Italian elections from abroad

I have to say that, like many Italians right now, I flirted with the idea of not voting. There are many reasons for this: Italy is in deep crisis with too many groups defending vehemently their own interest with no regard for the rest of the population and the future of the country (see the opposition to TAV – high-speed trains; the opposition to the sale of Alitalia; opposition to the liberalisation of professions etc.). Italy has always been affected by deeply rooted corporativism, which sits uncomfortably in the globalised economy of the 21st century. There are many things that need to be done and yet political parties are squabbling. There is very little vision, direction and gravity.
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!

As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).

Gentilissima Signora Francesca
Grazie per l'attenzione che ha voluto riservare alla mia candidatura nella lista dell'Italia Dei Valori.
I due temi che mi ha sottoposto sono importanti ed anche emblematici della realtà dell'Italia e della sua realtà socio-economica, rispetto all'Alitalia: la privatizzazione è una realtà e nello stesso tempo una necessità, semmai il problema è che in tutti questi anni essa è stata al centro di una politica di protezione che le ha impedito di competre nel mercato come hanno fatto altre compagnie aeree europee e internazionali; ritengo anacronistico ripresentare il tema dell'Italilanità dell'alitalia, è giunto il momento per essa di "navigare" in mare aperto e affrontare le onde e le burrasche con i suoi mezzi, che si attrezzi, che partecipi alla competizione del mercato attingendo alla professionalità, alla competenza e soprattutto all'abbandono del clientelismo di cui è stata vittima e carnefice nello stesso tempo. La questione dell'aeroporto Malpensa è un tema diverso e solo i mistificatori tendono a confondere le acque e a tenere insieme le due questioni.
Rispetto al tema dei rifiuti: prima di tutto chiederei, come del resto ha già fatto Di Pietro, le immediate dimissioni dei principali responsabili, in primis Bassolino e metterei in campo una governance di esperti totalmente indipendenti dal potere politico con il compito solo di portare a soluzione il problema dei rifiuti che per essere risolto ha bisogno di una molteplicità di interventi: educativo (cultura della raccolta differenziata), etico (cultura della legalità della responsabilità),
politico (coinvolgimento di tutti i cittadini singoli e raccolti in associazione in un'azione di denuncia e di ripristino sul tema dei siti), tecnico (bonifica delle scariche e individuazione di luoghi di stoccaggio), costruzione di nuovi e moderni impianti per lo smaltimento), chederei solidarietà e aiuto alle altre regioni (sempre dietro una rassicurazione che la richiesta è una tantum e che partecipa di un progetto integrato per la soluzione del problema, una volta tanto mi rivolgerei al popolo campano sano, quello che ha intelligenza e onestà per sollecitarlo a credere che la soluzione del problema è dipende in larga parte anche da lui.
Capisco che non ho risolto i problemi, ma spero di essere riuscito a far capire che alcune idee possono essere messe in campo.
Se eletto, come ho risposto adesso, così risponderò domani, fornendo soluzioni e accogliendo consigli.

To vote or not to vote?

It’s that time again of a long series of doubts, questions and lack of information. No, I’m not talking about the elections in Cardiff!! I’m referring to the Italian elections being held on the 13th of April. Voting by post, I only have time until the 7th apparently.
I haven’t thought much about it, I haven’t checked the political parties’ websites and know very little about the candidates. It feels very odd given that I’m someone who has no such doubts when it comes to politics in the UK.
Since the last elections, the Italian Parliament has MPs representing Italians living abroad. I don’t know the numbers of those eligible to vote but there are millions of Italians living across the globe!! How can these MPs actually do something for us except the odd law about Italian schools abroad and so on?
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. They should have created an elected representative post for each embassy instead. I would have very much liked someone representing my needs and interests as an Italian citizen in the UK. For example, I’d like someone campaigning for more support for Italian Cultural Institutes (the London and Edinburgh ones are great!) and so on.
Above everything else I’d like someone who keeps in touch and the current Italian MPs currently representing me have sent me no communications until now.
It is possible to choose one candidate among the list presented by each party writing his/her name on the ballot paper. The parties have, of course, chosen their ‘star’ candidate so I have no information on the others. The manifestos are all the same and terribly non-controversial that it’s impossible to make an informed choice. I don’t know what they stand for (aside from the usual stuff for residents abroad such as consulates, culture etc.). None of them have told me what they have been doing and none of them seem to have done any campaign outside Parliament.
So I’m contacting them! So far, I have written to Gianni Farina (PD) and Guglielmo Picchi (Polo delle Liberta’) and asked their view and their party’s view on the refuse problem in Naples and the Alitalia privatisation.
I’m just one vote out of hundreds of thousand, but it counts!
The irony is that even my home town council keeps in touch with me sending their regular magazine (which includes a short article from each party on the Council). They are also more effective: I can change my address online, request to renew my ID card online … local government does it better!!

