Illegal but beautiful

Paris has lots of graffiti. My friend Dan thinks it is no more than London. He also quite likes it. Mostly, I hate it; especially coming in to arrive at Gare du Nord.

Annoying

To me, it is indicative of a rundown area. It makes the area look worse not better. Much of it is talentless and representative of rebellious people taking pleasure in annoying lots of other people. This is how I feel about it.

Occasionally I see graffiti that I find pleasing to look at. Often however, even this ‘good graffiti’ seems to be in an unsuitable location where it clashes with its context thereby rendering it still annoying. Extremely rarely, I see graffiti that looks great and suits its environment.

Subjective

All of this is my subjective view. Taste in art affords such opportunity for diversity I doubt that anybody agrees with me completely.

But what do the graffiti artists think? I am certain that some of them have no interest in producing something aesthetically pleasing. People who aim to leave their tag in the most daring possible location are merely showing off. I have heard some of them say so in documentaries. Some are asserting their protest; rebelling against society, or the majority of society. Yet, others really seem passionate about producing something of great aesthetic worth; and, indeed, succeed.

Naughty

According to Merriam-Webster graffiti is unauthorised writing or drawing on a public surface. The Collins definition suggests that graffiti is often obscene. This is not a positive view. Perhaps this is why young people tend to talk about ‘graff’ rather than graffiti to avoid these immediate negative connotations.

Democracy fails?

Dan talks as though the majority, who do not like graffiti, subjugate the minority who do. He has a point. It is more an evidence of the civilisation of a society how it treats its minorities than how much power is given to the majority. This notion raises a question mark over democracy, quite rightly.

Genocide

My colleague Steve, who sits next to me at work, used to live in Rwanda. That is the country where the majority ethnic group, the Hutus, murdered over eight hundred thousand of the minority ethnic group, the Tutsis, in 1994. This was roundly condemned worldwide as a genocide which left the United Nations’ Security Council looking horrifically inept. The current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, was not democratically elected. Steve tells me that if there were democratic elections, the Hutu majority would elect a Hutu president who would sanction further Hutu genocide of the Tutsis. Democracy, it seems, is not always the answer.

Understanding but not liberty

Graffiti artists, like Tutsis, deserve as much understanding as any other minority. The question is, how much liberty do we allow them? We do not allow child abusers to continue to offend on the basis that they are a minority that deserves protection. Some minorities, like thieves and murderers, though we seek treatment and rehabilitation for them, we nonetheless subject them to our justice system and quite rightly prohibit them from pursuit of their particular idiosyncrasy.

So how should a society decide which minority deserves protection, which deserves impunity and which should be subject to justice? Extreme examples are simple. Ethnic minorities victimised by racists deserve protection while we lock up serial killers; but what about the more opaque examples? Should we really be imprisoning peace protesters who incorporate peaceful civil disobedience into their demonstrations? How much force is excessive when defending your own home against an intruder? What is the appropriate penalty for possession of cannabis? And returning to the main subject of this post, when is graffiti acceptable? Councils prosecute some graffiti artists whilst covering a Banksy with Perspex to protect it. These are examples of what I shall call borderline criminality.

Loo Circle

I saw a Banksy once. It was at Glastonbury Festival, near the stone circle. He was invited to put in his own installation. I would love to know how the Eavis family, the festival organisers, managed to contact him. This installation was a parody; a circle of Portaloos covered in graffiti. I was particularly amused by the bit that read “Ancient Pooins”.

Make do

Democracy is not perfect, as we have seen. But it is the best option. If we could find a truly righteous dictator, that would be my preference. But no such thing exists. Dictators throughout history have shown a propensity for feathering their own nests and suppressing their people. So we are stuck with democracy.

Rwanda’s racial hatred, currently obstructed by dictatorship, should actually be dealt with by international intervention. If an ethnic group really is so fixated with murderous intent towards its neighbours, then that group has to forego its right to self-determination. Pacifist intervention would be preferable, however, I cannot call for armies to be withheld from a situation where millions of deaths are inevitable.

Mix

Returning to the knotty problem of borderline criminality, we have to trust the democratic process, including all of its elements; a relatively free press, the right to protest, representation, debate and, indeed, government. It is the inclusion, within this mix, of protest and parliamentary representation, of every individual citizen, that ensures minorities are heard; and graffiti artists have a particularly effective form of protest at their disposal. Given this crucial stipulation of the complete mix, it is safe to say that statute should be relied upon to clarify the boundaries of acceptability.

In the case of graffiti, the law nearly succeeds. There are appropriate areas set aside for legitimate graffiti. I call for more of these. Artists can disregard the law in protest or as a gamble that their work will find popular approval. But if I find someone scrawling over the walls of my apartment, I can have them arrested. You see, I do not want even a Banksy beneath my bedroom window and I want to hang on to my right to choose. As for the Gare du Nord, I wish there could be more vigilance by officials, or, at least, the French graffiti artists could be a tad more imaginative.

