May 2017, Vol. 3, Issue 8, Honesty and Transparency, the Post-truth (Post-factual Politics) Era

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
—George Orwell

This is an extraordinary time; a time when post-truth culture is thriving in Russia, China, America, Australia, Britian, India, Japan and Turkey. This political climate is founded and furthered by appeals to emotion and on conclusions based on ignorance of and resistance to hard science and well-documented history. A perhaps unprecedented level of bombast replaces common sense, honesty and sincere promise creating a climate that rests on disinformation, intimidation and divide-and-conquer as its primary weapons of control. This all combines to undermine rule of law, free speech and free media. We have administrations evolving in the spirit of Orwell’s 1984 where diplomacy and statesmanship have devolved into manipulative spins calculated to influence the gullible and solidify the power of would-be autharitarians.

With the mixed blessing of social networking citizens seem unable – or perhaps unwilling – to distinguish lies from truth and fact from fallacy. President Obama is described as “obsessed” with this problem (hyperreality) and the mixed ecosystem of professional journalism and social network reportage in which “everything is true and nothing is true.”

“In an age where there’s so much active misinformation, and it’s packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television, where some over-zealousness on the part of a US official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect…If we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems.”
—Barak Obama

We’ve decided this month to address the challenges that face our countries and the world. We’ve addressed these in essay and poetry, sometimes head-on and sometimes by a thread. Though perspectives and solutions may differ to some degree, there is clear agreement that the concerns are real as is the need to “resist.”

A last note: Thanks to Michael Dickel for further technical refinements to make this zine more accessible and readily readable. Thanks also to the members of our core team, to our guest contributors and to our readers for continued support, encouragement and the pleasures of our shared values.

In the spirit of peace, love and community
and on behalf of The Bardo Group Bequines,
—Jamie Dedes, Founding and Managing Editor

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
― George Orwell


Table of Contents

To Read this issue of The BeZine

  • Click HERE to read the entire magazine by scrolling, or
  • You can read each piece individually by clicking the links below.
  • To learn more about our guests contributors, please link HERE.

BeAttitudes

Honesty and Transparency
the Post Truth Era


essay

Poetry

Racism

More light


Except where otherwise noted,
ALL works in The BeZine ©2017 by the author / creator


CONNECT WITH US


Daily Spiritual Practice: Beguine Again, a community of Like-Minded People

Facebook, The Bardo Group Beguines

Twitter, The Bardo Group Beguines

Intellectual Integrity in the Age of Trump | Jamie Dedes

On February 18th the Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Bret Stephens, gave the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Los Angeles. Time magazine reported on it and you can read the entire text HERE. I urge you to do so.

In his talk Intellectual Integrity in the Age of Trump Stephens, a conservative, warns us not to “dismiss President Trump’s attacks on the media as mere stupidity.” He writes that open-mined and diligent reporting is important and that “truth is not merely in the eye of the beholder.”

I admit to being beyond irritated with news-as-entertainment that caters to the sensational and salacious, that betrays us by serving up too much free on-air time to people with questionable intentions and morally deficient characters. This is unfortunate, but thankfully it is not descriptive of the whole of the American press.

Let’s give kudos were kudos are deserved: to those hard-working truth-seekers, our occupational cousins: professional journalists who put the truth first and work hard to bring it to us. They don’t deserve to be denigrated by a Republican administration that has lost its backbone participating in attempts to suppress what is crtical to the maintenance of a functioning democracy – an independent press working with impunity.

Our journalists – as with any other professional groups – don’t deserve to be painted with one broad brush by us – their readers (customers). Let’s not confuse earnest journalists with celebrity journalists who often deliver nothing more substantive than political gossip.

Among Bret Stephen’s points:

“Many people say” is what’s known as an argumentum ad populum. If we were a nation of logicians, we would dismiss the argument as dumb.

“We are not a nation of logicians.

“I think it’s important not to dismiss the president’s reply simply as dumb. We ought to assume that it’s darkly brilliant — if not in intention than certainly in effect. The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.” MORE

– Jamie Dedes (The Poet by Day and Coffee, Tea and Poetry); Barak Obama’s photograph is in public domain; Bret Stephen’s photo is by Вени Марковски | Veni Markovski under CC BY-SA 3.o license

Social Media As Empty Vessels | Michael Dickel

Selling Ourselves
on an Empty Medium


Michael Dickel

I advertise sometimes on social media. I’ve learned something about how it works. These are some thoughts about what social media really is about—perhaps a change of perspective, like the famous wine glass or kissing couple image, will help us to think about how the business of social media provides structure for the post-truth phenomenon.

To be clear, what I have to say is not new or exclusive to social media. Noam Chomsky has pointed out that “news” media (as all media) are not in the business of giving its audience (readers or viewers) the news (or entertainment or other “content”). The business model sells the audience to advertisers. Newspapers used to be sold for less than the cost of printing, and broadcast did not initially charge (cable and satellite changed that, but most news and much other media content comes in the basic plans, without premiums). And, famously, Marshall McLuhan told us “the medium is the message.”

News media at least also provide(d) content gathered, written, and delivered by journalists who (at least before “post-truth”) cared about ethics, truth, and fact, and who provided an important social service (if not perfect and often shaped or biased). The ads, are often seen as a “necessary evil”— commerce to provide this service. Still, ads remain(ed) the business model and, thus, subscriptions and ratings mattered.

Audience matters more than ever, because what social-media companies discovered is the medium is not just the message. It is everything.


Audience is the only content in social media, in a sense, and the medium (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) simply holds the audience. The audience busies itself with creating its own content and, well, being social. Hence, social media. These media should not be confused with content-media. While both sell audience to advertisers, content-media create or distribute others’ content to attract audiences. Social media create a medium for audiences to inhabit.

Therefore, social media are little more than empty frameworks—pure medium, with no content. The audiences are not only sold to advertisers, they now produce the content that keeps other audiences (and themselves) engaged.

This engagement is necessary in order for the social media companies, which provide the framework-medium, to sell the advertising to reach those audiences. And the medium—computers—provides detailed and accurate measure of the impact of the ads, which makes the advertiser’s purchase of audience more effective per dollar.

The medium, therefore, pushes engagement. Think of the increased availability of emojis / emoticons on the media, including Facebooks additions to the thumb on posts and, now, on post comments. More interactions that amount to increased engagement. Even those not posting have something to do and contribute to the process, and choosing an emoji instead of just clicking the thumb shows a higher level of engagement with that particular content.

So, what significantly differs with content-media, is that the content itself actually comes from the target audiences, who engage in it through an increasing number of channels (posting, comments / replies, likes, shares / replies, emoji, etc.). The social-media companies don’t produce content, just the frameworks—that is, the medium.

We, the users / audience, produce the content for social-media companies, give it away to them, and think we’re doing it to entertain ourselves and friends. However, more important to the business model, we’re also attracting and entertaining audience that the social-media companies can sell to advertisers—and make no mistake, we also are in that the audience for those advertisers.

