European values – charade or heartfelt reality?

Are we refugees forever

The picture of three-year old Aylan from Kobanî (Syria) haunted people all over the world this week. The image of a little, innocent boy rejected by a European super power struck everyone. Full of hope, probably with horrible war memories from back home, Aylan was escaping his past in the hope of a better future.

We all know how the story ended. There is no more hope for Aylan having a better life. His dead little body was found at the shores of Turkey.

Has now the time come that we Europeans finally wake up? A time when we realize that we have to act in solidarity? A time when action counts more than words?

“We cannot ignore the boats that sink in the Mediterranean Sea almost every day, drowning with them the lives, stories, potential and dreams of hundreds or even thousands of migrants.”

A certain hypocrisy has been prevailing in Europe. A mood that we have to help refugees is certainly present, however, concrete action, particularly by individual states is still lacking. We cannot ignore the boats that sink in the Mediterranean Sea almost every day, drowning with them the lives, stories, potential and dreams of hundreds or even thousands of migrants.

Isn’t it hypocritical of the world’s leaders to ask for solidarity from their citizens but not providing for enough initial reception centres for asylum applicants, or making sure that the applications for asylum are being processed more quickly?

Just as an example: Pope Francis has been urging for international action on migrants for months. However, how many refugees are sheltered in Vatican City? Shouldn’t a surface of 44 hectres offer enough space to accommodate a certain amount of people in need? Is Christian preaching just valid for others? Shouldn’t the clergy know what escape and oppression means?

Nonetheless, it is overwhelming to witness the solidarity and help by the people. More and more initiatives are growing, more and more people are volunteering throughout Europe. Pensioners accompany refugees to the authorities. Young adults give language classes. Families arrange play dates with migrant families. Children donate their toys. The civil society is trying to stand up for what politics do not manage so far: trying to welcome refugees and making their lives a little bit brighter.

Thank you to all those who believe and act in accordance with humanity. May their voices and action always be louder and more visible than of those who ignorantly promote hate and discord.

About the author:

MP1Prof. Dr. Manfred Pohl is the Founder and Chairman of Frankfurter Zukunftsrat, the think tank that organises “My Europe”. more…

 

Worries of one born in Europe – part II

i'm worried II

I am worried that some of us who are for the traditional family, for honesty, loyalty, personal sacrifice, modesty and respect in marriage and relationships may be considered outlandish by those who just want to tear down frontiers for the sake of immediate pleasure, and “redefined” progress of society. I do not agree that those that are for full human dignity, for the right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death might be in any way diminished in their right to exercise their choices and to promote them in schools, media, politics, just because “progressive” laws have been approved that allow professionals to euthanase or make abortions to people in their care.

I am appalled that some people are so much in favor of the protection of animals (me too, I myself have a German shepherd dog, which I dearly cherish and value) but these same people can be simultaneously in favour of the abortion holocaust. Abortion is no contraception method. How can we defend an animal and not a human being? Euthanasia has become lawful in Holland, and not just there. It is allowed when infants suffer from sickness that causes stress and suffering to their parents… so, the decision is given: the child’s life is to be ended! I personally know a child that used to have breathing problems in his early years; this naturally caused suffering to his parents. He is now a healthy, lively eight year-old boy.
I am terribly apprehensive that only little action is taken against the persecution of Christians or to understand the why of the boat immigrants.

“Being a white person does not make you a person of less importance than a person of another race, the same if you are a Christian and not a Muslim, a man and not a woman, a hetero and not a homo”

I wish for a Europe where those that respect God, those that are for conservative or politically incorrect views, feel Europe is their home, not a foreign country where they have a smaller voice or become ghettoed in political decisions and law making. I wish we have a Europe where the concept of hate crimes against a specific group, be it of religious or gender or ethnic origin, has no place, because the common law against robbery, rape, damage of any sort, applies to everyone. The same crimes, the same penalties under the law. Being a white person does not make you a person of less importance than a person of another race, the same if you are a Christian and not a Muslim, a man and not a woman, a hetero and not a homo… Defamation is defamation, robbery is robbery, rape is rape, no matter who the victim was.