For a fistful of books

Mohamed Salmawy, Egyptian journalist and president of the Egyptian Writers Union, among others, called for the boycott of the Turin Book Fair in May. The boycotters object to Israel being the ‘guest of honour’ this year at the fair. They feel insulted because of the Israeli state’s politics towards the Palestinians. Tariq Ramadan, who joined the boycott being always so keen not to miss an opportunity to be in the news, states that it is

neither normal nor decent to commemorate Israel when Israeli state and government policies in the devastated occupied territories are clear for all to see.

Countries are invited, I believe, as guests of honour to celebrate their literature not their politics, the clue being in the words ‘book fair’. If politics should determine the nationality of the writers invited, will Tariq Ramadan boycott the fair next year when Egypt will be the guest?
Funnily enough, there’s a book fair going on in Cairo right now, which I understand is the most important in the Arab world. Guess what! The Egyptian police have seized boxes of books deemed subversive or immoral, such as For bread alone by Mohamed Choukri, The unbearable lightness of being by Milan Kundera etc. Last year, according to Al-Jazeera you could buy editions of the Mein Kampf and other “anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion”. No protest there.
By the way, Palestinian writers have been invited but turned down the invite. Aside from the rather crucial fact that the book fair is not a political event, Israeli writers such as Amos Oz, Abraham Yehoshua and David Grossman have demonstrated great commitment towards dialogue and peace even in the face of personal tragedy as in the case of David Grossman, who lost his son in the last Lebanon war. What is there to boycott exactly?

The Next Revolution

Last week I was telling a friend of mine that if it weren’t for the fact that Italy is a democracy, there would be a revolution. The issues facing the country are deep and permeate the whole of society. They reach far back in history and cannot be summarised easily.
There is the crisis of refuse collection in southern Italy which reaches far back to the re-creation of the mafia near the end of WWII for military expediency, leading to local and then national political patronage which has been exploited by successive governments.
There is the crisis of employment, especially for young people, now always temporary, with no guarantees and badly paid. Whilst salaries have failed to increase across the western world, in Italy the problem is more acute due to static economic structures.
There is the crisis of the ‘caste’, the control over political and economic resources by the vested interest of certain groups. As argued elsewhere, Italy's politics and economy are in crisis because of their subservience to power groupings traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. This too reaches far back and was exacerbated (or endorsed?) by the influence being exercised by the USA and USSR during the Cold war.
There was a time after the end of the Cold war, where there was hope. There was hope around the world for a new world order. Italy moved from the First to the Second Republic. Yet, the ‘new’ politicians (who couldn’t be really ‘new’) relied on the old structures of power. It may be that they had no choice in this, but nobody since the early 1990s has ever attempted real structural reforms.
The revolution is under way. Court cases have exposed the unashamed use of political patronage in the academia and business, for example. Everybody knows, everybody has always known. It is now time to change it.
Whilst I recognise that Berlusconi’s electoral tinkering has jeopardised the possibility of a functioning government, I still think Prodi was always too concerned about himself rather than the country.
Walter Veltroni, the now leader of the main centre-left party, was anointed by 3.5m people last autumn at the primaries. What is he going to do?
If I were Veltroni, I would propose a bold manifesto with my vision for Italy and call for a coalition to implement it. I would want transparency for all appointments, I would want structural reforms of the economy, I would want substantial devolution to the regions and cities, I would want new proportional electoral arrangements and, yes, even quotas for women. In this case, and for a limited period, they are indeed essential to allow a new politics. If I were a journalist, I would call on the media to stop play the game of the powers that be, such as the Vatican. If I were the Pope I would be constructive and give money to the priests that are fighting the mafia, the drugs and are helping the victims of the new slave trade. If I were … the revolution is a responsibility of all.
I suppose I just mean reforms, reforms that will reflect the local diversity. So far there have been confused movements of protest, such as the one started by comedian Beppe Grillo, that have fallen into the ‘game’ and conformed. Yet, it’s not impossible, only difficult.