Many of us, myself included, promote our own projects, work, businesses to these audiences with the “content” we produce. Many of us, myself included, also advertise on social media. So any one individual, such as myself, fills multiple roles within any one social medium. The social-media companies, however, control the medium and benefit from each and every role any individual plays. The more roles, the better for the companies.

(Granted, traditional media to “keep relevant” and stop audience loss, have increasingly incorporated engagement and aspects of content creation—from reader blogs to comments and replies online, so the distinction is less clear with contemporary news outlets than with traditional outlets of the past.)

We, as users / audience, engage— “curate,” “share,” “post,” “like” —all of which keeps the audience for the ads (ourselves and others) distracted from the marketing purpose of the media while providing the audience for the ads that the social-media companies sell (to us). This “engagement” also provides the framework with the information to target our interests so that it can present ads we are more likely to respond to with a “like,” “emoji,” “click,” or “conversion” (e.g., sale for the advertiser, purchase for you). And we participate willingly.

The algorithms the companies create don’t measure truth, although I should say they haven’t up until recently, when Facebook announced one to recognize “fake news.” The companies design the algorithms to measure and record engagement and conversions in relationship to interests and content. Content that attracts attention (and ad responses) rules the news feeds, timelines, recommend-for-you links, and thus rules the media waves.


They call it “Big Data,” all of the information that can be found out about us on the internet, much of it through social media and about our social-media engagement. And the Russians have taken this all quite seriously, using social media for political purposes.

Note that the social-media companies don’t directly sell conversions—the term for sales. The advertisers do track them, with help from the social-media companies and their software. They track these for the effectiveness of the ads and ad settings. Also, the more conversions, the more valuable an audience and the more successful the medium that holds that audience.

All of our content and engagement contribute to the “Big Data” out there. And the data provides a surprisingly, and scarily, detailed picture of who we are.

One researcher found a way to connect pages we like on Facebook with specific personality profiles with some reliability. The methods he used seem to have been used by a political consulting company to shape ad messages to fit those personality types and to target the ads to those specific audiences. They also used the data to choose which audiences to ignore as unlikely to respond.

Reportedly, the consulting firm worked with the Brexit and Trump campaigns, both of which succeeded when expected not to. Whether or not the work this company (reportedly) influenced the “surprise outcomes” remains a question for debate. However, the fact that these campaigns heavily used social media is another aspect of the medium and how important the audience it holds is (and such use is not only in ads, but for tweets and posts).

For reasons largely to do with evolutionary survival, we respond to fear, anger, and (literal and figurative) loudness. We pay attention to it because for most of our evolution, these types of social voices warned us, kept us safe, got our adrenalin going so we could put out fires, defend against dangers, or run away.

Therefore, it should not surprise us that LOUD lies, SHOUTED anger, SHRIEKS of fear (or ALL CAPS) get us going, our adrenalin roaring, and our tendency to quickly respond (with more action and less thought). This responsiveness could—just possibly—lead us also to more engagement, as a sort of “action.” We respond by clicking more little icons, typing another comment (reply), sharing (retweeting) more, and yes, probably also by clicking on ads more—a less direct response, but with adrenaline flow, we go.

Those famous (possibly Russian) trolls, however, keep the lies moving, the energy flowing. Why did social-media companies not “do something” about trolls before? And why are their responses (largely) minimal and ineffective now? Probably because they “influence”—the “audience” for ads probably “engage” more on social media and with the ads themselves when trolls keep the medium roiling. As the companies sell both exposure (showing the ad) and response (click), numbers alone are the main factor. However, the higher the response rate , the much more valuable the audience.

So the more engaged the audience and the more sales (of ads, by the users) the audience generates, the more the companies profiting from the medium don’t want to limit or lose that audience or anything / anyone who keeps it engaged.

Trump has mastered Twitter for getting people riled up—it doesn’t matter for or against, his Tweets get responses, articles, commentaries, editorials in response now that he’s President, symbolic head of the vast U.S. social network. Even if you or I reject the legitimacy of his presidency, he ranks as social-influencer-in-chief, or, in other words, troll-in-chief. And most of us have probably read one (likely more) of his tweets or at the very least, read about them.

Truth doesn’t matter in this medium. Only having an audience in it and how the audience responds to each other in it. The more engagement, the more the creators of the media can sell ads—ads fed into and made more effective in the medium according the data our engagement produces. The medium and its ability to hold an audience and promote engagement matter more than anything.


I don’t have evidence to support all of these ideas. These are thoughts I’ve been working through, and may eventually shape themselves into a long-term research and writing project. So don’t take these words as truth. They are not post-truth, either, though.

Think of them as speculation and hypothesis, a beginning of a process of trying to understand something about the media that contain us as its sole purpose to exist.

However, if it is the case that the liars, haters, shouters—the trolls and Trumps—do increase audience size and engagement (clicks and conversions), then we may be destined for a post-truth social media world until we choose not to respond and engage—that is, until as audience, we choose how to respond by not reacting, how to quiet the social around the trolls, liars, click-bait artists who (want to) roil it.


©2017 Michael Dickel

New PEN America Report Catalogues Attacks on Free Expression in the Current Administration’s First 100 Days

PEN America Executive Director, Suzanne Nossel



NEW YORK—PEN America’s new report Trump the Truth: Free Expression in the President’s First 100 Days clocks more than seventy separate instances where President Trump or senior Administration officials have taken potshots at the press, including Presidential tweets decrying “fake news,” restrictions on media access, intimations that the press has “their reasons” for not reporting terror attacks, and branding press outlets as “the enemy of the American people.” These instances amount to near-daily efforts by the Trump Administration to undermine the press during the President’s first 100 days. Such efforts not only chip away at public trust for the media and its indispensable role in keeping the public informed, but also signal to regimes abroad that the United States will not stand up for press freedom.

“President Trump has aimed more barbs at the press than he has served working days in office,” said Suzanne Nossel, PEN America’s Executive Director. “Trump has set a tone whereby government officials are not obligated to answer tough questions, be transparent to the American people, or demonstrate basic civility toward those who report on their policies. The Trump Administration’s posture towards the press has severe ramifications for America’s democracy and for governments abroad that are looking to legitimize abuses of press freedom. His snide, sneering approach to media he considers unfriendly is unbefitting a President of the nation that has prided itself on being a global standard-bearer for free expression.”

The thirty-three-page report—launched to evaluate Trump’s first 100 days from the perspective of free expression and press freedom—also details President Trump’s attacks on the truth, as well as his administration’s efforts to delegitimize dissent, draw the curtains on government transparency and reduce privacy rights at the border.




2014 Press Freedom Index: dark pink, very serious situation; medium pink, difficult situation; yellow, noticeable problems;, light green, satisfactory situation; dark green, good situation;  gray, not classified / no data



Trump the Truth is the newest installment in PEN America’s efforts to safeguard press freedoms and free expression rights under the Trump Administration. On January 15, PEN America held the flagship “Writers Resist” event on the steps of the New York Public Library before submitting a petition asking President Trump to commit to upholding the First Amendment and to refrain from his attacks on the press. The petition, which collected over 100,000 signatures, included the names of every previous living Poet Laureate. In March, PEN America submitted another petition, again with over 100,000 signatures, to Rep. Louise Slaughter, co-chair of the House Arts Caucus, to protest the proposed defunding of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities under the Trump Administration. More recently, on April 25, PEN America awarded the Women’s March its 2017 PEN/Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award, for its “clarion call that Americans would not sit back in the face of threats to values and freedoms.”




PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect open expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.


This feature and the photograph is courtesy of PEN America. The photograph is under CC BY-SA 4.0 license; world map showing countries’ Press Freedom Index classification based upon the report Press Freedom Index 2014 from Reporters Without Borders.


 

About the Truth | John Anstie

IMG_0113

[Image Produced using Cloudart]

The story of cosmology is the story of our search for the ultimate truth

This quote comes from an episode of one of my favourite Science documentary programmes, ‘Horizon’, which was titled ‘What happened before the Big Bang?’. It centred on the thinking, with the aid of mathematics and string theory, of a handful of professorial academics from around the world, who have developed some new theories. One such theory suggests that the expansion of our known universe since the Big Bang, nearly fourteen billion years ago, is only one ‘bounce of a ball’, of a cyclic series of events and that its apparently infinite size is merely a minimal starting point for the next Big Bang. I don’t know about you, but I find this, at the same time, utterly mind boggling and totally fascinating. It also serves to bring into perspective the true meaning of our lives and, in particular, the meaning of truth, which, in consequence, is only a relative term, particularly when it comes to this area of science.

There may be a myriad of learned tomes, on the subject of truth, written by countless thinkers and philosophers over the minuscule millennia of human existence, but, setting aside the search for the true answers to scientific and mathematical questions about the origins of our universe, it is on the most basic social and spiritual level that I choose to focus.

My first prompt for this piece occurred in 2011, when I observed, amongst other exceptional acts of forgiveness and the search for truth, the effects of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up in post-apartheid South Africa under Nelson Mandela’s leadership.

The second prompt is that constant irritation: politicians! To be fair, this affects all those in positions of influence, with vested interest in maintaining status quo or personal wealth, who are so often inclined to be ‘economical with the truth’, if the truth is likely to compromise their position or possessions. This probably includes all of us from time to time. However, if you are in a position of power, when your decisions affect whole populations, then being economical with the truth may be considered, at best, morally wrong, if not downright contemptible! So much depends on the ulterior motive. Difficulty arises when you listen to words spoken by someone, whose allegiances are unknown to you, and therefore leave you with the dilemma of whether or not you believe they are speaking the truth.

For me, sometimes, the solution to this is to do your own research; it is your call.

The third prompt is meat to those who, in telling lies, would argue that the truth is relative to its context. As true as that may be, there are some fundamental questions, which it may be helpful to ask. These questions and their answers rely heavily on my own life’s observations and experience. I’ve presented this, for clarity, in the form of a mock interview …

What is the truth?

“ Where there is pride, prejudice or profit, there you find lies. Where there is poverty, poetry and death, there will be truth ”

The truth is without bias, in conformity with fact and reality, and is concerned only with honesty and integrity.

What defines truth?

The truth is not only defined by its context, but also by your ability to address your conscience*, head on, assuming that it has not been corrupted by external bias (i.e. vested interests). Equally important is an ability to face reality, however unpleasant or painful that may be.

How do we justify the limits we place on our honesty about the truth?

We justify limits on our honesty in many ways: by joining a tribe and deferring to its rules; by focussing on our own self-preservation or our vested interests; and by denying voice to our conscience or contrary opinions.

How do we know what the truth is and how do we recognise it?

In order to know what the truth is, it is necessary firstly to cast off our natural bias and prejudice; to open our minds; perhaps also to become pantheistic in our outlook and accept that this might make us vulnerable.

How much of the truth can we, as individuals, consciously face, head on?

Knowing your limits is a safe harbour, but this may also provide a block to discovering the truth. So, it may be necessary to be courageous in the quest.

What strategies can we devise to help us find to the truth?

Somehow we may not only have to overcome personal prejudice and swallow our pride, but also face the facts and stop echoing and repeating popular myths and memes that come from the pens and mouths of others.

How much do we have to sacrifice both to seek and to tell the truth?

We have to set aside our need for unnecessary material things and kick the habit of consumerism, because this provides an immediate pride, prejudice and (perhaps) a greed for status. We also need to examine, evaluate and better understand our pride and prejudice (with apologies to Jane Austen).

Who will speak the truth?

Any of us can speak the truth, but, before we do, we will have to develop the inner strength to resist and cast off all those temptations that beset us with envy, greed, carnal hunger and cognitive bias.

I recently attended a concert, in which the headline act were a folk and roots singer/songwriter duo, Kathryn Roberts and Sean Lakeman whose talent and performances we have come to enjoy. The unusual and refreshing part of this concert was that the supporting act, who came on to ‘warm’ us up, was a poet, whom I had first met last year through the Sheffield WordLife movement, at the opening of the Sheffield Literature Festival. The poet is Joe Kriss. One of the self penned poems he read, concluded with words to the effect: stop talking, start thinking and listen to what lies between your ears; only then will you know what’s true.

There are many parts of our lives for which exposure of the truth, if shared with the majority and if reconciliation was achieved, would make for a better world. I wonder, however, if finding the truth in every part of our lives would challenge our humanity. If that truth were too unpalatable to face – the prospect of our own imminent failure, the discovery of a skeleton in our own cupboard, life threatening illness and death … would we still want to know the truth?

Perhaps you might let me know if you have found your truth … and whether you feel it set you free?

_________________________

• The defining of conscience could, no doubt, be the subject of a veritable treatise. For now, suffice to say that conscience is defined as “the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual”. Put more simply, it is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience “.

© 2014 John Anstie

This article first appeared in the BeZine three years ago under the title: “ Quid est veritas? … Veritas vos Liberabit “, which translated means: “ What is truth? … The truth shall set you free.

How Comey Learned to Live with Nausea | Phillip Stevens

Few Americans knew we lived in a “post-truth” era until the new President arrived—one who thinks “truth” is a four-letter word.

Two four-letter words: “Fake” and “News.”

Sartre to Comey: You misread me completely

FBI Director Coomey felt “mildly nauseous” that his announcement Hilary Clinton was, once again, under investigation rammed her campaign over the guardrail like an Abrams tank and a 1970 Honda Civic. Even so, he claims, he sticks by his decision because it was the right thing to do.

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

(Even though the investigation turned up nothing and, we later learned, the FBI possessed no reliable clue to suggest it would.)

This could be a footnote:

Forty percent of American voters will dismiss the last two sections as fake news the instant they read them.

I take that back. Trump voters will never read this article. They aren’t likely to read The BeZine. Many don’t read unless they know the publication will parrot their thoughts.

We entered a “post-truth” era because pundits grew weary of “post-modernism.” Post-modernism was the eighties; we needed to move on.

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

We entered a “post-truth” era because pundits grew weary of “post-modernism.” Post-modernism was the eighties; we needed to move on.

