Is the case of teachers who were banned from wearing jeans and t-shirts yet another proof that overpaid school management boards need to justify their own existence?
Or are they just putting a false sense of order and perceived up-market pretentions to what's supposed to be an environment supporting diversity and creativity?
There are two areas of everyday life of modern humans where adding the word “British” automatically creates an oxymoron. Cuisine and fashion. Agatha Christie had Hercule Poirot said that British didn't have a cuisine, only food. And while some may argue that British fashion does exist, they would have a hard time defending an argument that it equals a good taste and that it translates to the masses and transposes to the everyday clothing. Ridiculously old-fashioned suits, skirts that emphasize all the wrong body parts and crazy coloured socks that make their wearer look like an idiot.
Strangely, though, Brits seem to be obsessed by clothing, but they really must like uniforms. Thousands of bank managers, million of kids etc. get of the tube, buses and cars in exactly same clothes. Watching the crowd at Canary Wharf, London's other financial centre, kind of resembles a watching swarming in a school canteen. Sure, inedible junk is replaced with smoothies and supposedly healthy snacks, but the feeling of uniformity is there.
So great is the obsession with the concept of “dress code” that in 2006 the Daily Mail (who else) attacked the BBC when corporation's reporters stationed in a war-zone during the Lebanon-Israel conflict didn't wear suits and ties. “The truth is that the BBC is throwing away credibility by allowing its reporters to appear without ties. It implies carelessness and shows a lack of respect for the viewer and the subject matter,” wrote one Michael Cole. One year later, the tabloid's daily maul was another reporter's dress comprising shirt and jeans. And it's not just the broadcasting.... Not a single GP doctor I saw in the UK wore proper doctor's garments. Suits, shirts and ties whose knots are hotbed for bacteria.
School managements, after scrapping practical science experiments (children can watch them on YouTube), are on their crusade to kill off the last remaining bit of diversity – by forcing teachers to stick to the dress code deemed appropriate by the body of busybodies. All in an attempt to offer business-like appearance.
Birmingham Metropolitan College requires staff to wear business suits and skirts and … tidy, well groomed hair. On the index are: jeans, t-shirts, t-shirts with signs, inappropriate earrings, tattoos (must be covered), trainers (that's sneakers), outrageous hairdos and colours....
Last year, a school in Tower Hamlets, one of the London's most deprived boroughs (although it also covers the aforementioned Canary Wharf) sacked a teacher because he refused to give up his usual dress code – trainers and tracksuit pants. His outstanding results (96% of his students passed maths and science GCSE exams) and side activities (he worked with disabled children) had not effect on the schools decision. According to the council, he didn't comply with “a reasonable management instruction”.
About 15 years ago, as I walked down the hall at a police station (reporting a crime) in a post-communist country, I noticed a sizable poster titled “A proper grooming of a member” with a picture of policeman's head sporting a hair-do deemed proper by communist regime. “We keep it here for fun,” a plain-clothed detective answered my quizzical look.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Analogue and noband Britain
Shopping for a monitor/tv today, I ventured into British retail chain PC World and Currys stores.
As usually, it was great fun. In the PC World, I had to explain to the Asian salesperson what the "native resolution" was. And in the Currys, I gave a lecture to guy of the same origin on a miracle called extended desktop as he had no idea it's possible to do in Windows. It was a James Cook on a Pacific island moment, he brought mirrors and nails.
That sort of sums up my week, IT-wise. Britain is a country where you need to have a 19th century technology (that's telephone) to get your Interent connection. And when you get it, you're limited to frankly pathetic ADSL speeds.
I've never had a day without several signal dropouts on a UK cell network and don't get me started on mobile broadband.
In Michalovce, a 50-thousand town in Eastern Slovakia struggling with long-term high unemployment, there are four companies offering high-speed fibre optic internet connection and digital TV with speeds outpacing anything available in the UK. It's something London's City can only dream of. Which is why Britain as a broadband country just doesn't exist.
