1. You smell the fresh smell of burning coal whilst cycling through the detached neighbourhoods of South London and remember the fresh smell of burning coal you smelled when you travelled for hundreds of miles across the cities in your home country (and especially if you use 'miles' in stead of 'kilometers' in this sentence).
2. You know where and what St. Helen's is and why the bankers go there after the financial crisis.
3. You know not to state your ethnicity when the police is taking down a record because you know that it will be used to generate criminological intelligence which they will use against certain ethnicities to discriminate them.
4. You leave the stinky smell of the attractive East and cycle all the way through the City on a fine Sunday afternoon to play football in Chelsea with all-investment-banker squad of your friends who live in West London in between the smells of lavender and 5 cm. upper-hand of high heels.
5. You feel you are in your childhood memories' Mediterranean/Middle Eastern summer resort where the small edge between the cobblestone pavement and the sidewalk is bent at a lower spherical level than the rest of the road.
6. You go home at the end of a long work and drink-out day and still feel lonely and still find the excuse to blame it on the grey weather.
7. You can appreciate all deep fried bacon, sausage, beans, fried bread and others for breakfast.
There is a lot more, but already for the better or worse, I feel like I am almost one.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
and now time for a little bit of dignity...
At the very end of the "UK News" section of the BBC News is the story of a European Courts of Human Right (ECHR) ruling the "stop-and-search powers" illegal in the UK. I have long criticised the uncontrolled use of the police of the "Terrorism Act 2000" by which the police could randomly stop and start interrogating people anywhere on the street or, as was recently the case for me, at your departure gate at a UK airport. The new ruling by the ECHR seems to bring some dignity into the "abuse of democracy" that has been haunting the hereabouts of Europe increasingly over the last decade. It leaves me little to wonder why BBC only put this piece of news in the bottom of a sub-section of its main website, as the national broadcaster is admittedly too much with the Labour politics which reflect itself in the Home Secretary Alan Johnson's surprise and appeal at the ruling of the ECHR.
Fortunately, not everyone is as insane and hawkish as Mr. Johnson in this country. Alan Johnson may be trying to find support by the working and the middle classes sections of the society that Labour has lost its influence over during their government in the last 12 years, who are now trying to fight for a final push before the 2010 general elections. The extreme abuse of policing powers is well documented in the statistical increase of the use of stop-and-search powers; a steady incline from 10,200 stops in the year 2000 to a 250,000 stops in 2008 (that is 700 people being stopped every day). The Guardian published the news on its frontpage next to the headline and welcomed the ruling by the ECHR:
Fortunately, not everyone is as insane and hawkish as Mr. Johnson in this country. Alan Johnson may be trying to find support by the working and the middle classes sections of the society that Labour has lost its influence over during their government in the last 12 years, who are now trying to fight for a final push before the 2010 general elections. The extreme abuse of policing powers is well documented in the statistical increase of the use of stop-and-search powers; a steady incline from 10,200 stops in the year 2000 to a 250,000 stops in 2008 (that is 700 people being stopped every day). The Guardian published the news on its frontpage next to the headline and welcomed the ruling by the ECHR:
The decision by the European court of human rights to find against the use of section 44 stop and search powers because they lack proper safeguards against abuse is of immense importance for civil liberties in Britain. Not only is the specific practice of random search rendered illegal by the court but its judgment focuses attention on the increasing abuse of measures brought in by the Terrorism Act 2000, and the resentment of the public.
The news brings to light a somewhat scary alliance between the ve and executive powers in this democratic country. Apparently, the "Policing and Security Minister David Hanson said he was disappointed at the decision given that the government had won all previous challenges in the UK courts". Either the judges in the UK have lost all sense of humanity or that there is not a clear separation of powers in the British democracy anymore, a notion that even "quasi-democratic" Turks like us are proud of its (thin) existence in our own country.
The Independent decided to publish the news from the perspective of the Conservatives, with whom they are more aligned with and possibly bidding to win the next elections (and they may be right). Almost ironically, Conservatives attack the Labour goverment for letting the police abuse their powers and promise to change the law to cut use of stop-and-search. One does not need to think too hard to come to the conclusion that this is potentially pure bullshit and a lame populist propoganda by the Conservatives to win the hearts of those (someone potentially like me, were I able to vote) extremely disappointed by the Labour's self-denial policies.
