Early Musings about Namibia

First impressions on a few issues to which I will undoubtedly return once I have thought about them a bit more:

“Bureaucracy”:  Let’s just say we did not get the warmest welcome to the country.  I won’t bore you with the story of our visas/permits, but the end result is that we should have been all set to enter Namibia.  Apparently we were not.  The reason why we were not is essentially because the rules are so vague that it is anyone’s guess what is sufficient for the border guards on a given day.  The vagueness provides rich soil for bribery, nepotism and other wonderful things to flourish.  We were in the end ok, but to a large extent thanks to our boss being able to pull some strings.  As great as that was for us, it is obviously not how it should be.  Immigration and home affairs is the hotbed of corruption in many countries, even though much of it could be reduced, with fairly simple methods.  When we entered Egypt a few years ago, there were big signs at the border, in English, telling all entrants what was required for a visa and how much it would cost.  Rules such as this need to be clear, they need to specify what is required, on what basis can an application be denied, how much will it all cost and what is the timeframe within which the decision will be taken.  This all then needs to be publicly and visibly explained wherever necessary, with a number to call if a person has any complaints.  But there may have been a silver lining as our adventures were the last straw for her: our boss is now preparing a memo on necessary reforms to the Minister of Home Affairs.  Watch this space for future developments -- hopefully positive ones.

“Demography”: We naively thought that since the whole country had gone through oppression and the independence struggle, it would not be suffering from the problematic aspects of race relations that its former colonial master and neighbour South Africa is still experiencing.  We were wrong.  I am fascinated by how totally segregated the society is.  There is black / coloured Namibia, then there is Afrikaner Namibia, and at the top of the hierarchy (at least in their own opinion) is German Namibia.  Whites own everything and outside of the context of work, where they must interact with their black employees, the races do not mix.  It has so far been weird, sad and fascinating in equal measures.  On Saturday we were at the Windhoek Country Club for a wine tasting event.  It will surprise nobody that there were no more than a handful of black people among the several hundred guests.  To balance things out, on Sunday we went to an Africa Day exhibition football game between Sundowns (from South Africa) and the local African Stars.  In the stadium of several thousand spectators we spotted three other white faces.  When another traveller we met asked a local white teenager whether he had any black friends, apparently the response was that he didn’t, but this was “not because they were black, but because they had not gone to similar schools or had a similar life, so they just had nothing in common”.  As I said, weird, sad and fascinating.

“Muggings”:  When it comes to safety, we’ve heard some pretty wild stories.  We’ve been told time and again that we are prime targets as not only whites, but as foreigners.  We’ve been advised that carrying bags is stupid, walking is stupid, taking local taxis is stupid … basically everything apart from staying indoors and clutching our money to our chests is stupid.  By contrast, we’ve also been told by a foreigner who has lived here for close to 30 years that she has been mugged once and that was in New York.  Apparently there are many possible reactions.  We’ve met an American couple who rented a house in the leafy suburb, bought a car and basically lived their life here as much as possible as if they were still in the United States, avoiding all contact with the “local” environment to the extent they could.  We’ve also met a backpacker who clearly relished the story of how he was robbed at machetepoint and how he was now on his way to the border region with Angola, because that was the true wild west where it was all happening.  As for us, we’ve decided that we can’t waste our time here being scared.  We walk, we take taxis (there is no other public transport) and we attend “local” places and events.  We already had a taste of the more creative side of business at the football match, where there just happened to be an “altercation” at the narrow exit gate when we were leaving, and during all the jostling the people on both sides of F “accidentally” placed their hands in F’s pockets, as opposed to their own.  We cannot guarantee that we will not be mugged, the best we can aim for is that we will not be carrying anything that we will have trouble parting with if that happens.

Rant about Cynicism and Privilege

I think many of us aging hippies are fighting a constant battle between the idealism of our youth and the cynicism of experience that is slowly suffocating the idealism.  Thrown into the mix is also a generous dose of LIFE – that insidious thing: the work, the chores, the family, the friends, the hobbies …  It all seems to mean that even when we still have plans to save the world and give cynicism the finger, we wake up to notice that weeks, months, years have passed since we made that decision and we have in fact achieved nothing, because we have just been too busy getting on with our lives.

How to prevent idealism from dying?  There is no question that it is worth keeping it from dying, because a cynical world with no idealism is a bleak place in which I, for one, do not wish to live.

Then there is also the issue of privilege.  We all know we have it, but we often forget just how much of it we have.  We become blinded to the wealth, the opportunities, the love that surrounds us.  We forget how lucky we are and we begin to take everything for granted.  We think we are entitled to it, which is not only a sign of being ignoramuses, but also diminishes greatly the enjoyment we get from our good fortune.

