Birthing Brilliance

Emerging into the world with force
Did you push or did they pull?
Did you neigh like a horse
Or kick like a mule?
There’s a wiggle and a rattle
Thus life’s journey starts
And it’s going to be a battle
Even as the curtain parts.

You’ll stretch with a smile
As you slowly rise.
You’ll imagine the mile
Flashing by your eyes.
The path ahead is straight
And the body is full of potential.
Still there is a trait
Of the strength to enthral

The person you are
Is but a hint of your passage so far,
The person you will be
Is the superhuman fighting to break free.
You will be feared by apex predators
Because you are truly a blessed creature.

Does it all End in Death?

 © Brandon Godfrey

Death is supposed to represent an ending. And in many ways it actually does. It is the end of a life. The severing of all relationships. The conclusion of all plans and ambitions. Sometimes a life ends too soon and that leaves feelings of hurt, disappointment and loss. There are instances where a life has been long and fulfilling and a death evokes a sense of appreciation and gratitude. Sometimes the circumstances of a death might be tragic or regrettable. Those circumstances play a role in the feelings which are brought forth about the death itself.

For the people left behind a death might mean the ending of a relationship or the start of a new understanding in the relationships of others. So even though there is a death it may actually trigger new perspectives on existing relationships. It is possible it might bring people together and strengthen the bonds between them. Or it may drive a wedge between people and create new estrangements.

I have no clear notion of whether a hereafter exists or what it possibly is like. However, if there is no hereafter then maybe death is a final end for the person who passes away. If one believes in the soul or spirit passing on to judgement, a better place, purgatory or reincarnation then it means death is not the end of life. The idea of life after death does raise some questions though. What would happen if one partner in a happy relationship dies, and the other partner goes on to have future happy relationships? If the surviving partner subsequently dies will they reunite with the first dead partner? If other partners also go to the hereafter how do they decide who ends up with who? Will they have to roll the dice or play cards for the honour? Maybe in the hereafter there are no relationships. A real ‘till death do you part’!

Whatever one feels about a death or dying life doesn’t end with death. Death sometimes reveals new things we never knew before about the dead, or the people around us. It can give us a new insight into ourselves or life in general. The dead can inspire us or unite us. Death might bring sorrow, or even relief but what it doesn’t do is end us. From death we can find a fresh purpose, a clearer vision, a new path, a stronger will to live, and a renewed determination to do better.

BREXIT Black & Blue

The current mess that is Brexit has proven clearly that politicians are mostly inclined to pursue their self and partisan interests ahead of the greater good. As a Black citizen of the United Kingdom life after Brexit is threatening to be both frightening and frustrating. The government is full of fools and frauds with very little moral standing. The opposition is full of dogmatic ideologues and short sighted political plodders. Brexit presents a range of social and economic problems for all people on the British isles, however there are likely to be a number of issues specific to Black and Minority Ethnic people. There has been an alarming rise in right wing nationalism and general xenophobia across Europe in recent times. This does not bode well for conditions that await Black people in the new order of things.

Travel around Europe will potentially become increasingly fraught for Black British citizens. Not only will they have to go through tough visa application processes but they are likely to be subjected to further scrutiny at point of entry. It isn’t a certainty that there will be prejudice in the process post Brexit but the current experience of Black non EU migrants and visitors suggests there is scope for discrimination.

Access to support or services while abroad will be variable. Since there won’t be a guarantee of entitlement officials’ prejudices will play a role in how Black people are treated in the event of an emergency or crisis.

An important contribution to quality of life for Black people living abroad is having family, relatives and friends visit them. Similarly being able to travel freely to visit loved ones is important. Maintaining those intimate connections with people living in the EU will become much harder. The likelihood is that

It is traditionally difficult for relatives outside the EU to get visas to visit the UK, and now it is going to be harder for relatives in the UK to get visas too. Ultimately this will affect a range of situations from family interaction to spouses being able to join their partners.

Almost all of Europe is likely to suffer adversely from Brexit but there is the potential that a heightened level of discrimination towards Black people might be one of the unintended consequences. This is something that the EU and UK should put formal processes in place to monitor and tackle as necessary.

The Irresistible Pull of Lying

Lying is one of the fundamental flaws in human nature. It reflects a person’s inability to distinguish between being good and being safe. The root cause of a lie is never primarily dishonesty; it’s essentially a need to protect the individual mentally, emotionally or physically. It is possible that from childhood some people learn to adopt it as a defence to fear and anxiety. It is also possible that some people develop characteristics that compel them to be fluid with the truth.

All of history and religion is founded on a lie of some sort. It’s commonly referred to as myth and legend but it’s really just a set of lies. The various creation stories and the legendary tales of intrigue and derring do serve a purpose but are mostly fantasies. And very often these are the things which become cultural idioms.

