Belgium

Zero tolerance=zero difference

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 5.0/10 (3 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Belgian media hysteria over crime and calls for zero-tolerance policing miss the real issue – social exclusion in the inner city.

16 February 2010

To the outside world, the scariest thing about Brussels is probably its bureaucracy. In Belgium, however, Brussels has something of a reputation for being an unsafe city where criminals of Moroccan and other immigrant extractions rule its mean streets and certain neighbourhoods are no-go areas not only for law-abiding citizens but also for the police.

Three recent incidents, including a dramatic one in which a police officer was shot with a Kalashnikov during a getaway after a thwarted armed robbery, have confirmed this perception in the minds of many.

The predictable media frenzy – with a tone that would be familiar to a British audience – about street crime and the need for "zero tolerance" followed hot on the heels of the tragic shooting, and voices of reason and nuance have been drowned out. The police even took to the streets to call for more resources and pay, as well as stiffer sentences and faster judicial procedures.

In addition to idle musings about who polices the police during such a protest (a friend suggested that perhaps anarchists and activist should get the chance to stand on the other side of the barricades), I wondered whether the Belgian capital's image is deserved and whether more draconian security measures are really the answer.

According to available statistics, Brussels has, by northern European standards, a high petty crime rate and it is top of the European league when it comes to domestic burglaries but is one of the safest capitals in the world – and possibly the safest in Europe – when it comes to violent crime, particularly murder. And despite the current media stampede, in the first half of 2009 Brussels registered the lowest crime rate in almost a decade.

Like many Brussels residents, my wife and I lived for years without problems beyond some minor annoyances, on the edge of what is regarded as one of the city's more dangerous neighbourhoods.

The public debate, carrying as it does racial and religious undertones, has not surprised locals in Brussels's problem areas but it has caused widespread disappointment. "The violence we hear about in the media is the exception and not the rule," Kamal, a 32-year-old Moroccan, told me. "With all this talk of zero tolerance, respect has reached zero level. We need a public debate, but one based on mutual respect and acceptance."

The sense of disillusionment is pervasive, especially in Kuregem, which is regularly portrayed as some kind of urban "war zone". Eric Gijssen, a video artist and social worker who has lived in Brussels for two decades and works with young people in Kuregem to help them find their voice through the medium of film, has noticed a growing apathy among his charges.

"The youth I work with and other locals are becoming increasingly apathetic," he said. This is a far cry from the active and engaged young people we met some years ago at the Alhambra centre who were keen to challenge stereotypes and misperceptions. "They no longer believe this will make a difference, and have turned their backs on the media to find their own information sources and forums online," Gijssen added.

While he acknowledges that there are plenty of problems, he finds that the sensation-seeking elements of the media and self-serving politicians are only making a delicate situation worse. "Instead of stigmatising entire communities, we must first of all engage with the youth and offer them alternative perspectives," he said.

Gijssen and others with grassroots experience see the fixation on security aspects of the Brussels question as short-sighted and even counterproductive. Instead of attacking the symptoms with a fist of steel, what is required is treatment of the root causes: poverty and social exclusion.

While it is not inevitable that poverty will lead to crime, ignoring the strong correlation between the two is disingenuous and an easy way for politicians and society to cop out of their responsibilities to create opportunities for the marginalised.

In Brussels, the contrast between wealth and poverty is extremely stark. As the country's main economic dynamo, Brussels has a per-capita GDP that is 233% that of the EU average! However, most of the wealth generated in the city is earned by people who live in its plusher suburbs or who commute there from other towns.

In contrast, inner-city Brussels, unlike most other capital cities, has the highest unemployment rate in the country (17.6%) and, according to Gijssen, in places like Kuregem, youth unemployment can be as high as 50%. Unsurprisingly, this chasm can often lead to feelings of resentment on one side of the wealth divide and fear on the other.

"In places like Kuregem, young people have very little or nothing, and not much of a future to look forward to," explains Gijssen. "One thing is essential: more investment."

But rather than investing more, the authorities have been siphoning off funds from community projects in Kuregem and other poorer neighbourhoods in Brussels and, at a time when everyone is feeling the pinch of the economic crisis, immigrant neighbourhoods have fallen off the political radar when it comes to employment and education.

"If jobs and other opportunities are found, then this security problem will vanish," Kamal told me. "We need to combat social exclusion through better socio-economic integration."

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 8 February 2010. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 5.0/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Making globalisation pay

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)

By Khaled Diab

Big corporations are using the banking crisis as an excuse for exploiting cheap labour. Is it time for a global minimum wage?

