Afghanistan is a war, not a country

Afghanistan is a forgotten country.
We all know where it is but most of us forget what it is. To most people, Afghanistan is a war. A policy point. A problem.
US democratisation initiatives try to remind us that Afghanistan used to be a country, that there is future after the war. The problem is, whatever the future holds post-war, Afghanistan has been at war for so long that there is little left that could be called a country and what is still there, is at war.

Where does this story begin? With the Americans arriving five years ago? With the Taliban taking power? With the Soviets? When was Afghanistan not at war? When was it last just a country? And how does this story end?

For many Westerners the war has lost its newness 'oh yeah, that's still going on, isn't it?' is not an uncommon reaction. Yet with more troops pouring into the country than ever before, there is no end in sight. As Afghanistan heads into elections – in a desperate pretense of normality – 4,000 US marines arrived in Afghanistan's troublesome Helmand province a few days ago. This is the biggest offensive since the war began. Surely there are now enough marines on the ground to completely flood Helmand's poppy fields and kill two birds with one stone: chase the Taliban out of the area and end opium production. Regime change and crop change in one fell swoop.

Guns and money should do it.
Guns will drive out the bad guys.
Money will pay for the roads that will allow consumer crops to be taken to market before they rot, pay the blood bondage that keeps many farmers tied to opium barons and pay cash incentives for the switch from the very profitable poppy to something far less profitable albeit more benign.
Guns will persuade the undecided. And the drug barons. Maybe.
Then when Afghanistan goes back to being a country, ideas of social responsibility, legality, social and agricultural development can be debated.
Trying to discuss those now, while the war is raging seems like a cruel joke. Pretending normality is simply lurking, pretending the war has not obliterated everything that used to be Afghanistan, for better or for worse.

Everything apart from the Taliban, that is.

Marines are now combing villages in areas that were until recently held by insurgents. The latest offensive is reputed to have met with little resistance. But that is not because the insurgents gave up. It is because the insurgents slipped away. Again. And the 'boundaries' moved. Again. And the Taliban retreated across the border to Pakistan, again, because Pakistan failed to up numbers and simply deployed the existing, insufficient garrisons. Again.

Same old then?
Well not exactly. There is some variation. NATO has put more emphasis on protecting the locals rather than killing the bad guys on this occasion. If it works, they'll stick with this model. Keeping them alive, you see, is the first step to convincing them we mean well. Next step – which is what the marines are working on now – is to persuade them we really are there to stay, the Taliban are not coming back and it is safe to vote in the upcoming presidential elections. Only problem? It's been five years that the Americans have been fighting the Taliban and, although still 'there' in large geographical terms, US forces have not always managed to successfully hold onto territory. What is now the domain of the marines tomorrow could be back in the hands of the Taliban. So although the marines are promising secure civic participation now, will they still be around tomorrow? Or will the Taliban be back, killing everyone who voted in the election against their explicit warning?
Do that and I'll kill you, say the Taliban wielding their guns. That's pretty persuasive. The Marines' job is to say 'don't mind them, we'll keep you safe'. But how convincing is that?

Captain Bill Pelletier stressed that there had been no civilian casualties or damage to property, no artillery, aerial bombings or other indirect fire in a long time. Read: things are improving. But is this progress enough for the Afghans to believe the Taliban are not coming back? After 5 years of inconclusive confrontations, what would it take for people to believe? And why would people risk their lives to vote in an election that means nothing, as what passes for their country now is a set of half-baked structures propped up by the US? Why risk your life to be a citizen of a war when the very war isn't even yours?

'Afghanistan' is not a country. It is a bloody conflict, a losing battle, shorthand for all the questions US decision makers forgot to ask before engaging.
'On s'engage, puis on voit' didn't work for Napoleon and it didn't work for Bush. So it makes sense if the Afghans themselves are reluctant to put their lives in the hands of US marines who, as an army should, can always resort to a tactical retreat if the Taliban return and things get ugly. This is a war, after all.
Only for some it's also home. Ravaged, unsafe but still home. Tactical retreat is not an option.

The US may be realising this. They have shifted their strategy, confirms military strategist Anthony Cordesman. They now seek to hold onto territory and build lasting security. Right. And what was the strategy before? Lose territory and wreak havoc?

Naturally that's not what Cordesman means. US forces have proved time and again that they can win battles. They have also proved (time and again) that they cannot hold territory or win over and keep the loyalty of the population. They need to provide security, create economic opportunity, minimize Taliban influence and battle the fear of what the Taliban will do to 'collaborators' were they to come back in order to start 'holding on' to what their guns can win them. Then and only then will 'reconstruction' make sense.