The information market

Sometimes I come across rather frightening blogs where the author twists the information, has no regard for objectivity, historicity and is filled with paranoid propaganda. The sad aspect of this is that the authors of such blogs/sites and many of their readers believe their own nonsense.
Ideology and propaganda have always been around, but the new means of information have much wider availability, audience, and next to zero critical thinking. Next to the blogs and sites where the information is checked and often referenced, there are millions of others that are sheer nonsense. I might be guilty of some nonsense but I’m happy to review what I say or simply be persuaded by a contrary argument.
Persuasion and debate are the foundations of our democracy. A truly plural liberal democracy should encourage diverse groups promoting their interests and identities and reflecting in their arguments their specific viewpoints. I like niche markets and, from a consumerist point of view at least, we should have more. As argued in past posts, I would like to be able to read and watch sites/programmes on topics in which I’m interested regardless of where they are from, especially those in other languages as they offer a different perspective. Yet, it seems that niche markets are not as developed as niche propaganda.
Our democracy is undergoing profound changes but national governments are not gearing up to manage them. The proliferation of groups, interests and identities is an opportunity for increased diversity and flexibility, yet unless governments (in particular local government) engage sensibly with the new Babylon and establish some ground rules to ensure the rights of all, we will be crushed by it. The city of Bologna has issued a charter of rights and duties, which is an interesting example, so if you have others get in touch! But what about misinformation?
I could think of a couple of good examples of misinformation in Cardiff but let’s leave it there! The problem is that I haven’t come across a good way of managing communication. What is the best way for local government, politicians, interest/identity groups, lobbies etc to communicate in the public arena?
When does persuasion become propaganda? How do citizens defend themselves from misinformation? How do we protect the ‘common good’ and the res publica (as in the public democratic space) from the unscrupulous use of propaganda? In ancient Greece and Rome, the art of rhetoric had moral qualities. It was not to further untruths. Greeks and Romans were not that different from us, although they seem to have lots of intelligent people and a relatively small population.
How do we bring morality back in? The more the theo-cons are allowed to monopolise morality, the more our res publica will suffer from their propaganda. Long live liberalism?

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

Liberal Democrats Italian style?

The Lib Dems have managed to lose three leaders in a couple of days; it shows how much a small group of determined people can achieve given the chance. I wish we were like that at election time. Lembit Opik MP resigned from his leadership role of the Welsh Lib Dems, Mike German AM announced he will step down as leader of the Welsh Lib Dems in the Assembly next year and, of course, Menzies Campbell MP is the victim of the latest coup. They were all pushed to a certain extent. This makes me feel rather uneasy although I can see the need for renewal and I can think of some good candidates. The wound caused by the backstabbing of Charles Kennedy is still fresh in our minds. I strongly deplored it then and still do so now. Kennedy should have been told to check himself into a detox clinic, end of the story. But ego is everything in politics so some MPs ditched the leader. Or was it what the Lib Dems meant by ‘decapitation strategy’ during the elections 2005?
There must be a different way. I wasn’t too convinced by the idea of ‘primaries’ as recently carried out by the Italian Democrats. However, whilst the press were scathing, 3 and ½ million Italians turned out to vote for the new leader. That alone would be quite a result, but the minimum fee in order to vote was 1Euro and many people gave much more. Yep, 3 and ½ million people paid to choose a party political leader. This is made even more incredible by the fact that, in the past few months, Italy has gone through an ‘anti-politics’ time, led by a high profile comedian embarking in a crusade against politicians of every party. The outrageous perks, the indifference, the nepotism, all was made public, no stone was left unturned. Yet, democracy works. If you give people the opportunity to participate, they’ll feel empowered. For many people in power, it is easy to be complacent, to take people for granted and think that they have nothing to do with party politics. But why should membership alone, or even worse MPs, decide the face of the Party? Party activists generally vote for campaigners while ‘armchair members’ vote for recognisable faces, MPs … let’s leave it there! Given that political party membership is at an all time low, why don’t we ask people who they think would make a better leader?

Lawrence killer in Italy? Why not?

It is because I take murder very seriously that I find utterly disgraceful the recent tabloids’ hysteria and the government’s jumping on the ‘Lawrence killer’ bandwagon. Learco Chindamo is now 26, he was 15 when he was jailed for life for killing Philip Lawrence back in 1995. He moved to the UK when he was 5, he has no links to Italy whatsoever. When he was arrested, he didn’t even know how to spell his address, never mind speak Italian. Nevertheless, the tabloids want him extradited to Italy. No surprises there. If Chindamo does indeed pose a threat, he should not be released. End of the story, but this is not what the hysteria is about. The tabloids, the police and the government are not saying that he should not be released; they are saying that he should be sent to Italy.
Leaving aside the legal practicalities, if I were representing the Italian government, I would call the tabloids & UK government’s bluff. Chindamo is no longer illiterate, while guest at H.M. prisons, kindly paid by the taxpayer, he passed GCSEs and he’s now deemed a ‘reformed character’ and therefore ready to be released. The Italian authorities could sponsor him to learn Italian while living and working in Italy, thus contributing towards Italian society and Italian taxes. Can anyone now see how ridiculous this hysteria is?
As an Italian in Britain, I often find distasteful how the media pander to xenophobia. I’ve experienced xenophobia, although mostly veiled; but I’ve also lived in this country for nearly 10 years, contributing to its economy and political life. When I was running for elections in 2004, people greeted me and were happy that I was working hard for them. They didn’t care about my nationality. By pandering to fears and treating foreigners as a threat, the Labour government is showing that is afraid of taking its citizens seriously.