4 February 2010

For beer lovers, Belgium is the nearest place to heaven on earth. The country's 125 or so breweries produce an estimated 800 standard beers, each of which is served in its own distinctive glass. This mushrooms to nearly 9,000 when special editions are included.

Given this ocean of booze, you would expect that the temporary loss of a handful of beers would cause hardly a ripple. In a country where beer receives the kind of appreciation reserved for wine in other cultures, the recent threat to supplies of some of Belgium's favourite tipples captured headlines and caused distress.

The "Beer Crisis", as it became known, was caused by striking workers blockading three breweries owned by the world's largest beer giant, AB InBev, which, among other things, produces the popular but bog-standard Stella Artois and the more upmarket Abbey beer Leffe.

The immediate cause of the blockade was AB InBev's plans to trim its Belgian workforce by 300 (with another 500 to be scrapped in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), ostensibly because of falling beer consumption in western Europe.

Despite the inconvenience to the beer-drinking public, most Belgians are sympathetic with the strikers. “We’re with the strikers,” declared one regular at a café in Halle. “If the beer flows dry, that is only a relative problem.”

This is because, InBev (previously known as InterBrew), though it is admired for raising the global profile of Belgian beer, has become infamous for its cavalier attitude towards its workforces, which have endured several 'restructurings' in recent years to cut costs, while the management pays itself lavish bonuses, engages in expensive prestige acquisitions (such as the US makers of Budweiser), and exports jobs to countries where labour is cheaper.

Faced with this public relations disaster and the loss of market share to smaller breweries, InBev's management has backed down for the time being and the blockade is being lifted.

Workers at the nearby Opel plant in Antwerp have not been so fortunate. Despite an offer of a €500 million bailout from the Flemish government, and voluntary pay cuts agreed by the unions, troubled US car giant GM has decided to close the 85-year-old Antwerp plant, axing 2,600 jobs in the process. The decision is all the more puzzling because the plant still turns a healthy profit.

It seems that InBev and GM are taking advantage of the current financial crisis. Both are shifting jobs to countries where labour is cheap, while GM seems to be subsidy shopping and has successfully pitted the German government against the Belgian government.

And they are not alone. With their massive revenue streams and the mobility to shift their assets rapidly, countless multinationals have used globalisation to hold governments to ransom and stack the global trading system unfairly in their favour by 'outsourcing' their operations to so-called low-cost countries while selling their output in higher-cost wealthy countries.

So what can be done to curb this kind of corporate excess and greed and put a brake on this undignified race to the bottom?

One idea could be to develop an international minimum wage and integrate the concept into the architecture of the World Trade Organisation, especially since the Doha round of trade talks is ostensibly aimed at triggering sustainable development. What could be more sustainable for the global economy than affording all workers a decent income?

But, even assuming that WTO member states can muster up the political will to set such a global standard – after all, both rich and poor countries would have their own reasons for opposing it – attempts to set an international minimum wage would face umpteen practical hurdles.

For example, if you set it as an absolute amount, what would you take as your reference? Universalising, say, western European levels would be unaffordable for developing economies and unfair to European workers who have to contend with some of highest costs of living in the world.

Instead, we could determine a minimum standard of living to which all workers should be entitled and use that to calculate a fair wage for each country using purchasing power parity. However, given the magnitude of global income disparities, this would disadvantage local companies in poorer countries who, compared with multinationals, do not possess the resources to pay such wages – nor can the domestic markets they cater for absorb the extra cost.

So, until we have true global economic convergence, it would be far better to start the process of fairer trade at home, and more strictly regulate our multinationals. Today's giant corporations are often likened to small countries. However, there are important differences: they are not tied down by geography and, given the paucity of international regulations, they can get away with practices that would be considered unscrupulous or even illegal in their home territories.

Just as the vast majority of developed economies from which most multinationals hail have minimum wage systems in place, it's time global corporations were made to apply similar practices in their overseas operations in poorer countries.

In addition to an absolute rock bottom wage which they cannot go below, multinationals should be obliged to implement an indexed salary system in which workers in their overseas operations cannot earn less than, say, half of what a worker doing a similar job in their home territory earns.

Complaints are bound to be heard about how this interferes with the efficient functioning of the free market. But I doubt CEOs and top managers would be so blase if it was their own jobs that were to be outsourced. I'm sure India and other developing countries are teeming with intelligent, capable entrepreneurs who could probably do a better job than many of our current crop of avaricious business leaders, and at a fraction of the cost.