This is not rocket science.
We know this. We've known it for five years. We've been talking about it for five years. They have been talking about it for five years. So they have either been lying about their intention to really do it all this time or we need to face the simple fact that they just can't do it. Maybe it just can't be done. Not this way. Not by these people. Not right now.

Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, begs to differ. 'This is a very specific example of fighting for democracy' he told the Guardian. Really?
Whose democracy? Your democracy ain't there and Afghanistan doesn't have a democracy. And that's not the way to get one either. Democracy requires stable institutions and basic freedoms, it can therefore not exist in wartime. It also necessitates grass roots participation and public engagement so it cannot be offered as a gift by an external party. Especially if said external party is wearing camouflage gear.

We occupy land so people can register for the election in August, say the marines. We protect the civilians, even if it means avoiding confrontation with the Taliban.
In other words we fight the war by not fighting the battles. And we play at citizenship, when the country is dormant.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love for the war to stop right now. For all wars to stop right now for good. But what I love and what I know are at odds on this one and what I know is this: you fight a war to win it. Day to day political activity is subjected to martial law and normal liberties are suspended. When you had those to start off with. If you never had them, introducing them during wartime is not stupid. It is hypocritical, a simple case of being seen to be doing something while everything is failing.

Obama has rightly noted that the military solution alone in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. But what he meant was that the military cannot solve the underlying problems the country had before and as a result of the war. He did not mean a non-military solution will solve the problem that is the war. What he didn't say is that the implication of this is that infrastructure development and social healing cannot take place in war time and cannot be carried out by soldiers. Particularly not foreign soldiers.

And herein lies yet another challenge: alongside the 4,000 marines hitting the ground last week there were only 500 Afghan soldiers – a token force if there ever was one. In this war, the Afghans are on the other side or simply on the sidelines, giving the question 'whose war is this' immense poignancy. And while we are focusing on Helmand, the war is raging in the entire country.
'Afghanistan' is still going on. Five years on.

What are the Americans after, what are they fighting for? Does anyone remember any more? The administration has changed, times have changed and what they set out to fight against, fight for has also changed. Yet the war continues and there's no changing the fact that this is the Americans' war. They need to figure out what it is they are fighting for if they are ever going to end it, let alone win it. Democracy and freedom are not theirs to give and they are not why they are there in the first place. Lofty ideals keep troop morale high but values and bayonets don't mix well together.

Afghanistan is a war and it's the Americans war. They should figure it out. They should end it. Then they should leave.
When the soldiers leave, when peace returns, when democracy and liberty become possible even if they remain elusive; when Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans, then it has a chance of being a country again.
Till then, Afghanistan is no country, it is a war and any talk of reconstruction, democratisation and institution-building is simply trying to mask the fact that the war is still going on and it is going rather badly. For all involved.

When in Rome, how about remembering you are a Roman?

What are you up to this summer?
Island hopping? A beach holiday? A cricket tour? Watching Wimbledon? Whisking your underage offspring out to southeast Asia to marry them off to someone they've never met?
I'm only asking because, if that's your plan, the authorities are onto you.
Apparently teachers, doctors and the police have been given guidelines to help them 'identify and tackle the problem of forced marriage' now that forced marriage season is upon us. That's right, summer holiday is peak time for children to be taken to south Asia and forced to marry, says the British government. That makes sense, doesn't it? You don't want the sudden end of innocence and trust to mess with the underage bride's education.

But obviously this is no laughing matter.

According to recent figures released by the National Centre for Social Research more than 5,000 people are at risk of forced marriage each year. In Britain. The research is trying to stay neutral – to avoid accusations of Islamophobia – but the fact is that the vast majority of those 5,000 'people' are girls born to Muslim families of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. That said, the research also has to stay neutral because their data is shaky and hard to obtain. For instance. The Centre believes that between 5,000 and 8,000 cases of forced marriage were reported in England in 2008 alone.
First thought: fucking hell that's a lot.
Second thought: if these forced marriages are reported, how can you be estimating in the first place, surely it's a hard number. Plus how on earth can you have a margin of error of this magnitude? 3,000 incidents is hardly a case of 'give or take a couple'.

Why on earth can we not count these incidents properly?
Part of it is because the people dealing with these incidents don't always understand what they are up against. And part of it is that those dealing with these issues, well, they'd rather they didn't have to.