Italy, the land that feminism forgot?

The FT had a very interesting article on the death of Italian feminism. I share Adrian Michaels’ frustration with the explicitly sexual (and sexist) imagery dominating Italian television and publicity. However, in his comparison with Britain and the US, he seems to paint a too stark picture of Italy as ‘the land that feminism forgot’. After all, I remember a similar frustration and surprise at the relatively ordinary ‘nakedness’ of young women in Britain going out clubbing, when I first moved here nearly ten years ago. I'm afraid sexism is alive and well across the globe. The dire state of Italian publicity has more to do with its clients not seeking creativity than Italians being comfortable with it. Nevertheless, it is true that the situation in Italy is indeed worse; however it is primarily due to structural rather than cultural reasons. There are, of course, cultural differences, such as an understanding of sexual explicitness as rebellion to Catholic predominance and therefore as a liberating tool. There is also a more open attitude to sex than in Anglican/Protestant cultures, hence censorship being less rigid. Regrettably, across the western world, the sixties’ revolution liberalised sex instead of liberating it from its male-centredness and its objectifying nature.
However, Italian publicity is saturated with naked women for the same reason why economic structural reforms are extremely difficult. Italy is a country still steeped in corporatism, dominated by the vested interest of a myriad of groups. Italian politics and economy are in crisis due to their subservience to groups of power, traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. They are boys’ clubs making the rules on who is on television, in politics and in the academia, to name a few. So far they have excluded women, young talent and innovation. It is a deeply felt crisis resented by all. When I visit Italy, I see men and women just as embarrassed and angry at the ubiquitous display of female flesh on billboards and television as they are at the tight grip with which Italy’s elders are strangulating the country.

nakeditaly

Mastrogiacomo freed at too high a price

Italian opposition MPs have criticised the government for arranging with the Afghan government to free five Taliban prisoners in exchange for an Italian journalist who was kidnapped in southern Afghanistan on March 5, as reported on the FT.
When I first heard about Daniele Mastrogiacomo, I thought of the destiny of many journalists and even tourists who are abducted by terrorists across the globe. I therefore added the appeal to my blog. I'm glad he's free, however, I find difficult to justify this 'trading' of captured terrorists for his release. I'm also appalled that the Italian Left (Government and press) has hardly spared any thoughts for the 'driver', Sayed Agha, who was beheaded by the Talibans. They are 'celebrating' Mastrogiacomo's release. However, his freedom has cost Italy dearly. Will Italian tourists be kidnapped knowing that the government will give in to terrorists? Mastrogiacomo was in Afghanistan looking for an interview with a Taliban. He should have known about the risks. Should the government be responsible for someone who puts his life at risk so willingly? I do not think so.

Mastrogiacomo

Mastrogiacomo

According to the International News Safety Institute:

One thousand news media personnel around the world have been killed trying to report the news over the past 10 years - that's almost two deaths every week, according to a new report released today (Tuesday, March 6 2007).

Daniele Mastrogiacomo, a journalist from the Italian newpaper La Repubblica, was kidnapped in Afghanistan. Over 65,000 people have signed an appeal in support of his release.

Divided Churches & Theo-cons

There’s definitely something going on with the Church, both the Anglican and the Catholic Church. While representatives of the Anglican Church showed their muscles on the adoption row in the UK, the Catholic hierarchy has been vehemently against the proposal going through the Italian Parliament for an equivalent of civil partnerships that would include heterosexual couples.
In the Anglican world, liberal Episcopalians have been threatened to be chucked out of the Church, whilst in Italy, liberal catholics have appealed to the Church not to exercise such an overbearing interference in the affairs of the state.

The internal politics of the Anglican Church is very interesting. By the looks of it, Dr Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria is aiming to be leader of the ‘Global South’ province and is doing his best to rock the boat. Giles Fraser comments, in the Guardian, that:

“for hard-core evangelicals, this manufactured crisis is a golden opportunity to create new rules to oust the progressive voice from the church, perhaps even to crown Archbishop Peter Akinola as, de facto, the new Anglican pope.”