Besides, the free market already functions inefficiently – the rich domestic markets of multinationals are still quite well-protected fortresses. And, though we may have freer movement of goods and services than in the past, the movement of labour is severely restricted. In a truly free market, workers would go where the best-paying jobs are, rather than the jobs going to where the worst-paid workers are.

More importantly, at its core, economics is about human wellbeing and if free-market orthodoxy fails to deliver on this, then something needs to be done to balance efficiency against ethics.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 31 January 2010. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Hating the ‘world’s smartest woman’

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Linda De Win is clever, competitive and middle-aged – would Belgians respect her TV victories if only she were male too?

12 January 2009

At first sight, any quiz show that claims to be a contest to find the "smartest person in the world" should be dismissed as delusional. But anyone who has watched Belgian TV's De Slimste Mens Ter Wereld will quickly realise that the declared aspiration is very much tongue-in-cheek.

Unlike highbrow quiz shows – such as University Challenge and Mastermind (which I enjoy watching just for the entertainment of getting lost in obscurity and the sense of achievement when I get some answers right) – De Slimste Mens does not deal much in arcane niche knowledge.

Instead, each episode's three celebrity contestants must make rapid fire knowledge and word associations pitted against one another and the clock, with the winner being crowned the "smartest person in the world" for a day. In addition, humour is provided by a celebrity jury whose role is to mock the contestants and their answers.

Now into its eighth season, De Slimste Mens is so popular that it has won the prize for best entertainment programme on Flemish television two years running. In recent weeks, this easy-viewing show has been at the heart of a controversy centring on one of its contestants: political journalist Linda De Win, who became its joint most successful participant ever, having survived 11 episodes in a row.

The victories of appropriately named De Win, whose day job is grilling politicians and parliamentarians on the political show Villa Politica, sparked a hate campaign of an intensity unknown in the programme's history.

On Facebook, numerous groups cropped up attacking De Win and calling for her removal from the show. The most popular of these groups counted a peak membership of about 23,000, an enormous figure for tiny Flanders. Comments ranged from the mild, with some claiming that they opposed her because she was "boring", "arrogant" and "charmless", while the more vindictive stated opinion of the sort that "woman + ambition = bitch", that De Win is a "cow" and the most extreme believed that she "must die".

"I thought I kind of understood how the media worked," the seasoned journalist said in an interview with De Standaard. "But I watch with dismay what is occurring on Facebook: shocking, what hatred!"

She blames the tabloid press for setting the tone. "That a newspaper like Het Laatste Nieuws has engaged in character assassination of this kind is outrageous."

As no male candidate has ever elicited such a reaction, though there have been a number of obnoxious and arrogant men, and that beautiful young actresses and models routinely elicit admiration – mostly for their looks – when they appear on the show, De Win's supporters and fans believe that she has been the victim of machismo and sexism. "The makers of De Slimste Mens think that it is mostly because I am a woman, and one who likes to win," says De Win. "It seems that the Flanders of 2010 is not ready for a woman that comes across as competitive."

Many members of the Facebook groups set up against her claim that their hatred of De Win has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her personality. Some even point to the fact that there are women members of the group. But that's neither here nor there, since women have traditionally been some of the most ardent upholders and defenders of the patriarchy.

In addition, many people may believe that they dislike someone like De Win – a hard-as-nails 50-something political journalist – because of her personality, but this is partly because, while uncompromising toughness and abruptness, à la Jeremy Paxman, are widely admired in men, such characteristics are often still seen as unbecoming in women, despite decades of female emancipation.

Moreover, age is more of a challenge for women, as highlighted by the controversy surrounding the jettisoning of older female journalists at the BBC. As one former BBC executive put it, "as male presenters got older they become an authority and as female presenters got older they became a problem". And older female television journalists face a similar challenge in Belgium. "As an [older] woman in the media, you know that you will elicit vicious responses," notes De Win.

Despite the presence of some last bastions and strongholds of male chauvinism, we must recognise and acknowledge how far things have progressed in recent decades. Last year, Gail Trimble, the grand boffin of University Challenge, became a veritable media sensation, despite the predictable grumbles from the tabloids about her alleged smugness and superiority. The BBC is also seeking to set right its patchy record by attracting more older women presenters to the Beeb.