The research found that there is a distinct lack of understanding among statutory service providers making the problem harder to spot. When is a marriage a forced marriage? Who needs to report it to make it real? If the bride bows her head and goes along with it yet her cousins call the authorities, is the marriage consensual? If the wedding takes place in another country, is it still our problem?
And isn't it altogether easier to put all this unpleasantness in the 'ethnic' box, plead 'cultural sensitivities' and let the whole thing carry on in that grey space of 'cultural practices' in which coexistence flirts with the ghetto?

Although schools have been instructed to be on alert, many are reluctant to look into this issue for fear of being accused of being disrespectful towards other cultures. Is that a true fear? Is that an excuse used by school staffers who do not want to have to deal with this? Is it a convenient shield for fathers who want to determine their children's fate in a country whose legislation does not permit it? And who should back down first in what starts as a conversation over a small girl's future and before you know it becomes a grand debate over multiculturalism? Well. That depends. On whether you care more about the epistemology of the question or the little girl.

Let me put it another way: Whose problem is it that underage girls are being married off against their will and before the legal age of consent?
If you ask me, I'd say this problem, like all others, belongs to those who cause it and those who can solve it. Those who cause it don't want to fix it on this occasion. And those who can solve it wash their hands on grounds of culture.
The government spokesmen are trying very hard to be firm in their opposition to forced marriages whilst not dismissing any religion or culture, coming up with the following gem in the process ' there is no culture, and there is no religion in which forced marriage […] is acceptable'.
I'll give you the religion bit, Mr spokesman, with the caveat that no religion embraces forced marriage in its pure doctrinal form. Because all religions have at some point condoned and many have embraced forced marriages in practice. And although I salute this commitment to wooliness, I'm afraid there are numerous cultures in which forced marriages are acceptable by default, because familial hierarchy means that daughters in particular (but also children in general) are not equipped with independent judgment or volition and decisions are to be made by the head of the household, family, clan or tribe for the good of all.
That's cultural. Not how we do things here. But how things are done elsewhere. Culture.
Culture is not all jingly anklets, lantern festivals and pinning money on the bride, you see.
Culture entails prohibitions and imperatives, duties and invisible lines of command. Every culture.
And in some cultural settings it is acceptable to marry off underage girls to people their families have chosen for them. In fact, in many cultural settings from South America to Africa and from Eastern Europe through Asia, this is hardly shocking. Not here. But elsewhere. The difference is that here 770 girls have already reached out to the Forced Marriage Unit this year. And it is feared that many more are too scared of their parents to pick up the phone, go to the police, speak to a teacher – in short, too scared to use the legal framework that exists and is on their side. They are here. And yet they are not.

But those who call, what do you think they say on the phone? Please sir can you protect me without antagonising my dad and insulting my culture? If not, forget about it and thanks for trying.
Or do you think they may be saying the exact opposite: I was born here and I was raised here and I used to think I belonged here. So if I am one of yours, regardless of creed and colour, why are you not making sure your laws apply to me when I need them most?

All I'm saying is their dads have forgotten about the old adage 'when in Rome'. Despite the laws and the discourse of freedom, their dads have forgotten to act like the Romans would.
What about the Romans?

Broken record day: Credit crunch yourself

Today is a broken record day, you've been warned.

Repeat after me: Greece does not have a credit crunch. And again. And again. Now say it like you mean it. There is no credit crunch: The fact that you live in the midst of a crisis does not mean that your crisis is either glamorously 'made in the USA' or someone else's fault.
I know I've said it before, but after 9 solid days of hearing Greeks bemoan 'the international crisis' it's obvious that when I last said it nobody was listening.

You hear it on the Greek news: 'Greece is in the grip of a global credit crunch'. You hear it in the shops. Even the baker near my parents bemoaned the credit crisis. Apparently it was to blame for the reduced profiteroles sales. Even though profiteroles don't sell well in summer. Ever.
But everyone wants a share of the misery pie that is the crisis. It gives everyone a reason to moan and we all love a good moan. It gives everyone a reason to ask for reductions to commercial rent, retail prices, hotel bills. And it gives the authors of Greece's actual crisis (because as we've said before, it does have one) a perfect excuse to hide behind. Not only is this crisis not our fault, not only is it not in our power to resolve it but all the cool kids have the same crisis too.

Well. Not quite.
The cool kids have an actual credit crunch courtesy of American bankers who over-leveraged and decided, to put it as simply as it deserves to be put, that the unemployed and the under-employed living in trailer parks were not likely to default on their rent or mortgage payments and buying up that risk would make a good product for their clients. My seven-year old cousin could tell you what would happen next: the bottom of the food chain did what it was always going to do (it defaulted) and the repackaged financial products that transferred parceled-up risk across the globe made a single mother's rent woes a global financial headache. Apply the same model to repackaged credit card debt and you have a lot of corporate bankers feeling stupid and a lot of their clients losing serious amounts of money.

