Nationality is not genetic

What the? Am I living in some parallel universe? One occupied by a pack of racist, fear-mongering dudes? One in which nationality and ethnicity are being viewed as one and the same thing (which they’re not)?

I’ve come across another whacko project. At first, I thought the date was April 1 but this seems to be no April Fools’ joke. And it seems that the UK has once again lost the plot. Not content to surveil the heck out of its poor citizens, the UK is now proposing to – wait for it – use DNA and isotope analysis of tissue from asylum seekers to evaluate their nationality. Yes folks, you read correctly – to evaluate nationality.

The Human Provenance pilot project was launched quietly in mid-September 2009 (yeah, if it was announced there would have been a revolution!) by the U.K. Border Agency and will run until June 2010.  Can you believe that asylum-seekers (including children)  are being subjected to mouth swabs for mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome testing and isotope analyses of hair and nail samples in an effort “to help identify a person’s true country of origin.” The program is voluntary so they say. But asylum-seekers are not likely to say “no thanks” because saying no would mean the boot out of the UK (ah, actually that might be a good thing).

Now, it’s true that refugees have been desperately trying to get to the UK from the French port of Calais, just as more boatpeople have been attempting to get to Australia. So some examination of who is a legitimate asylum-seeker might be necessary.  However, the project seems to be confusing nationality with ethnicity.

One aim of the project is to find out if asylum-seekers claiming to be from Somalia are actually from another African country such as Kenya. As one super-smart geneticist points out:

“genes don’t respect national borders, as many legitimate citizens are migrants or direct descendants of migrants, and many national borders split ethnic groups.”

And a pioneer in human DNA fingerprinting has this to say: “The Borders Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa; the extensive research needed to determine population structure and the ability or otherwise of DNA to pinpoint ethnic origin in this region simply has not been done. Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality – people move! The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.”

Worse than being naive and scientifically flawed, there’s an echo of eugenics and Nazis ringing in my ears with this project.  Didn’t those whacko Nazis use nose calipers to “scientifically” determine ethnicity?

Science Insider is asking some very sensible questions about this project – a prime one being who is conducting the test and analysing the results? Some Border Agency official who’s been given a 20 minute crash course in validating DNA?? And some well-known geneticists and isotope specialists are making their thoughts loud and clear here.

And I’d ask: have the Border Agency dudes considered for one moment the issue of traumatising a child? Many children from Africa are the product of rape, so the child’s father may not in fact be genetically related.

This is the sort of daft stuff I fear: idiots and third-rate pseudo-scientists messing around with technology, wasting taxpayers money, in their misguided, paternalistic attempts to profile, surveil and control. In the absence of public debate and a legislative and policy framework to guide and supervise their actions, this is just bad science and morally wrong. Asylum-seekers are not guinea pigs to be subjected to lab tests.

It seems that public outcry and criticism from geneticists and scientists has whacked the UK Border Agency over the head enough to make them retreat - DNA evidence will still be collected but analysed later and will not currently be used for individual case decisions.

Mmmm…at least the whole debacle reveals what idiots are out there in Government and what whacko ideas they come up with.

Half-baked cat fight

Dear reader..imagine my shock, horror, FEEEEAAAR even when confronted with……

Well, let me take a step back. I had to shoot across the Tasman for a few days last week to visit my (literally) last remaining relative on the planet. My elderly uncle, who is in his 80s. Now, I realise this makes me seem incredibly ancient if you think about it – my last remaining next-of-kin who is in his 80s. But….I was born to an older mother and father and my nearest cousin is 18 years older than me. This might help you to visualise me as less than 80 years old (I hope).

I digress. So…I had to apply for a new NZ passport as the old one was just about to expire. Prior to 2005, the writing on the front of the passport (which I think was in silver) would completely rub off. When I handed in my old passport, the consulate people here in Sydney laughed because literally nothing was left on that passport cover to say what country I belonged to. But now I’m the owner of a very shiny new passport with gold writing on the cover. I was NOT happy to see that it is an E-passport with the dreaded micro chip. I searched for secretive ways to get rid of the chip but to no avail.

