Je suis Charlie...?

Je suis Charlie Hebdo... or am I? Ok, so I know that this post may look like it’s being put up several weeks too late but there is a reason behind that. This week I’m off to Paris, a city most famous for romance and fine cuisine but also, for the last month and a half, one of the most shocking terrorist attacks of recent decades. A group of cartoonists gunned down in the prime of life simply because they legitimately expressed free speech.

Well, that’s one version. Another,  that declared by the young men who did the shooting, is that they were killed because they insulted the Prophet Mohammed and as such were blasphemers who deserved to die.

It’s not a new story of course. Think Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, think The Innocence of Muslims, a film of truly awful quality produced by Egyptian Copts in the US several years ago, think too of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten back in 2005, the protests around which were the original impetus behind Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. Islam has a strong tradition of aniconism, (a practice of shunning images of divine beings, prophets and other religious figures), whereas Western Europe has a long history of lampooning and criticising religion and its institutions. Sooner or later there are going to be clashes.

But what were my thoughts on it all. After all, as someone working with minority communities and engaged in diversity issues, this really is something that one should have an opinion on! Am I Charlie, or perhaps I am Ahmed, (the French policeman also killed in the attack), or maybe I am just, well, me?

I’m going to be honest, my initial reaction was one of empathy with the cartoonists and I immediately wanted to get out a pen and paper and draw my own Mohammed cartoon in solidarity with them.

I wanted to draw it because I can; nothing should be above lampoon or criticism and I say that as a religious person myself. The moment we say that someone or something is exempt then where do we stop? I’m a Christian so why not say Jesus is out of bounds, but everything else is ok? But then why not Moses, Abraham, St. Paul and so on? What about figures from other religions? We’d have to include Buddha, Guru Nanak and of course Mohammed? But what about semi-divine human beings who are still alive? You think I’m joking but in a couple of months’ time I’m off to North Korea where citizens are required to keep a picture of the head of state, (and his dad and granddad), on the wall and to bow before their statues and present them with flowers. Criticise them and you are in trouble! So, religious figures are out, then political, then what? Is anyone fair game to be criticised no matter how controversial they may be?

But the fact is that I didn’t draw that cartoon and the reasons why I didn't are just as important as those in favour of drawing it. Firstly there’s the inescapable fact that I’m not that good an artist and so whatever I produced wouldn’t really be worth drawing anyway. Plus there is the other inescapably fact that at the moment everyone seems to be doing Mohammed cartoons in solidarity. What could I say that would add anything worthwhile? More than that though, I didn’t do it because what other people think does matter. I have Muslim friends who would not have seen my cartoon as a brave gesture of solidarity but instead as an attack on them, as another insult. And I know other people who would have seen it as proof that I see Islam as a backward religion that is worth insulting in cartoons. My cartoon would have said nothing worthwhile, solved nothing whatsoever and instead could have only caused more mistrust and unhappiness. So I didn’t draw it.

Don’t get me wrong, free speech is something that is of immense power, it is a foundation stone upon which I believe civilisation is built and I do not agree that the Prophet Mohammed or anyone else should be exempt from it. But it needs to be used where it can make a positive difference, where it can have an impact, where it can, as it has done so often in the past, reshape our world for the better. We have the right but also we have the responsibility.

So, Je suis Charlie...or not? To be honest, I’m still far from sure? Who know; perhaps after my trip to Paris I shall have a better idea?

Inundated by Gypsies…

This week someone whom I love and care for very much said that to me. Almost as soon as I walked through the door, they’d decided that the most important thing that they had to tell me was “Do you know what’s happening now? We’re going to be inundated by Gypsies…” Ok, so they might have said “overrun” rather than “inundated”, my memory is hazy at the best of times, but if anything, that is worse so we’ll stick with the former.