Now these financial products are created and consumed within a rather narrow (large but still narrow) community of financial services players, all of whom are big corporate entities and not individuals. In other words, this crisis was internal to the system that caused it and could have stayed there. But that would have pretty much killed the system in its present form and would have hurt the people who run and benefit from it, so it didn't stay there. It was shared out and we all got to feel the pain. First the pain was shared with the rest of their organizations and, though their commercial banking sections, with the public. And we all got to join in the fun.

First it was our mortgages. Then it was residential rent prices. Then it was interest rates. Then it was salary freezes and job cuts. Then it was consumer goods and everything else you can think of.

What was the alternative, you ask?
The only alternative would have been for the whole financial services community, globally, to go down in flames. Corporations would lose money, financial products would lose all credibility, the financial services sector would self-combust and stop selling hot air (futures, options, repackaged debt) thus causing massive unemployment in the financial sector and all those servicing said sector. We would have had a crisis then as well. But we would have had the right kind of crisis and the system would have purged itself, possibly into extinction. Now we are all counting our pennies and the way banking is carried out is largely unchanged.

Is it simplistic to suggest that they could have protected the consumer from feeling the pinch? Yes, slightly. But given the choice between sharing the pain or losing not just their jobs and their bonuses but also their entire industry, big banks decided to engage in some displacement activity. Anything else would have involved radical change in the banking sector and who wants that? Not the boys in the big offices. So the pain was shared out and, before you know it, everyone is feeling the pinch. Retail spending goes down and marketing shifts to adjust to the new patterns. Advertising is withdrawn so newspapers are slashing journalists' jobs; bankers and lawyers are being sacked so the sandwich shops, dry cleaners' and retail units all around their offices are shutting down too, for lack of custom; financial services businesses are cutting costs and the support staff (cleaners, receptionists, maintenance staff and canteen workers) made redundant go on the dole, become exempt from paying council tax for a while and, before you know it, councils are slashing mother and toddler aqua classes, teachers' posts and your second rubbish collection every week.

Of course it's a cycle.
Of course Greece is part of the global cycle of woe, doom and gloom.
But the credit crunch hit Greece in a localised and specific manner. Mortgages were affected. But the percentage of Greeks carrying a mortgage is tiny compared to the rest of Europe. Shipping was affected, but that is a small and self-contained community. Import-exports were affected and that spilled into retail. Tourism was affected but we are yet to feel the after-shock for that one.

But was your Joe Public affected? No. Because his salary was so low already and the cost of living so high already that he hardly felt the additional spike. Now he's told it's all down to the credit crunch and he buys it because there is a global credit crunch and it's affecting the whole world so why not us? And if we haven't caused it, we can't fix it so the government can sit on its ass while the few businesses that are benefiting from this all are pushing prices higher and higher and salaries lower and lower.

It's a good plan. Only there is a flaw in it that will become apparent when the credit crunch passes, because it will at some point, and the Greek financial crisis remains. And remain it will because it has nothing to do with the credit crunch and everything to do with public mismanagement of tax revenue, high unemployment and under-employment, low salaries crippling the spending power of an entire generation, insufficient public investment, an ailing agricultural sector and dying manufacturing.

Add to that a banking sector that is almost entirely outside state control and effective scrutiny thus managing to get away with the biggest differential between interest rates on loans and interest rates on savings in the whole of Europe. One has to wonder who pockets the difference. I guess it's the same someone who benefits from the numerous repossessions, unlawful banking charges and other benefits brought to you by the small print that keeps being challenged by domestic and European courts to no avail.

This is not a global tsunami. This crisis has everything to do with Greece.
It has everything to do with unfair taxation, targeting those who don't tax evade and crippling them. It has everything to do with non-existent fiscal policy, with empty coffers and no ideas. And I mean no ideas. The government's latest money-making scheme is to tax mobile phone usage, per minute. Credit crunch that.

This crisis has everything to do with an economy that has not been properly tended since the military experiment of the 60s and 70s ended, and anything that is left untended goes to hell. If you use and abuse it on top, it goes to hell even faster.

So crisis? Yes.
Credit crunch? No.
And as the problems will persist even after the credit crunch goes, what I want to know is this: when the rest of the world has recovered and our home-grown crisis is still going strong, what are we going to call it then, to avoid having to deal with it?

One lovely blog, it's official

Start spreading the news: I was just given the 'one lovely blog' award by my friend Fri who is obviously a kind and charitable soul and sees through the fire and brimstone posts, through the anger and the rants to the soul within. For that I thank her and will wear my award proudly on my cyber-sleeve.