We all have our ways of dealing with such profound issues of life.  I try to dabble in this in my everyday life by supporting organisations that do the valuable work of saving the world while I’m busy just doing work.  I also do it by keeping myself informed of the world, and engaging in discussions about it, whether over brunch with F or by ranting at my friends on the internet.

However, I find that none of this is enough for me.  I find myself losing perspective.  We can’t change anything anyway, so why try?  It is so easy just to give in to the cynicism, because it has the effect of justifying the privilege.

I need something more radical.  I need to ditch it all, to remind myself concretely about how the other half (more than half – vast majority, in fact) really lives and humbly offer the skills that I have to try to improve their lot, even if just by a little bit.  This is about wanting to save the world, but more honestly, it is much more about wanting to save myself.  From my cynicism and my privilege.

For the next three months my posts will come from Windhoek, Namibia, where F and I are currently giving a hand to the Gender Research and Advocacy Project of the Legal Assistance Centre.  Check out their awesome work at: http://www.lac.org.na.

Rant about the Truth -- as told by White People

A few months ago I was passing by the Peace Palace, the UN complex here in Geneva.  It is the site of many demonstrations, and on this particular day a group of Tamils was displaying posters with shocking pictures of cruelty, accompanied by slogans of what was happening in them.  According to the descriptions, the picture was in each case that of a Tamil, sometimes a child or a civilian woman, tortured/raped/killed (or all three) at the hands of the Sinhalese.

The allegations in the posters were shocking, outrageous. 

I marched to the info stand and told the gentlemen manning it that I knew what the Tamils had been through during the last months of the civil war in Sri Lanka, and that what had occurred probably amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity.  I told them that I supported their cause and that they were right to protest in front of the UN, as it was about time the international community did something about the atrocities.

The reason I did this was that I had seen all the images on their posters before.  I had seen them, and the slogans, put into context.  I knew who the kid was (Balachandran, the son of Velupillai Prabhakaran, the founder of the Tamil Tigers), I knew who the woman was (Isaipriya, a Tamil news anchor).  I knew all this because not long earlier I had seen a documentary called “No Fire Zone”, which had made me hate humanity and have nightmares.  If anyone is interested in seeing what people are capable of during civil war, watch this documentary, it is really good.  Even if it will make you feel anything but good.

I don’t know if the Tamils holding the protest outside the UN cared about my expression of solidarity.  But I’m guessing that not all that many passersby gave such unqualified endorsements of their cause.  This is because not many people had seen the documentary.  This fact gave me pause, because if it had not been for the documentary, I would have been quite suspect of the protesters’ claims, outrageous as they were.

Would I not have believed the protesters so easily if I had not seen the documentary, because I, along with many others, have become jaded by fake and manipulated images of atrocities in Syria and elsewhere?  If this is the answer, then it is a healthy one.  In the days where everyone can easily falsify pictures, one should be slightly wary of photographic evidence, especially when emanating from interested parties.  (Even if countries such as Iran or North Korea haven’t quite completed the advanced course on photoshop yet ...) 

Or was it because “No Fire Zone” had been made by – let’s be blunt about it – a bunch of Whities?  Do I trust Whities to tell the truth more than I trust the Tamils actually on the ground, suffering through it all?  A worrying thought, but one that I have not been able to entirely shake.  It is a frustrating example of internalised racism.  Frustrating because (if it is true) I can’t rid myself of it and frustrating because it is so profound.  Somebody please pass the brain bleach, I don’t want to be like this!

On the more important, and less self-important, issue of what happened to the Tamil people and will there be consequences for this, there are some good news.  The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on 27 March 2014 to open an enquiry into war crimes in the final stages of the civil war in 2009.  I don’t know if this was because of the Tamil protests or the documentary.  “Who cares?” one could say, the main thing is that something is happening.  Or then again, if the world in general is suffering from collective internalised racism, then that would indeed be a problem.  So let us assume that the UN is not (only) finally reacting because a bunch of white people said so.

Rant about well of course I do

I’ve been very pleased when recently some people, instead of trying to enquire WHEN I was going to have babies, have begun the conversation by politely enquiring WHETHER I want to have kids.  So there appears to be a growing appreciation of the fact that not everyone wants to have kids and that is just fine.  Not having children is recognised as a valid, respectable life choice. 

So why doesn’t the same seem to apply to marriage?  I recall being asked once whether F and I will get married.  Every other time (in total about two million times by now, no exaggeration) I have been asked when the wedding bells would be ringing for us.  As if there was no question about the fact, only the timing.  As if marriage was not a choice, but inevitability for a straight couple that was committed to each other.