The ruling by the EHCR seems to bring some dignity and applause back to the European consideration of human rights. It is not the EHCR is making a bold decision, in deed, we have seen many and clear examples of this institution holding somewhat a valid set of ideals despite many consistencies and clashes in some of rulings they have had on similar cases (Turkish readers and students of law or sociology will remember the famous examples on different rulings cases brought to the attention of EHCR about the subject of veiled women). However, it remains to be seen how much the "awkward European" of Europe, that is Britain, as she likes to see herself, will respect this ruling. Already the "Chief Constable Craig Mackey of the Association of Chief Police Officers said officers would continue to use stop and search powers" while the appeal made by the government against the EHCR decision is pending. It looks as if intimidation and violation of human rights with respect to privacy and implicit alieanation and scare-away tactics against the "unwanted" subjects of this society will continue for a while, and I shall fear that Britain will have to hire a very good shrink or a brain surgeon to deal with its increasing paranoia problems.
The news brings to light a somewhat scary alliance between the ve and executive powers in this democratic country. Apparently, the "Policing and Security Minister David Hanson said he was disappointed at the decision given that the government had won all previous challenges in the UK courts". Either the judges in the UK have lost all sense of humanity or that there is not a clear separation of powers in the British democracy anymore, a notion that even "quasi-democratic" Turks like us are proud of its (thin) existence in our own country.
The Independent decided to publish the news from the perspective of the Conservatives, with whom they are more aligned with and possibly bidding to win the next elections (and they may be right). Almost ironically, Conservatives attack the Labour goverment for letting the police abuse their powers and promise to change the law to cut use of stop-and-search. One does not need to think too hard to come to the conclusion that this is potentially pure bullshit and a lame populist propoganda by the Conservatives to win the hearts of those (someone potentially like me, were I able to vote) extremely disappointed by the Labour's self-denial policies.
The ruling by the EHCR seems to bring some dignity and applause back to the European consideration of human rights. It is not the EHCR is making a bold decision, in deed, we have seen many and clear examples of this institution holding somewhat a valid set of ideals despite many consistencies and clashes in some of rulings they have had on similar cases (Turkish readers and students of law or sociology will remember the famous examples on different rulings cases brought to the attention of EHCR about the subject of veiled women). However, it remains to be seen how much the "awkward European" of Europe, that is Britain, as she likes to see herself, will respect this ruling. Already the "Chief Constable Craig Mackey of the Association of Chief Police Officers said officers would continue to use stop and search powers" while the appeal made by the government against the EHCR decision is pending. It looks as if intimidation and violation of human rights with respect to privacy and implicit alieanation and scare-away tactics against the "unwanted" subjects of this society will continue for a while, and I shall fear that Britain will have to hire a very good shrink or a brain surgeon to deal with its increasing paranoia problems.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Dinner table lay-out
This is not about the lay-out or design of a dinner table. This is about some dinner, and some lay-out or form of some streets in London, or in my thoughts.
A.k. does not eat meat. Whether out of politeness or sincere appreciation of the smell, he seemed to have been impressed by the lamb. R.s. did make all the food as well as preparing the dinner table. S. had a long trip earlier and seemed to be quite tired. She was on her usual go during the dinner conversation, though. We were to discuss possible collaboration opportunities between our 'centre' and an institute at the NYU that earned a new grant. Everyone was going to bring in ideas about their current occupation and where they see themselves in a few years time and how this could all contribute to a potential work that would come out from the collective work (or a merger of their individual works) of the people.
I knew I did not have much to say when it would be my turn. I did learn a lot of what others were doing, though, as well as getting more detailed information on what my colleagues have been working on. At some instances, I was working hard on grabbing a fruit out of my fruit salad with my spoon without making too much noise not to interrupt anyone. I only had to deal with what was on my plate, the wine was being poured down somehow.
