Trampled on

 © PA Wire

The crowd incident that happened at the Asake concert at the O2 Academy Brixton venue was tragic and has led to the death of one person while others are critically injured in hospital. Following the incident there are various claims about what exactly happened and who is to blame. It is right that the events of the night should be investigated and explanations given for how things went so wrong. In doing that we must not forget that this has been a tragedy that has led to the death and serious injury of people. However, there are questions that must be asked and people who should be held to account. 

Some people have blamed the Metropolitan Police for triggering the stampede that occurred. They have been accused of holding the crowd outside the venue in the freezing cold and then using force to repel some individuals. There are reasonable grounds for questioning whether the police risk assessment of the situation was sufficient or well informed. And it is unclear whether any attempts were made by the police to communicate with or appeal to the crowd. These are issues which an investigation should look into and hopefully resolve. However, it does appear that the police were called to the venue in response to an already developing crowd control problem. The indication being that trouble was already brewing before the police arrived and somebody recognised that and called for assistance. There was also video of people fighting inside the venue during the concert and this couldn’t have been the fault of the police. Whatever the inadequacies of the police response were it is clear that they did not create the situation and were probably were swept up in it like so many other people who might have legitimately been at the venue that night. 

It is possible that the concert promoter might have oversold tickets for the concert but there is no evidence at this point to suggest that was the case. If it happens that people with valid tickets had difficulty getting into the venue then questions must be asked about whether the organisation for the show might have contributed to the chaos that ensued. It may turn out that the concert promoter could not have anticipated the numbers of people without tickets who showed up to the venue; and ended being overwhelmed by the crowd violence. 

It seems that a lot of people without tickets might have gone to the venue and then tried to force their way in. There are rumours that fake tickets were being sold outside the venue on the day of the concert. This might have led to numerous people not accounted for trying to gain access to concert that was already sold out. This would have led to dangerous overcrowding and a surge at the entrance. There is video of some people shouting to break down the doors to the venue. It is hard to imagine people with legitimate tickets trying to access the concert by force. Assuming there were people in the freezing cold who were desperate to get inside the venue it shouldn’t have led to a crush at the door. It should have been their responsibility to be prepared for the conditions and dress warm. It is also not uncommon to have to wait in turn to gain entrance at a sold out concert. That shouldn’t lead to such impatience that people would rush the door. 

As shocking as the actions and consequences of that night may be it is not exactly a surprise. While this is not behaviour typical of most Nigerians we do see too many individuals behaving in ways that are reckless, hurtful and damaging to others. There is a tendency for some people to too readily resort to violence, abuse and criminality whenever they feel they are frustrated or desperate to get ahead. Not enough is done in the community to condemn and combat this behaviour. Too many people see it as a necessity of survival or commission of victimless crimes. There has to be more that can be done to highlight the fact that trolling others, violent conflict and being abusive should not be normalised in our community. What happened cannot be described as typical behaviour by Nigerians or Black people. It was unusual but it is behaviour amongst some individuals that is becoming all too prevalent. What we saw at the concert was what happens when a small group of these individuals come together in one place and the havoc they can cause. This may not be a popular view but there are a lot of demonstrations of abusive behaviour online and in person that seem to constantly permeate how people in the community interact with each other, and people from other groups. Continued efforts have to be made to condemn attitudes and actions that give rise to domestic violence, misogyny, trolling, physical violence and verbal abuse. It’s important to bear in mind that behaviour doesn’t just occur in a vacuum. It can be instinctive but it can also be learned and modelled. 

It is very unlikely that the people responsible for the chaos, stampede and subsequent death and injuries from it will ever be brought to justice. We do know who they are though. We see their posts and comments on Instagram, Tik Tok, Facebook, Snapchat and WhatsApp. Even though these people may not be brought forward to answer for their actions in a legal forum we can only hope that the people close to them do something to hold them to account for their irresponsible actions and the suffering they have wrought. 