While the society seems to be making it very clear which way it wants us to choose,* can we please try to appreciate that the choice is still for each individual couple to make for themselves, and remain from being presumptive one way or the other?  There are numerous reasons to marry, but there are also numerous reasons not to marry.  From what I could see, it was quite normal for people not to marry a few decades ago, but those days seem to be long gone.  Nowadays marriage is quasi-automatic.  If you're not married, there must be something wrong with you.  You're an unlovable loser; a spinster.

I think it would be good for everyone to evaluate the pros as well as the cons of marriage before taking the decision.  But whether you do or not, please do not assume that others have forgone that exercise, or that the result of the evaluation for them has been obviously to get hitched, the only question being when.  Some might actually have actively decided to try to live happily ever after without an official paper that testifies to this decision.

* Thank you very much for the subtle hint, draftsman of the Swiss Tax Code.

Rant about "the new face of Russia, efficient and friendly and open to the world"

 

I am not quite sure whether to laugh or cry.  It is all just so absurdly, cynically, poetic.

I felt a tiny tinge of vindication with all the brou-ha-ha preceding the Sochi Olympics, where it looked like finally the grand lie of “politics should not be mixed with sport” that had been perpetuated around the Beijing Games and the human rights violations that they were built upon was not very often voiced.  To the contrary, we heard all kinds of noises about gay rights, corruption and environmental degradation.  Us Westerners were eagerly wagging our fingers, and it seemed to work to some extent: Putin went on to release a host of political prisoners, including most famously the Pussy Riot performers Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina as well as Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the run up to the Games.  We could all slap ourselves on the back and focus on the sport.

The sports were as fascinating as ever, nobody can fault that.  However, I was mortified to find out how completely, utterly we forgot all about the moralistic posturing once the Games were on the way.  The corruption and environmental degradation had not gone anywhere, but instead of continuing to highlight this, the REAL cost of the extravaganza to the people most affected, Western media was unanimously gushing over how great the organisation was and how gleaming the brand-spanking new event venues.  Environmental activist Evgeny Vitishko was sentenced to 3-years in prison on trumped up charges and the indefatigable Pussy Riot were beaten and detained during the Games.  Did you notice?  If you noticed, did you care?  If you did, good on you, you were just about the only person in the whole world.

This is what the President of the International Olympic Committee Thomas Bach said at the closing ceremony; it pretty well sums up the general media feeling about the Games:

President Bach thanked Putin for his “personal commitment to the extraordinary success of these Olympic Winter Games”, as Putin watched on from the stands.

(…)

Bach said the 25,000 volunteers had shown the new face of Russia, efficient and friendly and open to the world, and described the Sochi Winter Olympics as “the Athletes’ Games”.

Earlier in his address, the IOC President urged global leaders to follow the Olympic society in displaying peace, tolerance and respect, which he described as sending a “powerful message” around the world.

You do not launch a military invasion of foreign territory on a day’s notice.  This means that while President Putin was lapping up the praise of the foreign media and politicians for his “personal commitment” to the “extraordinary success” of the greatest winter sports event of the world, one that apparently “display[ed] peace, tolerance and respect” and the “new face of Russia (…) open to the world”, he was preparing indeed to send a “powerful message around the world”, but not quite the one we thought was coming. 

Rant about Gays, Kids and Consumer Boycotts

The bill attempting to amend the Marriage Act to make the institution gender neutral is meandering its way through the Finnish Parliament.  To kick off the debate, Green MP Oras Tynkkynen stated that “[t]he law on equal marriage diminishes nobody’s rights.  It costs nothing.  There are only winners.”

This did not convince the diehard opponents, who have continued to repeat their arguments which can at times only be described as cringe-worthy.  It is hard for a casual liberal to be anything but baffled by these.  Why is it that two people who love each other getting hitched is somehow seen as a threat to somebody else?  How can gay marriage threaten hetero marriage?

Mr Tynkkynen’s argument, which we liberals find so compelling, comes from a strongly individualistic viewpoint.  My marriage is my business, what I do in the bedroom is my business, as is what I cook in the kitchen or wear to decorate and warm my body.  But this is not the only view or even the best view in all respects.  Many individual life choices can have an impact on the environment, on our friends, on our neighbours.  In the case of gay marriage the argument against says that the collateral damage is suffered by kids. 

The fact that research shows this argument to be rubbish and gays being no worse parents than straight people is not, however, decisive for us liberals.  Would I change my view on gay marriage if the argument was accurate?  If straight folk really were the better parents?  I would not.

So maybe this is about something else.  Maybe it is about means – about the role of laws and regulation.  Maybe us liberals, while taking a moral stance about issues ourselves, are inherently uncomfortable with the state legislating about them, about behaviour not being directed by the better argument and market forces but by simply prohibiting it?  I do not want to intervene in other people’s choices by way of actual bans, but I do engage in discussion with people around me.  This is mostly to exchange ideas, but I cannot deny an underlying motive at times to make them change their attitudes or behaviour.  I also wish the markets would take a more social or environmental role in directing conduct (see my rant about airplanes on 24 April 2013).  Combining the two, I believe in consumer boycotts, which is why I was at home and not in Sochi earlier this month. 