“The fact that someone disagrees does not give him/her the right to minimize the other person’s point of view or resort to mockery or ridicule”

Well, of course you can disagree. But the fact that someone disagrees does not give him/her the right to minimize the other person’s point of view or resort to mockery or ridicule as I see some people are doing because they are irreligious or too liberal to be tolerant towards minorities or unfashionable points of view.

 

About the author:

Teresa Fernandes is a teacher in Lisbon, Portugal.

 

 

Worries of one born in Europe – part I

i'm worried

I am upset with the sadness of parents who see their kids leave their homes in Portugal to study abroad, a consequence of the quotas at university level in some courses, of the few vacancies in professional areas or of steadily underpaid positions. The ones who stay have to work harder, depend on the good will and hopefully sound character of their bosses/managers because of tenure positions that, due to the economic crisis, are now few and difficult to get. Why can’t people be allowed to have security in their jobs so they may set mid- and long-term goals for family and community contribution?

I am upset with school and college graduates when forced to postpone their joining the workforce, their building a family early in their twenties (not in their thirties or forties), or buying an apartment and making themselves available to help others with their salaries, on a regular basis. Lonely mothers/fathers, widows, ageing people, homeless, addicted, the poor and other disfavoured groups need help, but we have just a few lobbying for them, with reduced government support. Who is going to voice their plights on a regular basis?

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Desmond Tutu

I am unsatisfied with government officials who perpetuate their high salaries, their privileges and perks forgetting those that still have basic needs unfulfilled: of food, shelter, health, help, security, dignity. Are cuts in wages/salaries, or stretching the retirement age or reducing the promised pensions the best policies? If people can’t get a decent pension, if their age to retire is stretched, how can posts be made available to younger people? Showing statistics of lower unemployment rates is easy for government officials: they just need to advise people to enroll in professional courses or training opportunities or get a second degree, one after the other, however not necessarily giving them assurance to get a vacancy afterwards.

I am seriously worried about the wasteland concerning the education of kids and young people in schools, homes, the media. Too much focus on intellectual capacities/academic results, too little on the paramount importance of character education, the need for excellent values to be taught and principles experienced, so that our inbred selfishness may be disciplined. You can fly a plane and still do not care about the lives inside. You can be an accomplished professional, but still care more about your own success and personal conveniences than about the needs and shortcomings of the ones that depend on you.

 

About the author:

Teresa Fernandes is a teacher Lisbon, Portugal.

 

 

Ireland: The first Country in the World to bring in Same-sex Marriage by Popular Vote

lgbt-protests-for-marriage-rights_spotlight-europe

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

On the 22nd of March 2015, the Irish people voted to change the wording of the constitution, so that this phrase replaced the old one, which implied that a marriage could only be between a man and a woman. This was a huge and exciting victory for Ireland and its LGBT+ citizens.

equal marriage1
Referendum posters in Dublin. By Feargha Clear Keena

But this referendum was not won overnight. The holding of the referendum was the result of years and years of work by irish LGBT+ activists, many of whom worked to get homosexuality decriminalised in Ireland in the 70s. In the months leading up to the vote, the streets of Dublin were plastered with posters from both sides of the camaign, people were canvasing door to door, and businesses, schools, even the police, were all publicly showing support for marriage equality. Walking around Dublin, as a young gay person, the enthusiasm and passion of the “yes” campaign (those in favour of marriage equality) was to be seen everywhere, and it was incredible to see the shop windows, traffic lights, and postboxes all proudly bearing the phrase “Yes Equality”.

However, it was hard to overlook the “No” posters, which promoted the “traditional family” at the expense of single parent families and families with same sex parents. The determination of both sides led to a long and engaging nationwide debate. The entire country was having a discussion about marriage and families, and most of all, what it was like to be a member of the LGBT+ community in Ireland. This discussion quickly turned personal. People began to “come out”, including public figures like politician Leo Varadkar and journalist Ursula Halligan, in order to share their stories and encourage people to vote yes. It had become very emotional, and for the first time, the country was listening to a new narrative: that of LGBT+ people.