The business of race

Of recent Kanye West has been talking out of his ass and stirring up a lot of controversy with threatening and offensive pronouncements about Jews. A lot of his behaviour and what he has been saying has strong hints of clinical paranoia. People have turned on him in droves and he has not made much of an effort to make amends or row back his comments. Multiple businesses and organisations have ended relationships with him in response to the public outcry. He is clearly being hit in the pocket by the reactions to his unconscionable utterances but his reputation is taking an even bigger battering. It remains to be seen if there is any way back for him from casting out that he is currently going through. 

Kanye has been accused of stirring up anti-semitism and giving license to fascists and nazis to show off their bigotry. This might be a bit of a reach because fascists have never needed any encouragement to abuse or attack Jews. While fascists might wholeheartedly agree with Kanye it would appear he is actually getting more obvious and vocal support from Republicans. Republicans have literally hoisted Kanye on their shoulders and showed him around as their gladiator in their war against “wokeness”. While the mainstream is working overtime to cancel Kanye the Republicans are promoting him for all they’re worth. 

Kanye West is currently topping the unpopularity charts but he has an extensive back catalogue of bigoted declarations dismissing the suffering of Black people and criticising the response to historic abuses, and icons in the civil rights struggle. He also routinely mistreats and verbally abuses Black people and women he comes across. It is interesting that even when he was at his most obnoxious he did not receive the wholesale disapproval he is currently experiencing. In fact, businesses were falling over themselves to throw money at him for his questionable creative endeavours. Whether you call him a maverick or a moron businesses had no problem making money off him while Black people and women were the targets of his unsavoury sayings. 

It is only too right that Kanye West is facing censure for his anti-semitism. His behaviour thoughtless and feeds into harmful stereotypes of Jews. However, it is problematic that society in general is a lot more tolerant of prejudice when it is directed at other minorities. We have seen mainstream right wing personalities and politicians try to downplay the murder of George Floyd and the GOP in America have launched an all out onslaught on Critical Race Theory. A lot of the right wing outrage is a concerted effort to deny the reality of prejudice and discrimination suffered by Black people in America. A lot more could be done to address racial inequality and tensions but they would rather put all that effort into covering it up. 

The U.K.’s prime minister’s office recently released a statement saying that Rishi Sunak; the prime minister, does not consider the U.K. a racist country. While it is true that not all people are racist certain groups definitely are and the institutions still show evidence of systemic racism. Health inequalities, disproportionate involvement in criminal justice system, the ‘Windrush Scandal’, and the current animosity towards Critical Race Theory are strong indications of that. These are permitted to persist because the environment we’re in allows it. There is such a strong undercurrent of prejudice towards Black people that many cases of subtle or overt racism towards Black people barely cause a ripple. The business community has figured out that they are better off covering up or just ignoring the issue. Maybe this was what Kanye was hoping for when he decided to give vent to his inner voice. 

The Real Cost of Privatisation

The United Kingdom's current cost of living crisis has been fueled to a large extent by the astronomical rise in energy costs resulting from the lifting of caps on energy tariffs. The rise in energy costs has meant tha not only are people facing economic hardship but there is also a real risk to life stemming from an inability to heat homes during the cold months. There are certainly questions to be asked about whether the UK government has done enough to protect citizens against dramatic energy cost increases and whether it has responded effectively to the prospect of millions of people not being able to afford to pay their energy bills. What is happening to domestic energy costs illustrates the dangers of privatising essential public services.

Recent events involving the Royal Mail, National Grid, rail services and the energy sector demonstrate the long term risks of privatising essential services that are critical to the day to day lives of people. When such public services put making a profit over the welfare and safety of people the adverse effects on people’s lives can be devastating. It is becoming increasingly clear that privatising is not proving a cheaper way to run public corporations. The costs being racked up in rescuing or shoring up these privatised entities are greatly exceeding what would have been the cost of running them by the government.

The energy sector has fought to lift price caps leading to tariffs that are risking lives and ruining businesses. Rail companies have been steadily increasing fares and cutting services. The National Grid is warning about blackouts during the coldest months after a period of declaring millions in profits. The Royal Mail has become unrecognisable with erratic service delivery and threats to lay off thousands of staff to remain profitable. These companies have no problems with paying out huge dividends but seem to balk at investing profits in service improvement and innovation.  