Regular ThinkingShift readers will know that I am often hauled aside at immigration for bomb-testing. So I was poised, ready, waiting. But this time, something more exciting happened to me. I was going through passport control, outward bound to NZ, when…my shiny new passport was confiscated and I was hauled off for questioning. No explanation. Just “come over here please and wait here”.

Had my many posts about biometrics and surveillance finally caught up with me I wondered? (I recently declined an invite to China because I thought my posts on China might get me hauled off). I sat like a young school kid outside the mirror-walled office, just behind passport control.  I had visions of ASIO types behind that mirrored window sussing me out – did I look nervous, suspicious?

After about 5 mins, a dude walked out and handed me my passport and said “have a nice flight”. What??? No grilling? No good cop/bad cop routine? I was disappointed. I asked what’s up? All he’d say was “your passport caused a red flag to go up on our system, but it’s fine now”.

What the? What does this mean? I scurried through the dreaded x-ray stuff and off I flew to NZ.  I returned a few days later….oblivious to changes at Sydney airport.

Whilst waiting in the passport control queue, a female official came up to me and said I could use the SmartGate line and sail through. Smart idea I thought; beat the queue. Dumb ass move on my part because… you scan your E-passport in a machine and then….you go off to…..the facial recognition technology area…and have your face scanned by these dreaded looking machines. I practically hyper-ventilated.

Despite the early hour of the morning and my foggy brain, I scanned for legal signs to tell me my rights. Typical. No signs. In the absence of these, I said to the grim looking woman “I decline to undergo facial recognition. Where are the signs to tell me what I can or can’t do?”.

I thought she was about to drop dead – either from laughter or shock at my hissy fit. After all, a few sheep incoming passengers were lining up for the facial business, so what’s my problem?  She barked: “well then join that long queue over there and wait your turn”.

Fine with me. Off I trotted. The irony is that I beat the facial recognition suckers to the passport control desk (seems the technology was still asleep in the early hours of the morning). And then my half-baked cat fight went something like this:

Passport control dude (with no smile): “You have an NZ E-passport. Why didn’t you go through the SmartGate?” (I’m thinking: unfortunately, Smart Gate is nowhere near as kick-ass exciting as Star Gate, otherwise I would have gone through it!).

Me: “I didn’t see any sign that said it was compulsory, so I prefer to join this queue”.

Dude: “Well, you have an E-passport”.

Me: silence (declining to state the obvious – duh!)

Dude: “Are you declining facial recognition?”.

Me: “Yes. Seems that it’s not compulsory, so until it is, I don’t wish to have it”.

Dude (with a slight smirk) “Do you have something to hide?” (and proceeds to look more closely at my passport).

Me: “Not at all. I just don’t like the intrusiveness of it and I don’t think the technology is foolproof enough yet” (dumb ass move on my part as I got a mini-lecture on the wonders and accuracy of facial recognition software).

Me: “Well, if it’s not compulsory, then I’d rather not have it. Seems you are using the SmartGate “beat the immigration queue” concept as a way to trap people into having facial recognition. Where are the signs and announcement about what is scanned; why it is scanned; and in what databases the scans are held; and who has access to them?”.

Dude: glare….raised eyebrows….narrowing of eyes.

Me:  return glare but realising I might now get myself hauled off.

Dude: “have a nice day” and hands over my passport.

Me: “you too”, grabbing passport and scurrying off faster than a cheetah running over the African landscape, chasing prey.

Soooooo….I have obviously missed any news about facial recognition technology being introduced to Sydney airport! I do remember something about facial recognition trials some years back but I thought that had bitten the dust. I decided to do a spot of research and found an announcement about SmartGate in a dreary Ministerial press release in July 2009. It’s being rather cleverly described as a “self-processing option for travellers” and a “long-term business solution” (what the?).

It says that SmartGate is proving popular. Yes…well…there were hundreds of people in the loooooooong queues for passport control and about 10 at the SmartGate. Not sure that’s too popular. The couple ahead of me (in their 20s) were clutching NZ E-passports. They were glancing at SmartGate. They turned to me and asked what it was.

Me: “That’s SmartGate. You put the photo page of your E-passport in that machine over there. Then you go get facial recognition”.

Young dude: “What? They scan your face? No way in hell”.

Young girl: “You gotta be kidding. I’m not having that”.