Postmodern criticism noticed a disconnect between the expression of truth and the demands of commercial media.1 Memory is short; new is better.

“New is better” defines post-truth thought too, but post-modernism saw irony in the pursuit of the new. In the post-truth era, new is all that matters.

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

My first professors taught me truth is black and white. Everything else is relativism. Then I transferred from a Texas university, which required Bible classes in every degree plan, to Michigan, where professors brought up Jesus when they stubbed their toes.

My department had three tenured professors—an existentialist, a Jesuit and a phenomenologist. Truth became relative, and three times as confusing.

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

Neurophilosophy and post-modernism rose to prominence together. Neurophilosophers reduced every thought to a corresponding brain state. In short, truth is chemically induced.

Derrida sank their ship before it sailed.

To borrow from the neurophilosophers’ vocabulary: Derrida suggested that a finding in neural research can be mapped to a brain state, but we can’t map the brain state of one mind to the same brain state in another.

His version went something like this:

Ideas can’t be contained in the sentence that frames them. They break free and transmute over generations, languages and even a simple conversation.

mage components courtesy of the Massachusetts General Hospital, Draper Labs, and Nicolas P. Rougier.
Building Connections
Neurons build connections that shape the way we think. The more we focus on one idea, the less able we are to recognize evidence we might be wrong.

 

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

 

Neuroscience scattered more nails across the road to truth. Our brains beat back new ideas with a one-two punch.
The amygdala throws the right punch. They produce a fear response to ideas that challenge core beliefs every bit as intense as the fear response to a shark closing its jaws around our heads.

Neurons set up the left-jab with a select and protect shuffle. When we embrace an idea as either truth or fake news, our brains build a neural connection, or bridge to memory. When we accept new evidence to support that belief, they make the connection stronger. Over time, our brains reduce conflicting information to white noise. We couldn’t see the truth if it smacked us in the face and said, “Your brain is clogged with crap and it’s time for a neural cleanse.”

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

Historians suggest the post-truth era began when civilizations used education and the arts to promote conformity and thought control. Even Athens, the birthplace of democracy, manipulated citizens at the margins of power with games, festivals and the occasional call to vote.2 No surprise then that the Athenians condemned Socrates for teaching his followers to question everything.

More relevant than it seems

When Jackie Robinson signed with Montreal, the Minor League Baseball Commissioner claimed:

It is those of the carpet-bagger stripe of the white race, under the guise of helping, but in truth using the Negro for their own selfish ends, who retard the race. It is my opinion that if the Negro is left alone and aided by his own unselfish friends of the white race, he will work out his own salvation in all lines of endeavor.

Neuron image: Nicolas P. Rougier

 

When he sentenced Jesus to death, Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?” No doubt he stuck to his decision as the right thing too. What’s the death of one poor Jew against the cooperation of Israel’s religious leaders?

The irony of flexible thinking: Flexible thinkers push the envelope and expand the frontiers of freedom and knowledge. Sometimes, however, those in power exploit that flexibility to suppress and oppress those they rule.

Upper right: The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David. Lower left: Christ before Pilate by Munkácsy Mihály
Convicting the wise to shelter the sheep.
The deaths of Jesus and Socrates were mandated, in part, by the need to retain political power and influence.

It’s all in who you serve

Jesus claimed to be the truth—not an idea, but a person. Followers won’t admit it, but Jesus never viewed “truth” to be objective reality independent from people’s needs. He believed we experience truth through our connection to others and how well we treat them. Treat others as we desire to be treated and the truth connects us all. Use others for our own ends, no matter how we rationalize our conduct, and we trade truth for convenience.


  1. e.g., disseminating commercial memes. ↩︎
  2. Ralph Casey, “The Story of Propaganda,” Historians.org, https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/what-is-propaganda/the-story-of-propaganda ↩︎

Kept Promises | Paul Brookes

 

day is summer’s horse, called Skin
whose smooth mane shines bright
over my spiral horned cows
and black faced sheep chewing cud,

drags their shadows over fresh
grass like a dark memory,
ahead of cold night’s black mane,
nuzzle foam flecks fall as dew

as I recall yonks ago
a promise I makes to boss
of these riches and a blue
dun stallion gallops pasture.

My promise that if any
other man than me or Boss
rides this horse called Boss’s Mane,
I’ll know, find them and kill them.

I hires Lone Soldier, eldest
son of my neighbour, who makes
promise lad is hard worker
and no flibbity gibbit.

Everyday Lone takes my
black faced sheep to safe pasture
returns them come that evening,
cuts fire wood, looks after Boss’s

Mane and his 12 mares, I tell
him about my promise, that
he can use other horses
for whatever, whenever.

Lone agrees ” Very fair deal.”
and promises to do his
best, and pulls his rag out
for whole of sweated summer,

but one day, some sheep flit off
he can’t find them anywhere,
he scours fields for entire week,
so ragged, he goes to the mares,

to ride one to search yonder
fields, but when he turns up, all
mares scatter, only Boss’s
Mare stand stock still as a stone.

If he rides it his promise
not to will be broken, if
he decides not to, his vow
to care for farm is broken.

Lone ponders that to keep one
promise must break another,
reckons as sheep more valued
and only way to find sheep

is on Boss’s Mane, judges
as riding him back in time
I’ll never know about this.
On Boss’s he finds lost sheep.

returns all sheep to their place,
doing his job as always.
And as not needed Boss’s
gallops all way home to me,

till near my farm, I see him
sodden with sweat, steam rises
off his flanks like mist off a
morning lake, muddy, panting,

so I know someone has ridden him
and it weren’t Boss, so I goes
with an axe in search of Lone,
and after long chat, I asks

“Did you ride Boss’s Mane?” He
couldn’t deny it, so tells
me the truth. “Thas done well in
telling truth. I would forgive

thee but I’m bound by promise,
and when promises are made,
bound to be kept, as you know.”
so I kills him with my axe

make a decent grave for him.
Lone’s father weren’t happy.
Tha can’t break thee promises,
no matter hassle tha has.

night is winter’s horse, called Frost
who’s rime mane darkens more
over my spiral horned cows
and black faced sheep chewing cud.

© Paul Brookes

Unpalatable Truths | Paul Brookes

 

are those you cannot hold
in your mouth
make you want to retch
to clear your gob

and then eat something sweet
to take the taste away.

And knowing you need
to tell another a truth
they do not want to hear
makes you want to delay
the fetch, makes you consider
the depth of sweetness
you need to take the feeling

away

© Paul Brookes

The cat didn’t lie | Michael Dickel

Apocalyptic Winter I Digital art from photos ©2016 Michael Dickel
Apocalyptic Winter I
Digital art from photos
©2016 Michael Dickel

 

Apocalyptic Winter

i
Murk clenches around the world—
solstice, yes; cruor, surely; necrosis,
possibly; apoptosis, likely. Trees pull

back, plants close for business,
even cockroaches go dormant,
or almost sleep through the long night.