The ideal of privatisation was to create more efficient production and introduce competition in order to make productivity more economical and drive prices down. What in fact has happened is that privatised companies have prioritised profits and dividends rather than cheaper services for consumers. These are services that are meant to be essential for the smooth running of people lives and businesses. Yet we are consistently getting threats of service withdrawal because almost all profits are being funnelled out to shareholders. In reality it has not been viable to run these services as private profit making companies.

The reality of privatising essential public services has been poorer service provision and increased hardship for majority of the public using those services. The opposition to privatising is not about condemning profit making but about ensuring that people and business can get access to the services they need in a way that is fair and reasonable. 

Airing an Era

The death of Queen Elizabeth has generated both discussions and questions about her legacy. Inevitably her legacy is inextricably linked to the legacy of the British Empire and the British government across the world. The Queen’s reign has spanned a period of momentous and memorable events across the world and  Great Britain. It has included the Second World War, the end of the Cold War, the partition of India, the splitting up of Palestine to create the state and of Israel, the end of colonial rule in Africa, the end of the two party political system in the U.K., the makings of multicultural society; Brexit; and the list goes on. It is understandable that during this period a lot of people have looked up and greatly admired the Queen for her status, service and carriage. However, there are also people who see the Queen as the symbol and representative of an oppressive and exploitative institution. These are all legitimate positions which come from places of genuinely heartfelt emotions and experiences.

The Queen has been a symbol of Britishness for over seventy years. She has represented stability and dignity to the British people and all over the Globe. She was a steadfast servant of the government and British national interest. She has been Britain’s foremost diplomat and tourism promoter all through her reign. Her non controversial nature gave the British someone to look up to and universally like. The British people have been enraptured and entertained by the Queen’s regal bearing and privileged lifestyle.

It was understandable that the Queen requested that King Charles III be retained as the head of the Commonwealth. However, it demonstrated how out of touch she was with the prevailing desire for independence and equality among citizens of member states. Retaining a monarch as head is hanging on to outdated and backward notions of status and entitlement. Making the Commonwealth democratic might have been some acknowledgment of the recognition of the evils of past imperialism and the desire to promote equality and self determination.

Even though Queen Elizabeth cannot be held directly responsible for all the misdeeds and horrors perpetrated in the name of the British Empire she cannot claim to stand for the it and its government and yet accept no accountability for its actions. Her failure to acknowledge and make overt amends for the wrongs committed will remain an unforgivable omission on her part. It must be said she has done far too little to modernise the monarchy or too promote or respect the wills of the people in the regions of which she has been the Sovereign. During her reign the royal family has been beset by scandal, petty disputes, relatively unaccomplished, entitled, indulgent, and overly close to the tabloid media. She leaves behind a King who is more pitiful than powerful, and a heir who seems unable to resolve the simplest conflicts amongst those close to him. She leaves the monarchy and the U.K. in a not much better state than when she came to the throne. The nation is a place riven by ethnic discontent, where a culture of prejudice and unfairness has taken roots and is saddled with a political system that is systemically corrupt. 

In terms of individual accomplishments the Queen may not have notched up a formidable array during her long reign. Her obligation to be non political has meant she has not taken a direct stance on many global issues. For some this has made her look disengaged and often irrelevant. There is also a school of thought that believes her being non political should not have deterred her from taking a stance on human rights and racial equality. After all, if the royal family is able to concern itself with wildlife conservation then how much more important should defending human dignity be to them? Queen Elizabeth II will forever be remembered as a major global figure of the 20th and 21st centuries. The British Empire will forever be remembered as an imperialist scourge of the developing world. For many the Queen as the head and symbol of that Empire should have done more to acknowledge and atone for its evils. 

