of understanding and tolerance is not borne out of an uncertainty in my own beliefs but rather a firmly held opinion that there are many truths. I don't think I'm in a position to say with absolute certainty that my way is better than his or vice versa. At the end of the day its about what works for you – if you’re a better person without religion then that’s fair enough, who am I to judge? Likewise if fasting or going to church or meditating helps you get through life then once again good for you. Who am I to judge?

I spotted a poster on a highway in Upstate New York which read 'There is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ' which amused me especially as I am so used to random people approaching me in the streets and asking me if I’ve met Jesus Christ as though he were some local celebrity. Yet I appreciate that while this statement is the foundation of Christianity, there are many Christians who do not subscribe to this view for the simple reason that they know that its not a practically sound. Let’s think about it for a second, it suggests that millions of people in the world who have never come across Christianity and its teachings simply because of their geographical location, are now doomed to an eternity of hell fire which I’m assuming is the opposite of heaven. I guess many of them can take comfort in the fact that ignorance is bliss so while their date in hell in sealed by some random Priest's sermon on a Sunday morning when he talks about the consequences of not accepting Jesus as your saviour – these pagans can go about their business oblivious of their fate.

Of course there are the Born-Again Christians who tell us we’re all doomed unless we repent and become one of them before we 'pop our clogs' (die). Again we can draw comfort from the fact that there is still time for those of us who have yet to embrace their truth, because so many of them have such 'colourful' pasts that there is clearly hope for the rest of us. The key from what I can tell is to stock up on the sinning, lies, even crime and then when you've had enough or been sentenced to prison, you can finally see the light. I can think of a number of men who’ve killed, maimed, heck even committed genocide and then decided to become Born-Again Christians. It's quite genius really!

Although a good chunk of people from different religions recognise that they share the same values as each other and are more influenced by the way people live their lives than the religion they follow, this practical view is unfortunately not shared by all. For instance, there is an ongoing debate with much opposition about a mosque being built two blocks away from the ground zero in New York City. The irony is that the proposed building is also meant to house a cultural centre which has as its primary purpose the promotion of religious tolerance and is backed by New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg and a number of Jewish Leaders. Yet according to polls which have to be taken with a pinch a salt 6 in 10 New Yorkers oppose the building of the centre. It says a lot about people that they should be offended by something that seeks to encourage a better understanding of others' beliefs. It's also sad that Islam as a religion and Muslims as a whole are held responsible for the heinous acts committed by a few, obviously psychotic individuals.

I recently had a discussion/argument with a Catholic friend who remains convinced that Islam is a violent religion and encourages extremist behaviour. Much as I tried I could not convince her that most of my Muslim friends were no different from my Christian ones aside from the fact that they prayed to Allah every day and observed different religious festivals. Islamic fundamentalism in the Western world has probably done as much harm to Muslims as it has to Christians. The subconscious religious profiling which many of us practice means that Muslims are all guilty until proven innocent. There is a constant need for them to show how 'normal' they are. The task of blending in becomes even more pressing than for the average non-Muslim. It goes without saying that we should keep an open mind but in an era of countless national security threat and Western involvement in the affairs of numerous Muslim nations, our governments thrive on our collective paranoia, the bogeyman they have created has links with Al Qaeda and could be the turban wearing Sikh living next door to you. A woman wearing a hijab is judged to support extremist views even though if she may simply be reflecting her cultural upbringing and nothing more.

Whether you are Muslim or Christian or an Atheist, there is an increasing need to keep your beliefs to yourself lest people judge you. If however you are brave enough to don a hijab or a cross then you have to be thick-skinned enough to deal with the ridicule, contempt, scorn or even fear. Personally I know which option I choose.

Domestic Violence – wtf are people thinking?

Is it me or do some people seriously think that domestic violence is okay if the victim is a fame-seeking gold digger? I know it may sound like an exaggeration but the discussions around the latest Mel Gibson tapes to surface make me conclude there are those who would argue that someone like Oksana Grigorieva deserves to be beaten up because of the type of person she is.


I have yet to hear Mel Gibson issue a statement saying that the person on the tapes is not him, likewise the sympathetic public haven’t even called the identity of the man spouting profanities and threatening a woman on the tape. Instead they question the kind of woman who would record her partner and then leak the tape. To that I would say the kind of woman who wants to expose him for the cowardly thug that he is.

But seriously, I can’t help but wonder if those who defend him have lost their minds. It may well be temporary insanity but it certainly seems like some brand of madness.

His ex-wife has rushed to his defence saying that in their 28 years of marriage he never laid a finger on her as though this were irrefutable proof that he could not have hit or abused Oksana. Likewise his friend Whoopi Goldberg defended the charge of racism as though being black gives her authority to declare what is racist and what isn’t. Referring to Latino workers as ‘wetbacks’ or using the ‘N’ word when you’re a very rich actor is apparently not racist. You heard it from Ms Goldberg first.

