Sometimes, you read or hear something, to which you have an instant reaction. You can provide a reason, there and then, why you agree with something, or alternatively why the speaker is a mistaken moron.
More often, however, the mind is slow to form a response. The statement grates, but you cannot put into words why that may be so. You fester for days, and those idle moments, in the queue or on the bus, are devoured as you excavate the depths of your thoughts for what you are sure is an obvious answer.
Sometimes you unearth the quip that you seek, but too late. I heard a French phrase for this: L’esprit d’escalier, The Spirt of The Staircase. It is that witty one-liner that you never said during the argument, which you only remember as you are walking down the stairs to leave the dinner party (are all Parisian dining rooms on the first floor, I wonder?)
With online argument, these issues can be a killer. The ease of publishing your thoughts on a blog means that, for maximum readership, those responses have to be published quicker than the mainstream! A politician writes or says something in the morning. By lunchtime, detailed responses are already available online. That evening, there are already 250 contributions in the comments. Only a day later, it feels like old news. Letting your argument stew for a day, or a week, is to truly miss the party. You do find the answer you were looking for, but everyone else has descended to the street and gone somewhere else. You are left alone, arguing with yourself.
Justin at Chicken Yoghurt has been feeling a bit of the L’espirit too.
Author: Robert (Page 280 of 328)
Dear Jesus Christ. How many times do we have to wade through these stupid, utterly pointless debates, caused by stupid people enforcing utterly pointless rules? A British Airways employee has lost her fight to wear cross.
We often hear arguments of the type “if it were a [insert religious adherent here], this would never have happened”. These arguments often grate, because they are usually applied incorrectly. In this case however, such an argument would be entirely valid, and I anticipate with dread the crowing of those who will label this ‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’. Even those of us who defend such concepts must admit that this judgement is totally ridiculous and totally counter-productive from every possible perspective. No-one benefits, except possibly those illiberals would would seek to impose a total ban on all religious belief.
Of course, a Sikh can wear his turban, and of course a Muslim can wear her hijab, two entirely reasonable and practical garbs which are nevertheless much more ostentatious than a crucifx. The aggrieved woman, Mrs Eweida, has been ruled against on the technicality that her religious symbol may be concealed, where head-gear cannot. How mean!
A comment on the BBC website captures the issue perfectly:
This is yet another example of how secularism is being misunderstood by those trying to enforce it.
To repeat: An employee who wears a religious symbol does not and cannot convert that whole institution to her religion. It is not a contradiction for religious people to work in a secular institution. In fact, allowing myriad expressions of differing personal faiths will actually reinforce that secularism.
The only real cause for controversy would be if British Airways itself invoked religious imagery on its own corporate identity… Oh, wait: It does! It’s logo is part of a Union flag, an amalgamation of not one but three Christian crosses.
Casino Royale is a back-to-front kind of film. The most exiting and original action sequence, through a building site in Madagascar, is at the top of the film. The main villiain is killed by some other bad guy with twenty-five minutes left to run, leaving James to tack randomly into Venice, for a final shoot-out with some low-level henchmen we have never seen before. You only take kudos for ditching the traditional story-telling arc, if an alternative makes the film more captivating. Here, it is just puzzling, since the legacy of previous Bond films means we are all awaiting a spectacular show-down. When it comes, it is too late, too short, and without cathartic closure.
Bond is known for his brand-name gadgets and vehicles… but I think the producers fall off the tight-rope in Casino Royale:
“Is that a Rolex?” says Vesper.
“No, an Omega” says James Bond. This prompts loud, derisory guffaws from the audience, and James’ smirk suggests he may, too, realise how crass he is behaving. We tolerate him driving a particularly fast car, or using a certain laptop. But does he really need to boast about his brand-names? Perhaps this trait is part of the more ‘unsophisticated’ and ‘rugged’ Bond which Daniel Craig is meant to portray.
A full schedule for a lot of people today, it seems.
Sunny Hundal of Pickled Politics is going to begin a media blitz today, with an article in the Guardian and some radio appearances, promoting his New Generation Network.
Edinburgh blogger Devil’s Kitchen is making an appearance on 18 Doughty Street today too.
Finally, the BBC Asian Network Report will be airing a documentary Sex, Lies, and Culture, co-produced by the BBC and myself for Fifty Nine:
Are young Asians taking unnecessary risks with their sexual health? Brook Advisory Services, the national sexual health charity, are calling for further investigation into worrying information about Asians visiting their Birmingham clinic. They found higher proportions of Asians were likely to have unprotected sex, and to request emergency contraception, pregnancy testing and referrals for an abortion. They were also less likely to be tested for sexually transmitted infections. The Birmingham clinic saw aImost 4, 500 Asians under 25 years old last year, fewer than other ethnic groups. In Sex, Lies and Culture Anita Rani investigates whether the strict attitudes of older Asians has created a generation which isn’t informed about safe sex.
There should be some media coverage of those issues on the BBC 6 o’clock News, and also in The Times.
More soon…
A few days ago, a fifteen-year old Sikh boy was assaulted by a gang in Pilrig Park, Edinburgh. During the attack, the gang took a knife, and cut off the boy’s hair. Sikhs, of course, believe that hair (“Kes” or “Kesh”) is a gift from God and a source of spiritual power and faith. So the crime was a violation not only of the body, but of the soul too. It was in effect an attack upon all Sikhs, an entire section of our Edinburgh community. I am ashamed it happened.
This is a photo of a vigil held this afternoon, Sunday 19th November, at the site of the attack. Plenty of tam o’ shanters and turbans in attendance. You can also see Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz at the centre of the picture.
Update
Sikh teen lied about hair attack
Lothian and Borders Police confirmed the attack had not taken place and said the boy had expressed remorse. They said no further action would be taken.
…
The teenager is believed to have had personal problems and was also having cultural identity issues brought about by differences between his Sikh upbringing and Western society.
This is one of the overlooked aspects of multiculturalism. The different and conflicting identities that exist within an individual are as important as the different groups that exist within the country.