In Belgium, the intensity of the vitriol targeted against De Win has prompted an outpouring of popular sympathy for her, and she has had her mailbox jammed with messages of support and a number of fan groups have emerged to voice their support for the "smartest woman in the world".

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 7 January 2010. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related posts

Tis the season to be sociable

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

By Khaled Diab

The British are famously reserved, but so are the Belgians. Let's break the ice and make the public sphere more friendly.

30 December 2009

On a wintry commuter train, I sat immersed in a short story by the English dandy and essayist Max Beerbohm in which two Englishmen convalescing from the flu by the sea astutely avoid any communications with each other beyond a cursory nod of recognition.

"Anywhere but in England it would be impossible for two solitary men … to spend five or six days in the same hostel and not exchange a single word," Beerbohm observes.

Despite the massive changes that have occurred in British society since Beerbohm wrote these words, "reserve" remains something of a byword. For example, it is no accident that, in English, getting to know someone is painfully known as "breaking the ice", as if strangers and new acquaintances were stranded on a social iceberg in the middle of the ocean.

Nevertheless, looking around the carriage, where the vast majority of commuters have concealed their eyes behind the veil of a book or newspaper, their ears behind a wall of music, or have drawn the blanket of sleep between themselves and their fellow passengers, I begged to differ with Beerbohm.

Here in Belgium, "Belgian reserve" would give its English counterpart a serious run for its money. In Beerbohm's England, people might spend days at a hotel without exchanging a single word; in the Belgium I know, people can spend years taking the same train and remain oblivious to one another.

I became a commuter when I moved to Ghent, but continued to work in Brussels, some four and a half years ago. During that time, I've become visually acquainted with a fair number of regular commuters on the same line.

Come rain or shine, sleet or snow, wintry darkness or summery light, we all exhibit an exemplary level of decorum. Even the most eccentric – such as the passenger my wife and I call Newspaper Man because of his habit of gathering up all the abandoned papers on his trip home – elicit no reaction.

While some will exchange a nod or a smile of recognition, others will go to the extraordinary lengths of pretending they are not even aware of one another's mutual existence, like blank-, or bleary-eyed automatons on the office conveyor belt. But even among this breed I occasionally spot signs of recognition, if not in their eyes then at least in their actions.

One man is so professional at blanking out his fellow commuters that the busy platform he stands on may as well be occupied by phantoms took the unprecedented step of keeping the tram door open for me when he noticed me sprinting to catch it. When I turned to him and smiled with gratitude, he looked so excruciatingly uncomfortable that I vowed to do him the favour of never again acknowledging him.

That's not to say there is no spontaneity in public. People do sometimes engage one another in spontaneous conversation in cafes and bars, and even on trains, especially in the summer – one enduring friendship was even sparked by a book I was reading on sexual ethics in Islam. But the occasions are rare enough to be memorable.

Even though I've lived here for more than eight years, the extremes to which people go to maintain their privacy and that of others still fascinate and baffle me.

The situation couldn't be more different in Egypt, which largely occupies the opposite extreme on the privacy and reserve spectrum – though in certain respects, such as interactions between the sexes, Egypt is more private.

In bustling Cairo, a spontaneous social encounter is waiting and impatiently kicking its heels around every corner. Though Egyptians are getting more private and the level of reserve rises with social class, it is difficult to pass a day – often even a few hours – without a friendly interaction with strangers, from cabbies to fellow passengers.

In fact bring together any number of Egyptians for more than half an hour in one place and they're likely to start chatting happily to while away the minutes. And the nature of that interaction differs, too. A cursory first encounter is quite often enough for Egyptians, if they warm to one another, to exchange phone numbers and agree to meet again.

The downside of this is that, in the dash, or even stampede, to be friendly and sociable, the intensity of the public sphere can be overwhelming and notions of privacy too often get ditched by the wayside.

To my mind, we need a happy medium between public introversion and extroversion – a sort of interversion. People should make an effort to make the public sphere more friendly and personal, but they should also respect one another's privacy and be sensitive to other people's personal space.

So, during this festive season, why not go out and exchange some friendly words with a stranger – preferably without the tongue-loosening catalyst of the seasonal spirits.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 22 December 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Middle East: a Belgian solution?

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Northern Ireland offers one model for Israeli-Palestinian peace. But a dose of Belgian pragmatism wouldn't go amiss either.

16 October 2009

George Mitchell's reappearance on the Middle Eastern scene earlier this year has reignited speculation as to whether he'll be able, with President Barack Obama's more hands-on approach, to repeat his success in Northern Ireland and help mediate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Given the parallels between the two conflicts, the Northern Irish peace process has been held up as an example of how Israelis and Palestinians can proceed on the road to resolution.