Here is the deal though.
An award is a joy to be shared and once you've accepted your award you are in turn empowered to grant 15 awards to 15 lovely blogs. So if you are on my list below do the following:

1. Accept your award – a speech thanking the academy is optional.
2. Select 15 adorable blogs and give them their award
3. Let the lucky ones know they have been chosen

That's it. Hardly taxing!

So, lovely people, here it is...
Singling out 15 blogs is actually not an easy job. My original shortlist was about 60 strong. Oops.
So here comes my disclaimer: if you are not on my list it's not because I love you any less. Honest. But considering I can only choose 15 this time, in no particular order the winners are:

Leviathan , Thanos , Colourful mind , Forada St'Aloni, Dorothea , Polyvios , Haris, El Romandante, Zinaa Kapa, Viky Papaprodromou, Polykarpos, Tyler Durden, Ftylos, Candiru, Zirzirikos

Again special thanks to Fri.

And thank you, wonderful people, who read, write and comment in this wondrous space that is the blogosphere; a space that seems to atract and keep more intelligence and commitment than any other communication sphere. Habermas would have been proud. And that's a very good thing.

Peace and I'm out.

Equal but different is not equal at all

At last.
President Obama signed a memorandum extending to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees some of the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts.
At last.

Still, this is no cause for celebration. This is basic stuff we are talking about. And although we are all happy this has finally happened, I can't help but be bothered by the fact that this simple memo is the result of months of study into how to extend benefits for same-sex couples without upsetting the conservative right and without violating the Defense of Marriage Act, an Act the Obama administration has vowed to scrap yet keeps defending.
So this memo, important as it is, is nowhere near enough if you are committed to ending the inequality marginalising same-sex couples. But it is too much if you care about not offending the conservative right.
There is no middle ground here and Obama is rapidly discovering this much to his dismay.

'This is only one step' said Obama in a conciliatory tone.
But that was a step too far for the conservarive right while pro-gay rights communities were left wondering when he's going to take the next step.
Obama has paid lip-service to the gay rights agenda but supporters feel he is not going fast enough or far enough. The conservative right, on the other hand, think he has already gone too far too fast.
From an electoral perspective, Obama needs to get this balance right. The gay community is a big chunk of votes he can't afford to lose but America's conservative heartland represents more votes still. From an electoral perspective, he needs to placate both sides, a mathematical impossibility as one side wants all rights to apply regardless of sexuality and the other, well, doesn't. So his only option is to anger both sides, a little but not too much. A thankless task if there ever was one.

All this considered, I still don't think that giving same-sex domestic partners access to healthcare is a breakthrough: it's a much-needed, long-overdue 'fix' to an unfair practice that discriminates and excludes people just because of how they find happiness and who they chose to love.
So the question, really, is 'now what?'

Obama has appointed openly gay individuals to prominent positions thus angering the right – name one thing that doesn't anger the right other than bible study – but beyond that, this is the first nod towards gay rights since he took office five months ago. Yes yes I know he has wars to finish and a financial crisis to manage but, to be honest, if he can't multi-task he's in the wrong job.

You wanna call a spade a spade?
In America, land of freedom and opportunity, some animals are more equal than others. So when a young black Democrat was elected to the supreme office, the entire world thought: here comes the end of 'equal but different' – segregation policies in all but name. But five months on, we are still waiting. What is he waiting for? The tide is already turning. Six states have legalised same-sex marriage. But, wait for it, Obama opposes that on religious grounds.

And that's where Barack lost me. Not that he cares. But he lost me.
Because that is a hypocritical narrow-minded rejection of difference (for political gain or out of personal cowardice and I don't know what's worse) and this is why:
- Christianity is a faith system based on love. Love for God and love for each other. No true Christian rejects love, wherever it is found, whatever form it may take, even if it is love you do not wish for yourself.

- Marriage is a civil bond that may or may not be sanctified by a religious ceremony. It is a contract allowing partners who spend their lives together to share the property they amass together, to make decisions regarding each other's health when the time comes, to be a unit in the eyes of the law. Religion comes into it if the couple feel it should and to reject a couple's legal right to marry on religious grounds is misguided and hypocritical.

- A same sex couple taking vows of fidelity and love hurts absolutely nobody. It takes away nothing from any other group. Even if you don't think that their love and partnership makes the world a better place, you cannot point to a single thing you lose through their union. If you don't like what you see, look away. Human and civil rights are granted on grounds of humanity and citizenship and cannot be legitimately withheld because you do not like the way people choose to exercise them.