Oh, and to call a customer service you need to dial a premium charge number. A sort of sex over the phone, but only if you and your purse are into an IT S&M...
As usually, it was great fun. In the PC World, I had to explain to the Asian salesperson what the "native resolution" was. And in the Currys, I gave a lecture to guy of the same origin on a miracle called extended desktop as he had no idea it's possible to do in Windows. It was a James Cook on a Pacific island moment, he brought mirrors and nails.
That sort of sums up my week, IT-wise. Britain is a country where you need to have a 19th century technology (that's telephone) to get your Interent connection. And when you get it, you're limited to frankly pathetic ADSL speeds.
I've never had a day without several signal dropouts on a UK cell network and don't get me started on mobile broadband.
In Michalovce, a 50-thousand town in Eastern Slovakia struggling with long-term high unemployment, there are four companies offering high-speed fibre optic internet connection and digital TV with speeds outpacing anything available in the UK. It's something London's City can only dream of. Which is why Britain as a broadband country just doesn't exist.
Oh, and to call a customer service you need to dial a premium charge number. A sort of sex over the phone, but only if you and your purse are into an IT S&M...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
STV died. Democracy died a little bit, too.
Vox populi, vox dei? Well, it depends. Sticking to the world of secular politics, without venturing into murky waters of religious debates, the Latin phrase usually freely translates as “the voters have spoken”. Riding along this particular interpretation, the decision of British Columbia's voters to reject electoral reform has to be respected and supporters of the current first-past-the-post system will trump it up all the way down to Ottawa.
There are many reasons why BC voters rejected electoral reform that would replace ancient first-past-the-post system with the proportional representation. Campaigning of the anti-proportional camp is one thing and it was hard for the pro-side to fight the propaganda that could simply hitch a ride on the “tradition” of the first-past-the-post system. Even the name of the particular proportional system, Single Transferable Vote, acronymed as STV, had very little chance to become another ATM.
The outcome of the Tuesday's BC referendum reaffirms the rejection of the proportional election system from 2005 and that means the reform on national level is very unlikely. The nation has spoken.
On the other hand, the will of the same nation, its decisions, are being ignored during every single election on any level. Seven million votes were not counted in the last year's federal election. Voters did vote, but thanks to the magic of the first-past-the-post system, their votes did not count. Earning 49.9 percent votes doesn't guarantee a single seat in the parliament (1987 New Brunswick election). On the other hand, a majority government can be formed by a party that comes second in popular vote and, in effect, lost the election. 1,379,991 voters elected 49 MPs for the Bloc Quebecois, 2,515,561 votes were enough only for 37 NDP parliamentarians. Bloc earned only 2 percents of the popular vote more than the Green Party which ended up without an MP. Nearly million Green Party voters were disenfranchised.
Canada will continue to function according to a medieval voting principles and will exercise its democratic deficit as a reminder of the colonial legacy. Yes, the nation has spoken and rejected the proportional representation. Chances are that at the next election the nation will speak again and those who advocate it's right to speak and be heard now will deny the same right to the same nation. Again.
There are many reasons why BC voters rejected electoral reform that would replace ancient first-past-the-post system with the proportional representation. Campaigning of the anti-proportional camp is one thing and it was hard for the pro-side to fight the propaganda that could simply hitch a ride on the “tradition” of the first-past-the-post system. Even the name of the particular proportional system, Single Transferable Vote, acronymed as STV, had very little chance to become another ATM.
The outcome of the Tuesday's BC referendum reaffirms the rejection of the proportional election system from 2005 and that means the reform on national level is very unlikely. The nation has spoken.