Was the adoption row an opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to show strength in front of the danger of a coup? If it was, it failed. The ‘Global South’ have threatened to boycott Dr Sentamu’s participation at the summit in Tanzania (organised to ‘heal the wounds’ between the conservatives and the liberals!).
The summit's ‘covenant’ may avert a schism, which is very useful in a globalised world where numbers count, but the protagonists might change. Talking of numbers, what about conservative Anglicans joining the 1 billion Roman Catholics? It sounds extremely unlikely given that, as the Times reminds us,

"the Anglican Communion is not a single Church demanding adherence to a disciplined codex of canon law. It is a fellowship of 38 provinces, each with its own prayer book, traditions and legal structure, bound together only by bonds of trust and fellowship."

It's a tactic in an extremely hard-fought campaign.

Meanwhile, back in Italy, Cardinal Ruini has launched a crusade against the Dico, (civil partnerships). Going back 60 years, Ruini has threatened a 'Nota', an injunction on Catholic MP's to follow the Church's policy on the issue. Some Catholic MPs, however, have already spoken against this meddling of (Vatican) 'Rome' with (the Italian State's) 'Rome'. Mediation is taking place although 60 Left-of-Centre MPs have already signed a petition in favour of the law. On the 'religious front', the vice-president of CEI (Conferenza Episcopale Italiana), Monsignor Plotti, commented that 'there was no need of a crusade' and that Ruini should listen to the bishops instead of going alone.
The liberal wing represented now by Cardinal Tettamanzi (after Cardinal Martini moved to Jerusalem) called for 'being close' to those who are cohabiting and avoiding radicalisation.
There is a 'concordat' in Italy between the State and the Catholic Church. For some the concordat has been broken due to the constant interferences of the Vatican. If Ruini moves on to impose a 'non possumus' and ask Catholic MPs to vote down the law, it would breach the concordat and split the Church and the country.

Both hierarchies seem to be trampling upon other theologies within their own churches and disregarding completely those who are not religious. The Italian case seems to suggest that the Church leaders want us to abandon the principle of ‘freedom of religion’. If the State were to grant fewer rights to the non-religious (and the 'liberal' religious), who choose to cohabit instead of getting married, it would impose a religious theology and thus infringe the principle of freedom of religion and conscience. The theo-cons are at work again and are threatening our rights and freedoms, those very rights and freedoms the Judeo-Christian tradition has given us.

science religion
faith

Theo-cons Part 2 - in response to Joe Otten

1. “My first query is what your complaint with the "theo-cons" is”

I’m afraid I thought it was quite clear when I said that the ‘battle’ is not between religious and non-religious but between liberal and illiberal. Why this question? It feels a bit like being told that if one is religious one should have quite a bit in common with the theo-cons. Anyway, aside from their insane obsession with sexual morality, what I mainly object to is their imposition of their understanding of faith that leaves no free will to choose between different faiths or none at all.

2. “Blaming religion for abuses done in its name is no more absurd than crediting it for good work done in its name.”

No, the clue is in ‘abuse’, which means wrong or improper use.

3. “The idea that values come from religion is a religious idea, and not one that can be taken for granted”

I haven’t come across any document that would evidence otherwise. The point I was making was cultural: the ideas of liberty and equality have found a place in religion (customs and thought) and develop from there. Where ethics come from is, I agree, irrelevant. I believe our sense of justice reflects God in the world (more on this later, in another post!). But you don’t need to be religious to be ethical and being religious doesn’t necessarily make you ethical.

4. “I am a little mystified that you question the 'acceptability' of rejecting all religions”

What some journalists, Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling and others are saying is that we should do away with religion because it’s irrational and leads to violence. What I said was that it is not religious belief per se that leads to violence; humans have been perfectly capable to oppress others appealing to non-religious ideas. I also think that dismissing religion as irrational is damn stupid and maybe I’ll write about this at some point.
I am certainly not saying that people should be religious or that non-religious people are bad or stupid, so why is it all right for Dawkins & friends to say that of religious people? They behave exactly like the theo-cons!

5. Secularism

I come from a country (Italy) where there has been a strong separation between church and state although it is gradually being eroded (primarily due to Berlusconi’s rightwing coalition). What I read in the media I mentioned, are not coherent arguments on secularism, but a lot of anti-religious ranting. Some, such as Theo Hobson argue that such atheist narrative originates from a section of Protestantism. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's plagueing our intellectual life now.
I started off saying that Britain has a lay society and I personally think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Britain has an established church. As mentioned, the idea of secularism is not about tolerance, besides secular states are not free from cultural dogmas (religious or otherwise). I would agree that a secular state gives a bit more of a level playing field. However, reality is that there is a de-secularisation process under way, so we’d better support liberal movements quick!