Ideas for living extremely well

Seldom will you meet a more fantastic bunch of people than those at Nottingham Contemporary a week ago. Specifically, it was a week last Saturday and it was Tedx Lace Market, an event where we heard twenty minute talks from some people with messages worth hearing. Let me tell you about it.

Eat every day. Cook once a month

Mark Westcombe’s talk about co-housing blew me away. He presented a model I did not realise was happening in this country outside of modern monasticism.

A number of households, in his case forty-one, live in a cul-de-sac in which the road has been turfed over as a communal play area for the kids. In the middle of the play area is a building for the use of all neighbours. It contains a large kitchen and dining space which can feed all seventy people who live on the street. Upstairs from the dining room are a number of guest rooms that anyone in the street can book when they have friends or family come to stay.

The neighbours take turns at cooking and washing up. It frees up loads of time, reduces waste and costs less. It also creates a great social network. There are always leftovers which can be taken as doggy bags for lunch the next day. Kids play together and are kept an eye on communally. Cars are shared.

I do have some questions about this style of living. I wonder what is done about neighbours who fail to gel. Are there ever any neighbours who expect more out of the arrangement than others are prepared to give; perhaps with an over-developed sense of entitlement? Are neighbours screened before they move in? I will have to direct these questions to those involved.

However, the model does seem brilliant; like a workable utopia. I really need to find out more about this way of living, seriously consider adopting it and certainly discuss it with friends to see if they would want to be involved.

Hungry people chopping onions

As the day continued, Marsha Smith also brought great challenge as she discussed her concerns about food poverty. She shared with us some statistics so horrifying it is difficult not to seek to respond somehow like she did. She opened a “community café” called The Secret Kitchen.

Here are some of her statistics.

• Two out of ten children in the UK regularly go hungry.
• One third of food is thrown away in this country, i.e. 400,000 tonnes
• 4 million people are affected by food poverty
• Malnutrition costs the NHS £13billion per year

She described the incredulity of the bankers she visited seeking funding as she described her business model. She planned to offer a menu of just one option; no choice whatsoever. She would cook up one great big pot of food and when it had all been eaten up, that would be the end of service that day. Customers would pay whatever they wished.

If someone had no money, they could still eat. Marsha simply said “Welcome to chopping onions!” She wanted to teach people to cook from raw ingredients, once more; to sit and enjoy eating and to eat socially. I will be spending some money in her café if I get my way.

All in it together

I have to mention Laila-Elizabeth Risdon and Vanya Humphreys who stood up to describe their unusual household. They both have husbands and Laila has two children for whom they both take responsibility. They all live together. The unusual nature of the arrangement was something they discussed along with how it all came about. But the most noticeable aspect of their talk was the love and kindness apparent not only in all they described but also in how they described it. They seemed to effortlessly finish one another’s sentences; to take it in turns to talk, without notes, continuing the story so smoothly the handovers became imperceptible. They finished with a beautiful song sung a capella with delightful harmonies. It was like one big hug.

There were a number of other speakers, some stronger than others, but the overall impact was inspiring. As a man of faith I am bound to look for faith wherever I go and, as far as I recollect, God was not explicitly mentioned by any of the speakers. Yet, believing God to be the epitome of love and kindness, I found Jesus in just so much of what I heard. Perhaps none of the speakers share my particular faith but I am convinced there were many in the room who, with me, are seeking goodness, love, peace, hope and joy for the world. I believe they serve with Jesus whether they realise it or not.

The aspiration of TED seems to be to share ideas for free. This event did that successfully and, in so doing, broadened aspirations, stimulated passions and shored up resolution. I would encourage everyone with any interest in community to check out the TEDx Lace Market website.

Siding with the Sanctimonious Daily Mail

It seems unusual for me to be congratulating a Conservative Home Secretary but this week I do. Even more shockingly, I find myself siding with the Daily Mail! Theresa May was quite right to block extradition of Gary McKinnon to America and perhaps the Daily Mail’s campaign helped. I shudder.

I am sure he is not innocent. But what is he guilty of? According to The Daily Mail he was merely looking for little green men. This cannot be entirely true because he managed to hack into US defence systems and record the message “US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . .” (2008 House of Lords Judgment McKinnon vs US paragraph 16) These are not the words of one who is merely a UFO spotter.

Ketchup

They are words, nonetheless, with which many would agree. Few people these days back the war in Iraq. Those who opposed it at the time now seem courageous and wise. Many innocents needlessly died and the greatest beneficiaries were the arms dealers. The pacifists who cover themselves with tomato sauce and pretend to be dead at weapons fairs do a great job highlighting the real cost of that ghastly business. Pioneers of non-violent demonstration like the late genius Walter Wink make an excellent case for civil disobedience in the face of murderous regimes. If this was Gary McKinnon’s intention, perhaps his motives were laudable.

