BlackMan Time

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

So the BBC gave the BNP a platform to perform? Why did they not invite a British black man on the panel? No disrespect to novelist Bonnie Greer but she’s American and although she’s black she cannot profess to have experienced Britain in the same way that most UK-born black people have. So why didn’t the BBC see it fit to redress this issue?

The programme, chaired by Sir David Dimbleby had the panellists Jack Straw, MP; Baroness Warsi, Conservative peer; Bonnie Greer, playwright and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman.

Maybe it’s just me but I think a failure to even consider having a black male panellist is part of the overrall institutional racism that has befallen us over the years. The BBC by this omission is really saying they don’t feel there’s any black man in Britain capable of engaging an obnoxious racist fool like Griffin when the reality is quite different.

Even I would’ve been happy to appear. My focussed anger with the fact that I was opposed to him being given the opportunity in the first place, would’ve proven far more potent than Greer’s meandering, multi-syllable intellectual dead-ended responses, for instance.

In the end it was a freak show and the biggest freak had his day. Or is it just me, a black man freaking out…

Do you think it is illegal for a political party to exclude you from joining based on your colour, race, class, gender or sexual preference? You probably answer no, right? If you did then your view coincide with the opinions of other decent, law-abiding citizens.

It comes as a little two faced¹ surprise, therefore, that one so-called political party have been able to get one candidate elected to the European parliament and bagged itself an appearance on the BBC flagship Question Time political programme in the process. That guilty party is the British National Party, an ultra right wing, racist outfit that openly preaches race hate towards non-white members of the population.

How did they get elected? And why is the BBC giving about to give to give them airtime under the proviso of equality of opportunities to media interest on their channel?

Call me scenical but the BNP’s appearance on the BBC is happening because someone wants it to happen. Someone, maybe even a group, wants the BNP black race-hating filth and Enoch Powell-like scaremongering propaganda to reach a mass audience. Only the BBC alone knows why it would want that.

My only hope is that during the programme the BNP will fall down on its face and knock out all its stinking, rotten teeth. And gums.

That would make my day.

1. Image Credit: This painting, entitle “Two Faced” is by artist Joseph David Greenwood and shows Marcin Bondarowicz [↩]

You don’t get many “good boy!” points saying the unpopular thing: you just tend to get crucified, unless you’re someone who has earned the right and respect to say things others are too afraid to say.

Former US President Jimmy Carter dared to speak the name of the thing he thinks is plaguing current president Barack Obama: racism. Carter told a public meeting at the Carter Center in Atlanta yesterday there was “an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president”.

[pro-player]http://www.blackmantime.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/jimmy-carter-obama-racism-row.flv[/pro-player]

Jimmy Carter: racism working against ObamaNow, if this feeling is really inherent why would a White House spokesman later deny that claim? Maybe diplomacy is the best way to be when you’re trying to push through the most ambitious health care plan in America’s history. Maybe you do have to kiss arse before you can kick it. If this is so Obama and his White House staff are doing some major sucking up!

On the one hand they don’t want to be seen agreeing with the racism crowd: after all they didn’t come to power campaigning on a colour ticket. On the other, to pretend racism is not a factor opposing their every move is like burying your head in the sand and pretending you’ve got a full view of the wider picture.

Perhaps at a later time Obama and his White House spokesman will acknowledge what Carter has so boldly stated. Or perhaps they have just decided to chart a more strategically diplomatic course to get the job done. Either way they will have to pull their head out of the sand sometime.

And that’s when it should get really interesting.

They say a week is a long time politics, so how about the first 100 days, 14.25 weeks or 3.57 months?! That must seem like an eternity and that’s precisely how long US President Barack Obama has been in office today.

Every medium, from the good to the bad and even the downright ugly, have been assessing how he has performed in that time.

Predictably, the right-wing ones have been highlighting his perceived faux paus, headed by his shaking of hands with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, a bitter foe of the former Washington administration, apologising for America’s bad record in one foreign arena or other.

Other right perceived mistakes include appointing a public official with a bad or unsatisfactory tax record to even allowing the presidential plane Air Force One to fly low over New York, scene of the 911 crashes.

Mountains and Molehills

The left have been treading carefully highlighting the enormity of the task, contrasting how Obama has the sternerst of tests compared to his presidential predecessors while praising his re-positioning of America on the world stage.

Among Obama’s left notables are announcing the closure of Guantanamo Bay, publishing of the CIA’s torture techniques and fulfilling promise to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Many ordinary people actually believe that by now he would have solved all America’s crisis – after all that is what they understood change meant. But their mountain of expectations has had to be tempered with the molehill of reality that Rome was not built in a day. Nor even in 100 days!

Indeed, Obama’s popularity ratings have dipped a little but the general consensus is that he is doing a good job so far. If only he could just speed things up a little.

Politics is such an ungrateful task!

I am still vexed at Waltham Forest council’s decision to close down a Caribbean takeaway saying it’s a new fast food joint too near schools, thus has violated a local law forbidding this.

But the takeaway, called Bamboo Joint, is neither new, serves fast food nor does their main customer consist of school children! It has been operating in the same spot for over four years and had to apply to have its licence renewed.

This has not stopped this ignorant London borough lead by a moron called Clyde Loakes from implementing this easily confusing law.

Council associates have labelled Loakes a “shameless publicity-seeking lout” with a political ambition. On a BBC radio programme yesterday this description was bore fruit when Loakes admitted he was in fact running to be MP for the area.