While I have expressed scepticism vis-à-vis Mitchell's chances of success – because the shift in US foreign policy has been mainly rhetorical, the Israeli position has hardened and the Palestinians are in disarray – there are certainly lessons to be learnt from Northern Ireland. These include the need to involve all the parties in a conflict, even if they are viewed as 'terrorists' by the other side, and for the self-appointed peace broker to pursue a relatively even-handed approach when dealing with the antagonists.

Another country that can point the way forward in conflict resolution for Israelis and Palestinians is Belgium. In fact, Israelis and Palestinians could well use a dose of Belgian pragmatism.

Uninformed outsiders may be excused for thinking that nothing much happens in Belgium, a quaint land of mild-mannered and polite chocolate connoisseurs, beer aficionados and comic-strip lovers. As one Israeli friend asked me incredulously when I drew an analogy between Belgium and Israel-Palestine: "What have Belgians got to fight over except for chocolate?"

But Belgium has been gripped by a nonviolent conflict which has its roots, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the late 19th century. And the similarities don't end there: both Belgium and Israel-Palestine are about the same size geographically, have a similar population density, and are made up of two main communities.

While there is no raging conflict between Belgium's two language groups, there are major tensions which could have prove a recipe for disaster, and still can, if the wrong dynamics were ever to be set in motion to prise open the country's fault lines. I was especially struck by these undercurrents when I returned from Israel and Palestine.

So, how have the Flemings and Walloons avoided coming to blows for all this time?

The answer partly lies in their pragmatic penchant for negotiation – marathon, all-night talks are an integral part of the political culture here – and finding the kind of middle ground where, although neither side may be entirely satisfied, they are not disgruntled enough to take up arms.

In addition, there is such a commitment to consensus politics that 'Belgian compromise' has become a term recognised internationally, despite recent frictions and the growing intensity of Flemish nationalism and Walloon inflexibility, which led to premature reports of Belgium's imminent demise. But even if Belgium does break up one day, it is unlikely to collapse into bloodshed in the Balkan manner, but will continue to be dismantled one brick at a time.

Interestingly, Jerusalem and Brussels are quite similar in surprising ways. Both cities are disputed territories which are hotly contested as capitals by the two communities. Brussels has undergone gradual Frenchification and Jerusalem rapid Hebrewisation. However, while Jerusalem currently divides Israelis and Palestinians and is one of the major stumbling blocks on the path to peace, Brussels cements the Belgians together, and the power-sharing compromise reached in Belgium's capital could be useful for Jerusalem. Perhaps declaring the Holy City the capital of the two peoples would carry enormous symbolic significance and have a benign bonding effect for Palestinians and Israelis.

While Belgium highlights the critical importance of pragmatism, negotiation and compromise, Palestinians and Israelis will need a much higher measure of it than Walloons and Flemings, if they are to find peace and, one day, live peacefully side by side. After all, Belgium is a prosperous European state whose two communities are of similar power, have been established there for centuries and who became a single country voluntarily. And though they may carry historical baggage and political grievances, there is little in the way of actual bad blood between them.

In contrast, Israelis and Palestinians carry the burden of decades of bloodshed and violence, dispossession, insecurity, economic inequality, and the balance of power is so skewed that it makes compromise difficult. But even if Mitchell's efforts fail, as they probably will, I agree wholeheartedly with his view that:

"There is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created by human beings, and can be ended by human beings. It may take a long time. But with committed, active and strong leadership, it can happen here in the Middle East."

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 11 October 2009. Read the related discussion.


VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Murder at rush hour

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

A murder trial is delving into the mystery of why and how a young Belgian was stabbed to death for his MP3 player during rush hour in the capital’s busiest train station.

September 2008

In the UK, youth knife crime has received a lot of attention recently. A high-profile murder trial in Belgium has refocused public attention here on the issues of senseless violence, law and order, public apathy, immigration and racism.

The story, in this case, really does begin with a “regular Joe”. Joe van Holsbeeck was a popular, friendly and laid-back secondary school student looking forward to a bright future. On 12 April 2006, the 17-year-old and his best friend were waiting for a girlfriend in Brussels’s busiest transport hub, the Central Station.

At around 4.30pm, two teenagers approached them, ostensibly to ask for directions, and then demanded that Joe hand over his MP3 player. When Joe refused, one of them took out a knife and, amid the rush-hour crowds, stabbed him seven times, including a fatal blow to the heart, according to the court doctor.