Lightsabers

However, call me suspicious, but I suspect a fair dollop of ego at work here, too, though. His politically savvy attack on US foreign policy, mentioned earlier, went on to say “…I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels. . .” (2008 House of Lords Judgment McKinnon vs US paragraph 16) Feel free to cringe now. He had been doing so well! The political rhetoric was powerful and persuasive. Why did he have to ruin it all by turning into a character from Star Wars?

Gary McKinnon betrays here the fantasist within. Perhaps, like me, he is a fan of The X Files. With his hacking skills, maybe he saw himself as a real life Fox Mulder; “Solo”, lone champion for the truth. But he just could not resist showing off. Nobody can really believe he was just being helpful when he left the message on the computer system of a US naval installation “Your security is crap!” (Daily Telegraph)

Help for the Mighty

Nonetheless, however much Gary McKinnon was showing off, he did provide a valuable service to the US military and NASA. It is far better that a relatively benign fantasist hack in and embarrass America’s military might than someone with murderous intent.

Embarrassment is surely what this is all about. Ten years of legal jousting, discussions at The White House and pressure from the US government does seem like a “sledgehammer to crack a sci-fi nut”. (Daily Telegraph) Had he been extradited, he could have faced up to 70 years in prison. (BBC Online) This is like the reaction of a playground bully nursing the bruises of a dented ego.

Immunity & Impunity

So how much damage was actually done. None of the reports I have read link Gary McKinnon’s activities with any deaths or actual harm in any way. Many pacifists would surely declare this to be the perfect protest; maximum impact, minimum risk to human life. The US military claims that $800,000 worth of damage was caused (BBC Online) due to disruption to their activities.

However truthful this figure is, Gary McKinnon did hack in illegally. He broke the law; even if it was the act of a freedom fighter. Protesters who take part in civil disobedience do expect to face the legal consequences of their actions, sometimes even somehow incorporating this experience into their protest. Arguably this has happened with Gary McKinnon; though in his case more by luck than judgement.

Some argue that, after ten years of fighting extradition, he has been punished enough. (Mirror) Certainly there seems to be no doubt and strong medical certification for his Asperger’s Syndrome and his suicidal tendencies. But someone’s illness should not automatically make them immune to prosecution. I was horrified when Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber was released from prison, not because he was suddenly considered innocent, but because he had cancer.

The justice system should offer deterrent, punishment, rehabilitation and protection. Society needs no protection from Gary McKinnon, nor does he particularly need rehabilitation. There are arguments both ways as to whether he has been punished enough. If he receives no sentence whatsoever, though, this heavily implies license to every hacker in the land to do their worst with impunity.

Spies at School

Just two days after the ruling by Theresa May, the government assaulted the news headlines with an apprenticeship scheme for spies, targeting young people from all academic backgrounds. The Foreign Secretary made the announcement at Bletchley Park, famous for Second World War codebreakers. It seems to me that if they are looking for hidden talent for this sort of work Gary McKinnon might well be the ideal candidate. He may not be so young as the government target group but he has a proven track record at dealing with modern day security.

I propose he be given a community service sentence. It could last for the rest of his life. I imagine that a decent codebreaker is remunerated pretty generously. Let us assume a salary of £100,000 per year. I think he should be allowed to receive only a small part of this until the US military have recouped their costs of his shenanigans.

Purple Patriot?

Ever since I became a Christian in 1989, I have tended to be pretty sniffy about patriotism. I regarded my citizenship of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ eclipsed my citizenship of anywhere else. Furthermore it has always seemed perverse that people of western countries should expect such a comfortable lifestyle compared with those in the developing world purely because of the accident of being born in a particular country. “National interest” has always struck me as a polite way of saying selfishness. “We must look after the British national interest so that all of us important Brits get to luxuriate in our wealth and to hell with the rest of the world.” I do not think so.

UK government gets something right!

The current UK government have an overseas development budget of £8.164bn for the current financial year. It is the biggest ever. This is quite right. My only concern is that it should be greater still. Nonetheless, this commitment to national philanthropy does offer the green shoots of a reason for legitimate patriotism. We cannot turn our backs on those in our world who have so little, as the British National Party would have us do. Interestingly, I took a look at the policies webpage of the so much more decent and responsible United Kingdom Independence Party and could find no link either to a foreign affairs page or an overseas development page.