And this is not about sexuality as such. This is about the sort of world you want to live in. And here is my problem: I think there should be anti-gun laws because people with guns can hurt others. I don't object to anti-smoking laws in public places on the same grounds but think that laws banning people from smoking in their own cars is penalizing a lifestyle choice and that's not how we do business in a liberal society. And that's the crux of the matter. My rights can only legitimately be curtailed in order to safeguard other people's rights. Not on grounds of the tastes and preferences of those in power. Objecting to gay marriage on religious or moral grounds, to me, translates to 'you can't have it cos I don't like it and don't want it for myself'.

So the time has come to stand up for what we believe in and that does not entail answering the question 'do you think gay servicemen and women should have the same right as civil servants not in uniform' (which they should); the question is 'do you want to live in a world where some animals are more equal than others'?

Obama promised to reverse the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act yet only last week the Justice Department filed a legal brief opposing a challenge to said Act (apparently administrations defend laws they oppose as a matter of course, according to Obama's press secretary) using unnecessarily strong language. If this was an attempt at conciliation, it failed. Gay groups are offended, rights activists are outraged while the right is not placated by the brief and finds Obama's memo a violation of the rule of law and the Defense of Marriage Act.

So what will it be Barack?
This war won't be won with token gestures and small concessions. While same-sex couples live in the margins because their rights are denied by a majority that doesn't care about what doesn't concern them, the right consider tiny redresses to the massive rights imbalance 'aggressive' and 'radical'.
Tony Perkins, President of the conservative Family Research Council, went as far as to speak of the homosexuals' extreme demands.
What would those be, I wonder?
The right for a couple to stay together when one partner is posted abroad? The right to take compassionate leave when your life partner is sick and needs you by their side? The right to live in dignity and peace? The right to publicly love and protect your chosen partner?

Extreme indeed.
As extreme as black kids going to school and women getting jobs. As extreme as black women voting and taking the bar exam.

The point is, fairness is not a popularity contest.
Equality is universal or it is not at all. Rights are universal or they are a sham.
That's why the world looked on in hope when a black man became President of the US. Because he didn't need to have some things explained to him. He didn't need to be told discrimination is criminal and 'equal but different' is an insult and a lie. And because he didn't need to have any of this explained to him, we expect him to stand up to be counted when fairness is at stake.

So Mr Obama, on the question of gay rights what we want from you is to eliminate the very phrase. We want equality for individuals to completely eclipse the need to even talk of gay rights. Because people who happen to be gay will have the same rights as people who happen to be straight.

Equality cannot be had by degrees. You are either equal or you are not.
So what will it be?

Greece, my Neverland

I just got back from Greece. I've brought back several tons of olives and a passable tan; I managed to forget half my clothes and take, instead, summer clothes I haven't worn in decades (because 'you never know' whatever that means, sometimes I don't even make sense to myself). And here I am back in London, back at work. Missing my mum. Missing the sunshine. And realising that storylines matter. 'Once upon time' creates its own imperatives. Stories have power, they don't determine everything but they do open up some options while closing others. That's why so much of the randomness of Greek life can be taken for granted while you are actually in Greece.
Take zebra crossings. I will go out of my way in London to find one, law-abiding citizen that I am. In Greece it never crosses my mind to cross at one. It wouldn't make a difference even if it did. Because crossing at zebra crossings doesn't happen in Greece. It's not part of the story.

Everything comes with a storyline. The way people behave in public, the way they approach politics, what they expect from the economy.

Take the European elections.

I flew out to Athens on Friday night last week. Thursday was the European election in the UK, Sunday was election day in Greece. In England you could have missed the fact that there was a European election altogether. Advertising did not go much beyond a 'don't forget to vote/make sure your papers are in order so you can vote' campaign and some flyers from various candidates. The actual candidates. 'Vote for me' type flyers including a photo and a name. Of the candidates. Themselves.

And then I fly out to Greece. And during the sleepy drive (worry not faithful readers, I wasn't doing the driving) from Athens airport to the heart of Thessaly (that's half-way up the country, for the non-Greeks among you. a drive of just over 3 hours) I saw literally thousands of political posters. More per hundred yards of high-way than in the whole of West London put together. In fact, I lost count of the political posters lining the streets before I even lost sight of the airport.
Poster after poster after poster but no sight of a candidate.