Adam Giza, the killer, expressed remorse for his deed. “I am sorry for what happened. I didn’t want to kill him. I ask Joe’s parents, his brother, and [his best friend] Gil for forgiveness,” the 19-year-old said in his closing testimony.

On Tuesday, the jury found Giza guilty of violent theft which led to death but did not find that he intended to murder Joe. The dead boy’s father, Guy, described the verdict as “a slap in the face”. This reaction is understandable from the grieving parent of a young man who was described by his best friend as “someone you only meet once in your life”. Although justice has been served, this verdict is bound to add to the controversy surrounding the case.

That a young man should have died for a music player and that it happened in a busy public place caused public shock and outrage – not to mention, fear – at the time. Many people started calling for more policing and tougher punishment for offenders.

“We can’t continue to sweep minor offences under the carpet. We need to take a ‘zero tolerance’ approach,” one resident told De Standaard. “There aren’t enough police agents? There are plenty of unemployed people around. Or why not use the army?”

The then Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said that the government must step up its fight against juvenile crime. But others questioned this fixation on policing and wondered how it was possible that Joe was murdered in a train station through which some 200,000 commuters pass each day and how his attackers managed to get away?

Cardinal Daneels, the country’s top Catholic clergyman, condemned what he saw as society’s growing apathy and materialism.  “Hundreds witnessed the murder but no one did anything,” the archbishop said in his 2006 Easter sermon. “God asks us: where is your brother? Where is your Abel? We must not answer like Cain: ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’”

Glenn Audenaert, a Brussels police chief, echoed the Cardinal’s message, albeit in less Biblical terms. “The police cannot be everywhere at once. Safety is a collective responsibility,” he said.

While the cardinal and the police chief have a point about public apathy, what they overlook is that, in our modern, well-oiled, mechanical societies, we expect the ‘system’ to take care of everything and many people find the potential consequences of intervention highly risky.

On a personal level, I find myself far more confident and comfortable about intervening in societies where collective intervention is something of a norm. It is far less threatening for the individuals involved if an entire group of people break up a fight or mediate a confrontation than if it is left to a lone passer-by. If enough people cared, then getting involved would become less a question of heroics and more one of good citizenship.

The trial has shed light on another possibility. The events occurred so fast on a busy platform that commuters had little time to notice, let alone react. Once the situation became clear, a Red Cross volunteer and a commuter quickly rushed to Joe’s aid. “For a moment, it seemed like he would regain consciousness,” she said in her testimony. “But then I saw him slip away again.” According to the court doctor, the wounds Joe suffered meant there was little anyone could do to save him.

But that still leaves the question unanswered of how it was that the two youth involved in the attack managed to run away, unchallenged, through the station and towards the town centre.

Right-wing commentators focused on the apparent ethnicity of the attackers, who were at first described as being of “North African” appearance.

“Belgian citizens realise… that the murder has nothing to do with ‘indifference in Belgian society,’ but everything with a group of North African youths terrorising Brussels,” Paul Belien wrote in that chronicle of far-right “enlightenment”, the Brussels Journal.

But Joe’s family refused to have their son’s plight used for xenophobic grandstanding. “Nobody should come to me, asking me to hate all Arabs,” his mother said in an interview with La Dernière Heure. “The youths who killed my son were scum… Scum can be found everywhere.”

Jean-Marie Dedecker, who has subsequently broken away from the Flemish Liberal Party to form a Flemish nationalist party centred around himself, claimed rather surreally: “You will sooner get punished for riding a bike without the lights on than for stealing a bike… Policemen look the other way in order to avoid being accused of racism... They behave in exactly the opposite way when they suspect decent citizens of some misdemeanour.”

The way Dedecker describes it, you’d think that Belgium was no country for middle-aged white men. But this has become a fairly typical tactic of victimhood used by bigots: “these brown people not only come here and steal our jobs, but also our rights and security”.

Some members of the far-right Vlaams Belang (VB) even went so far as to suggest that gun ownership laws should be relaxed to allow citizens to “defend” themselves.

The fact that Joe’s attackers turned out to be Polish Roma left the envoys of social intolerance with egg on their face. Needless to say, it wasn’t long before some focused on the attackers’ “gypsy” identity – and, hence, illegal immigration – as somehow accounting for the violence. But they are obviously unaware that Giza feared the verdict of his own community, who never allow the re-admittance of rapists and murderers in their midst, to that of the court.