Adults routinely lie to children in order to protect them from what might be considered emotionally disturbing truths; or sometimes to spare themselves having to explain things they do not fully comprehend themselves. Sometimes these lies persist and become a pattern in the relationship between adults and young people. The adult might be convinced of the well intentioned nature of the lie but often resorts to untruth to serve their own ends.

Human relationships are mostly bonded by a process of teasing out the truth. After first meeting in person people tend to ask around about their new acquaintances to confirm or check out what they’ve seen or heard. When an initial online connection is made people will trawl social network or internet presence to verify what they think they know. Find out if it’s an actual person, a catfish, a true likeness, an interesting character or some racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, sociopathic internet troll.

Politicians now appear to consider lying a professional tool of the trade. Misrepresentations and false denials seem to be something they dispense freely in the event of a crisis. They seem to consider the lie to be a more than adequate recourse until they happen to be found out or caught in the lie. They take it for granted that if caught in a lie then an apology is adequate contrition.

The lie of omission is something a lot of people like to imagine isn’t a lie in real terms. However, it is an act of deceit in which an untruth or lie is left unchallenged. The purpose and the effect of it are often harmful and hurtful to parties involved.

One has to recognise a distinction between lying and imagining. Creating fiction represents an attempt to portray or reflect real life or a life as imagined. Lying seeks to distort and misrepresent reality. While fiction is capable of having a negative influence it doesn’t attempt to pass itself off as fact.

There will always be some question about whether there is any justification for lying, even if it is considered for a greater good. People are naturally inclined to stretch the truth when put under pressure, or sense an advantage from it. The moral imperative is for people to be mostly honest. I think that is the least anyone should expect but it maybe all one can hope for.

Sports and Prejudice

Does the fact that a person is an athlete or sporting personality mean that any observations about their performance or behaviour should be exempt from accusations of racism or prejudice? It seems that on too many occasions criticisms of ethnic minority and female athletes seems to flirt with prejudice, or is actually outright discriminatory. While social media has provided a new platform for prejudicial abuse there is no shortage of such abuse being levelled in person or amongst groups at sporting events. Fans should be free to criticise and ridicule while analysts should be able to critically appraise performance. However, this should be without being racist or misogynistic.

A lot of racial inferences were made about Serena Williams’ questionable behaviour during the 2017 US Open Tennis final. A certain Australian cartoon was particularly offensive. Following a series of racist incidents at football matches in England ex England international John Barnes made reference to unconscious prejudice; and stated that racism in society as a whole needs to be tackled first in order to get to grips with racism in football. Tammy Abraham, the Chelsea FC striker, missed a penalty in the UEFA Super Cup final and was subjected to racist abuse online. The racially charged atmosphere in most sporting venues, the paucity of Black and Minority Ethnic people in management positions, the chauvinism directed at female officials and lack of effective action against offenders appears to be encouraging more bigots to unleash their bile in sporting settings.

The issue of equal pay continues to dog sports. At sporting events where females and males compete alongside each other there is no reason not to pay them equally. Lawn Tennis has made some strides in this direction. In America, women’s soccer is certainly the more successful on the international stage. There is also more female participation in soccer at grassroots levels. The demand for equitable remuneration appears to be both fair and reasonable, at the very least. It appears moves towards a balanced discussion about equal pay are held back by the greater number of males administering sports and an adherence to arcane and outdated traditions.

It seems that sports still remains a space in which people feel it’s ok to give vent to whatever racist or sexist vitriol they have pent up inside them. The idea that this is mainly due to unconscious prejudice would imply that these bigots are merely being naive rather than ignorant. However, the vitriol and violence that often accompanies such prejudice suggests that it is a consciously held view that seeks to dehumanise its victims.

While it is true that sports can not eradicate prejudice in society at large, sporting bodies certainly have a responsibility to combat prejudice and promote anti-discrimination in their areas. This includes defending and supporting victims, challenging media and online prejudice against their wards, excluding perpetrators and those who condone discrimination directly or by silence and inaction.

A self aware organisation would ideally welcome activism amongst its members. Socially responsible  values not only encourage commercial value; they also promote inclusion and participation. This is the real way to increase engagement in a sport. However, as we have seen with the NFL in America not all organisations have that level of maturity or self awareness. It must be said though, that combating prejudice and discrimination in sport is a different duty to promoting socially positive values. Dealing with prejudice should be a fundamental part of every sports’ charter. It should not be optional or done at their convenience.

Malaria Vaccine Tests: Who Really Benefits?

Malaria has been a major health hazard in tropical countries for way too long. The suffering and ill health it causes contributes to a higher rate of infant mortality; and accounts for a loss of work hours to economies. The news of plans for the testing of a malaria vaccine is a welcome development. If successful it should help prevent infant fatalities, general suffering amongst the adult population, and help protect visitors to affected areas.

The malaria vaccine is expected to form part of a complementary treatment approach to malaria. If successful, it alone cannot lead to the eradication of the disease. The causes of malaria are rooted in political, social and economic conditions of developing countries. The inadequacy of public sanitation, drainage, and hygiene means that mosquitoes will continue to breed and thrive in the affected countries. The political will to improve social conditions is often lacking in these countries. Most sub-Saharan countries are significantly underperforming on their sustainable development goals (SDG), especially in the area of health.

