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)

On losing someone

In the past two months, I've lost loved ones and been close to people who have lost their loved ones too and every time death comes, I try to will myself to understand it so that I can deal with it  better. This is of course easier to do when the person lost is old or has had to endure a painful illness, but when it relates to someone who is young and seemingly full of life, it seems impossible to reason. What possible lesson could be learnt from the death of a young person or a child? It seems absolutely illogical to me.
A friend recently lost her niece at the age of 5, she had just been diagnosed with a brain tumour and before her parents could get used to the idea that their child was suffering from a fatal condition, she was gone. I cannot imagine anything worse in this world than losing a child. While I am not someone who despairs easily, this is the one thing that I think causes me sadness beyond belief. I  cannot fathom how or why an innocent life can be taken away. Yes I believe in God and for the most part I agree that everything is according to God's will. I even try and tell myself that things happen for a reason, that rather than despair we must try and learn from them but I cannot understand what lesson God could possibly want to teach us through the death of a child or a young and healthy person.
As a parent, my fear of death is even more pronounced, it renders me so completely helpless that I cannot even contemplate it. I fear losing my children, I fear them losing me or their father or the family members they love and hold so dear. As incomprehensible as it may sound, I almost want to make a pact with God to spare them the heartache and pain of losing someone. Given the chance, I would make absolutely any sacrifice that would guarantee their happiness and well-being.
Death is a strange thing and I know we can't spend our lives fearing it because as the saying goes it is the only certain thing in life but isn't it understandable for us to wish it knocked on a door far far away from ours? It's not that we don't expect it to ever happen to us, just that it would happen after we have had a long and full life, after we've seen our children grow, witnessed the birth of our grandchildren, after we have achieved what we set out to achieve. Is that such a selfish thing to ask for?
Another aspect of our lives that makes losing our loved ones even more painful is the fact that circumstances have meant that we reside in all the various corners of the earth, sometimes thousands of miles away from our family.While we may be a phone call away, it is often physically impossible for us to reach those we love so dearly and to hold them close and comfort them when death happens in the family. This separation renders us even more helpless and we can't help but curse the day we left for the pursuit of a better life...a life that now means our children could not see their grandparents before they died.
I often pray for spiritual enlightenment - the ability to understand the meaning and purpose of all things which I believe leads to inner peace. I'm tired of fearing things I have no control over, of dreading the early morning phone call with bad news, wishing if only I had done this or that differently. The untimely death of my beautiful niece has made me vow each day to hold my family and friends closer, to keep in touch more, to visit more, to call more and to make each and every day count knowing that it could, very well be the last.

Confessions of an imperfect mother

I'd like to think of myself as a good mummy, certainly above average. If asked to score myself out of 10, I'd say 7.5 on most days and 8 on a good day. Yet since encountering the numerous modern day mummies on the school drop off, I can't help but wonder if my children might be a little short-changed by a far from perfect mum. I mean I cook, I read stories, I might even bake every once in a while with the help of my girl Ms Betty Crocker but domestic goddess I ain't. The thought of making bread from scratch makes me shudder - I mean all that needless kneading - what's the point? And when it comes to being enthusiastic about my children's efforts - I'll admit that there are only so many pictures of stick families I'm willing to post on my wall/fridge. I love my kids but my life does not revolve around them and I admit that in modern day terms, that makes me an imperfect mum.

It seems we live in the era of the super achieving mummy. The woman who's made motherhood her vocation and I don't mean in the sense of being a stay-at-home mum but rather in that her children are the centre of her universe. She will make it a point to attend every PTA, every rehearsal and will be the first to volunteer for the bake sale. She takes her role very seriously and is on duty 24 hours a day. While I admire the single-mindedness of these women I recognize that this could not possibly be my reality. Yes I adore my children and love spending time with them, but I also adore me and realise that I need to take time out for myself too... for my own sanity. The difficulty is finding the right balance and here is where the confession comes in.

I have been known to refuse a big running hug from my youngest because I just got my nails done. Yes I know how vain, but I feel I did my time when they were babies and I spent months smelling of regurgitated milk. Surely I can't still be expected to look like the same sleep-deprived hot mess five years later? Aside from the dedication to beautifying myself at their 'expense', I've also been known to guard my free time quite jealously. If this means locking myself in the bathroom for a long hot bath or missing the odd schoolmate birthday party then so be it. I get that we're expected to act as unpaid taxi drivers for our little angels but there are times when the birthday parties seem to happen constantly. Short of dedicating my weekends to shuttling them from one to the other, naughty mummy that I am, I opt out. Admittedly opting out requires a form of bribery usually in the form of an extended TV 'pass'. Yes, I know how shocking using television as a babysitter- what can I say other than that it works! Then there are times especially at the weekend when the dance/football/tae kwan do/art classes are over, the food shopping and cleaning have been done and the thought of cooking threatens to reduce me tears. At this moment I thank God for that creepy clown and his chicken nuggets and over-salted fries. If it's any consolation I do wipe the salt off and insist the kids wash down their genetically-modified meal with water instead of the more appealing fizzy options. Also the children see it as a treat even though I end up feeling slightly guilty that I wasn't organised enough to give them a wholesome meal.