Ah, so Gen Y clearly are very astute and they renewed my belief that not all of us are sheep about to meekly walk into surveillance hell. But I’m wondering when SmartGate will become CompulsoryGate.

Don’t it make my brown eyes blue

I cannot contain myself.  I’ve tried, believe me. But when I read this bizarre news item…well, I had a hissy fit, dummy spit, you name it. I simply cannot believe there are people so dumb, so stupid, so vain as to take such a risk with – in this case – their eyesight.

Aside from one’s health, being able to see is what gives humans pleasure in this world. Being able to gaze on the rich colours and textures of nature. Can you imagine what it would be like if you lost your sight overnight?

Well, it nearly happened to a UK woman by the sounds of it. Read this article, then come back to me. Do you think it’s a hoax? Do you really think anyone would be so reckless with their eyesight that they would willingly undergo an unapproved operation that changes one’s eye colour??

Well, apparently there are some dumb ass people in this world. The woman in the article decided her brown eyes weren’t good enough and wanted them altered to blue. Hello? Has she not heard of coloured contact lenses???? Heck, she could even have tried Hello Kitty! contact lenses.

I don’t wear glasses but when I get old and cranky (about 2 years from now), I’ll be going the contact lens route. I have blue-gray eyes. I would love to have green eyes but yeegads, I would not subject myself to an operation (in some shonky third world country no less) that purports to insert a coloured lens implant inside the eye, over the iris (guess that means the iris is slit open). Here’s a photo of the implant:

The woman travelled to Panama for the op (I also read it was Mexico) and the result of the op was – a hole in one iris and the near loss of her eyesight. And after all the pain and risk, her eyes are still brown!

What I find intriguing is that the woman in question is a single mother of three children. She paid £5,000 for the operation and on top of this had to cough up airfare and accommodation. Unless she is a super-rich single mother, wouldn’t this money have been better spent on her kids? (Actually, I’ve read too she is unemployed).

And then the part that really leaves me shaking my head – she was told NOT to go ahead with the unapproved op by FIVE opticians in the UK. Hello?? If five medico types tell you not to mess around with your eyes, it’s probably a smart move to believe them. 

From what I’ve read, this woman wanted to have “European coloured eyes”.  Last time I looked, Europeans have brown eyes as well as blue, blue-gray and green.  UK surgeons had to operate to remove the implants and she is now likely to develop cataracts in later life and is at increased risk of glaucoma (and does the UK taxpayer have to foot the bill for this restorative operation???).

In what must be the understatement of the century, the UK woman is quoted as saying:  ”It was the biggest mistake I have ever made….To think I could have never been able to see my children again. It was totally reckless of me.” Ah, duh!

What can I say? A lot actually – but I’d be up for defamation. So instead here are my golden rules for dumb ass people considering changing their appearance through foolhardy operations:

• be satisfied with what you’ve been given in life – you are unique no matter what size or colour;
• if you see an operation advertised on the internet and it’s in some third world country, might be advisable to switch your computer off; and
• if it involves cutting you up, slicing, dicing, lifting, peeling – then you might just end up with a massive infection and cark it. Is it really worth it, all this vanity?

And for dumb ass people thinking of changing their eye colour from brown to blue – simply listen to the 1977 hit by Crystal Gayle ‘Don’t It Make My Brown Eyes Blue’.

The decline of civility?

I was having coffee the other day with a KM colleague. We are planning a workshop together and somehow the conversation turned into a discussion around the decline of civility in public life. Beware: unstructured rant ahead. I’ve been pondering if I’m just turning into a cranky old goat. Mind you, I rather relish the thought of becoming cranky in my dotage and complaining of “those young people today with no manners”. Anyway, we were talking about what seems to be a lack of empathy in today’s society (a recent blog post topic for me), which has resulted in public embarrassment or humiliation of people on reality show TV for example.

We came to the tentative conclusion that it’s about time.  One hundred years or so ago, people had more time. They could study the Classics at leisure. Go on the Grand Tour of Europe studying art works. Letters took a week or so to get to someone so there was time to reflect on content and compose a measured response. For entertainment, families gathered around the piano and sang together; played cards; or….gasp…talked. Items weren’t manufactured in China for the throw-away society. Artifacts where more often than not hand-crafted and treasured, perhaps handed down through the generations. People weren’t trying to grab the spotlight of fame for 15 minutes, appearing on some reality TV show drivel. Now, we want a movie star life with the movie star salary.