Those few flowers on a windowsill
only admonish me in the name of the
painted flood that stained last summer.

ii
Dried herbs crumble, anamneses of the sun.
I stop, though, and talk to the feral cat
whose felicitations hiss out from iron bars

on top of a stone wall that divides civic
sidewalk from exclusive parking. I would
purr, unlike this ginger gamine cat,

if I had cause enough to lucubrate.
The thalassic truth of this spot sidesteps
my yearning to swim in the desert.

Apocalyptic Winter II Digital art from photos ©2016 Michael Dickel
Apocalyptic Winter II
Digital art from photos
©2016 Michael Dickel

iii
Absinthian coffee wakes something
harsh, chlorophylloid, but not for long, and my
bleak, burnt bones creep forth on a nameless road.

The moon climbs, someone wants me to offer
straightaway. A ray penetrates the darkness
and lifts the crux to spheres surmounting

dictionaries and thesauri that spill
obfuscations, tangle moods and modes
into articulated modifications of noumena.

iv
The cat didn’t lie, so neither will the eye.
Clouds hid the moon. An uncanny aura
spilled down from a lunar eclipse. The trees

gamboled, lifting their roots and dropping them,
a geographic gamble. Stories stumbled down
cliffs. Nothing changed in the seething

and nothing persisted unchanged, which
I don’t really apprehend. The tongue does not
construe such spectacles or words unconstrained.

Apocalyptic Winter III Digital art from photos ©2016 Michael Dickel
Apocalyptic Winter III
Digital art from photos
©2016 Michael Dickel

If you put the mouse cursor over the links and wait a moment, text will appear over (and appear to define) the linked words. This poem appeared originally on Meta/ Phor(e) /Play as Winter Poem. It has since been published in my chap book, Breakfast at the End of Capitalism (free PDF download). You can also purchase a print copy through locofo chaps.


 

Double Life | Michael Dickel

 

I mention an image that for some days now has been mounting in the sky of the revolution…Chantal’s image is circulating in the streets. An image that resembles her and does not resemble her. She towers above the battles.

—The Envoy in Jean Genet’s The Balcony

Your lost lover becomes a martyr—
a new revolutionary cause—
as the judge, an abandoned father,
conceives the child’s anarchistic calls.
Balconies crack, begin to falter
while the white rose petals start to fall,
and the soft dust now rises up to
cloud our bishop’s visionary realms.
So you saunter down to the twelfth bar.

It’s not very far for you to go—
down the road to the mausoleum,
where knowledge no longer wants to flow,
and wisdom the police chiefs promised
evaporates in blue cloudiness.
My forlorn lovers take one last look,
executioners seal sacred books,
and we dream that time will return us
again to where Chantal’s dance began.

We slip on ice in larch swamps covered
by fog, which obscures the histories
unfolding Irma’s worn tapestries—
lies of the victors, lies of the lost.
We change the general’s blank dance card,
then drop three photographers’ needles
into a heavily falling snow.
Your martyr turns into a lover—
an evolutionary lost-cause.

An old father begins his judgement
with many anachronistic flaws.
And Carmen’s petals flake slowly off
like snow melting in a beggar’s tale
of the freed slave’s magic midnight sun
where my desire has never failed.
And the rose petals? The bruised petals
from the flowers you took the envoy
cover the gravel under your feet.

At first, people were fighting against illustrious and illusory tyrants, then for freedom. Tomorrow they’ll be ready to die for Chantal alone.

—The Envoy in Jean Genet’s The Balcony


double-life


Note: In each of the two days I have been working on the poem above, the ones just before I am posting it, exactly 18 people visited my blog, where this originally appeared as Chai equals eighteen (things have changed—yesterday 222 people visited, a more usual number since the beginning of 2017). The poem has four stanzas of 9 lines each, for 36 lines (double 18), not counting the epigrams from Genet. Each line has 9 syllables. The total number of syllables is 324, plus the 36 lines, equals 360—the number of degrees in a circle. Chai, חָי —Hebrew for life, equals 18 according to gematria. So, 36 lines, double 18, is double life. Or, perhaps, a double life. Jean Genet‘s The Balcony may offer a key element to this equation.

Double Life has since been published in my chap book, Breakfast at the End of Capitalism (free PDF download). You can also purchase a print copy through locofo chaps.


A Mirror of Chantilly Lace | Renee Espiru

 

She sees that truth has been manipulated and twisted
suiting no one but the one who engineers it
like clandestine meetings between those who
consider themselves lawmakers wearing their guises
like black widow spiders whose loving opponent
will meet their demise when they are deluded
into believing they meet on equal ground
having something both believe in and that
truth is the foundation on which discussion
is built but their meeting of minds is clouded
by deception a grand design of charismatic nature

She sees that there has become a truth laden
with roads without destination convoluted as much
as the murky waters of polluted lakes and rivers
with whirlpools swirling the masses’ thoughts into
a funnel going ever downward where there is no passage
out and from which no amount of mesh can siphon its’ debris
that consists of life without beauty for when the
mirror is looked upon it consists of an acetate fabric
of which everything appears dim and unclear and that
even Chantilly lace when looked through has wonder but
the important elements are missing as though becoming
a puzzle without any solution so each day is the same

© May 2017 Renee Espriu

This Utmost Truth | Mike Gallagher

 

A solemn gathering – the earnest poets,
philosophers and theologians versed
in weft of word and erudite discourse,
the rudiments of life and death obsessed;
pet theories threshed, pet propositions flashed,
fresh theses so politely sent to bed,
old certainties dispatched with such panache.
And yet, was aught of import really said?

The more that we are shown, the less we see.
Nothing that we have learned is absolute
and reason is but leave to disagree –
gut man has known for long this utmost truth –
just like the ass, the ape, the stupid fly,
survive to sally forth and multiply.
© Mike Gallagher

basement dwellers… | Charles W. Martin

the view
from the basement
hasn’t changed
i can
still
only see
how
footprints
are made
not
who
really
makes them
nor
why
some movements
are
so erratic
as to
engender panic
from
those
of us
looking up
from the basement
i must admit
that
i prefer
those who walk
with
sure
confident steps
that are
well measured
it gives one
a sense
of hope
that
the basement door
will someday
be unlocked
and
we’ll
get a chance
to view
what’s really
going on
up there

red tipped canes | Charles W. Martin

words
are rarely
clear
they’re more often
translucent
especially
when dealing
with
issues of humanity
no one
wants to be seen
as
a villain
so
the murder
of mothers
is concealed
in
the opaque protection
of
an unborn child
by
a barren minded wanna-be-saint
whose
religious infection
results
in more deaths
than
lifes
but their
cataract vision
of
god’s words
lets them
strike their white cane
of
intolerance
into the womb
on
a defenseless woman
all in the name
of
a god
that does not
have
them
on
the entry list

© 2017, Charles W. Martin

Loki’s Pranks | Carolyn O’Connell

 

Fingers click sharing stories that appeal
propelled by entrenched views, comments,
as everyone becomes a journalist
without training or virtue of the past,

when editors checked veracity of
the story and news was slowly proven
before the compliers set the presses;
and families gathered round the radio
to listen to the news in quiet trust of truth.