Interestingly, a racially inspired shooting spree by the nephew of a far-right politician in Antwerp less than a month later caused the VB to plea insanity on the part of a “lone psychopath”, even though the shooter was deemed to be in full possession of his mental faculties and a jury found him guilty of being a “racist murderer”.

In a symbolic response to the charge of public apathy, 80-90,000 people took part, less than a fortnight after Joe’s death, in a ‘silent march’ in Brussels against senseless violence. It was the biggest public demonstration in Belgium since the ‘white march’ against the paedophile and murderer Marc Dutroux.

The brainchild of Fouad Ahidar, a Flemish politician of Moroccan descent, the silent march was well-attended by minorities to show that street violence and crime should not be forced into an ethnic pigeonhole.

 

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 24 September 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Taking Hitler off the menu

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Was Belgian television justified in pulling an episode of a cooking programme featuring Hitler's favourite dish?

October 2008

Although I’m not particularly big on cookery programmes, we have been watching Plat Préféré, hosted by Flemish celebrity chef Jeroen Meus, which features the favourite dishes of famous people whose one common characteristic is that they all happen to be dead. 

The episodes on Freddie Mercury and Salvador Dali were fascinating, not so much due to the food that was cooked, but more because of the intriguing insights they afforded into these iconic figures’ lives.

Last week, we were surprised to learn that the following episode would feature not an artist or an actor but Adolf Hitler, one of history’s most destructive figures and one of the most horrendous mass murderers the world has ever known. Although dismayed by the choice, I was looking forward to seeing how the programme would approach Europe’s most-hated figure, and whether I would learn anything new about this most-analysed of political leaders.

Alas, I never got to find out because – faced with outrage from some Jewish, resistance and political prisoner groups – the Belgian television channel VRT decided to pull the episode which was due to air on Tuesday evening.

“Everyone who has lost a loved one to Nazi barbarity or the concentration camps felt unsettled by [VRT] dedicating space to this,” said Francois De Coster, president of the Union of Belgian Political Prisoners, last week. Michael Freilich of Antwerp’s Joods Actueel, a Jewish community magazine, denounced the programme as “trivialising” Hitler and turning him into a “simple man of the people”, claiming that it sent “the wrong signal” to the younger generation.

But I wonder if the revelation that Hitler’s favourite dish was trout with butter sauce would actually change any young person’s views of the man’s politics. In fact, the suggestion is an insult to young people’s intelligence.

Is Freilich really suggesting that someone might switch off their TV after the show and think: “Although he started a world war and killed millions of people, Hitler ate trout, which makes him a regular bloke like us!” With the exception of neo-Nazis, who will look favourably on Hitler no matter what, I don’t think this show will make anyone think better of the Nazi leader.

While I appreciate that any programme that deals with Hitler or the Holocaust is bound to trigger painful memories for those who suffered and their families, I do not accept that this programme trivialises his bloody legacy.

Of course, a case can be made that the inclusion of Hitler among all the artists and celebrities featured on the show was a bizarre decision, probably conceived as a ratings-grabber, given the endless public and media interest in the second world war and the Nazis. In fact, the broadcaster admitted to having made a poor call by featuring the Nazi dictator in “a series in which all other protagonists are famous in the positive sense of the word, such as Roald Dahl and Jacques Brel”.

Nevertheless, thanks to the effective bid to dictate what we can or cannot watch, viewers will never get the chance to make up their own minds about the appropriateness of the programme. But based on the trailer, it would appear that Jeroen Meus makes no attempts to whitewash history when he visits Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest hideaway in Southern Germany to cook the favourite meal of an “atrocious man”, as the chef described him.

“Speaking as someone who almost didn’t exist because of Hitler, I don’t see an issue with [a] television show discussing his favourite meal,” commented one perplexed culinary blogger. “As a Jew, I find that the young chef did nothing offensive at all, and can’t understand the mindset of those who are raising a fuss,” agreed a poster.

The fuss stirred up by this programme reminds me, albeit it to a smaller scale, of the controversy sparked by the German film Der Untergang a few years ago because it explored Hitler’s humaneness – such as his love of dogs and affection for Eva Braun – amid his madness.

But does exploring the person and personality of Hitler – and not depicting him exclusively as a dehumanised monster – actually belittle the memory of his millions of victims and give succour to extremists? At the time of Der Untergang, I found not: I emerged from the cinema just as horrified by his actions but with greater insight into the man behind them.