There was less abundance; less choice. My friend was saying his daughter recently spent an hour in a DVD store and re-emerged with nothing. She had been unable to make a decision about which DVD to get as there was too much choice on offer. And so we become paralysed. We don’t value things as much because they are disposable, not as well made as in the past, not guaranteed to last a lifetime to be handed down to the grandchildren. We are bombarded with information. Blackberries shrill. Incoming emails alert us. We feel the need to Twitter or reveal our private lives on Facebook. We feel the pressure of needing to say something witty or smart so we have 1 million followers on Twitter.

The values that we, as a community, used to share – family, country, faith, learning, truth – have disappeared to be replaced by degradation and a lack of kindness or consideration for others. Dressed up as “entertainment” we have shows that encourage people to “look 10 years younger” by subjecting themselves to plastic surgery or talent shows where judges have acerbic tongues ready to lash out and criticise, humiliate and belittle. We live in an anti-political age where collective and community engagement is at an all-time low.

I used to love The Golden Years of Hollywood, hosted by Bill Collins (very knowledgeable Australian film buff). These were innocent films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “Singing in the Rain”. Now, we are inured to violence because we see it all the time in Hollywood blockbusters. There is a vulgarity present in our interactions with strangers in public space. Etiquette of course – the formal rules that existed in the 19th Century – was a way of enforcing social class distinctions, but any semblance of manners or consideration has flown the coop because we now seem to accept any form of behaviour because, hey – I’m an individual and entitled to my opinion.

The American philosopher, John Rawls, said “when liberties are left unrestricted, they collide with one another” (in his work, A Theory of Justice). I think that’s what we are seeing. Individuals with unfettered freedom colliding with each other. The rich, the bold, the brash, the powerful jostle to the top on the shoulders of others, whilst the rest of us are confused over what are the rules of social interaction in our society. Do I give up my train seat for that pregnant lady or do I say to myself “nope, I paid for this ticket too, she can stand?” (And BTW: I would stand up, not keep sitting).

And so as a result of the conversation, I ended up pondering the decline (the loss?) of civility in public life. Let’s not confuse civility with old fashioned good manners or etiquette. Civility is about respecting others and showing that respect. Even good old George Washington got this right when he said ‘Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present” (in his book, 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation). Civility governs (or should govern) our public life surely. Our daily interactions place us in contact with strangers. We have no idea of their background, their personalities, their problems or their religious viewpoints. But to treat them as equals, we must surely show them civility. Civility gives them and us the cue as to what the rules of social interaction are. Civility becomes a shared rule we can all understand and it regulates society through harmonious relationships with one another.

But we are in a state of anxiety – over the global financial mess, over whether or not we’ll lose our jobs, over whether or not the very high opinion we have of ourselves and our talent is shared by others. I sense a bubbling undercurrent of violence and unrest in society (I’m talking about Western society). It’s like we are waiting for some time bomb to go off. Civillity has taken a back seat. Even Good Samaritans are killed these days. Or people are deliberately run over and critically injured following a minor traffic incident.

But if we deliberately and doggedly continue to pursue our own self interest and ignore civility in public space, then the question must eventually become – how long before we descend into anarchy? And then, how long before the State has to step in and curtail the freedom of the individual?

Okay end of rant. I will reflect on civility some more and do another post.

Empathy chip missing

Enough has been said in Australia over the tasteless sketch about terminally ill children on The Chaser.  They crossed the line with this one IMHO. Overseas readers can come up to speed by reading this article. I don’t know what The Chaser dudes were thinking but the whole debacle has caused them to issue a public apology. I had planned to do a post that would basically have ranted about how, in contemporary society, we seem to think it’s okay to take free speech to the extremes of ridicule and humiliation. You have been spared my rant because an opinion in The Age said it all for me. The opinion piece, by Shaune Carney, in part explains for me why something like The Chaser’s sketch happened:

“The most striking element of the public reaction was not the level of outrage and disgust, but the extent of public acceptance of the sketch and its message….What the positive reactions to the sketch by The Chaser suggest is that we are now in an era of Me, Me, Me. Years of relativism, cynicism and scoffing at objectivity, and the elevation of subjectivity as our prime condition, seem to have robbed a lot of us of a vital component in a civilised society: empathy. Take for example someone who goes by the handle “coreena”, who commented on Crikey: “I liked the ‘Wish’ skit … I’m fed up being expected to give money so some kid can go to Disneyland.” A child who has been subject to surgery or chemotherapy or radiation or perhaps all three becomes “some kid”. The child’s family, their lives turned inside out, do not rate a mention…..There’s only you, you’re all that matters, and if it’s not affecting you, poke fun at it. They all knew what they were doing. And they knew that a lot of people who admire their work would think that caring about yourself and not caring about anybody else was the smartest way to live.”

And this is also why we have to put up with the likes of Gordon Ramsay (foul-mouthed celebrity chef and “arrogant narcissist”) publicly denigrating Tracy Grimshaw (highly respected TV journalist) by calling her a lesbian, saying that she has the facial features of a pig and that “she needs to see Simon Cowell’s Botox doctor.” Tracy fought back thank goodness, fabulously saying: “Obviously Gordon thinks that any woman who doesn’t find him attractive must be gay. For the record, I don’t. And I’m not.” You can watch her response here.

This image was allegedly flashed on screen during Ramsay’s appearance at the 2009 Good Food and Wine Show in Melbourne and led him to liken Grimshaw to a pig:

Really, what on earth is a so-called celebrity chef doing showing soft-porn images like this at a food and wine show (presumably kids were present)? Why doesn’t he just stick to cooking? During the firestorm that broke out between Ramsay and Grimshaw, he was also caught on video dispensing lewd advice to a young, female reporter – ‘Having run ten marathons, extra-virgin olive oil is good for the nipples. Hot tip.’

With the carry-on about The Chaser and Gordon Ramsay’s stunning lack of grace (go back home to the UK PLEASE), it seems we’ve forgotten that life is about living it with others, feeling empathy for others, imagining yourself in their shoes. It’s not all about ME, ME, ME.

Train tossers

I just have to rant about this. Australian readers would have recently seen this image on the evening news:

This is the photo of an idiot, a tosser, a goose, a dimwit (and throw in any other descriptive word you’d like). Since I have a large number of American readers, I will explain the Aussie word “tosser” – it means a jerk, a wanker (which means a show-off, jerk or tosser!). Basically, a tosser is that person in the image who was practising the fine art of “train surfing”. This art is the province of tossers – people who willingly risk their lives by riding on the back of a train, which is an area clearly not intended for carrying passengers. This particular tosser is a superior tosser – whilst train surfing he was caught on camera putting his finger to his lips, indicating to startled people on the train stations to be quiet as he whizzed past nine train stations. Fortunately, this superior tosser has now been identified by the long arm of the law who will be reaching out to this 19-year old and hauling his ass off to court. Said tosser should thank his lucky stars I never became a judge because I’d be throwing the book, no a whole library, at him.

Tossers very clearly don’t consider what impact they may have on other people. This 19-year old brazenly rang up radio stations the next day, bragging about his exploits and saying”if you hold on, you can’t fall off”‘. So should the train come to an emergency stop and the tosser disappear under the train’s wheels, I suppose the trauma the train driver and passengers would experience would never enter the thoughts of the tosser. Actually, the tosser would probably be bold enough to sue the transport company.

Apparently, train surfing is becoming popular. Here’s another image of tossers, these ones are in South Africa:

Seems South African tossers are very practised in the art – they dice with death by standing on top of trains and dodging bridges and high-power cables or swinging out of doors as the train travels through a tunnel and running along the sides. Clearly, these are Mensa-level tossers because if they get hurt, the response is “Yes, I can fall, but I can phone my mom, she can take me to the doctor”. Yeah right: I’d think these tossers should be saying “or take my sorry ass to the funeral home because I will be dead from the complete stupidity of train surfing”. 

Now, I realise that I’m very ancient (after all, I can in fact vaguely remember the 1970s). So can someone, anyone, please explain the attraction of this dangerous, idiotic, lunatic behaviour? I suppose those who indulge think of themselves as fearless and brave. I just think they’re TOSSERS.