Raising a child in the 21st century is whole different ball game to what our parents experienced. If our little super-achievers aren't mastering the violin while learning Cantonese, they're training to become the next Prima ballerina. I'm not sure whether society is to blame for this need that we all seem to have to raise children who don't seem to ever stop. It's no longer enough to have a child who does well at school and has one or two extra-curricular activities for fun. Our kids are encouraged to race ahead of their classmates, master several languages, instruments and be ace at numerous sporting activities. And this would be fine in itself but the 21st century mother has to facilitate this sprint to the top. I was told recently by my daughter's teacher that I should consider some playdates with classmates as part of her personal development. The words that entered my head but fortunately didn't leave my mouth were: "Doesn't she see enough of them already and why on earth are you trying to plan my spare time for me?"

It can all be rather exhausting at times so for now I think I'll stick with my shortcomings. I'm hoping my kids will continue to laugh when I get their bags, lunch, books even names mixed up and will still squeal with delight when I suggest a Saturday trip to McDonalds. When this changes then maybe I'll start reassessing my parenting skills, until then I'm going to continue enjoying my imperfect moments that allow me to be a little bit self-indulgent.

Has our generation dropped the baton?

There is a scene in Katori Hall's new play on broadway about Martin Luther King Jr which sees Angela Basset's character deliver a monologue to Samuel L Jackson's portrayal of the legendary Civil Rights activist. I cannot recall ever feeling so blown away by someone's delivery on stage nor have I ever been left feeling such sadness and elation by their words. The premise behind the scene 'the baton passes on' is the depiction of how the world has progressed since and because of Martin Luther King Jr's incredible work. In the end, The Mountaintop  left me pondering whether our generation who are the supposed leaders of today, the would-be grandchildren of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, have in fact picked the baton from those great personalities of the 60s, 70s and 80s.

A week ago, Wangari Maathai, an incredible woman, environmentalist, women's rights activist and Nobel Peace prize winner died and as I read about the incredible work she'd done and found myself more and more in awe of this larger-than-life yet unbelievably humble personality, I couldn't help but feel that her kind are a dying breed. There seems to be a lack of the sense of urgency that people who became adults in the post independence era had. I would even go as far as to say we lack inspiration in today's world. Our call to action is linked to either commercialism or selfishness. We seem to be driven by a desire to better ourselves and our nuclear family  but not to sacrifice for the greater good. The media which we consume with reckless abandon teaches  us to focus less on the 'We' and more on the 'Me' likewise the 'new' religions reinforce this notion of self-centeredness where people are encouraged to pray for their own success which often times is translated to acquisition of money and the material goods they crave so much.

I've heard the argument many times that there is no longer a need for carrying on or passing on the baton; as though the work of these great men and women were done - some would say we've achieved what they wanted us to achieve. I beg to differ. There is as urgent a need for action as there ever was. While the struggle is no longer for Civil Rights for African-Americans, Self-determination for countries in Africa and the Caribbean, who can honestly argue that there is no longer suffering or injustice in our world. Can we honestly attest to every person having the basic human rights which we take for granted? Or that we are happy with those who govern us, whether democratically elected by us or hand-picked by some government sitting thousands of miles away and determining our country's future? Can we put our hands on hearts and say that we're doing a great job taking care of our planet? Are we really content with our lot in life or just overcome by apathy?

I recognise these are loaded questions and perhaps the picture I paint seems more gloomy than the reality you perceive. I oftentimes hear people talk about how much things have improved, how much more fortunate we are than our parents and this may be true for some of us but we represent but a small percentage of the earth's population. As long as the majority of the earth's population still struggles for access to basic things like food, education, for their freedom, there can't be any room for complacency. After call, should we not be our brothers' keepers?

I don't pretend to know the answer to so many of the problems we face today - like why Palestine is an occupied territory in the 21st century, why millions of Americans live below the poverty line, why sexual violence is still used as a tool of war against the unarmed and vulnerable, and children still denied the right to education or perhaps and most importantly why so few share so much wealth while so many go without. Nonetheless I think a debate is necessary and as urgent as it was in the 1960s or 70s, we need to recognise that unless those around us are comfortable and happy in themselves and well taken care of, our comfort zone remains extremely precarious. However small our action, it's important for us to pick up the baton for the sake of our children and grandchildren in an effort to create a better world where noone is left out. In the words of the late Wangari Maathai, we can all aim to be like the hummingbird.