equal marriage2
Pride in Dublin City. By Feargha Clear Keena

The campaign was also very different from previous referendums in its amount of youth involvement. It was very clear from the get go that the result was hugely dependent on the youth turnout in voting stations, as young people tend to be the most supportive of LGBT+ issues. A huge part of the Yes Campaign was devoted to highlighting the importance of registering to vote and voting. People were so moved by this issue and this campaign that many Irish emigrants living abroad flew home to vote yes, which resulted in the phenomenal hashtag #hometovote, where people blogged their journeys from other countries, continents to take part in the historic day. In a country where voting had become much less popular with young people as well as everyone else, this particular issue invigorated the population, resulting in a historically high voter turnout. Almost 66,000 people registered to vote for the first time, with a total of 1,935,907 people voting in total.

On the day of the results, thousands of people gathered in Dublin Castle, where the votes were being counted for the Dublin constituencies. People were draped in rainbow flags with brightly painted faces, and the atmosphere was electric. When the results officially came true, I heard a weak stream of the national anthem from the crowd. Little by little, we all joined in. For many of us, it was a moment of not just LGBT+ pride, but Irish pride. Irish Pride in a way we had never felt it before.

equal marriage3
“Yes” Campaign ad. By Feargha Clear Keena

Many people do not take the issue of Marriage Equality seriously, because there are so many more serious obstacles facing the LGBT+ community, both in Europe and globally. But if you are seen as equal in the eyes of the law, you are ultimately more protected by your government. When I grow up, if I do have a family, I won’t have to worry about being treated differently or having less rights as a mother and a wife as anyone else in the country. It also showed a huge support for LGBT+ people. It told us that Ireland has changed, and that we do not have to hide anymore.

This is a huge and important change for our country, and I could not be more proud.

 

About the author:
Feargha Clear Keena
Feargha Clear Keena

Feargha Clear Keena (17) participated in the “My Europe” Workshop in Dublin in 2014. She goes to school at Mount Temple Comprehensive and enjoys playing music, writing songs, and learning foreign languages.

For me, Europe is…

…an amazing collection of art and culture and history that I’m lucky enough to be able to witness and be a part of.

Scenarios of Europe in 2030

Future Scenarios

Last week we had a ”My Europe“ Workshop in Berlin in cooperation with the German newspaper “Die Welt”. Journalists of this this daily, which is published by the Axel Springer AG, had prepared five theses about Europe in 2030. These provocative scenarios paint quite a dramatic picture of Europe in 15 years’ time; however, they proved to be good food for thought. I would like to invite you to also reflect on these future scenarios and to contemplate the (un)likeliness of these set-ups.

Europe 2030:

  • The EU is an elitist project. The common man does not understand the procedures anymore, but that does not matter since he is not allowed to vote anyways.
  •  Our continent is a fortress, isolated from poor and sick intruders. In this way, the rich and the clever remain among themselves.
  •  Everyone speaks English only. There are no other languages.
  •  The EU does not exist anymore. It started with Greece and England, soon more and more states decided to exit.
  •  A dictatorship of pensioners is achieved; all young people under 30 have fled to Asia or Africa where they attract less attention.

Without doubt, Europe is once again at a turning point. The many talks between the Greek government, the European Commission and heads of states seem to be, once again, decisive. I would like to chip to in with the following proposition: a debt cut for Europe. Let’s abolish all debts, let’s create a new basis with new, equal criteria for everyone and a framework that is fair and consistent. What do you think?

About the author:

MP1Prof. Dr. Manfred Pohl is the Founder and Chairman of Frankfurter Zukunftsrat, the think tank that organises “My Europe”. more…

 

Government surveillance will only strengthen the roots of radicalisation

Do you care about your data and privacy?
Do you care about your data and privacy?

Why we should all be afraid of the ‘nothing to fear’ brigade

Freedom, tolerance and the rule of law are widely accepted as the foundations of any just, progressive and equitable society. It thus follows from this that governments should have a hard time compromising these values, which would unequivocally be the case were it not for the now globally elusive and seemingly misguided pursuit of national security and safety. Since the commencement of the war on terror, propositions for a series of restrictive and intrusive measures aimed at policing non-criminal activity, behaviour and even thought have become the norm amongst an increasing number of western states.