It is well known that the attention paid to public health improvement in sub-Saharan Africa is far from commendable. Were it not for charitable organisations like the Gates Foundation health immunisation and public sanitation would not be receiving adequate consideration or resources. The development of a malaria vaccine is a significant step in combating the disease. However, if it is not made universally accessible to those living in the poorest and most dire circumstances then its benefits will be limited.

The successful development of a malaria vaccine will immensely benefit people traveling to affected countries from more developed countries. However, unless steps are taken to ensure that the vaccine is universally affordable and accessible to the poorest in the affected countries then it may turn out that they end up being testing guinea pigs for a vaccine they may not be able to fully benefit from.

Caster Semenya: The Case Against the IAAF

The CAS rejected Caster Semenya’s appeal against a new IAAF regulation requiring competitors in the 400 and 800 meters disciplines to take medication to regulate their testosterone levels if they are classified as having hyperandrogenism. The ruling found that the regulation was reasonable and fair to protect the integrity of competition. When news of CAS’ ruling originally broke I instantly disagreed with it, considering it to not properly understand the nature of discrimination. My view was that if a person was legally recognised as a woman then no professional organisation had a right to limit their right to participate in any activities as a woman. However, I then read some material about the biological and physiological nature of the XY condition and felt I needed to give the matter more thought. I needed to explore whether the condition was a natural physical one or actually altered their gender at a more subliminal level.

CAS’ decision to include testosterone levels as a criterion in the definition of a woman feels fundamentally flawed. Testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone in human beings whose levels the individual cannot naturally alter. Therefore it isn’t within the individual’s purview to choose what level occurs in them. This would make it naturally occurring and reasonably permissible, as long as there has been no manual ingestion or physical manipulation. The definition fails to make a distinction between what is normal and what is natural. While the condition that has resulted in the higher levels of testosterone is not the norm amongst women it is perfectly naturally occurring in the women with the condition. They therefore should not be penalised or stigmatised because of it. To not  allow them to participate professionally would be unfair and directly discriminatory. Being exceptional is not an unusual thing in sports. Be it height, coordination, reflexes, speed, physicality; the history of sport is defined by individuals with exceptional characteristics.

The CAS ruling stipulated that any discrimination involved in the IAAF decision was reasonable and necessary to ensure the integrity of the sport. That doesn’t actually compute. The standard for performance in athletics is on a continuum between qualifying cut off and world record. The participation of these athletes has not prevented anyone from qualifying for an event. To the best of my knowledge none of the women with the targeted condition has broken a world record or actually been close to doing so. It would therefore stand to reason that if he world record was set by women with ‘normal’ levels of testosterone then they would not have been disadvantaged by the participation of the athletes currently being targeted. So it would appear that these athletes are being penalised because the rest of the current field are not able to perform to a higher level. This in effect saying that because the current crop aren’t good enough to beat these athletes then it can’t be fair.

It appears from the actions taken by the IAAF that it considers testosterone levels to be the single or overwhelming factor responsible for the performance of the female athletes with the condition. It isn’t clear what evidence it has to that effect. Certainly, there are other women with that condition who are not excelling over those distances in athletics. In fact, for all we know there might be women out whose athleticism is hindered by the condition. The IAAF decision suggests any woman with the condition would automatically have an unfair advantage over those distances. We do not know that is true to any degree. The women who are doing well have trained, applied themselves and developed skills to enable them to excel. That presumably doesn’t just come with higher testosterone levels.

Doriane Coleman wrote an article declaring the CAS ruling a victory for female athletes. Her position was that these women were to all intents and purposes male and their participation would deny ‘females’ the chance to win in competition. Her implication that these athletes are unbeatable is clearly erroneous. They have been beaten and would be beaten anyone running close to a world record. And the suggestion that if other athletes are not winning then it devalues the competition is just nonsense. When Ed Moses was on his winning streak he was lauded for it. And I thought the spirit of sport was in the dignity of competing and giving it your all. It shouldn’t be just about winning.

The IAAF requiring athletes to take medication to lower their testosterone levels is not only unfair but also unreasonable. Does it know what impact this might have on their personal and sporting lives? Denying them the opportunity to participate professionally unless they take medication is not too dissimilar to an employer refusing a woman a job unless she agrees to take contraception to avoid getting pregnant during the period of employment.

The IAAF has a duty of care to all athletes and is responsible for the regulation of the sport. However, it should not risk the health and wellbeing of a minority group of athletes to appease the sensitivities of a larger majority. There is no way that these athletes are destroying the integrity of the sport and they should not be subject to unverified medical procedures to satisfy some people’s notion of normality. In so much as this ruling appears to target a select group and seeks to prevent them from participation then it is unfair and discriminatory. Sport should never be about curtailing natural ability.