However… I do not think this is it either, as it does not fit with the political breakdown of who is for and who is against:  The prime example is found in the United States where the Republicans, who are traditionally all about individual freedoms and small government, are against the legalisation of gay marriage.

Having turned this thing round in my head a million times and tried to understand the arguments that to me look so obviously nonsensical, but which are still made by smart people not only with a straight face but with fervour, I had to concede that the argument is not going to be won by being rational. 

This brought back memories of a talk I had the privilege of attending back in 2009 when my legal hero Albie Sachs* was touring to promote his book The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law.  When sitting as a judge on the South African Constitutional Court, Justice Sachs penned the court’s landmark decision in the 2005 Fourie case** ruling that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.  What was interesting was not just that the Court found the law to be unconstitutional, but that instead of judicially changing it, the Court ordered the Parliament to fix it within a year and thus forced the nation to have the difficult debate on the subject.  During his 2009 talk Mr Sachs explained why this was important: the Court was the court of all South Africans, not just the liberals.  While it was clear that fundamental rights could not be denied to one part of the population, this had to be done in a way that respected also the views of conservative South Africans, who were often vehemently against the idea.

How can we do the same thing?  How can we ensure that the discussion on gay marriage remains civil?  That we respect those irrational feelings and the people holding them without permitting them to stall the granting of equal rights to all?  Justice Sachs, I know your humane wisdom is needed in many parts of Africa (like in Uganda, Gambia or Nigeria) right now, but Finland could also use it.  Please help.

 

*This is not a joke, there are such things as legal heroes.  If you are not familiar with the biography of the admirable Mr Sachs, check it out and be convinced.

**Minister of Home Affairs and another v Fourie and another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and others v Minister of Home Affairs and others, [2005] ZACC 19; 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC); 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) (1 December 2005).

Rant about St Galentine

Valentine’s Day is a tough one.

On the one hand, love is always good and never celebrated enough.  Realistically speaking we all need the occasional nudge to voice our appreciation to the special somebody whose “special-ness” might get neglected in everyday drudgery of work, family and a mountain of dirty laundry.

On the other hand, the whole business is uncomfortably hetero and not a little sexist, suggesting that a woman’s happiness depends on a loving man.  There is an unmistakably “feminine” (in the derogatory sense of the term) whiff of desperation and clinginess about Valentine’s Day.

The resourceful ladies in the feminist movement in the US of A have resolved this conundrum by adopting the cringe-free version: Galentine’s Day, introduced during the second season of Parks and Recreation.  Galentine’s Day is a celebration of that underappreciated virtue that is a woman’s friendship with other women.  There is a misperception that women are all jealous bitches in the workplace ready to trample any ambition seen in their female colleagues and jealous bitches in their private lives pretending to be friends with other women only to try to steal their husbands/boyfriends.  Really, I’m not exaggerating.  Try to think of a few examples of positive representation of women’s relationships with other (unrelated) women in the media and you will draw a blank.  THIS is why Sex and the City was so revolutionary.  (Here is a good recent article on this phenomenon more broadly.)

So hooray to Galentine’s Day.  Because in real life all us lady people are surrounded by numerous other lady people providing us with happiness, support, advice and laughter.  I can tell from professional and personal experience that lady people are GREAT.

But as great as Galentine’s Day is, it is still a bit exclusionary.  Not all of our friends are women and some don’t like the gender binary to begin with.  Really, who cares who your friends are, as long as they provide all the wonderful things that a friend provides?  So Galentine’s Day is an improvement, but it is not quite there yet.

Finnish readers will know by now where I’m going with this, because Finns have solved the whole thing decades ago.  You see, Finns were wary of the icky pinkness of Valentine’s Day from the beginning.  The joke goes like this:

The wife is mooching so visibly that even the husband notices, prompting the compulsory question of “What’s wrong?”  “You never tell me that you love me” the wife responds.  “I told you at our wedding ten years ago, didn’t I?  Well, I’ll let you know if I change my mind.”

So Finns have never celebrated Valentine’s Day in the romantic sense of the term.  Instead, 14 February in Finland (and in Estonia) is Ystävänpäivä (Sõbrapäev) – Friendship Day.  It is a day when we give cards to our friends and hug them and tell them how awesome they are.  What could be better than this?  Not everyone has a “valentine”, but everyone has friends, and everyone loves to tell their friends that they’re great, as well as hear this in return. 

I don’t think the idea is patented or even copyrighted, so feel free to implement it in your countries!

Hyvää ystävänpäivää everybody.