The veil - whose business is it anyway?

It is very interesting to see how the media have jumped at Jack Straw’s comment on the wearing of the veil. There has been relative little speculation about Jack Straw making a pitch for deputy leadership and why he chose this topic. Some journalists condemned the veil as being oppressive, some defended it and some found it sexy!
The problem is that they all seem to believe that it is something to do with religion. The choice of dress expresses how one interacts with the outside world. It has always been about status and power. It is highly symbolical and identifies societal codes with regards to relations with others. As such, strictly speaking, it is not a custom, but a symbol and convention. Even today an Armani suit sends out a different message from jeans and T-shirt. Dress codes belong to all societies; they identify what is required at a specific occasion. We are not free to wear what we want and in some cases there are consequences. If an event has a ‘black tie’ code, you will not be allowed in with trainers. Women’s status has been inferior in pretty much all societies throughout history. As dress symbolises power and status, it follows that women’s dress encapsulates their position in society. In the 1920’s and 1930’s when women gained more freedom, the corset went, so did the long skirts, the impossible hair styles and so on. It’s depressing to notice that the corset is back, that women starve themselves and 1950’s style clothes are fashionable. The idealised image of womanhood from the 1950’s was extremely oppressive. Women were mothers and wives, beautiful and powerless. Strangely enough I haven’t come across any comment on the corset. It’s obviously easier to condemn what neighbours do. Of course, multiculturalism poses challenges. Not so long ago, all religious signifiers were banned in French schools. In Italy, the veil in schools is allowed provided that the pupils are recognisable. However, the religious or political significance of dress is not the whole story. Some are uneasy at reports of a terror suspect wearing the burka to evade arrest, á la John Simpson! However, only good intelligence can tackle terrorism. Dress is really none of the law’s business. So, who cares? Given that Muslims didn’t respond much to Jack Straw’s comments, one wonders why it is a particular section of journalists and commentators who are so interested in it. I suppose this controversy sells more papers than the crisis in Somalia.

Nobody is infallible

Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian, not a politician and puts his theology first regardless of the political context in which we live. In catholic theology the Pope might represent God on earth, but in practise he represents the 1.1 billion catholics world-wide and the catholic hierarchy in front of the world. Hopefully he will now look for sound political assistants to make sure he’s on message. The pontiff might not have meant to insult Islam when he quoted an obscure Christian emperor, but he doesn’t have an unblemished record either. As reported in the Times, the Pope abolished the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, subsuming it into another council and dispatching its head, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a high profile arabist, as his emissary to Egypt and the Arab League. As a cardinal, he opposed Turkish membership of the European Union. Earlier on this year, visiting Auschwitz, he blamed Hitler and his squad for using ordinary Germans, he did not even consider the role of the Church in fostering anti-Semitism and seemed to interpret the Holocaust as the attempt by forces of evil to annihilate Christianity, the Jews being only the pawns used to achieve this. Not many people noticed, but this position did not do inter-faith dialogue any good.
The current controversy is born yet again from the pontiff’s theology rather than politics. He might have been quoted out of context, he didn’t quite endorse the emperor’s opinion of Islam, but the speech doesn’t absolve him one bit. In short (in his speech as printed on the Guardian), the Pope affirms that religion and human reason are not at odds, in particular, Christianity incorporates Greek philosophy into biblical faith thus deriving a religion based on rationality. It follows that what is unreasonable, such as violence, goes against God’s nature. He goes on to lament a long process of ‘de-hellenisation’ and later secularisation, whereby religion has been relegated to the realm of the personal, and is not accepted as rational.
The problem, however, stems from what is not said and how he said what he said. With regards to Islam, he quoted a condemnation of Islam by the fourteenth century Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologus II without distancing himself from it. Although he wasn't very explicit, he seemed to imply that Christianity made a separation between law and religion, between state and God, which is not present in either Judaism and Islam. This is something that has been argued amongst some theologians, but it's not free from problem. While it’s true that the concept of political revelation and philosophy is not significant in Christianity as it is in Judaism and Islam, we should not forget that Christianity rested on a Christian Roman Empire, not a secular state. The Pope also appears ignorant of the medieval philosophy he’s referring to and how Christianity synthesised Greek thought. It was through Jewish and Muslim sources, it didn't happen by miracle. In short, had it not been for Averroes and Maimonides, to name just the most famous ones, Christianity wouldn’t have had Tommaso d’Aquino. The Pope also seems to forget that it was Tommaso’s philosophy that led to science and so on, but that’s another story.
The Pope also seemed to equate Islam with Ibn Hazn’s theology. The Byzantine emperor argues that spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable, and that violence is incompatible with the nature of God. However, Benedict seems to say that this is not so for ‘Muslim teaching’ (as in Ibn Hazn), which holds that God is absolutely transcendent and cannot be bound by any of our categories, even that of rationality. This is not Muslim teaching, is an interpretation of one philosopher!
The speech, however, is not only critical of Islam. Although the Pope acknowledges the ‘positive aspects of modernity’, he criticises pretty much everything from the Reformation onwards, Kant in primis. I quite like medieval rationalist theology (of all three main religions) and I believe that religion and ethics have a place in society, do not contradict human reason (evolution included!) and can be a progressive force. The problem is that the Pope didn’t say this, he simply showed ignorance of philosophy in general.
He apologised, only to Muslims though ;) however his effigies have been burnt, mass protests have taken place, and two churches have been fire-bombed in Gaza and a nun was killed. Not bad for a rather unremarkable speech! We can definitely say that the Pope’s speech was sexed up by people who seem to be looking for ways to get Muslims to protest. As in the previous protest against the Danish newspapers’ cartoons, this latest campaign has been carefully organised on the internet to inflame Muslims, and it has taken them some time too. It would be interesting to know who is behind it and from whom they get their money. Nevertheless, the reaction is still disproportionate. It would have been better if leaders of Muslim states who have reacted with outrage had bothered reading the speech and proposed frank and open dialogue with Christians but also in their own communities, instead of pleasing anti-western sentiment and pour gasoline onto the fire. Both sides appear rather fundamentalist, in the sense that they see only their own narrow interpretation of the world and God and affirm their superiority over the other. They are doing a disservice to their heritage.
Ironically, they are both extremely modern and reacting to the deep changes in society that have taken place for quite some time. They are both reacting to a globalised technological world but fail to understand that only by embracing modernity, which includes tolerance, they can survive. Above everything else, violence is certainly not justifiable. Violence only brings more violence.