Something more sane this way comes

Well, seems as though some people in the UK are waking up from the nightmare that is their surveillance state. If you ask me, “the terrorists” (whoever they may be) have already won when nation states subject their own citizens to biometric identification, CCTV cams and ridiculous airport screening that makes travelling hell on earth. To make us live in fear or under the glare of surveillance is tantamount to terrorists winning. On the part of the State, it’s an exercise in power – the watchers have the power over those who are watched and know they are watched.

So I was listening to ABC radio the other day when my ears pricked up. I caught snippets of the former Head of top secret squirrel squad, MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, apparently saying that she was alarmed at the spread of security cameras and police stop-and-search powers (smart Dame). And the Conservative Party leader in the UK, David Cameron, saying that the fabric of liberty had been shredded.

Naturally, the interview caught my interest. Dominic Raab was being interviewed. He’s the dude who wrote the book, The Assault on Liberty, that I have ordered for fast track delivery from Amazon. He’s an international lawyer who is also Chief of Staff to the Shadow Home Secretary. Here’s a taste of what he said:

• the UK has the longest period of detention without charge in the free world (28 days compared to  12 in Australia);
• the introduction of identity cards with 50 items of personal information on each and every citizen which will be shared with governments;
• up to 4.2 million CCTV cams in the UK and the taxpayer has had to cough up over AU$1-billion to fund these unblinking eyes and 80% of the footage is useless;
• over 1,000 separate search and entry powers, which are not just for serious crime or counter-terrorism purposes (yeah, well, Australia can match that now with our new police powers);
• massive databases stuffed full of DNA (over 3.1 million DNA profiles) – information is shared amongst the various arms of the UK Government, local councils and security agencies. Yet, the UK has an appalling track record when it comes to keeping personal data safe. Literally, the personal details of millions of Britons has been at risk.

You can read the interview transcript here. Coupled with this is a recent op-ed from The Guardian with the opening paragraphs saying:

“It was never in a Labour manifesto that individual freedom should be surrendered in the interests of collective security. Nor was it written that society should submit itself to a blanket of surveillance by the state.It was never announced as a political creed of the current government that trial by jury is an expensive inconvenience that modern democracies can, in certain circumstances, do without. Nor was it proclaimed that the principle of habeas corpus, that prohibits the crown from detaining a free individual without his or her knowing the charge, was redundant in the face of terrorist threats in the 21st century. And yet, one way or another, all of those views have been expressed in laws introduced by Labour since it came to power.”

The piece stops short, denying that the UK has become a police state or has slipped into authoritarianism. I was disappointed by the op-ed because it didn’t go far enough. Its title is “Modern Liberty has Found its Voice”. Well, thank goodness for that but let’s take it further – what are the plans to restore civil liberties to the people of the UK?  I’d like to see a civil disobedience campaign organised by people who live in countries like the UK (and the US and Australia) where surveillance is rife.

Just over a year ago, I ran a week long workshop in Morocco on communities of practice for political activists. One of the things they were trained on was non-violent struggle – the history and models of non-violent action. Why can’t we take the lessons learnt and apply them to a non-violent strategic campaign against the surveillance society?

So for example:

• citizens actively campaigning against CCTV. Demand that authorities demonstrate the efficacy of CCTV in preventing serious crime. And since we know around 80% of CCTV images cannot be used as legal evidence because images are too blurry or grainy, then CCTV footage should not be admitted as evidence in court and citizens should campaign against the use of footage in legal proceedings.

• why are the UK people blindly accepting the national ID card?  It is nothing more than life-long surveillance of an individual. Nothing more than numbering of individuals (remember Nazi Germany). Nothing more than making personal details into “registrable facts” to be disclosed, constantly updated and shared with who knows what agency or foreign Government. Organise a local group to educate the public. Prepare fact sheets, newsletters – better yet, join an already established local group fighting the Database State in the UK. Challenge Governments to show how an ID card would make us more secure and how the ID card will not be subverted.

• educate yourself about the location of CCTV cams – avoid them, wear a hoodie, face away from the CCTV. That’s what I do. Here is a good site to help find the location of CCTV cams in urban environments. There are ways to destroy CCTV cams but this is about protest and non-violence so I won’t give advice on this.