Democracy in Disrepute

© OECD

The United Kingdom has for long prided itself on having one of the world’s most highly regarded democracies. The history and workings of the parliamentary political system have facilitated the smooth transition of power for generations. However, recent going ons has meant that its gilded reputation has become less than sparkling. In recent times other than Tony Blair and David Cameron there hasn’t been a prime minister that has been elected into the post. Now a new prime minister is about to be chosen but by a narrow partisan political group rather than a national mandate. Of the two contenders for prime minister; one is seeking to defund civil servants who work in the North, and the other wants to defund deprived neighbourhoods all over the country. So we are left to put up with a pantomine prime minister playing out his last days; and two witless clowns spouting inanities in the slap dash scramble to succeed him in the circus.

The parliamentary and presidential political systems in the United Kingdom and United States are generally considered to be the foremost examples of the democratic process. However, neither of them actually make provision for the country prime minister or president to be elected directly by a straightforward majority count of votes. The U.K. is comprised of four nations yet in recent years the country’s prime minister has come from a political party that barely wins enough votes to come second in three of those nations. And still the prime minister is able to assume office as the leader of a United Kingdom! In America there have been two recent elections in which the winner of the presidency actually failed to win the popular vote. At least Vladimir Putin had the decency to dispense with the people’s mandate and take power by trickery and scheming. 

Across the world democratic elections now represent a trade off between partisan jingoism and nationalist fear mongering. Ideology and public service barely get a look in anymore. The notion of a democracy being a government of the people for the people has become a distant ideal. Now government’s get voted in to protect special interests. No true democracy should elect a national leader without a national vote in which the whole electorate gets a say. France’s elections are one of those to adopt this approach but even  then it doesn’t guarantee the election of a universally liked candidate. Too often a compromise has to be settled on between aspirants who might often be considered a choice between bad and worse. 

Democracy has evolved from from a political idea into a universal ideal. However, a system in which the will of the citizens is subverted by the desires of a select few is not ideal or even acceptable. However, while a powerful elite only seek to perpetuate their control and power then the majority will remain disenfranchised. 

The Original Armed Robbers in Nigeria are the Military

Nigeria’s independence in 1960 involved a precarious truce between North, East and South Protectorates that had been put in place by British colonialists. In order to emerge as a unified country the politicians needed time to come together and start to act with a common purpose. The route to shared ideals proved uncertain and uneasy. Corruption and tribal tensions provided the excuses for a bloody and brutal military coup. The military brought with it authoritarian rule, elitism, executive entropy, conspicuous consumption and regional quotas. 

The military subjected Nigeria to another coup within months of overthrowing the civilian government in 1966; and then straight into a civil war in 1967. The military government never had a vision for developing an independent nation and instead focused on placating dissatisfied elements in the military and asserting control over the country. They set about establishing a bureaucracy that reflected military sensibilities. Its leadership was determined by status and entitlement, without very much regard for competence or commitment. 

The military government appointed military officers to head all government agencies. The only qualification required was military rank. They set about a programme of random capital development and resource allocation which paid little consideration to strategic need or social and economic infrastructure. What followed was the introduction of a culture of cronyism, graft and financial misappropriation. They focused on taking full advantage of the newly discovered petroleum reserves to initiate vanity projects and reward themselves with a luxurious lifestyle. 

Instead of exploring the full range of resources available in oil exploration, investing in agriculture, public sewage system, diversifying energy production, and expanding the transportation network the military focused on building roads and bridges in urban areas where they could avail themselves of the many official vehicles they had issued to themselves. There was no strategy to promote small or medium business or develop fiscal facilities to develop commercial ventures and entrepreneurship. 

The period following the discovery of oil became notable for a child like keenness to use the wealth. White elephants were proposed, started and subsequently abandoned or under-utilised. There included two steel plants, multiple refuse disposal facilities and petroleum refineries in Northern Nigeria. In 1972 the Udoji Commission was set up to look at reforming the civil service and improving terms and conditions of staff. However, it turned into a giveaway bonanza with people being given cash handouts, pay increases and brand new official vehicles. Basic level staff got a nominal amount but senior officials received considerably greater benefits. 

Despite the lucrative petroleum exploitation Nigeria fell into a minor recession in 1978/1979, eventually leading to having to implement the IMF Structural Adjustment Programme in 1986. This led to a currency devaluation, rocketing food prices and higher import tariffs. In 1977 Nigeria's national debt rose by an estimated 110%. Power generation was so poorly managed there were frequent power cuts all through the 1970s, and many rural areas still do not have electricty.