Hard Times

When she was freed, Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq, was told to be careful because the US wanted her dead. She took no notice at that time until US soldiers shot at her. Nicola Calipari, the international operations chief of Italy's military intelligence service, was shot in the head as he tried to shield her. According to the Washington Post, the US had been notified that the car taking Ms. Sgrena to the airport was coming to the checkpoint. The driver said that they were travelling at 20-30mph, so why were they shot at? It also seems that the US soldiers waited 15 mins before calling for help. Why? According to Ms. Sgrena, the US don't like the payment of ransom and that was their way to stop it.
Instinctively I would be cautious and refrain from blaming soldiers for a premeditated attack. On the other hand, many other episodes come to mind: the tragedy of the Cermis of the 3rd February 1998, when the pilot of a fighter of the US Marine Corps performed reckless acrobatics and cut the carrying cable of the Cermis cableway, causing the fall of one of the two gondolas and the death of 20 persons. Although the American Court Martial acquitted the pilot and the navigator, the enquiry made by the Italian Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry clearly showed the responsibility of the crew members and their superiors.
Not to mention Ustica when, in 1980, the Alitalia passengers plane was shot down by ... err, we still don't really know. It seems that American or French naval aircraft launched an air-to-air missile at a Libyan fighter aircraft detected in the area. Since then, the 'allies' have done everything possible to cover up.
One should never underestimate incompetence, recklessness and ruthlessness, yet often there's also malice.
Hard times for Italy.

My lungs, your choice?

In Italy, it will soon enter into force the law banning smoking in public places. Finally! It was supposed to come to force last year but it has been postponed until the 10th January 2005 due to the opposition of businesses.
Fumare (smoking) will be vietato (banned) in all indoor public places. Areas for smokers need to be separated by walls and signed. Adequate ventilation is also required.
I feel this is a victory for common sense rather than health concerns. It is not illiberal to ban smoking because it is a ban against poisoning someone else! The opposition to the ban accuse 'us' to ghettoise smokers. First of all, smoking endangers non-smokers' health, it is therefore a safeguard to their health. Second, why is it all right to ghettoise non-smokers but not so for smokers? Third, people who work in pubs, restaurants and so on, simply have no choice, they are being poisoned every day and have no escape.
Why should my lungs be your choice?