Fathers would confirm and comment
teaching the children respect and values,
mothers quietly agreed with commentators
who spoke with surety and sense
when interviewing politicians who
spoke with quiet authority and honesty.

But the Joker’s entered all’s seen as if
two saw the same man in a hat, one saw
black the other white. It’s Loki’s pranks,
as he triumphs over truth and honesty.
The cards shuffle and throw up dissent.

Now they interrupt before the questions answered
no information is heard above demanding cackle
leaving the news reinforced by walls of opinion
entrenched by inherited values and beliefs

that people who are different are a danger
and fixed elite are the politicians
who have no care of all that’s treasured
the safety of home and family.

Rising voices cry for clarity, the surety of
work and home, but it fades into economy
as robots; globalization takes over tradition,
they hear the voices promising return to
all that once was familiar typical of country

and turn to those who promise a return
to times of triumph when the truth was known.

© 2017, Carolyn O’Connell

A racist asylum policy and what it means for asylum seekers | Bob Mouncer, Ph.D

I spoke at a conference in Glasgow at the weekend. The conference theme was “Racism: from the Labour movement to the far right”. I talked about the treatment of asylum seekers:

I want to show what’s done to people in our name to asylum seekers, refugees fleeing from persecution. I’m particularly interested here in what happens during the face-to-face encounters between asylum seekers and the officials who deal with them. I do it, really, as a sort of tribute to people I have known, people I know.

Most of the examples are from a few years back and come from my research into the treatment of asylum seekers, which I finished in 2010. But the racist discourse against asylum seekers that began in the 1980s continues today.

First, by way of introduction:

Racism is adaptable. The racism of the colonial period survived after the Second World War, and this is reflected in the determined (desperate) attempts by Labour and Conservative governments to invent reasons for immigration controls, which hadn’t existed before, against black and Asian Commonwealth citizens.

It took them till 1962, when the Tories were in government, to get controls – because there were no real reasons for them. Several committees were set up to find reasons but they failed. By 1961 all their reports admitted failure. On all the grounds they had hoped would show the need for immigration controls, they failed:

“A case for controls cannot at present rest on health, crime, public order or employment grounds.”

Or indeed on any lack of integration, which was another hoped-for scenario that hadn’t materialised. So no real reasons. Just racism.

In the end they manufactured a case based not on the evidence but on what they feared might happen in the future and brought in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.

Controls were seen by both by the Tories and Labour as essential. In fact Labour tightened the Tory controls after it won the 1964 election.

Even Labour’s liberal agenda, under Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, which was the basis of multiculturalism, insisted on controls. One minister at the Home Office, Roy Hattersley, explained:

“Integration without control is impossible, but control without integration is indefensible.”

34 years later he admitted he’d been wrong and showed how racism lurks behind all immigration controls: “If your immigration restrictions are too repressive” (!), he said in 1999,

“you encourage bad race relations rather than encourage contentment and satisfaction, because you are saying, ‘We can’t afford any more of these people here’, and the implication is that there is something undesirable about these people.”

Well, that’s an argument against immigration controls in general because they’re racist – not just the “too repressive” ones. So racism continues and immigration controls continue.

The targets may change, racism is adaptable (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said in 2007: “The Poles are the new blacks”). But the beast remains the same.

And asylum seekers? They have become targets in their turn.

The UK has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, so it has undertaken to protect people fleeing from persecution. It has a duty to protect.

Here’s the Home Office:

“The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of providing a safe haven for genuine refugees.”

That’s its 2005 Brief Guide to asylum applications:

“We give all applications for asylum a fair hearing in accordance with our obligations under the Convention.”

The problem is that the other tune is also playing – that of immigration controls – and it drowns this one out so that asylum seekers are routinely seen as an immigration control problem rather than as people in need of protection under the Refugee Convention.

This is the approach in most EU countries. As one French writer describes it:

“The specific question of asylum is not taken into account in an independent and appropriate fashion but vanishes into the general migration policy of the state, a policy guided above all by economic and security imperatives.”

So a racist discourse has developed, laws made and practices have arisen which undermine the right to asylum and deny protection to people who need it.

This is reflected in the legislation passed over the last nearly 3 decades. In all of these Acts and other regulations and orders asylum seekers find themselves criminalised, their rights restricted (legal aid, rights of appeal, right to accommodation and financial support, use of fast-track processes which make a fair and considered hearing pretty much impossible), increasing numbers are put into detention centres and sent back to imprisonment, torture and even death.

And this, too, has been the work of both Tory and Labour governments. And the mainstream parties compete with each other as to who is “toughest” on asylum.

So the claim is that most asylum seekers have not been persecuted but come here for “economic” reasons (to find work or claim benefits), and they apply for asylum in order to avoid legal immigration controls.

All this is seen in the language politicians use to go with this theme, to create prejudice and hostility and to justify the policy:

Asylum seekers are “bogus” (the Tories and Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw), they are brought here by “racketeers”, the UK is a “soft touch”, our schools are being “swamped” (Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett).
The language leaks into the legislation: section 24 of Labour’s Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 lay down procedures to be followed by registrars if they suspect a marriage to be a “sham” marriage. That’s the word in the Act – it’s not a Daily Mail headline.

So asylum seekers are treated as suspect. And this discourse sets the tone for public discussion.

Plus, and ominously, it sends signals to Home Office staff and officials who deal with refugees about the nature of their job and how they should do it.

So what does happen if you apply for asylum?

You might get it. Not everybody is refused. But your application takes place against the background I’ve described. And most of those who get asylum have to fight for it, sometimes over many years. Many of them fail.

Abdullah was here for 12 years, and was deported to Afghanistan last year. At his last appeal his flatmate, Serkan, went to the London hearing with him. When I phoned him to see how it was going Serkan was outside the court in the corridor.

“Have they stopped for lunch?” I asked.

“No”, said Serkan. “But I had to come outside because they keep calling him a liar, and I can’t stand it any more.”

In 2001 Ali, an Iraqi Kurd, had his main asylum interview, and it was a difficult and puzzling experience.

Now, the main interview is the most important part of the process. It’s where the assessment of your claim is made, “based”, in the words of the Home Office, “on the details given at interview, and also sometimes in writing via a Statement of Evidence Form.”

It’s a crucial couple of hours, and the Home Office tells applicants to go into all the details of why they have come. “This is your chance”, the Home Office says, to tell your story.

But Ali told me:

“They wouldn’t let me explain – they didn’t give me a chance to explain all my problems. They just – they say, ‘No, we are not going to listen to you. We have just to ask you a few questions and you have to say yes or no – nothing else.’”

One of the questions was whether he had specifically chosen the UK as his destination.

[Because, of course, what was in the interviewer’s head, placed there by his managers and by the politicians? “These people are bogus. They come over here, they always make Britain their first choice, Britain is the softest touch they’ll ever find, they don’t need protection.” So – “Was Britain your first choice of destination?”]

Ali could only answer, “No.”

His detailed answer, he said, would have been that in the back of the lorry he knew his destination was Europe but he didn’t know which country – “Sometimes people want to go somewhere else, but [the driver] just take you back to his country.” But he was not able to give that answer.