On the other hand, the will of the same nation, its decisions, are being ignored during every single election on any level. Seven million votes were not counted in the last year's federal election. Voters did vote, but thanks to the magic of the first-past-the-post system, their votes did not count. Earning 49.9 percent votes doesn't guarantee a single seat in the parliament (1987 New Brunswick election). On the other hand, a majority government can be formed by a party that comes second in popular vote and, in effect, lost the election. 1,379,991 voters elected 49 MPs for the Bloc Quebecois, 2,515,561 votes were enough only for 37 NDP parliamentarians. Bloc earned only 2 percents of the popular vote more than the Green Party which ended up without an MP. Nearly million Green Party voters were disenfranchised.
Canada will continue to function according to a medieval voting principles and will exercise its democratic deficit as a reminder of the colonial legacy. Yes, the nation has spoken and rejected the proportional representation. Chances are that at the next election the nation will speak again and those who advocate it's right to speak and be heard now will deny the same right to the same nation. Again.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Asylum assault? Czech audio, Canadian subtitles. Slightly out of sync.
Visa regimes that regulate or restrict movement of citizens of two countries appear to live their own lives sometimes. Unfortunately, the necessity to get that visa sticker usually complicates lives and travels of people who were in no way the reason why the visas were introduced in the first place.
The Czechs travelled to Canada freely until 1997 when Ottawa slammed the door due to the high number of asylum seekers. The same issue marred Prague's relationships with Britain in the past. Apparently, former federal ties were stronger in a certain demographic, as Slovakia had the same problem with Britain, Finland and Belgium – influxes of asylum seekers prompted the harsh response, sometimes in the form of introducing visa requirements. There was an era when keen asylum seekers quickly found a replacement country – sometimes with the help of even more keen for-profit “helpers”. Once the visas were lifted, exodus re-started with varied degree of intensity. Fortunately, within few years it all became pointless since both Slovakia and the Czech republic joined the European Union.
In October 2007, Canada lifted the restriction for Czech citizens and since March 2008, Slovaks could travel to Canada without visas too. Following the pattern known from the past, the Czechs flooded Canada again. And, following all previous exoduses, it's mostly the Romas who apply for asylum. Or so the Czechs claim, but given their and the Slovaks' previous experience, it can be taken for granted.
Exodus may sound like an exaggeration, but the word is rather appropriate when things are put into a proper context. In 2008, 861 Czechs sought asylum in Canada. The first quarter of 2009 saw 653 asylum applications (34 succeeded), mostly claimed on the minority related issues. It doesn't sound like much but it's more than asylum applications put forward by the Afghans (488), the Iraqis (282) and the Cubans (184). In fact, Czech asylum seekers placed fourth behind the Mexicans, the Haitians and the Colombians. Indirect threat that the visa regime could be reinstated is not entirely out of place.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the current state of the affairs might not be entirely Czech government's fault. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who used what was perhaps a less diplomatic language, called Canadian asylum system “soft” and suggested that the two countries wouldn't be discussing the issue if Canada reclassified the Czech republic as a safe country of origin. If that was a case, Czech citizens wouldn't be eligible to apply for asylum. More on that later.
The Lidove noviny (Czech daily newspaper) reminded that Mr Harper had already admitted that the influx is organized. The daily also mentioned a secret expert report that claimed the mass emigration is coordinated by former Czechoslovak citizens living in Canada. If so, this would not be entirely new situation, since similar “agencies” were suspected to be behind past exoduses of Slovak and Czech Romas to European countries. Profiteers or “employment mediators” operate on both sides of the Atlantic which means that both Prague and Ottawa need to cooperate to eradicate their operations or, at least, limit their influence.
The Czech government cannot restrict the right of Czech citizens to travel - to Canada or any other country. However, as Mr. Topolanek noted, the solution would be to find jobs for the asylum seekers in the Czech republic. Another good thing might be to make sure the message “don't believe the scams” gets across to those who need to hear it the most. Apparently, an abundance of people who lost a great deal of money to the profiteers is not enough to deter new victims.