At one point I was looking at the shape of a piece of lamb meat and thinking of continuity and randomness in shape and form of things. If they had asked me at that moment of what I was thinking I could have easily come up with the following, which I developed on my way back home after the dinner:
"I am thinking of the about how the mystery behind street lay-outs of this city differs for me than those of in Istanbul. As I walk even around in the avenues which I walked before in London, I always see streets that I have never walked into. They may be completely new, or I may have seen them before. However, I've never discovered them. I now understand why: In Istanbul, I would walk into almost any street I pass by. The reason is that there is a bigger curiosity in every street. Because I can never see the 'end' of the street, regardless of how you define an 'end'. For me, it means where my point of view, that is aligned with the road on the street, whether be it paved or unpaved, a dirt road or an asphalt-road, gets interrupted. There may be a building that intervenes into my vista, or the street may be turning to right or left, or there may be a hill going up or down, so my view would always be cut before I reach my natural limit of my sight. Then, because of that curiosity, I would go in and discover that street. This is due to the topographical diversity of Istanbul as well as its historical and architectural heritage.
In London, it is not the same, thanks to the fact that many of the streets are created in a grid-pattern where you can see how the street stretches to the extent of your sight. It just goes straight ahead, except for the minority of the streets in the historical parts of the city shaped by Roman architecture and city-planning. The rest is just flat. Added to it is the usual gray and misty weather so your vista is even more limited and you already know what the rest of the street is like. Therefore you don't walk into it. But at that moment, another curiosity kicks in. In fact, there is a funny dilemma, or a dichotomy. The sheer fact that the streets in Istanbul are more crooked and interesting make the city overall a more mysterious place, but because I have discovered much of that mystery, there is few left for me. However, in London, because I don't tend to go into every street because of their similar patterns, there remains a greater amount of mystery for me. And at that point, I start to go into smaller-scale details that I might have not done otherwise:
I look at the differences of elements and how they are aligned in different streets. The size of a park and whether it is on the right or the left hand-side, and how many residential places it would correspond proportionally to its size in the street it is located. What are the proportions of social-housing to a detached housing in this street? Where do the older type of terraced or detached housing stop and social housing begin on the same street? And even if these are streets in the same neighbourhood with similar typologies, then I would start to zoom even more to start thinking about what sort of stories are taking place in the households on a particular street. To be fair, I would do the same in Istanbul, but not out of necessity, but out of already established curiosity. However, here in London, that curiosity could be my only tool of differentiating between different locations even within the same neighbourhood..."
Maybe, this could have been my answer, but my response was actually much shorter and straightforward:
"I have not really been focused on academic research for over a year now and I do not know where I see myself in 5 years". I did talk about recent interests in migration policies and socio-political implications of different spatial configuration of different migrant groups but that did not evolve into a discussion that other people brought up into the table. Well, I wasn't intending to lie or make up a story anyways.
My whole existence there, as well as what was going around was a big story in itself. I guess at this point, it may even be relevant to reveal that R and S are damn world-famous sociologists. And the dinner was delicious and wine was good.
A.k. does not eat meat. Whether out of politeness or sincere appreciation of the smell, he seemed to have been impressed by the lamb. R.s. did make all the food as well as preparing the dinner table. S. had a long trip earlier and seemed to be quite tired. She was on her usual go during the dinner conversation, though. We were to discuss possible collaboration opportunities between our 'centre' and an institute at the NYU that earned a new grant. Everyone was going to bring in ideas about their current occupation and where they see themselves in a few years time and how this could all contribute to a potential work that would come out from the collective work (or a merger of their individual works) of the people.
I knew I did not have much to say when it would be my turn. I did learn a lot of what others were doing, though, as well as getting more detailed information on what my colleagues have been working on. At some instances, I was working hard on grabbing a fruit out of my fruit salad with my spoon without making too much noise not to interrupt anyone. I only had to deal with what was on my plate, the wine was being poured down somehow.
At one point I was looking at the shape of a piece of lamb meat and thinking of continuity and randomness in shape and form of things. If they had asked me at that moment of what I was thinking I could have easily come up with the following, which I developed on my way back home after the dinner:
"I am thinking of the about how the mystery behind street lay-outs of this city differs for me than those of in Istanbul. As I walk even around in the avenues which I walked before in London, I always see streets that I have never walked into. They may be completely new, or I may have seen them before. However, I've never discovered them. I now understand why: In Istanbul, I would walk into almost any street I pass by. The reason is that there is a bigger curiosity in every street. Because I can never see the 'end' of the street, regardless of how you define an 'end'. For me, it means where my point of view, that is aligned with the road on the street, whether be it paved or unpaved, a dirt road or an asphalt-road, gets interrupted. There may be a building that intervenes into my vista, or the street may be turning to right or left, or there may be a hill going up or down, so my view would always be cut before I reach my natural limit of my sight. Then, because of that curiosity, I would go in and discover that street. This is due to the topographical diversity of Istanbul as well as its historical and architectural heritage.