Three weeks later his application was refused – that particular answer No was probably counted as a lie – but luckily when he appealed against the refusal the judge decided to listen to his story and granted Khaled indefinite leave to remain. But that was more than a year later, a year of unnecessary anxiety.

Credibility

Now, one thing your interviewer/caseworker will be looking to do is damage your credibility. This is partly because, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Handbook says, “the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant”, which simply means you are guilty until proved innocent. But in addition caseworkers are obliged, under s. 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004, to consider certain specified behaviours as damaging to your credibility.

One such damaging kind of behaviour is to arrive without a passport, or with a false passport.

Now, according to the Refugee Convention, refugees, just by virtue of being refugees, persecuted, under surveillance, in trouble with their government at home, may not be in a position to get a valid passport. Article 31 of the Convention says that arrival without a passport, or with a false passport, is no offence:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who … enter or are present in their territory without authorisation [without travel documents, passports].”

But – section 8 of the 2004 Act in effect turns it into an offence. Arriving with no passport damages your credibility.

Now, one of the most common reasons given for arriving without a passport is that the agent who supplied it travelled with you and demanded the passport back before the end of the journey to avoid detection.

Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett claimed that this explanation was not true. He said asylum seekers “destroy” their passports because

“traffickers tell them it’s their best chance of staying in the UK – by making fraudulent claims and making it difficult to remove them if their claims fail.”

So section 2 of the Act lays down that asylum seekers who arrive without a passport must “prove [here we go] that they have a reasonable excuse” for not having one and section 8 requires the caseworker to raise it as a credibility issue.

You probably won’t be surprised to hear that the answer “the agent asked for it back” does not count as a “reasonable excuse”. It’s only counted as a “reasonable excuse” in “exceptional situations” (the very elderly are apparently allowed that “excuse”, so are unaccompanied children).

Another time it’s allowed is if

“a document was destroyed or disposed of as a direct result of force, threats or intimidation, e.g. where an individual was forced at knife-point to give a document to someone else.”

Now, I never met anybody who gave that as a reason:

Latif came with his family from Eritrea. His wife Lara told her caseworker: “The passport I had was Sudanese but the agent took it away.”

Lisa’s agent took her passport during the flight, got off the plane when it landed at Rome and left her to travel on to Heathrow alone.

Sara’s agent took her passport before the plane landed and then he disappeared.

There is, in fact, no need for “knife-point” threats: asylum seekers hand their passports back because, dependent as they are on their agents, they just do what the agent says. But this little discourse on “excuses” and wilful “destruction” of passports serves to justify a law that lands people in trouble once they arrive.

Surprisingly, the Refugee Convention and the UNHCR Handbook leave individual states free to devise their own asylum procedures as it suits them. But can states contravene the Convention with impunity in this way?

It certainly looks like it. When I met Latif and his family they were waiting for an appeal hearing because their asylum claim had been refused, and one of the grounds of refusal was just this: “You destroyed your passport.”

I’ll stay with credibility issues because they are often the clearest examples of mistreatment, abuse and the fitting-up of asylum seekers. They aren’t all required by the Act, but they get raised because of the pressure of the government’s restrictive agenda, sometimes called by support groups an “agenda of disbelief”.

Your credibility is questioned if you get dates wrong. And remember here that the asylum seeker is telling the story of a probably lengthy time of anxiety and trauma from which they have not recovered.

The first example I’ll give is simply and obviously unjustified. The second, again unjustified, also seems deliberately confusing and cruel.

Latif got a date wrong. His refusal letter said:

“You [said] in your witness statement … that you were arrested on 5/8/2004. It is noted however that in your substantive asylum interview you … claimed that you were actually arrested on 4/8/2004. These statements are inconsistent and in light of your lack of certainty about the date of the event which led you to leave the country in fear of your life, your account of this matter cannot be accepted as being true.”

The second example is Reso. His credibility was also questioned because he momentarily gave a couple of wrong dates. His refusal letter said:

“You claimed [in your written witness statement] you were arrested on 20 May 1995 … At interview, when you were asked the date you were arrested you stated you were arrested on 20 November 1995, you then corrected this and claimed you were arrested on 20 May 1995 and allege you were released on 10 November 1995. When asked what happened on 20 November 1995, you said you made a mistake, you stated it was the date your brother was killed, but not the year.”

In fact there was nothing suspicious here. In his distress Reso mixed up some dates. As he explained it to me

(and these are his own words, and they show clearly the impact such cruel treatment has on vulnerable people):

“I had said the wrong date: “What date your brother die?” Yeah? Because … I been shot with my brother. After three days my brother die in hospital. They ask me which day you and your brother been shoot? And which day your brother die? And which day you run? Which day you leave your country? Is too many days, and I don’t remember after four years all these dates.”

The caseworker had no such considerations in her mind, only the agenda of disbelief, and the refusal letter continues:

“The Secretary of State notes your confusion, at interview, when asked about your alleged arrest. He considers that to confuse significant dates [like] the date you claimed to have been detained and the date you allege your brother was killed, some claimed four and a half years later, detracts from the overall credibility of your account.”

Your credibility is also questioned if you didn’t leave your country as soon as the persecution against you started. There are, of course, many reasons why you might leave at one time and not another:

Political reasons: you are committed to fighting for change, so you maintain your political activity until it becomes impossible
Family concerns
The need to find an agent
The need to get a passport
The need to raise money for travel or to pay the agent (say, by selling property).
The caseworker tends not to take any of this seriously, and is provided with a standard paragraph, for use in a refusal letter, that is designed to dismiss it. It’s a standard paragraph because scepticism is a required standard response to such an account by an asylum seeker. Here’s the paragraph, and all the caseworker has to do is fill in the gaps provided:

“Further doubts as to your alleged fear of persecution can be drawn from the fact that you did not leave [COUNTRY NAME] until [DATE]. The Secretary of State holds the view that if your fear of persecution by the [COUNTRY NAME] authorities was genuine you would have left [COUNTRY NAME] at the earliest opportunity and the fact that you did not casts doubt on your credibility.”

Your credibility will be questioned if, on your journey to the UK, you passed through a country regarded by the Home Office as “safe” and didn’t stop and claim asylum there. The Home Office lists all the EU member states as safe, plus Iceland and Norway. Section 8 obliges the caseworker to count your “failure” to apply there as damaging to your credibility.

Mahmoud came with his wife Leila from Iran. Their asylum application was refused on a number of grounds. One of them was their “failure” to claim asylum in one of the states they apparently passed through on their way here. Mahmoud’s refusal letter said this:

“In your statement you claim that you travelled to Turkey then to the United Kingdom concealed in the back of a lorry. You would therefore have travelled through a number of European countries which are signatories to the 1951 United Nations Convention, and are therefore safe countries that are obliged to consider any asylum applications made upon their territory. There is no reason to believe that these countries would not fulfil their [Convention] obligations … The fact that you failed to claim asylum [in one of these countries] therefore further reduces your credibility.”

The argument against this, of course, is that once in the lorry you may well have no choice but to stay there till you arrive at your destination. Not only will you have no idea which countries you are passing through – you may have no idea where you’re going, as we saw in Ali’s case.