• become aware of the abuses of surveillance cameras so you won’t bleat like a sheep and parrot “If you have nothing to hide…”. If you’re a student, then get inspired by kids in school who are protesting against CCTV or if you’re a worker with video cams in the office, stage a walkout with fellow workers. If judges can do it, you can do it.

• if you’re an artist, become a guerilla artist.

• arrange a demonstration through city streets like the Germans did – they called their protest Liberty Instead of Fear.

• get an online petition going, like the Romanians, to protest against RFID and biometric identifiers in passports. Here’s one already started – No To RFID Chips. Let’s remember that the FDA in the US has cleared the way for RFID chips to be used in humans. Also remember that the RFID industry is very keen to embed chips into fashion clothing (they call this inventory control) – but it will allow retailers to create databases linking individual chips to consumers, so your own clothing will be a tracking device in the future. Protest before it’s too late.

Heck, these are just starter ideas. The fact is if we are nothing more than:

if we don’t pay attention to the creeping threat of surveillance and loss of civil liberties. Facebook looks at us this way:

Don’t let this happen. Become an anti-surveillance activist. Download this resource – Non-Violent Struggle – 50 Crucial Points: A Strategic Approach to Everyday Tactics. And learn how to plan symbolic public actions. It’s a fabulous resource for non-violent struggle against any form of political power.

Image source for Facebook sheep

Is it the 1870s?

I will have to check my calendar. I could have sworn we were all living in 2009 but perhaps not. Given a tidbit of news I stumbled on this week, maybe we are still living in the late 19th Century when Jim Crow laws started to be enacted in the United States and African-Americans suffered the humiliation of segregation.

Cast your eyes over this photo – see anything that might make you mildly (or really, really) angry?

What on earth was Barnes & Noble thinking? Here we have a “Presidential display” – books relating to Barack Obama and the First Lady. And in the middle of it all – a book entitled Monkeys: A Captivating Look at These Fascinating Animals.

Now, I hasten to add that B&N are saying that it was all a malicious act and have issued a public apology. They believe a customer replaced one of the books in the display window in their store at Coral Gables, Florida with the Monkey book. I’m sure if I tried to replace a book in a window display in let’s say Borders here in Sydney, I’d be spotted pretty fast and hauled off. So perhaps it was a B&N employee who would not raise suspicion by being in the window? And I wonder how long people were outside staring at the display, snapping away before B&N caught on? Perhaps someone had a grudge against B&N. Whatever, I don’t think B&N is a pack of racists.

What it really demonstrates is undercurrents of racism in the US despite Americans electing their first African-American Prez and the ignorance of idiots who still lurk in our society.  And then we have this cartoon I came across from the New York Post that frankly seems to depict Prez Obama as a chimp:

It would seem to be a thinly veiled attempt to say that the author of the stimulus bill (and that would be the Prez one would assume) is like a rabid chimpanzee that should be shot. Frankly, it’s an extremely violent cartoon IMHO. If we couple this cartoon with the B&N monkey debacle, I think we have to ask is it still the 1870s over there in the US?

The cartoon’s creator made his plea following the controversy stirred up, saying that it was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill, nothing more. Maybe so, but I still think it’s an unnecessarily violent cartoon and as someone who doesn’t live in the US and is therefore not embroiled in the racism against African-Americans – its instant message to me was that Prez Obama is being compared to a primate and that there’s a racial subtext.

I’m not sure (perhaps my US readers can help out) but I think a chimp attacked a woman recently, hence the police officers with guns. I just think that America has made such progress that these sorts of offensive behaviours are two steps backwards.  What do you think?

Is change always good?

Two stories caught my attention recently. Yes, we know the world is changing, FAST. Yes, we’re told to embrace change and most of us roll with the punches. We’re told that globalisation benefits the common good because it lifts people in the developing world out of poverty. We’re told that progress accompanied by globalisation spreads technologies, better ways of doing business, raises standards of living and hygiene, and allows markets around the globe to be interconnected.