The posters fell in two categories: the two big parties (PA.SO.K – nominally socialist but essentially value-neutral unless lining your own pocket counts as an ideology – and Nea Demokratia – nominally conservative but in reality focusing more on being the most corrupt and inefficient government in a series of corrupt and inefficient governments, regardless of hue and creed. It's hard work but they are doing it very well). Those posters look identical: leader looking wistfully into the middle distance, backdrop in the party colours (green and blue, respectively) and an inspirational, void logo along the lines of 'we vote for Europe, we decide for Greece' or 'focusing on the citizen'.
The second type of poster was fielded by the communists (yes, we still have those in Greece) and the Euro-Communists (aka 'Syriza'). These were in various shades of red and focused on encouraging people to vote against the big parties as a sign of rebellion. Hasta la victoria siempre.

No mention of the European Parliament.
No mention of the actual candidates.
The storyline was all about parties and expressions of loyalty to colour schemes.

And that's the story both politicians and journalists stuck to.The entire European parliament election shebang was couched in a party narrative. The journalists were using the exact same language as if they were covering a parliamentary election. As were the politicians.
This party did this, this party got that share of the vote, a great success for the leader of the opposition, a blow for the Prime Minister.
And as all narratives, this one built up its own momentum and everyone around me was speaking of the European elections the same way. They even joked about how poorly Gordon Brown did over here.

Naturally MEP election results are often read as a rough indication of how well big parties are doing at home. But no more than that. MEP elections are safe (because MEPs have no power whatsoever so a voter will never live to regret a poor choise) so people vote in ways that they wouldn't vote 'at home': they vote Green, they vote Liberal, they vote 'funky' because they can.
No-one suggests that the result doesn't reflect poorly on Labour in the UK (not least because the nationalists did so well in the UK MEP election) but here's the newsflash: Brown was not running in the European election. The Greek Premier and his arch rival were not running the European election. Their parties weren't even running in the European election as MEPs belong to EU-wide amalgamation parties with separate leaders and rather loose party discipline.

But the narrative was so over-powering, no-one questioned it in Greece.
The narrative of the European election as a national election means that the premier has to hang his head in shame and promise the voters that he will reflect on the message they sent him (in this election that had nothing to do with him). But this same narrative allowed him to dismiss parliament, hide a series of scandals under the carpet and literally get away with murder.
This narrative gave all political parties a breathing space of several months 'preparing' for an election that didn't affect them and basking in the glory of a victory that doesn't concern them.

Stories matter.
'Once upon a time' sets the tone and we follow. It takes skill to spin a good story, to make sure things are understood a certain way, viewed a certain way, linked a certain way. Stories matter. Because we live in terms of stories and we understand our experiences in terms of the stories they fit into and we all assume our roles within the stories. And although we question events and people and facts, we rarely question the story.
Remember the Matrix? It's a bit like that minus the kicks and the leather coats.

Of course, I do realise that, in the grand scheme of things and in light of all our erstwhile leaders have put us through, this is small fry. In some ways, the European election gave our leaders something to play with that meant the economy, justice system and social structures were left in peace for a while. And yet this little game matters immensely. Because this story, as many others, was spun to perfection as far away from reality as it could possibly be without giving the game away.
And we swallowed it whole.

All I'm saying is that those who determine the 'once upon a time' also hold the 'happily ever after' and if we want a part of that, we'd better keep an eye on the storyline they are feeding us.

The wicked witch of the west, the cowardly lion and the murdered abortionist

Once upon a time there was a famous Wizard who made wishes come true. In the weird and wonderful land of Oz, the Wizard captured people's imaginations and creatures travelled far and wide just to ask him for a favour. Of course those of us who know the story, know that all said creatures already had what it is they were after and the journey to the Emerald City was one of self-discovery during which our heroes learned to accept themselves and others.
The story I am about to tell you now has many similarities to that tale but, as it's a true story, we are not holding our breath for the happy ending.

So, my story begins with the cowardly lion. Not the cute one in the movie but the man who shot a doctor dead a few days ago in the US of A, in church, no less, because they disagreed on the issue of abortion. Well, we sure are not in Kansas any more, if people who call themselves 'pro-life' kill a man to stop him from doing things they disagree with. Only, we are in Kansas, cos that's exactly where the crime took place: in a church foyer in Wichita Kansas.

And here's me thinking anti-abortionists were church-going folk who objected to a woman's right to choose on God grounds and would never desecrate a church.

As you would expect, anti-abortion groups in Wichita were fast to condemn the murder. They would never do that, they said. Harassment was their method of choice. Without a hint of embarrassment they relate to the press how they have spent money, time and effort to have Dr George Tiller investigated by the health authorities and prosecuted for 'his crimes'. Which are? Doing something that is perfectly legal but contrary to the moral code of some.