The sickening part though comes from the online readers –those who flood the Daily Mail with comments from all over the globe – sympathising with Mel, insulting Oksana and not once calling into question the behaviour of a man who responds to:


'You were hitting a woman with a child in her hands. What kind of man is that?' [….] 'Hitting a woman when she's holding a child in her hands, breaking her teeth twice in the face. What kind of man is that?'

with…


'You know what? You f***ing deserved it.'

I mean is it me or does he deserve nothing short of years in prison being someone else’s b****?

When Chris Brown hit Rihanna and left her face all swollen and unrecognisable, the world rightly condemned his actions. He was criticised by almost everyone, his records were no longer played on some radio stations, in short he was publically shamed.

So why are there people, and it would seem many seemingly sane people who would defend such vile behaviour because the person in question in Mel Gibson and the woman at the other end is supposedly an attention seeking money grabbing opportunist? I could care less if she is after his money, so what? He’s a grown up and should be able to make sound decisions about who he dates or more sobering has a child with. Judging from the tapes, he clearly thinks that his position and money give him the right to treat people however he feels. Only a coward would lay a hand on someone who is physically weaker than them. Domestic violence will never end when people operate double standards. It was wrong for Chris Brown to hit Rihanna and it is equally wrong for Mel Gibson to hit Oksana Grigorieva. Their personalities or personal motives should not come into play. And we should speak out against it in unison otherwise it will never end.

Calling a spade a spade

http://bit.ly/abIjqV
Today the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain made a gaffe by branding a woman he came across while campaigning a bigot, albeit in the privacy of his car, although stupidly with his mic still switched on. The whole episode has been referred to rather unoriginally as ‘bigot-gate’ making one wonder how long some of these British journalists spent studying their art.
The media more than anyone else has been up in arms about the incident with Sky News covering nothing else for a good part of the afternoon and evening much to ordinary people’s irritation. Rupert Murdoch’s band of merry men and women went to town with their public lynching of the Prime Minister. The video and audio of the incident has been played and replayed with subtitles, and various people analysing what the incident says about him. We had the supposedly impartial former conservative spin doctor, a journalist from the Spectator and several other not so gainfully employed pundits all give their take on what this meant for Gordon and for the election. One concluded that his reaction was as a result of Gordon Brown’s deep dislike for people. Yes that’s right folks; the Prime Minister is now a people- hating –gaffe-prone oddbod. He is also, we learned today often quick to blame other people and never himself. And finally we were told by the Sky News reporter that this is evidence that Gordon should not say anything in private that he would not say in public. Mais bien sur...that’s exactly what we upright citizens do isn’t it?

I can only hope that reasonably minded people will appreciate that although he did not handle the situation well and more than anything else it proved that one of his idiotic aides should get the boot for not spotting the microphone thing, it by no means warranted this level of media coverage. And to be frank, someone who makes a comment like ‘These Eastern Europeans, I don’t know where they’re flocking from’ is indeed a BIGOT of the highest order. Were she asking a constructive question about Immigration which is a legitimate campaign issue albeit one I feel is always used to score points with the prejudiced masses; I would sympathise with her and argue that Mr Brown should have discussed the issue with her sensibly and with respect. Instead she chose to go down the line of blaming these foreigners. Lest we forget not so long ago it was the Blacks who were coming here and taking our jobs, now it’s those Eastern Europeans. As Mr Brown sensibly pointed out, there may be a million of the Eastern Europeans in this country but there are equally 1 million or more British people in various parts of Europe exercising their right of freedom of movement as European Union citizens. In some cases their arrival en masse has resulted in countless difficulties for the local population. In many parts of France for instance, the British influx has meant an increase in house prices resulting in many French people not being able to buy property in their own home towns. In Spain the British have created mini-Blighty in parts like the Costa del Sol, becoming renowned for their excessive drinking and their inability to hold their liquor. Spain recently tried to rebrand itself in order to shake off the image of lager louts and tarts eating fish chips and throwing up in their once peaceful towns.

So, yes it does work both ways and if we’re really honest with ourselves, we will admit that many of the Eastern Europeans who come and work here do jobs that many of us will not want to do or they work for themselves in fields like construction. I appreciate that the experience of other people may vary but I work in a company that has over 100 staff and not 1 is Eastern European unless of course you count the contracted cleaners who arrive as we leave in the evenings. The representation of foreigners will vary from one sector to the other but before we make this election about ‘hanging’ the immigrants, let’s remind ourselves that outside of the United Kingdom, we too our immigrants. If the bigoted Mrs Duffy, who spouted her nonsense at Gordon Brown today would only agree to stay put in this country and encourage her grandchildren who we learned were stuck in Australia (perish the thought), if they could just stay here and not go to those foreign lands then perhaps we could all have a bit more sympathy for her. Until then I hope someone finds the courage to call a spade a spade in public when someone expresses narrow-minded views without fear of what shameless media houses like Sky News and the Daily Mail who would have us believe the immigrants are all out to get us, would have to say.