The Czech side feels that Ottawa should reclassify the Czech Republic's safe country of origin status. The problem is, the safe country of origin status is a tricky concept, and, according to Canadian ambassador to Prague Michael Calcott, every applications are considered on a case-to-case basis and everybody can apply (source: Czech Television). If so, a change of attitude is necessary. Sure, Czech republic has its problems, but the country is perfectly safe, certainly no less safer than Canada. It's Canada's NATO ally. If Ottawa needed any further assurance it should have found it in 2004 when the Czech republic joined the EU, or at the very latest, in 2007, when it joined the Schengen Area, a part of Europe (26 countries) with no border controls, open for the free movement of more than 400 million Europeans.
The Czechs travelled to Canada freely until 1997 when Ottawa slammed the door due to the high number of asylum seekers. The same issue marred Prague's relationships with Britain in the past. Apparently, former federal ties were stronger in a certain demographic, as Slovakia had the same problem with Britain, Finland and Belgium – influxes of asylum seekers prompted the harsh response, sometimes in the form of introducing visa requirements. There was an era when keen asylum seekers quickly found a replacement country – sometimes with the help of even more keen for-profit “helpers”. Once the visas were lifted, exodus re-started with varied degree of intensity. Fortunately, within few years it all became pointless since both Slovakia and the Czech republic joined the European Union.
In October 2007, Canada lifted the restriction for Czech citizens and since March 2008, Slovaks could travel to Canada without visas too. Following the pattern known from the past, the Czechs flooded Canada again. And, following all previous exoduses, it's mostly the Romas who apply for asylum. Or so the Czechs claim, but given their and the Slovaks' previous experience, it can be taken for granted.
Exodus may sound like an exaggeration, but the word is rather appropriate when things are put into a proper context. In 2008, 861 Czechs sought asylum in Canada. The first quarter of 2009 saw 653 asylum applications (34 succeeded), mostly claimed on the minority related issues. It doesn't sound like much but it's more than asylum applications put forward by the Afghans (488), the Iraqis (282) and the Cubans (184). In fact, Czech asylum seekers placed fourth behind the Mexicans, the Haitians and the Colombians. Indirect threat that the visa regime could be reinstated is not entirely out of place.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the current state of the affairs might not be entirely Czech government's fault. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who used what was perhaps a less diplomatic language, called Canadian asylum system “soft” and suggested that the two countries wouldn't be discussing the issue if Canada reclassified the Czech republic as a safe country of origin. If that was a case, Czech citizens wouldn't be eligible to apply for asylum. More on that later.
The Lidove noviny (Czech daily newspaper) reminded that Mr Harper had already admitted that the influx is organized. The daily also mentioned a secret expert report that claimed the mass emigration is coordinated by former Czechoslovak citizens living in Canada. If so, this would not be entirely new situation, since similar “agencies” were suspected to be behind past exoduses of Slovak and Czech Romas to European countries. Profiteers or “employment mediators” operate on both sides of the Atlantic which means that both Prague and Ottawa need to cooperate to eradicate their operations or, at least, limit their influence.
The Czech government cannot restrict the right of Czech citizens to travel - to Canada or any other country. However, as Mr. Topolanek noted, the solution would be to find jobs for the asylum seekers in the Czech republic. Another good thing might be to make sure the message “don't believe the scams” gets across to those who need to hear it the most. Apparently, an abundance of people who lost a great deal of money to the profiteers is not enough to deter new victims.
The Czech side feels that Ottawa should reclassify the Czech Republic's safe country of origin status. The problem is, the safe country of origin status is a tricky concept, and, according to Canadian ambassador to Prague Michael Calcott, every applications are considered on a case-to-case basis and everybody can apply (source: Czech Television). If so, a change of attitude is necessary. Sure, Czech republic has its problems, but the country is perfectly safe, certainly no less safer than Canada. It's Canada's NATO ally. If Ottawa needed any further assurance it should have found it in 2004 when the Czech republic joined the EU, or at the very latest, in 2007, when it joined the Schengen Area, a part of Europe (26 countries) with no border controls, open for the free movement of more than 400 million Europeans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