The cause of this impassioned outburst was the fact that three traveller sites are scheduled to be built in the area. At least, that is what I was told. A little digging found that it was probably not strictly true; it seems to have come from a misunderstanding over this proposal which cites possible sites for travellers in the Staffs Moorlands. The article lists seven potential sites and three are near to the house of the person who told me. In all actuality however, it is unlikely that more than one would ever get built.

That however, is not the point. Instead what got me angry was the attitude. This person is a lovely, caring, non-racist and non-prejudiced lady who would not wish ill on anyone. Yet to me, that outburst is racist, full stop. The statement implies being invaded, taken over, by an alien race of people. One wouldn’t use it about another race. Can you imagine someone saying “We’re being overrun by Pakistanis” or “Inundated by Jews”? Sadly, you could, but it would probably come from the lips of the local EDL rep.

The fact is that Britain’s travelling community seem to be fair game for a level of prejudice and racism which used to be acceptable fifty years ago but has largely disappeared with any other race. When I asked the lady why she felt having travellers in the area might be bad, she stated that it was because they are “dirty” and “don’t clean up after themselves”. I asked for any proof of this. I did not receive any.

Indeed, if we are to look into this a little deeper, isn’t the term “Gypsies” both racist and inaccurate. It was coined originally to describe the Roma people who people assumed came from Egypt (hence “gyp”) whereas in fact they originate from India. And Britain’s travellers are not even Gypsies – or Roma – at all. They are only called that because, like many Roma traditionally did, they live as nomads.

So, if those are the myths, here are some facts. Travellers refer to themselves as Minkiers or Pavees, or in Irish as an Lucht Siúil, meaning literally “the walking people”. and they are ethnically Irish, having adopted a travelling lifestyle at some period in the last millennium. The reasons behind why they might have done so are unclear although two popular theories are that they were dispossessed of their land during the time of Cromwell or perhaps took up wandering during the potato famine of the 1840s. Travellers are one of the most marginalised groups in UK society, with low incomes and lifespans noticeably shorter than those of settled populations. They have a high instance of certain genetic diseases, perhaps due to a long tradition of intermarriage within their own community. Finally, they are often devoutly religious, usually Roman Catholic.

Over the years I have worked with many travellers and have found them usually tor be friendly, fun and abiding by a strict moral code. Conversely, I have seen how low literacy in particularly has held them back and meant that resorting to criminal activity to earn money is not uncommon. They aren’t angels but, similarly, they aren’t devils either.

Like all of us, they are human beings with dreams, hopes, sorrow and joy.

And that should perhaps be remembered by everyone next time we see a headline damning them.

Technorati Tags: pointon diversity,irish travellers,travellers,prejudice,racism,gypsies,roma

My Hometown Fanatics

Greetings!

I had the pleasure this week of working with some young men from a variety of different inner city communities talking about fundamentalism and fanatics, both Islamic and Fascist. We had a great discussion and I think everyone learnt something after watching ‘My Hometown Fanatics’, a programme originally aired on BBC3 but now available on YouTube.

Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps

It’s presented by a young lady named Stacey Dooley who seems to have made a career travelling around the globe and investigating various stories from employment difficulties for graduates in Tokyo to binge-drinking in Bulgarian resorts. In this programme though, she returns to her hometown of Luton which has gained a reputation for fanaticism, and made a point of talking to a variety of Lutonians from hardcore Islamists to EDL supporters. She tries on a niqaab, walks the streets with Tommy Robinson, an ex-schoolmate of hers and (then) the leader of the EDL, and also gets into a debate with Anjem Choudary.

I have to say that this programme is a brilliant introduction to extremism in its many shades and is presented in a way so that young people find it relevant and interesting. So, well done Stacey and I’ll be watching out for more of your programmes in the future!

Educators, this is a great tool to use when introducing this relevant and potentially tricky topic.

All the best,

Matt

Technorati Tags: pointon diversity,fundamentalism,islam,stacey dooley,luton,edl,tommy robinson,education,niqaab,bbc3,youtube