A lot of retired military officers have been at the heart of the civilian political kleptocracy that has ravaged Nigeria to the point of destitution. The military is one of the best funded organisations in the country but its budgets have been subject to rampant misuse and misappropriation. The current president, an ex military ruler, has presided over an unfathomable period of decline. He has also been incredibly ineffective and unprogressive. Olusegun Obasanjo who is held up as an example of a leader who got things done, presided over the destruction of postal and telephone services in the country. He introduced cellular services but that has been a largely unregulated money grab by providers. The National Health Insurance Service he set up only provides limited healthcare for a small minority of citizens.

Nigeria's current problems seem insurmountable and the military, and ex military officers are historically and currently at the heart of all that is wrong in Nigeria. Just to halt all the damage done a new political order and system is needed. All the current politicians need to be banned and a new constitution needs to be written. The government apparatus needs to be slimmed down to halt waste and inefficiency and resources directed to building agricultural and manufacturing infrastructure. The sole reliance on petroleum revenue has been Nigeria's downfall. The economy needs to be diversified and more prominence given to productivity. That is the real way to reduce unemployment and reduce poverty and wealth inequity.

Harvesting Organs and Futures

The case of a Nigerian senator who has been arrested and charged in the UK with trafficking a person with intent to harvest body parts has reverberated across U.K. and Nigerian newsrooms and social media. It appears to be a gruesome instance of abuse of power and exploitation of a vulnerable and deprived person. There are claims the senator enticed the victim with promises of a better life in the U.K. but secretly planned to use him as an organ donor for the senator’s unwell daughter. A different claim is that the victim was being paid to come to the U.K. as donor but was not a match and has made the accusations to avoid being sent back to Nigeria. It is possible that one, or even both of these accounts are true but we will find out in due course. 

Nigeria actually has a murky history of abductions and organ harvesting. Of recent there have been unconfirmed reports of wealthy people engaging criminal gangs to abduct, murder and harvest organs for their use. However, Nigeria’s history of this goes back to ancient times predating colonialism. Certain tribes were known to abduct people to be used in sacrifices or ritualistic offerings to gods. These practices were outlawed and phased out with the coming of colonialism and Christianity. However, there have continued to be cases and allegations of people killed, or body parts harvested as part of wealth rituals. These murderous and inhumane practices appear to be living on in a different guise  

Poverty has reached extreme levels in Nigeria. It is estimated that approximately seventy percent of the population live below the breadline. Not only are people chronically impoverished but they receive absolutely no direct support from the government by way of welfare or social benefits. Under these circumstances it is very likely that a considerable number of people would be coerced into making organ donations for payment. It is tragic that the very people responsible for raiding public coffers and neglecting public services are the same ones likely to be the beneficiaries and instigators of crimes involving organ harvesting.

As a result of mismanagement and corruption by current and successive governments and legislators in Nigeria healthcare in the country is worse than it was thirty years ago. The current Nigerian president is notorious for frequently traveling abroad to seek healthcare during his tenure. A lot of Nigerians often travel to countries like India or Turkey for critical healthcare. Nigeria is not on course to achieve any of its Sustainable Development health goals; and the WHO estimate life expectancy amongst Nigerians to be around fifty years. Less than ten percent of the national budget is spent on health. Health facilities are rundown and most rural areas have almost no access to proper healthcare. Healthcare in Nigeria is a regional lottery subject to political whim. The richest with the lower needs get the most and best healthcare while the poorest with the greatest needs get little or nothing. The NHIS is a programme that reinforces inequality and does nothing to provide access to universal healthcare.

It’s indicative of the collapse of government, political, judicial, law enforcement and health systems in Nigeria that it has taken an arrest abroad to bring these matters to the surface. It is still unlikely that very much will be done to address it. However, we are reaching the point where we can’t keep covering our nakedness with sacking and cry out hope. Our very present and futures are being harvested right before our eyes. The rot has set in and it may be too late to stop it.