Political

So it does look like he has acted to further his own political ends than in cutting obesity in children or the interest of local people, as he has contented.

If this is the case it is surely a despicable act, putting a small enterprise out of business and making a Jamaican takeaway the first to be shut down under this law. This precedent is unwarranted for a number of reasons.

By no stretch of the imagination can Jamaican food be labelled as fast food and being organic it is certainly healthier than processed food.

It would be poetic justice for Loakes’ political career aspirations to fall flat on its face, smashing a few molars and incisors in the process. But he’d only probably find a home there in the gutter and be a nuisance to worms and cockroaches!

How things seem to work in politics is that you find something you don’t or actually like then either make, suggest or implement a law to ban and/or eliminate it. That way you will galvanise people in both directions.

Your enemies will hate you, but that’s okay because that’s what enemies do. Your allies will slap you on the back to the sound of “Bravo! Bravo!” and they’ll think you’re a pretty good fellow and see you as progressive material within that political party or movement.

From that moment onwards you will seek out other “worthy causes” to champion, making decisions largely on what will further you career than with what will actually help people or society in general.

This is the dangerous thing about politics: it tends to be a self-serving exercise, yet could be so much more…

What message is sent when six of the world’s biggest, most multi-cultural nations, decide to boycott a global anti-racism conference for fear it will attack another nation which has, apparently, shown itself to be racist against another nation?

That’s the question being asked in diplomatic circles following the withdrawal of the US, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel and Italy from the United Nations anti-racism conference opening today in Geneva.

The reason that this six nations have given for withdrawing is that they fear the conference might specifically single out Israel for attack and try to stifle criticism of Islam. This scenario did play out at the last meeting to review international progress on combating racism and xenophobia in Durban, South Africa, eight years ago.

In the 2001 Durban meeting Israel fielded fierce criticism over its alleged racist policies to-wards Palestinians. Today, the first of the event’s five days, coincides with Holocaust Remembrance Day – which will be dominated by an address by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, president of Iran.

Maybe this is the real reason why they have all decided to boycott the event: fear of being seen on the same platform as the president of Iran.

Now, I ask you, isn’t such a policy “inconsistent with the administration’s policy of engaging with those they agree with and those they disagree with”, a contradiction of US President Obama’s quoted words?

Am I alone in thinking this is somehow hypocritical?

What are the chances of you meeting US President Obama when he makes a rare visit to your part of town? One in a thousand? One in a million? A trillion? Whatever it is the odds are probably pretty high.

Now, imagine you just doing your job when the said president comes along and not only notices you but also shake your hand, a moment which an alert photographer was on hand to capture? Your face would probably look a bit like this policeman outside Downing Street!

For while everyone was focussing on Michelle Obama breaching royal protocol by hugging the Queen, her husband was breaching diplomatic protocol by showing respect to this humble policeman and creating this precious moment.

Those Obamas, they sure know how to create a stir!

Forget about US President Barack, the real star of the Obamas visit to the UK for the G20 conference last week was First Lady Michelle Obama! The British press absolutely lapped up everything she did, this side of simply breathing air.

When the Obamas went to visit the Queen at Buckingham Palace, I had this real surreal feeling when the Queen turned to Michelle and said something like: “I hope you will keep in touch!”

During this exchange the Queen had her right arm around Michelle who in turn had her left arm around the British monarch. Meanwhile, the lovers of royal protocol were having kittens: “Oh my gosh! She’s touched the Queen!” But not only had Michelle touched the Queen the lady herself had hinted she’d like a developing dialogue with America’s First Lady!

At the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in Islington, north London where she watched an end of term play before delivering the main address, Michelle was literally moved to tears. Then she hi-fived and hugged a few of the children, the majority of whom happened to be from African-Caribbean background.

On the radio stations callers to talk show program were over effused with their praise of Michelle noting that there were no other Black equivalents to either herself or her husband Barack in the UK.

At one point all of this lavish praise got too much for me! It is always too weird when people whose opinions you normally question start to embrace the same things you love! I usually withdraw and wait till the hoopla dies down. But with Michelle (and Barack) I’d be away from life for far too long!

Aw, well, I’m just going to get used to it, like everybody else! Can’t see that being a problem somehow…

This week members of the top 20 richest countries on the earth, the so-called G-20 See below, are meeting in London to discuss plans on how best to continue ruling the world.

The public statement says something about meeting to restore confidence in the currently depressed global economy which over time will help people everywhere get back to work. Blah, blah, blah. We don’t always believe public statements particularly when considering the nature of the beast.

For instance the meeting hasn’t even happened yet (it’s scheduled for Thursday) but already Britain has signalled that a further meeting of the group could be necessary later this year because they won’t be able to solve everything in on meeting.

Since they already know this why not spread the meeting over two days? This is why I’m sceptical about such meetings: they are simply public relations exercises where leaders make lofty promises and deliver nothing and get away with it because who is going to punish them?

It’s the easiest thing to make empty promises. But, when you are a poor, struggling teacher or a misguided, detached youth, the impact on you could reverberate far beyond your situation. The ripple could even upset and unseat the seat of government.

Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

1. The G-20 (more formally, the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies: 19 of the world’s largest national economies, plus the European Union (EU).

   The G-20 member countries are:-

   Argentina
   Australia
   Brazil
   Canada
   China
   France
   Germany
   India
   Indonesia
   Italy
   Japan
   Mexico
   Russia
   Saudi Arabia
   South Africa
   South Korea
   Turkey
   United Kingdom
   United States