Black woman seeks white man for promotion of marriage among her race

Yes, I know the title of this post sounds absurd doesn't it but that's precisely what a black male author is suggesting in a recently published article in the Wall Street Journal entitled An interracial fix for black marriage. It was forwarded to me by a friend who happens to be black and also happens to be married to a white man. She and I have had this discussion about black women dating outside their race a number of times in particular following advice from her older African-American aunt who pronounced to us, then single black women in our late 20s that when it comes to most black men "they either gay or they in jail".

Now I agree with the core argument made by author, i.e. 'black women should not just limit themselves to black men' but unlike the author I don't believe this will in some way promote marriage within the black community, it's simply put - a numbers game. There are more 'available' black women than there are black men so unless you're willing to share....there just wont be enough to go around. I confess I've never been great at maths but it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Admittedly I haven't always held this view but as I've gotten older and I'd like to think wiser, I changed my tack regarding the dating game in part because I realised that relationships really do not have to be that complicated. I know a number of couples who on paper would seem incompatible because of their different cultural backgrounds but in reality end up having more in common with each other than with their so-called ideal match. Also what makes couples click is far less tangible than a country, ethnicity or a language; if it were simply about finding someone from the same culture as you surely there would be fewer divorces within specific communities. We could all marry the son of our parents' friends and be done with - same educational background, same cultural values etc etc....but ofcourse marriage isn't science. This is where again I disagree with the article's suggestion that black women would do better marrying someone who is as educated and as accomplished as them; in my humble opinion two high powered professionals do not a long-lasting and happy marriage guarantee ....but let's leave that for another discussion.

Back to the whole lack of eligible black men debate that we've heard all too often, It's important to also put this article into context, the statistics cited by the author are particular to the USA though I would concede that they are no doubt similar to those in the UK, however in Africa and I suspect the Caribbean, a successful and eligible black man is far from becoming an endangered species. In countries where black people are not a minority, the question of finding successful black men rarely arises because all the lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, politicians are black and I would dare to add, they outnumber the women. So it is a given that if you're educated, you will find a black man who is as, if not more educated than you. Granted if you live in the UK or the USA, this fact doesn't really help you much which is why I agree that as successful black women we should think outside the box but not only to date men from other races but to also date men from other walks of life. Personally I don't see why Love should come with a degree or a six figure salary and I'm sure we can all attest to knowing high-powered couples who look fantastic on paper but are as miserable as hell in real life. The values we should be promoting are mutual respect and love not his and hers mercs and sizeable investment portfolios.

All this being said, I have to add that I do sympathise with black women who find it hard to date outside their race because I think sometimes it's as simple as who you find physically attractive and many simply feel they are not attracted to white men. However I still think we should be careful of convincing ourselves of such absolutes because even though we think we're not attracted to the white men we see everyday, how many of us will turn down an offer from George Clooney or Robin Thicke or Matthew McConaughey or the gorgeous Jason Lewis? My theory is, if we can drool at the fine white men on our screens then surely that means we don't find all white men unattractive.

Last night I watched Something New with Sanaa Lathan who stars opposite some fine white man whose name I forget, and thought it dealt with some interesting questions regarding interracial relationships. In one scene Sanaa Lathan's character complains to her white boyfriend (the hot one) about not being able to talk to him about the pressures she faces as a black woman in a professional environment on a daily basis. She makes reference to the African-American expression 'black tax' which refers to black people having to work twice as hard in order to achieve the same thing as their white counterpart. Something which her boyfriend understandably had never heard of. Although glossed over, for me this raised an interesting issue that could have been further explored, i.e. how do our partners from different cultures deal with similar problems that are real for us but that they will never experience. But while issues of racism and discrimination are real for a number of people from minority groups, it need not be our daily mantra. Yes it may happen, and yes we will find ways to deal with it. If our partner, be he white, black or green is compassionate enough, he will lend an ear while we rant about the boss who double-checked our work simply because...or was quick to point out how 'well' we speak as though this were not expected. I also think that a lack of empathy can happen even within our own race. I have friends who are often frustrated with their husbands (from the same race) because they feel they just need someone to listen while they complain about discrimination issues at work or the supermarket or the kids' school. Yet for many of these men, every problem has to have a solution, this business of just talking for the sake of it, airing your grievances just doesn't make sense to them. As a result they are no more sympathetic to stories of perceived or real discrimination that we just want to 'discuss', than they would be if they were white.