Roe v Wade: Back to the Dark Ages

The leaked draft majority decision by USA Supreme Court typifies how the country still hasn’t been able to get over its dark history of oppression and exploitation. America brutalised and dehumanised Native Americans, Black slaves, and is continuing to do so to females. The idea that it’s ok for a person to kill another person who makes them feel threatened on their property but a woman cannot make a choice about whether or not to have a baby is perverse. 

If it is child abuse to have a child and not care for it; how can it be safe child welfare to be forced to have a child you cannot care for? There is no civilised society that should compel people to have a child just to satisfy a certain fundamentalist religious dogma. The notion that abortion should be outlawed for the benefit of society treats the idea of women making informed choices as a monstrous option. The judiciary cannot claim to be protecting society while making life needlessly difficult and painful for women.

Alito claims that the American constitution does not make any provision for the right to abortion. His implication being that the founding fathers would not have wanted to make it a right guaranteed under the law. However, when it was originally dreamt up the American constitution was intended to establish the presence and survival of Americans in North America. We know however that at the time of the writing of the constitution women were not deemed to be entitled to the privilege of all the rights within the constitution. Through the suffragette and civil rights movements it became clear that for the sake of fairness and reasonableness women should be entitled to full rights as American citizens. The right to choose what happens to their bodies is clearly one of those rights. The fact that it’s a choice unique to women and therefore not comprehended by the most men who have been in charge of legislation and judicial determination should not mean it should not exist. 

The idea that the right to abortion is not in keeping with American societal norms is just not tenable. America was visualised as a place where people could chart a brave new course. A place where there would be an equal entitlement for people who had been oppressed by the weight of imperialism. Banning abortion simply replaces imperialism with the conservative establishment. It serves little purpose and does just as much harm. 

Allowing individual states to decide whether or not to legalise abortion will pointlessly politicise an issue which should be a matter of personal choice. If anything, that would appear to set a course for society that might fatally undermine the American constitution. 

The Will to do Better

I’m no fan of showbiz awards shows. I think they lack integrity and very rarely reward excellence. However, they are highly regarded by people in the industries; and they do like to be recognised and honoured. At this year’s Oscars all Will Smith had to was dress up, get to the venue, smile and wave, sit his ass down, pick up his award, give a speech, smile and wave again, sit his ass down; smile and wave some more and then leave. Instead he sat down in 2022, and then decided to get up in the 1920s and play out the dated “he done wronged my woman” trope and be a knave. So now him deciding to play the fool has us all looking like chumps and debating whether it’s ok to assault another person over an “insult”. 

As a Black man I am part of a larger community that has had to acknowledge and address historical and endemic violence by Black men towards women, children and the community in general. Particularly physical and emotional violence towards women. While tackling violence is a work in progress I had hoped that within the Black community there was acceptance that the pattern of violence that we had been seeing was wrong and needed to stop. Reading a lot the reactions to the ‘Oscars slap’, it is clear the problem of violence by Black men is as big a problem as it has ever been. 

No one should expect celebrities to be role models and they have a right to conduct their lives free from presumption and undue expectations. However, actions have consequences and when a person chooses to slap another on live television in front of millions around the world then you can expect ‘the butterfly effect’ to come into play. I’m sure that it is likely that in the week following ‘the slap’ there will be probably around five homicides or attempted homicides where the perpetrator would have had Will Smith’s action in mind before committing the act. They are going to think that after Will Smith they can’t now be caught slipping; and need to show that they are not punks. It has been unfortunate to see so many people trying to normalise this type of behaviour as being necessary in defence of his wife. One would have hoped that such people would be able to distinguish between protecting and defending a person. 

No one can say exactly what went through Will Smith’s mind in the moments before he stepped on stage to commit that egregious act but we all know what probably shouldn’t have. Over the coming weeks I’m sure he will be presented with many opportunities to give his perspective on what happened. I can only hope that whatever explanation he gives is honest and responsible. 

Disunited Nations

The League of Nations was established after the first world war to enforce the agreements reached following the cessation of hostilities with Germany, while also creating a forum to cooperatively maintain a new global order. The League of Nations subsequently transformed into the United Nations at the end of the second world war. Its mission was still the same but its intention was more focused on maintaining and reinforcing a power dynamic that ensured that the super powers maintained control over global affairs. 