Fitted up

But Mahmoud and Leila’s case is not just an example of how section 8 works – and is intended to work – but also an example of how a caseworker’s determination to find credibility issues can make it all too easy to misrepresent the asylum seeker’s story.

Because the version of Mahmoud and Leila’s journey this caseworker produced in the refusal letter was rubbish. Mahmoud and Leila did not “travel to Turkey then to the United Kingdom concealed in the back of a lorry” – and the caseworker knew it. They arrived by plane. The evidence Mahmoud gave in his witness statement was clear, unmistakable:

“We entered the plane with passports provided by the agent. The passports were taken away from us by the agent’s representative at the Transit Hall of Stansted Airport, in the United Kingdom.”

They did spend time in a lorry (2 days) travelling from Turkey to, Mahmoud said, “a country whose name I do not know”. During those two days they did not get out of the lorry either for food or to relieve their bodily functions: “[W]e got on a container on a lorry. We were given a carrier bag for discharges (toilet, etc.) and protein food like chocolate.” After that they boarded the plane and landed at Stansted.

The caseworker knew that they had arrived by plane. He knew from the witness statement, from Mahmoud himself at his main asylum interview and from the record of his screening interview at Stansted. He knew.

At best the caseworker’s accusation arose from a careless disregard for the details of Mahmoud’s account. But it most likely derived from an eagerness to attach as many “credibility” issues to his case as possible under pressure from the government’s restrictive agenda, the agenda of disbelief. Mahmoud and Leila seem to have been fitted up.

Detained

Finally, you will probably be detained, put into a detention centre, and then deported. Your detention may be illegal.

I mentioned Abdullah. 3 years ago, he was allowed to put in a fresh asylum claim. While he was waiting for it to be dealt with, they came for him, at 7.30 in the morning. He was taken to a police station, and then travelled overnight to Manchester, then to two other detention centres, before being locked up in Tinsley House, the main detention centre near Gatwick Airport and told he was going to be deported. Conditions in one of those detention centres were so bad that when they told him at one stage that he would be moved back there he went on hunger strike. They didn’t move him.

Altogether he was detained for 3 months. At the end of that time, a judge finally ruled that his detention was unlawful, and he was released. During his time there he acted as an interpreter for other inmates (he speaks 3 languages). One of them had attempted suicide.

The truth is that as long as we have immigration controls, and as long as we see refugees as immigrants to be controlled, we will go on ill-treating vulnerable and brave people in these ways.

© 2017, Bob Mouncer, Ph.D.

self-migration | Trace Lara Hentz

 

I self.migrate here, from there
I drive unfettered multiple times to multiple states to multiple addresses
I cross unchecked boundaries, through invisible state lines, past fenced farms and gated communities
I am free so I self.relocate here, since I am free to relocate anywhere in America
I bring boxes filled with memories, with enough to rent a storage unit
I arrive unscathed, unhurt, but not exactly state-approved
Does Massachusetts care that I am here?
I self.migrate with papers, with proof, without arrest
I raid my fiancé’s space, his territory, his living room
I marry him, and I marry his identity and my identity and take his name
I register my car, get my driver’s license, and register to vote
Would this happen if I was from Iran, Nigeria or Guatemala and not from Wisconsin?
Does Massachusetts care that I am here?
Does it matter that I am a Connecticut-transplant, a journalist, formerly employed by a tribe?
Cameras pointed at cars would be able to find me eventually
How long will it take for me to become a local? How long?
How many years?
Does Massachusetts care that I am here?
I find descendants here of many generations, of bloodlines not my own
How long before I am questioned?

Trace Lara Hentz, Greenfield ©2017
(written in the BigY parking lot)

ain’t no wonder | Charles W Martin

the brown bag prophet
said
a jury
can watch
a
police video
of
a rogue cop
shooting
an unarmed black man
point
blank
and
the jury
will
argue
for days
about
the validity
of
the evidence
and
then
end up with
a
hung
jury
it’s
no wonder
the current
white house
feels
it can do anything
it wants
and
still maintain
popular support
even
if it kills
a bunch
of
them
point-blank

To Tell You the Truth | Corina Ravenscraft

Honesty and Transparency are the themes for this month’s The BeZine. I started to write about these things in relation to the current political administration in the United States and quickly realized that it was turning into a (badly-written, full of sarcastic anger) book. So instead, I’d like to ask you to consider something different, but just as important.

Image borrowed from lovethispic.com

Someone once told me, “Friends keep you honest. Good friends keep you honest with yourself.” Not only do I believe this, but I am blessed to have good enough friends who will do exactly that. Because we’re all adept at self-deception, we all need outside perspectives that will help keep us true to who we really are. This is a good thing, because honesty and transparency are crucial for trust; it’s critical that we be able to trust ourselves in order to live our best, most fulfilling lives possible.

How do I know how to trust myself? You may ask. The answers are there, and complicated, and they may not be what you want to hear, but self-honesty isn’t always easy. In fact, I’d say it’s probably harder than being honest with other people, because we all tend to be our own worst enemies – Ego is ever present and will do any number of shady things to protect itself (and you, in the process).

The over-simplified, short answers are that there are a few things you can do to start on the journey to being more honest with yourself:

* Pay closer attention to your emotions, your thoughts and your behaviors. By becoming aware of those times when your emotions, thoughts and behaviors don’t seem to match who you believe yourself to be, you’re honing your ability to be self-aware. This takes practice, so don’t get discouraged.

* Understand that it’s a journey, not a destination, and that it’s likely to be painful. There’s a good reason that the phrase “The truth hurts” has become such a cliché. Also realize that the rewards are worth it! There is nothing quite so empowering as knowing that you’re comfortable in your own skin, living the life you were meant to…as a direct result of doing the hard work of taking stock of your personal inventory (some of you may even recognize this as the 4th step in any 12-step program: “Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.”)

* Don’t be afraid to seek therapy or professional help with personal issues that may be holding you back. Unresolved issues and baggage will stick around as long as you allow them, and will hinder your attempts to practice self-honesty. It takes guts to admit you’re not perfect and that you may need help to unravel layers of inner knots.

Dr. Cortney S. Warren is a well known psychologist who has explored this subject in depth. Her website, choosehonesty.com has some good insights into becoming more honest and transparent with yourself. Here is a quick article of hers that was published in Psychology Today that gives a brief explanation of how to get started. And below is a very good TedX Talk video of hers that goes into more detail.

One of the most important things to remember about honesty with oneself is that it’s a continual process. We have the choice each day to honor our true selves or put on a mask. We can defer to who and what we think others want or expect us to be, or we can try to be self confident, honest and live our lives the way we think and feel we should. I’m not advocating selfishness, but rather, self-awareness. Learn to trust yourself and be honest about who you are. It’s one of the essentials for living a complete, enriched and fulfilling life. And if you find yourself unsure about what that means and don’t already have one or two, get some good friends who are willing to keep you honest with yourself. 😉

Image borrowed from Pinterest.com, Dalai Lama quotes