With Courage and Dignity

I was surprised to flick through some Italian papers and read that Fabrizio Quattrocchi (read Kuattrokki) had become a hero. I wasn’t clear why somebody who was picked randomly and killed with a shot on his head had become a hero. It sounded like an exaggeration, like some pathetic emotionalism, but it wasn’t. Quattrocchi realised what was happening, tried to take the hood off and told his executor “I show you how an Italian dies”, with courage and dignity.
I’m not indulging in nationalistic pride, I’m simply finding out how little I know of ‘how an Italian dies’. Italy shies away from portraying its own courage and heroism and feels embarrassed by it. It is the heavy legacy of fascism, ‘Italy’ was something we weren’t brought up to respect, but to be ashamed of. Won WWI but used as a tool for the exchange of territories, lost WWII being occupied both by the ‘Allies’ and the Germans (the Germans effectively occupied Italy after the fall of the fascist regime in September 1943).
Italians don’t like war, they repudiated it after WWII and enshrined this in the 1948 Constitution. So, at school we hardly talked of the battle of the Piave, never mind the last charge of the Savoy at Isbucevski, or the martyrs of Cephalonia where General Gandin held a referendum among his troops asking whether they wanted to fight hopelessly or surrender and they chose to fight. Or El Alamein when the British butchered a small squadron isolated from other troops and so on.
It doesn’t fit the Italian stereotype, the stereotype Italians believe themselves, so this post is for me to push me into studying Italian history a bit more.

The Mechanical Bride

I was reading today on an Italian newspaper that a recent survey suggests that 93% of women don't like themselves. They see themselves ugly, fat and tired. They are also uncomfortable with their sexuality. The first thing that came to my mind was the mechanical bride by Marshall McLuhan.
The Mechanical Bride refers to the sensation experienced by the sailor who's lost his way in the maelstrom. It was this sensation born of his rational detachment as a spectator of his own situation that gave him the thread which led him out of the labyrinth. For McLuhan the goals of the mechanical agencies are clear: manipulate, exploit, control in order to keep everyone in this helpless state by prolonged mental rutting.

I remember reading it when TV commercials started using the Tombraider character to sell tampons and so on. In the commercial, the computer-generated woman replaces the real woman so much that the real woman (A Jolie) had to look like her. I could probably write about this for many pages but to stick to the point of women's self-image, I find striking that we measure ourselves against what we see on TV, cinema and computers (images that are too often edited and changed). It might be because I have spent the past few weeks reading pretty much all Jane Austen's novels but it seems to me that beauty now is almost quantifiable. The length of your legs, the weight of your body etc. We forgot about countenance, education and manners. Although Austen's female characters are a bore (yes, Elizabeth Bennett too), since they are asked to be beautiful, be musical and draw, today's Mechanical Bride is even less. Yes, we've come a long way… but where? There's still discrimination, gendered violence and, above all, the choice between what 'society' decides you should be and what you want to be. My advice is stick to Jane Eyre!! :)

Etsi Deus Non Daretur

Last week I went to Swansea for a theology lecture given by the Right Reverend Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, entitled Inter-Religious Dialogue in Europe.
The lecture was certainly good and the 'Church of England-style' exposition made everything sound moderate, reasonably contradictory and pleasing all sides. Nonetheless he seemed to welcome anything that would bring back religion onto the public domain and condemned the latest move from France to ban the veil and other overtly religious symbols from schools. The Bishop had kind words for Pisanu (Italy's Minister for Interiors) who pushed for interfaith dialogue to be the vehicle for social cohesion.
What I feel is missing is the fact that after the Industrial and the French Revolution, the world changed dramatically. A similar change happened only with the Neolithical Revolution and at a much slower pace. This new era saw religion becoming a personal matter and people becaming citizens of the State. Although nationalism made infinite assumptions on the identity of the citizens, in effect creating nations, modern states allowed a certain equality and rights bestowed on all citizens. Yes, in practise it is quite different but rights and freedoms, to be concrete, they must be fought for.
At a time when the Nation-State is disappearing, new technologies force society and institutions to change. In a fragmented society, people will cling to their 'identity' constructing and essentialising it. People feel under threat and need to show signs of a particular identity. I'm all in favour of respect for religion and rites as long as there is integration (not assimilation!), as long as fundamental rights are respected and there's equality before the law.
In Italy, we would say Etsi Deus Non Daretur, as if God did not exist. As soon as you link rights with a particular understanding of God, an absolutist view of them takes hold. Those who say they have the monopoly of the Truth will want to impose their understanding of such truth. Last year Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said in an interview (appeared on the Guardian) that no religion has monopoly of the truth, only a path towards it. Everybody rejoiced until he got summoned to Manchester to explain his latest 'rebellion'. What I just can't get to grips with is the fact that some people decide what the majority needs to believe.