The setup of the United Nations mostly serves the interests of the permanent members. The basic intention is that if the super powers are kept happy then they would be less likely to go to war with each other culminating in another world war. However, this does not stop such super powers attacking other countries, or supporting internal conflicts or wars between other countries. In actual fact, permanent members have a veto that ultimately thwarts united action and silences smaller nations with concerns about their sovereignty. So it is clear that the United Nations has no ability to prevent war where a super power wishes it. It is also not able to guarantee global peace unless member countries choose to exercise restraint. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not the first time a superpower or a superpower backed nation has unilaterally attacked another country. The Soviet Union attempted to invade Afghanistan, the U.K. waged a military campaign in the Falklands, the USA has attacked Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel bombed Iran, Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen, and Russia has invaded territory in Georgia and Crimea. While there may not have been universal support for all these action the United Nations was helpless to prevent or stop them. 

There is no doubt that the United Nations and its agencies do a lot of good work across the globe. Work which is underpinning well-being and development in many countries. However, it is clear that certain permanent  members have chosen to either ignore or circumvent the charter in order to attack other countries. As an organisation that was setup to stop wars and maintain peace its workings haven’t proven effective at doing this. 

Cat Flap

The case of a Black footballer in London who was filmed kicking and hitting his cat has once again raised the spectre of endemic racism in the British society. The footballer’s treatment of the cat was cowardly and abhorrent. There was no excuse for it. However, it has become the focus of extremely divisive and xenophobic rhetoric from quite a few people in the United Kingdom. The player has been rightly condemned but some comments have been so incendiary that it would not be unreasonable to be concerned about the personal safety of the player. A lot of the criticism has referenced the player being either Black or not British. The implication being that his race or ethnicity might be a factor in why he behaved poorly. The piling on has really taken on the tenor of a lynching. The amount of outright xenophobia and racist implications in some comments reinforces the notion that there is an endemic level of racism still in British society. 

Leap of Faith

 © Sony Pictures Animation Inc 

A leap of faith means believing that you are doing the right thing because you are making the absolute right choice. You move forward without guarantees or certainly of the outcome but you have insight that  you will achieve the aim you are shooting for. Our faith in God and religion is based on a justified true belief that there is a higher authority and Supreme Being that dictates human life. Religious belief often means that people commit to worship on the basis that God is real and right. They build up a faith that their belief in a religion is righteous and redeeming. This faith allows them to rever and worship their God knowing that there is a higher esoteric calling that they are accountable to. 

As individuals we often encounter situations where we have to decide on what decision to make while uncertain about the benefits or detriment involved. We end up trying to weigh up the advantages of taking a course of action against the risks that it might entail. However, the fact that we might not know what outcome will result; be it positive or negative, does not prevent us from deciding on which course of action to take. It’s at that point that we make a leap of faith that we will achieve the outcome desired, or at the very worst we will not suffer excessively should things not turn out as we hope. 

How we make decisions about what direction or actions we take is big part of what goes into setting up our mental health. There are two things that can have a particularly detrimental effect on our state of mind. One is, when being confronted with a choice, how we proceed and whether we go on to take action. The other thing is, how we respond to situations in which we are faced with conflicting options. Not acting positively in either of these situations may lead to significant anxiety and stress induced behaviour. 

Just as with our relationship with God the strongest personal relationships are rooted in faith. Faith in another person’s altruism. We open ourselves up and step into a circle of trust where we expect the best of each other. And even when there are questions we challenge each other to be better and reward our trust. And at times when we have doubts we take everything into consideration and explore the limits of our own faith. Ultimately, that faith instils a feeling of trust in individuals. It is this that goes on to form the bedrock of most relationships. 

Taking a leap of faith means putting aside any sense of doubt and preparing to commit to a course of action that we believe will deliver some anticipated benefits. It also represents a recognition that having given careful consideration to the circumstances that is most suitable option to choose. This is how human beings commit to a long term gain over any perceived short term risks.