Most notably and recently amongst European leaders, British Prime Minister David Cameron wasted little time following his party’s electoral success to brazenly deride British society for having been ‘passively tolerant for too long’, arguing that a new era was needed in which simply obeying the law would no longer be enough to stave off government suspicion and intervention. Whilst Cameron’s vision for a big-brotheresque society and proposals for a so called ‘snoopers charter’ have attracted a plethora of criticism from human rights and libertarian groups, the public outcry which has followed is arguably far from proportional to the extent of which its liberty is actually at stake. The root of this apathy is most conceivably rooted in the general public’s collective confidence that they simply have nothing to hide – and as the oft-repeated saying goes, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. After all, why would the amicable and passive majority of a nations population worry about anonymous government institutions analysing the most banal aspects of their life if such measures would ultimately help protect them from the type of violent and organised attacks which have plagued the likes of Paris and London in recent years?

However, as is often the case when contextualising proposals and relations between governments and their publics, the underlying realities are substantially more sobering than what could be concluded at face value. Far from tackling the root causes of extremist violence, intrusive and targeted invasions of privacy in the long-term ultimately serve to reinforce the societal divisions and tensions which have facilitated the rising radicalisation within marginalised sectors of society – essentially strengthening the same vein of disenchantment triggered by conflicts overseas, police brutality and political & economic alienation amongst other factors of varying political and social contexts.

The reformation of privacy and liberty envisioned by the likes of Cameron extends way beyond investigating known terror suspects or groups. Theoretically everyone would be under the spotlight to some varying degree, with profiles being created on the basis of patterns of behaviour, association, political inclinations and thought. Peculiar yet definitive suggestions from Britain’s most senior Muslim police chief that shunning Marks & Spencer’s and abstaining from the celebration of Christmas could be pin-pointed as possible radicalisation alarm-bells amongst young Muslims provides just one case study as to how easy it could be for perfectly innocent, peaceful and law-abiding citizens to find themselves demonised as potential enemies of the state under Cameron’s new vision for British society.

Furthermore, in what can only be described as a worrying and somewhat disturbing sign of the times, the scrutiny under which an East London council has found itself under after asking primary school children to fill in ‘counter extremism’ questionnaires is emblematic of the inevitably discriminatory and divisive nature of the big-brother era. With questions seemingly intent on skewing the religious beliefs and upbringing of the pupils, it has been difficult for Britain’s Muslim community to view this particular incident as anything less than an attack implicitly intent on criminally profiling its youth on the basis of nothing more than personal belief and thought.

Aside from the potentially devastating impact on community cohesion and government-public relations, forsaking our liberty for the sake of state-intervention also poses a grave danger to the rule of law and the provision of fair & impartial justice. If behavioural information extracted from one’s personal life could be viewed as sufficient to provoke suspicion, it in all likelihood may also be used to influence the prosecution of defendants, no matter how ordinarily legal that behaviour may be when considered in isolation.

Legislative measures as reformative as those proposed by Cameron and his peers also help to create a considerable political precedent, and it is far from far-fetched to fear existing legislation being taken advantage of by progressively authoritarian governments to gradually widen the realms of what is understood as ‘extremism’, which as currently re-defined by British Home Secretary Theresa May now includes ‘non-violent extremism’ – a term essentially vague enough to cover everything from hate speech to political anarchism. It conclusively seems that irony is the major theme in the never-ending battle between liberty and security, as embodied by the worn-out tune of ‘free-speech’ being hummed by those same leaders intent on strengthening the chokehold of government monitoring – it was in fact just five months ago that David Cameron joined world leaders for a march in Paris to symbolise the unquestionable sanctity of free-speech in light of the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks.

Is a tightly controlled and highly interventionist society one that an increasing number of governments appear to be aspiring to? Or is it one in which liberal privileges are reserved for the conservative, elite and powerful sections of society only? Either way, it appears that in seeking to protect our supposedly most sacred values from those that aim to destroy them, our governments are intent on destroying them first.

 

About the author:

Hassan FiazHassan is a 22 year old graduate from Lancaster University, UK. He possesses a considerable interest in human rights, conflict resolution and issues of community cohesion within European societies.