News flash, everyone: 'but I don't like it' stops being a valid argument roundabout the time you start kindergarten. Especially when the thing you are pouting at is a. legal b. none of your business.
Because abortion is legal and the people who are objecting to it are not being forced to have one, so what is their problem? Or, to put it more scientifically, whatever happened to that most glorious gift of American democracy: liberty? Was the gift a lie – smoke and mirrors, a bit like the Wizard of Oz himself? Is your liberty actually mitigated by who disagrees with you and how powerful they are? The short answer to this, I'm afraid, is yes.

And of course abortion is a very controversial subject for American politics. In fact, it is bordering on the obsessive. Election after election, the christian right will find a way to make abortion a debate topic somehow. Why? Because they care. But why they care quite so much, beats me.

Why is there a large chunk of the American public who cares so much about something that doesn't necessarily concern them?
Bear with me here:
Abortion is never compulsory even when it is advisable on medical grounds. So those who object to abortion don't need to have one. Surely that should be the end of the conversation, in a democracy, right? Right. Unless you are a neo-con, Christian rightist who believes that their morality is the straightjacket humanity has always needed.

Now I am not for a moment suggesting that all anti-abortionists would condone the killing of George Tiller, publicly or privately. And I don't think anyone would disagree that the man who shot him is a danger to society and should not have had access to a weapon. But – oh hold on, what do I see here? Do I see statistics suggesting that anti-abortionists are in their majority pro-guns? And, no, before you ask, they don't see the irony here.

I will not patronise you by saying I am pro-choice and anti-gun, it's dead obvious – no pun intended. But I will say that this is where we have a communication breakdown with 'The Other Side' – the Wicked Witch of the West and her ultra-right flying monkeys: when it comes to gun laws, they uphold every man's right to own a gun. To this, I say it is my right to not live in fear that some lunatic will buy a gun from Wal-Mart and wreak havoc just because. I fail to see how guns are useful items of everyday life and do seriously believe that my right to stay alive outweighs somebody's right to have a very dangerous toy. Go to the range and shoot all you like buster but don't take it to the mall. Where other people may suffer the consequences of your choices.

You see where I am going with this.
Abortion is different. It's personal and private. Doing or not doing it affects only the mother and the foetus. And although the entire controversy is, of course, around whether the foetus is a person that should be protected, the point remains that the debate is around a medical procedure that affects one body: that of the mother. And while the debate on whether a foetus is a person continues, how about a musical interlude during which the pro-lifers explain to us why, feeling as strong as they do on the subject of the foetus as a living being whose life is sacred, they remain in favour of free access to deadly weapons and the death penalty?

Dr Tiller's death will now reopen the debate on abortion – a debate that President Obama was rather keen to not have to deal with just yet as it never leads to anything other than bitter recriminations, value judgments and frothing at the mouth by some.
But debate they will now.
And what I want to know is this: what's there to debate?

A woman's right to choose is something to defend and fight for.
Dr Tiller's death is something to castigate and prevent from ever reoccurring.
But if you want a debate, how about discussing the harassment Dr Tiller dealt with in life (blockades and attacks outside his clinic, home and church; a series of legal challenges including two grand juries convened by citizen-led petition drives; and a previous non-lethal gun attack), how about discussing how all this can be stropped and a doctor administering a legal procedure protected from thugs and bullies?

Abortion is legal but there's nothing stopping pro-lifers from following the yellow brick road and seeking out the wonderful wizard of Oz with a plea to reverse the law and make abortion illegal. But while doing that they have to the stick to the yellow brick road and avoid breaking the law themselves (through harassment, murder or intimidation).

And you never know, the journey of self-discovery that helped the tinman realise he already had a heart may help pro-lifers too. They may realise that pro-choice stands for just that. Nobody is saying abortion is a good or pleasant thing. Nobody is saying it should replace contraception. Nobody is saying it is an easy choice. But it is a choice that must be available. Because women get raped, because pregnancy may present a danger to the mother's health, or because a woman is not emotionally and psychologically ready to cope with motherhood.

And while the pro-lifers will preach abstinence and threaten us with fire and brimstone and the pits of hell, I just hope that Glinda will glide in and reset terms, reminding everyone that while abortion remains legal, the state has a duty to protect practitioners from violence, intimidation, harassment. And a duty to protect the women who choose the exercise that right.

And failing that, maybe Obama should take some time to remind everyone – not what he thinks on the issue of abortion - but what the law prescribes and what the state will uphold, for as long as the law stands.

Then let the debate resume in these terms, while I rub my ruby slippers, willing a house to collapse on the thugs who have killed 4 doctors in the past ten years just for giving women the right to choose as the law prescribes.