In London, it is not the same, thanks to the fact that many of the streets are created in a grid-pattern where you can see how the street stretches to the extent of your sight. It just goes straight ahead, except for the minority of the streets in the historical parts of the city shaped by Roman architecture and city-planning. The rest is just flat. Added to it is the usual gray and misty weather so your vista is even more limited and you already know what the rest of the street is like. Therefore you don't walk into it. But at that moment, another curiosity kicks in. In fact, there is a funny dilemma, or a dichotomy. The sheer fact that the streets in Istanbul are more crooked and interesting make the city overall a more mysterious place, but because I have discovered much of that mystery, there is few left for me. However, in London, because I don't tend to go into every street because of their similar patterns, there remains a greater amount of mystery for me. And at that point, I start to go into smaller-scale details that I might have not done otherwise:
I look at the differences of elements and how they are aligned in different streets. The size of a park and whether it is on the right or the left hand-side, and how many residential places it would correspond proportionally to its size in the street it is located. What are the proportions of social-housing to a detached housing in this street? Where do the older type of terraced or detached housing stop and social housing begin on the same street? And even if these are streets in the same neighbourhood with similar typologies, then I would start to zoom even more to start thinking about what sort of stories are taking place in the households on a particular street. To be fair, I would do the same in Istanbul, but not out of necessity, but out of already established curiosity. However, here in London, that curiosity could be my only tool of differentiating between different locations even within the same neighbourhood..."
Maybe, this could have been my answer, but my response was actually much shorter and straightforward:
"I have not really been focused on academic research for over a year now and I do not know where I see myself in 5 years". I did talk about recent interests in migration policies and socio-political implications of different spatial configuration of different migrant groups but that did not evolve into a discussion that other people brought up into the table. Well, I wasn't intending to lie or make up a story anyways.
My whole existence there, as well as what was going around was a big story in itself. I guess at this point, it may even be relevant to reveal that R and S are damn world-famous sociologists. And the dinner was delicious and wine was good.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Close-up
I've just gotten to know a BBC Series 'Close-Up' which "focuses on aspects of life in countries and cities around the world. What may seem ordinary and familiar to the people who live there, can be surprising to those who do not". Here are some takes for the day from different continents around the world:
Escalators in Hong Kong as a means of transport, urban regeneration and community space:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8441626.stm
Berlin's obsession with currywurst:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8408716.stm
The mystery behind the sneakers hanging on from electric wires in Brooklyn, New York:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8334137.stm
...and here is how Britain looked like a few days ago:
Escalators in Hong Kong as a means of transport, urban regeneration and community space:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8441626.stm
Berlin's obsession with currywurst:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8408716.stm
The mystery behind the sneakers hanging on from electric wires in Brooklyn, New York:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8334137.stm
...and here is how Britain looked like a few days ago:
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
hypocrisy
Sometimes it is almost agonisingly fun to watch the continental Europe suffocate in the extreme conservatism it is headed, from this very island that I stand on. As the colours of parliaments all across the continent started turning black throughout the last decade, some argued that this will only bring about a new wave of reaction to conservative politics in the public opinion, sooner or later. It seems as if the sooner has not happened yet. In deed, the widespread seizure of European politics by its conservative politicians have meant, in the least and in its earliest, stronger tools of manipulation and scare politics. We are now increasingly talking about a Europe that is, once again, betraying its very own 'fundamentals' on issues of human rights, 'democracy', openness and tolerance.
I was driving through the Swiss mountains into Geneva on Sunday night as the results of the referendum on banning construction of new minarets in the country were being released. As it turns out, a double majority (majority of total votes and majority of cantons) voted for the ban. Geneva, along with Neuchatel, Vaud and Basel are the only cantons voted against the ban, with the first 3 all being French speaking cantons. Sadly, Bern had a clear majority for the ban, too. The capital of this very country seems to be living back in the mid-20th century, or shall we say, this is the new century already and we are living in some ancient times now? Us being those who have a problem with the outcome of this referendum.