So Mr. Ralph Richard Banks while I agree with your core proposition, i.e. black women please be open to dating outside your race, I don't agree it should be done for the 'Greater Good' unless ofcourse that greater good is You + A loving partner + A happy life.

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.

O is for Oprah!

A friend of mine called last week to tell me she was just sat next to Oprah in a hotel restaurant somewhere in the English countryside. As you can imagine we both screamed down the phone as a million and one questions rolled off my tongue...so what did you say to her? what was she wearing? who was she with? what did she eat? Unfortunately given the casual manner with which Ms Winfrey and her equally high profile friends sat at a table opposite my friend, there was little she could do or say. This was not a 'can I have your autograph' moment because the assumption was that anyone who could afford to stay in this hotel should be accustomed to seeing Superstars of Ms Winfrey's stature. So my friend decided to play along although she admitted to not being able to eat a morcel of food the entire time she was sat just a few yards from one of the richest and most powerful women on the planet.

Although I haven't been a huge fan of Oprah's show since she started dedicating entire episodes to 'comb-overs' and other equally banal topics, when she announced her final season, I felt a little pang of sadness. The first thing that came to mind was the realisation that I would never get to attend a live recording of one of her shows, nor be in an audience that receives a brand new car, or be told by the lady herself 'you're coming to Australia!' I thought back to the books she's recommended and that I've read, from The Poisonwood Bible which I loved loved loved to Life of Pi which baffled me and Say you're one of them which I loathed. I couldn't help but feel like this was the end of an era. As authors like Anita Shreve (remember The Pilot's Wife) know only too well, a mere mention of a book or film by Oprah sends it soaring to the top of a bestseller or box office list. Everything she touches seems to turn to gold. There were even reports that her endorsement of President Obama won him over million votes; I'm sure he's hoping she can work her magic again in 2012.

Over the years, Oprah developed a winning formula of being 'one of us' - whatever problems we had experienced, she'd experienced similar or worse, she would bare her soul, showing us the real Oprah, warts and all. Oftentimes we got to forget our own issues and thought to ourselves 'if Oprah can make it, so can I'. From wheeling the equivalent of the body fat she had lost for an entire audience to gawk at, no doubt in disgust, to revealing herself make-up free  - uneven skin tone, blotches and all. How can anyone not relate to someone so brutally honest about her numerous flaws? Oprah has cried more times than we care to remember and the majority of us loved her for it; with each painful revelation, she gained more and more adoring fans.

Oprah is one of those people I admire for what they've achieved and for how much they give back but do not necessarily understand or agree with the methods they employ. Coming from a culture where we are taught not to air our dirty laundry in public, I'm perhaps more reluctant than most to bare my soul even to people I know let alone complete strangers but then again I realise I am not a public figure known by a single name.  I also find her approach a little vain at times; since Oprah started her magazine O, in 2004, she has graced every single cover. I can't help but find that a little strange at the very least and perhaps it's the American in her that is completely at ease with celebrating her own success month after month for 7 years and counting and I readily admit it may be the British in me that is uneasy with excessive self-praise. I also recognise that her motivation for doing this may be simply because she is the inspiration and the aspiration that her audience need to see; perhaps Oprah reminds them every day of what is possible.

It is impossible to dispute that Oprah is a phenomenon. She is the original rags to riches poster girl; she came from nothing to achieve so much and constantly gives back to communities all over the world. As easy as it would be to hate her for being so obscenely wealthy, we can't help but love her because every so often she's shared that wealth with us. I love the fact that she has managed to reach so many people - especially the often overlooked hard working middle class American who may have a job that covers the bills, if only just, yet is grateful for small miracles like a tax rebate or big ones like Oprah paying their mortgage for a year. You get the impression that beyond the publicity, she really wants to impart something to her fans, and for the most part it's something intangible, it's less about the free gifts and more about the life lessons.

Another close friend and fan recently told me about Oprah's Masterclass series which runs on her newly launched television network OWN  and features people like Maya Angelou, Diane Sawyer, Simon Cowell, Sidney Poitier, and Jay Z talking about their lives and what brought them to where they are - how they acheived 'greatness' if you will. In the pilot, Maya Angelou says "When you get, Give, when you learn, Teach" and this seems to sum up what Oprah has always strived to achieve. She is fully cognisant of how blessed she is and how important it is for her to give back, be it her wealth (in 2009 she donated $40 million to worthwhile causes all over the world), or her influence (she continues to support artists, products and causes that she believes in) or her belief in the Greater Good. She is clearly one of a kind and I'm certain if there were more billionaires with hearts as big as Oprah's, the world would be a much easier place to live in.

Watch the Masterclass episodes on Youtube or here http://www.oprah.com/own-master-class/Oprah-Presents-Master-Class