As I ditch my old tendencies towards extremism it is perhaps also time I look at how much baby I might be throwing out with the bathwater. Does my first allegiance to God really mean I can have no other allegiance? Was Jesus to be taken literally when he said that we were to hate our fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers (Luke 14 v.26)? No, this was hyperbole, a figure of speech, exaggeration to make a point. I have worked in ministry alongside beloved co-workers who have been avid supporters of Nottingham Forest, Notts County, Leicester City and other clubs. I have even attended the odd game, myself! These good people’s football fanaticism is no more at the expense of their faith than holding a British passport or joining a university society at Freshers’ Week. We can hold more than one loyalty without any threat to that which we hold most sacred. Indeed, our whole lives seem to consist of choices and preferences, many of which pose no conflict to one another.

Icons

We live in an age of icons. Even those of us who would never dream of picking up a copy of Hello cannot help put take our bearings from such landmarks as McDonalds, Nike, Apple; London 2012, 9/11, Live Aid; Jess Ennis, Mo Farah, Prince Harry and Lady Gaga. This is not all bad. Mother Theresa definitely raised the moral aspirations of the world. The Paralympics and Olympics celebrated discipline, commitment and solidarity. Live Aid raised funds to assist with the famine in Ethiopia as well as general awareness.

This jubilee, Olympic and Paralympic year has been wonderful; really positive. Many people have reconnected with one another and a sense of British identity. Solidarity and identity are good things. The more I consider this particular allegiance now, the more I see that it is important that we can celebrate being British without any bigotry. If we love our country maybe we will keep it tidy, maybe we will learn about its history, maybe we will tour around it and maybe it will afford us a basis on which to get to know our neighbours, at a time when so many of us seem to live such isolated lives. This certainly seems to have happened this year. I took part in a “Jubilypmics” party in my brother’s street. Many neighbours who had lived close by for years were meeting for the first time.

Royalist

The royal family are icons. The Queen is perhaps the utmost icon of our time. There are those who think that we can do without the royal family; their extreme privilege; Prince Philip’s comments about slitty eyed Chinese people, Prince Harry’s backside and Kate’s breasts. Then again, there are those who think the royal family are indispensable for exactly the same reasons! Certainly it is difficult to imagine any family accepting the role and putting up with all that scrutiny without compensating privilege.

There are many good arguments for both republicanism and monarchy; fairness, privacy, propriety, tourism, constitution, impartiality; but for me the clincher is iconography. So long as there are royals prepared to take on the role, the country will continue to benefit from their unique focus. At massive state and world occasions, it is the royal family that seal the significance, provide the focal point and somehow articulate meaning on behalf of many. Their images offer a marker for the times. These royal icons do us good.

Holding back the tears

I am in Cambridge this weekend. My friend Dan is at university here. Yesterday he gave me a tour of many of the magnificent colleges. They are awesome. Walking through quadrangle after quadrangle I had a massive lump in my throat. Was it because I was at the centre of such a renowned seat of learning? Was it because these buildings were steeped in such history? Was it because many famous heroes of academia had walked these same paths? It was all these things and more. Kings College with all its conceited crowns sums it up rather well. These colleges are very hallmarks of “Britishness”. Whatever the questionable motives for their original construction, we have them now and they are iconic. I was walking through icons of my heritage. I am not ashamed at all to be moved by this. On Christmas Eve this year, when at 6pm Radio 4 broadcasts Carols from Kings, and that loan choirboy stands to sing the first verse of Once in Royal David’s City, I will be moved again and feel comfortable with my British identity.

Rules, rules, rules

Welcome to my first post in my new blog.

I saw some young friends today. They were skateboarding near my apartment. They greeted me warmly and introduced me to some of their skateboarding friends. We chatted for a while before I headed off to get some lunch. A subject that occupied the conversation, and my thoughts afterwards, was that of rules.

Rules never seem like a joyful thing do they? Instead they are more of an irritating necessity. Who gets excited about rules? Perhaps the people who make them up do.

Whatever rules my skateboarding friends might be subject to are not worth my scrutiny here. But there are rules I find myself subject to; some I am none too happy about. I hate the fact that Al Qaeda bombers, who the politicians say will not be allowed to impact the freedoms of us ordinary citizens, seem to have succeeded in making security a nightmare at airports. Similarly, I hate the fact that a middle aged bloke like me cannot talk to young people in public without arousing suspicion that I might be some sort of predator. It seems to me that the bad guys seem to keep screwing everything up for the rest of us. Why should the abusers in this world make life that much more complicated for everyone else?

I cherish the right to be able to talk to my friends of whatever age and background and to make more friends. However, the bad guys have screwed it all up. Whenever I see the youngsters with their skateboards next, I will continue to be mindful of how the conversation looks to other people around and bear in mind all those interfearing rules our society has concocted; reluctantly.

Does anyone know if it’s true that it is against the law in Switzerland for a man to wee standing up after 10pm?