There is a lot to be discussed about Swiss politics that will go beyond my knowledge, Swiss intellect and will but a double-majority system seems to be highly controversial given cantons like Innen- and Ausser-hoden both count as separate cantons with mere populations of 52654 and 15471 respectively and yet the former has highest rate of ban supporters, the latter seem to have a less clear majority on approval of the ban, and they contribute 2 out of the 23 cantonal votes (although Switzerland has 26 cantons, 6 of them are 'half-cantons' and their votes are counted half-votes).
It is then a good idea to look at what other people have had to say about this whole issue. During the build-up to the referendum, Ulrich Schlüer, a member of the rightwing Swiss People's party and one of the leading promoters of the anti-minaret initiative is reported to have said:
"The Islamic religion is intolerant, but we do not want to limit freedom of religion, we want to outlaw the political symbol"
In the same news article, as you scroll down to the comments, you read the following two comments from a Swiss user in Switzerland, and a Pakistani from the US, respectively:
I was driving through the Swiss mountains into Geneva on Sunday night as the results of the referendum on banning construction of new minarets in the country were being released. As it turns out, a double majority (majority of total votes and majority of cantons) voted for the ban. Geneva, along with Neuchatel, Vaud and Basel are the only cantons voted against the ban, with the first 3 all being French speaking cantons. Sadly, Bern had a clear majority for the ban, too. The capital of this very country seems to be living back in the mid-20th century, or shall we say, this is the new century already and we are living in some ancient times now? Us being those who have a problem with the outcome of this referendum.
There is a lot to be discussed about Swiss politics that will go beyond my knowledge, Swiss intellect and will but a double-majority system seems to be highly controversial given cantons like Innen- and Ausser-hoden both count as separate cantons with mere populations of 52654 and 15471 respectively and yet the former has highest rate of ban supporters, the latter seem to have a less clear majority on approval of the ban, and they contribute 2 out of the 23 cantonal votes (although Switzerland has 26 cantons, 6 of them are 'half-cantons' and their votes are counted half-votes).
It is then a good idea to look at what other people have had to say about this whole issue. During the build-up to the referendum, Ulrich Schlüer, a member of the rightwing Swiss People's party and one of the leading promoters of the anti-minaret initiative is reported to have said:
"The Islamic religion is intolerant, but we do not want to limit freedom of religion, we want to outlaw the political symbol"
In the same news article, as you scroll down to the comments, you read the following two comments from a Swiss user in Switzerland, and a Pakistani from the US, respectively:
Friday, October 30, 2009
iyi.. kötü..
bu gece tam 4 kere denkleştik kendileriyle.
1.sinde, "buraya bırakamazsın" diye başladı, altı üstü büfeye uğrayıp bir şey alacaktım. sonra "tamam, çabuk ol diye buyurdu" hazretleri.
2.sinde gerekli belgelere baktıktan sonra "buyrun, devam edin dedi"
3.sünde ehliyetime 6 ay el koydu, arabayı da kenara çekti. toplam 600 tl ceza ödemem gerek. hayatımın en önemli dönüm noktalarından biri bu, ama buna odaklanmayacağım bile.
sonrasında eve geldim. arabayı geri almaya gidemem, çünkü araba üzerime değil, babama kaldı. borcum neyse ödeyeceğim kendisine ama o nakit için atm'ye gidip para çekmem lazım. sokağa çıktım, köşedeki atm'den para çekeceğim. işte o sırada 4.sü yaklaştı
"beyefendi bakar mısın? kimlik lütfen"
"ne var, niye soruyorsunuz?" dedim. diğeri de pişik: "sizin iyiliğiniz için" dedi.
"bugün yeteri kadar sizinle uğraştım, al bak bakalım, bir şey görecek misin" dedim.
diğeri de "ne iş yapıyorsunuz, nerede çalışıyorsunuz diye" arkadaşça yaklaşıyor. hani olsa olsa o "iyi" olanı.