On the downside, globalisation results in income polarisation; natural resources are sucked out of countries; corporate profits are gained by exploiting cheap overseas labour; domestic jobs are shipped offshore; national sovereignty is weakened; the consumerist society feasts on The Brands and other expensive luxury goods produced in foreign countries with low wages. A global monoculture is the result and we are faced with the same coffee shop on a busy street corner in the global cities we may visit. In my view, globalisation has destroyed the concept of individuality – we dress alike, we smell alike, we covet the same Brands. As the world becomes smaller, so our individuality shrinks but this is IMHO. The decline in artisanship consumes age-old customs and fine crafts skills and erodes the world’s cultural diversity.

Anyway, that’s my rant for the day. Why don’t you read the two articles I found. The first article concerns the human cost of oil drilling and the devastating effects on a traditional Arctic community.  The second article looks at the probable destruction of 700 homes within a long-standing community – to make way for Heathrow’s proposed third runway.

What do you think?

Treated like terrorists

On January 12 2009, a new online visa waiver programme came into effect in the US. Should you wish to travel to the US, you will now have to apply electronically for travel authorisation. I won’t need to worry as I have vowed never to set foot in the United States again (lovely country that it is) and here is a sobering example, which might make us wonder what the hell is going on in the US.

Put aside the circus that is their biometrics programme (which is why I refuse to enter the country), here’s how you might be treated by US stormtroopers Customs and Border Protection officers should you be brave enough to try visiting the US. This is a real story from a real Australian family.

Picture this – you have an 84-year old father living in Los Angeles. He is ill so you and your family make a mercy dash from Sydney to the US.  You have a valid visa to enter the US. You are a humble taxi driver from a leafy suburb in Sydney’s north. Your wife is an aged-care worker. You take your two sons, aged 8 and 14 years, along with you to see their grandfather, perhaps for the last time.

You get off the flight in LA. You are greeted by friendly, helpful US customs officials. Oh sorry, I was dreaming! This is what really happened:

• you are hauled aside and detained
• you are frisked and your luggage is inspected
• you are hauled off to a hotel with other “detainees”
• the van you travel in to this hotel has a cage to contain you and your family
• you arrive at the hotel at 2.30am. You try to get some sleep but it’s hard when armed guards are by your bedside
• you are woken at 4.30am, hauled back to the airport and shoved on a flight back to Sydney
• you are an Australian citizen (last time I looked, Australia was one of the US’s staunchest allies, sending our troops to support the US in Iraq. Maybe we need a rethink).
• the whole frightening incident unfolded over 24 hours

So here’s the multiple choice question. Are you:

(a) a terrorist; or

(b) a paedophile with a long criminal history; or

(c) a humble taxi driver on an emotional dash to see your ailing, elderly father.

If you answered (a) or (b) then perhaps you might expect to be questioned, frisked, grilled, hauled off by US authorities. But if you answered (c), you are correct and you must ask – why is an Australian citizen and his family (remember there are two teenagers involved here) treated in such an appalling manner?

US border protection officers accused this poor man of trying to enter the US illegally (Note to US customs and border protection – not EVERYONE in this world wants to emigrate to the US despite the fact you now have a Prez who can string a sentence together). The man showed them his return tickets worth $6400 for flights back to Australia on February 5.

During detention, the family says minimal food and drink was provided. What appalls me even more is that two teenagers had to suffer through detention in a hotel with armed guards sleeping near them. The man, Mr Fazle Rabbi, was not allowed to see his father despite emotional pleas.

Now, let’s look at the name here: Fazle Rabbi. Mr Rabbi and his family emigrated to Australia from Bangladesh four years ago. Mr Rabbi is an Australian citizen (smart move to emigrate here and not try  the US Mr Rabbi!).  Did US officials refuse this man and his family entry to the US  because of their ethnic heritage? Was he the victim of racial profiling? I’m afraid this is the conclusion one might reach because everything else seems to have been in order: return tickets and visas.

Apparently, the official response has been that the US reserves the right to refuse entry. Hey dudes: did you refund this poor family their wasted $6400?  Did you bother to ring someone – like ASIO and find out if this family were a pack of terrorists in disguise?  Did you bother to find out if the elderly father had a doctor in LA you could ring to verify the story? Did you confuse the Australian passport (presumably Rabbi travelled on one) with that of Afghanistan? Did you take one moment to think you could display some compassion?

Note to the US: if you treat foreign travellers this way, one day that treatment may just be what you experience when you try to enter a foreign country.

Source: SMH