"kötü" olanı konuştu gene: "nerede oturuyorsun".
içimden konuşuyorum biraz: "...... ......, senin kendini bildiğin süreden beridir ben bu mahallede yaşıyorum, daha dün gelmişim geri memlekete"
buna mı anlatacaksın derdini. 20 dakika önce ehliyetimi vermişim 6 aylığına, anca beni tanıyanlar bilir bunun bendeki acısını.
gelmiş öbürü de ukalalık yapıyor. bir tanesi de "iyi" gibi.
4 tanesine rastladım bu gece. hepsi "bizim yararımız"a çalışıyor ya.
"ecdadını ........... ...... ." bayrağına küfrettiresiciler. iyisi, kötüsü mü olur bunun, alayına ....... .
...... ......... . siz kendinizi iyi biliyorsunuz. nitekim yıllarca bu ...... ............ üzerine eğitildiniz, kendini eğittiniz. al yanaklı suratına ....... o al alevle yanan kızılı.
1.sinde, "buraya bırakamazsın" diye başladı, altı üstü büfeye uğrayıp bir şey alacaktım. sonra "tamam, çabuk ol diye buyurdu" hazretleri.
2.sinde gerekli belgelere baktıktan sonra "buyrun, devam edin dedi"
3.sünde ehliyetime 6 ay el koydu, arabayı da kenara çekti. toplam 600 tl ceza ödemem gerek. hayatımın en önemli dönüm noktalarından biri bu, ama buna odaklanmayacağım bile.
sonrasında eve geldim. arabayı geri almaya gidemem, çünkü araba üzerime değil, babama kaldı. borcum neyse ödeyeceğim kendisine ama o nakit için atm'ye gidip para çekmem lazım. sokağa çıktım, köşedeki atm'den para çekeceğim. işte o sırada 4.sü yaklaştı
"beyefendi bakar mısın? kimlik lütfen"
"ne var, niye soruyorsunuz?" dedim. diğeri de pişik: "sizin iyiliğiniz için" dedi.
"bugün yeteri kadar sizinle uğraştım, al bak bakalım, bir şey görecek misin" dedim.
diğeri de "ne iş yapıyorsunuz, nerede çalışıyorsunuz diye" arkadaşça yaklaşıyor. hani olsa olsa o "iyi" olanı.
"kötü" olanı konuştu gene: "nerede oturuyorsun".
içimden konuşuyorum biraz: "...... ......, senin kendini bildiğin süreden beridir ben bu mahallede yaşıyorum, daha dün gelmişim geri memlekete"
buna mı anlatacaksın derdini. 20 dakika önce ehliyetimi vermişim 6 aylığına, anca beni tanıyanlar bilir bunun bendeki acısını.
gelmiş öbürü de ukalalık yapıyor. bir tanesi de "iyi" gibi.
4 tanesine rastladım bu gece. hepsi "bizim yararımız"a çalışıyor ya.
"ecdadını ........... ...... ." bayrağına küfrettiresiciler. iyisi, kötüsü mü olur bunun, alayına ....... .
...... ......... . siz kendinizi iyi biliyorsunuz. nitekim yıllarca bu ...... ............ üzerine eğitildiniz, kendini eğittiniz. al yanaklı suratına ....... o al alevle yanan kızılı.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I wonder if these people that are so upset about the outcome of the vote ever experienced how it is like to be a woman in a Muslim country. Have you ever considered, e.g., Pakistani women freedom? That freedom for which many are willing to leave behind friends and family and start a new life abroad. They are trying to escape the mentality of the country, which unfortunately is imposed by religion. What do you want to offer them, the same cage in a different scenery? This is about mentality. I admire Swiss people for having the courage to keep their country theirs, with the freedom they have fought for and gain over centuries.
I am a Pakistani woman who has lived her entire life with freedom. The claim in one of the comments below about Pakistani women wanting to escape their country in search of freedom is an outright lie - you know NOTHING about our lives! And to clarify, I attended a Christian school despite being a Muslim - that is how tolerant we are in Pakistan about other religions. My parents did not have a problem with me attending a school which had a beautiful church in itself - today, a Swiss would never allow his/her kid to attend a Muslim school! And another fact: Pakistan, a Muslim country, is FULL of CHURCHES! Hindu temples exist everywhere too! AND the white color in our flag REPRESENTS CHRISTIANITY IN PAKISTAN so if you don't know the facts, please refrain from making idiotic, untrue comments. Clearly, my point proves that other Muslim countries welcome and respect other religions. Switzerland is an exception who has now proven to the world that almost 60% of its citizens are intolerant and completely uneducated about Islam and Muslim cultures. Maybe it's time for you to pick up a book and read about it so the next time you open your mouth to attack someone, you know what the hell you're talking about.
As expected, the results of the referendum incited huge criticism from the right and the left of politics across Europe and elsewhere. Some were in the form of criticising the way in which Swiss politics work. I do not necessarily agree with those coming from this point of view. Those who claim referenda have no space in true democracies because the public opinion can be manipulated easily is nothing but fear of public opinion. It is a call for greater legitimisation of representational politics and considering those who support this idea are those who also support high turnout in election polls and believe every single vote should count as one regardless of what social, educational or economical background the voter comes from; it sounds like a hypocritical idea to oppose popular referenda. I do agree though in Switzerland, when you have tens of referenda every year, it is difficult to get a pleasing turnout that represents the opinion of the whole country and it is even more difficult to convince those in larger cities to vote each time despite their voting ballots are mailed to their homes. What is the ideal way, I do not yet know, and have not heard any convincing proposals.
Much criticism came naturally from the Muslim world. 'The 2009 Davos Hero', Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan called the vote a "sign of an increasing racist and fascist stance in Europe". He is joined by the Iran's Al-Vefagh and Jordan's Al-Dustur newspapers in terms of his tone, but those like the Egyptian Al-Akhbar and Palestinan Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah raise a different issue that is usually overlooked by those in row of harsh criticism towards the west. That is precisely what I usually think is the biggest and the most cynical mistake that is being made: Implementing and understanding on the 'other' through a discourse that barely does justice in your own territory. That is euro-centricism/occidentalism on the orient and more. European conservatism has long been headed this way.
Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf "sought to reassure Swiss Muslims, saying the decision was 'not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture'". This is only short of what some other people in other European countries have been bold enough to say: "We do not want you, and if you are not happy, go home":
- Denmark joined the generous host countries that are paying its immigrants to go back home. The coalition partners, Danish People's Party secured an agreement to pay 'anti-social' foreigners 100,000 Danish Kroners in bonus if they accept to leave Denmark. I remember my Danish Politics course during my exchange year in Aarhus and how proud the Scandinavians were (maybe Swedes more so) in setting an example of how well their immigrants are integrated and they did not have to go through the troubles the Germans have been going through in the last couple of decades.
Is it then all about the money? Are the Swiss more and more worried about sharing their welfare with 'those Muslims' who do not belong in this isolated land mass? Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the Green Group at the European Parliament suggests the wealthy Muslim stakeholders to withdraw their money from Switzerland. Fed up with the lack of co-operation by the Swiss Cohn-Bendit blames the egotism of the Swiss who 'turned down those who fled the Nazis from their own borders during the 2nd World War', and who would 'only understand the consequences of their guilt only if they see the economic sanctions brought with it'. A good one to put us back into perspective, those who enjoy rather lax migration policies here on the island:The UK has had a long tradition of imperialism and built its wealth on trading end-products cheaply produced with the cheap raw materials accumulated from its colonies. Post-imperial Britain relied on the cheap and qualified labour force brought into the island with open-door immigration policies, who would then supply the necessary infrastructure for its service-based economy. Are we about to see the major shifts taking place in continental Europe to find its way here as well?
Later on in the debate at the Question Time (mentioned earlier), the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw almost succumbed to the pressure by other guests and the audience on the immigration policies of the Labour Party in the last decade and the rising concern over an Islamic take-over of many neighbourhoods across Britain. He tried to get away by claiming that the Labour Party's immigration policies were right, at best, somewhat miscalculated, and that they would not even think of applying a cap limit to the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year. This was not welcome by many in the audience there. With the general elections in the UK fast approaching, it may as well not be so much more fun to sit here and watch the new episodes unravel on immigration policies as well as to see how Europe cope with what it once built its great pride on. After all, one wonders how much are each of these 'values' worth?