Besides, there have been literally thousands of books, TV documentaries and films that have explored the minutest details of his life and political career. Max, a film starring John Cusack, not only moves away from the Hitler-as-monster formula, but goes as far as to depict the young Adolf as an artist and his friendship with a Jewish art dealer.

The film speculates about what would have happened had the future Führer found more success as a painter and, hence, stayed out of politics. Is the implication that, had circumstance been different, Hitler may not have become a hateful, bitter and murderous tyrant also sending out the “wrong signal”?

It is my opinion that it is the people who gagged this essentially harmless cookery programme who are sending out the wrong signal by curbing freedom of expression and inquiry. As long as they do not represent a danger to others, everyone has a right to express themselves and, as I’ve argued before, even to offend.

 

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 29 October 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Integration and its discontents

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Are religious immigrants within their rights to boycott an 'unspeakable' integration course in Belgium?

February 2009

Experiencing some level of culture shock is part and parcel of moving to a new country. But for a group of recent immigrants to Belgium’s second city, Antwerp, the shock was so severe that they refused to continue their ‘integration’ lessons.

The reason for their outrage was the “unspeakable” nature of some of the content of their introduction to Belgian society: abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, sex, etc. To top it all off, their horror was completed by the fact that their teacher was a woman.

The group and its religious leaders charge that the authorities are being insensitive to their religious sensibilities, while the government insists that if people are going to make the country their home, they need to learn about its values.

While it is Muslims who are at the centre of the ‘integration’ controversy in Europe, this particular case relates to Hasidic Jews. Following a letter from a group of Hasidic rabbis urging their followers not to move to Belgium until the offending content was removed from the integration courses, their followers already taking the courses have walked out of class.

In no mood to make exceptions, the Flemish minister of integration, Marino Keulen, has threatened to fine those who refuse to return. And the position of these orthodox Jews has caused unease among their secular coreligionists. “I think it’s ridiculous. These guys are living in another world and another time,” a Jew I know from Antwerp said. “They make no effort to get involved in society. They are even against Jews like me who are not conservative. They live in a ghetto.”

And therein lies the rub. How do you go about integrating a counter-cultural movement? Like similar fundamentalist religious sects in Islam and Christianity, the Hasidim were founded on the idea of abandoning mainstream society.

The movement, whose name derives from the Hebrew for ‘piety’, began in the 18th century in Poland, Hungary and the Ukraine – and that is why their dress looks like a fossil from a disappeared eastern European world. In the early 20th century, Hasidism, in the hands of the German Martin Buber, became more popular in western Europe as a ‘Jewish renaissance’. This was a direct reaction to the total assimilation of secular German Jews, and the power exerted on Jews to abandon their traditions and culture.

Of course, this kind of self-imposed ghettoisation is not what enriches a multicultural society, but society is also impoverished by excessive conformist pressures. As a secular liberal with progressive ideas, I find much of the worldview of extremists of any religious persuasion to be outdated, intolerant and reactionary – I also find their self-righteous rejection of the rest of us incredibly irritating. But their ideas will only change through dialogue not ostracisation.

Although I would love to live in a society where everyone was tolerant and enlightened, part of being open-minded is to believe in freedom of belief for everyone – as long as they don’t break the law. Of course, the dilemma is that extremists often do not believe in extending us liberals the same courtesy.

For years, I have had misgivings about this fixation on integration – and the full assimilation demanded by the far right. For instance, the extremist Vlaams Belang party – whose centre of gravity happens to be Antwerp – insists that immigrants must “adapt to our culture, our norms and values” and if they don’t, they should be deported. Aside from the absence of expletives, this echoes the “Oi Paki” brand of thugs who regularly invited the younger me to go back where I came from.

But what “norms and values” precisely? After all, many of the party’s own moral positions have far more in common with the conservative immigrants it vilifies than with the mainstream. For instance, the VB is against abortion and believes that homosexuals should stay out of the public sphere.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that assisting immigrants to adapt to their new homes is necessarily a bad thing. “I think integration courses are positive, as long as they guide newcomers and help them understand the system,” my Jewish friend noted.

I agree. Language and cultural courses can help new arrivals get their bearings more quickly. However, it is when they become an ideological weapon, rather than a practical tool, that problems arise.

For instance, the Netherlands actually demands that would-be immigrants sit an ‘integration test’ before they even set foot in the country, which Human Rights Watch describes as “discriminatory”.

Another challenge with such examinations is what exactly do you test for? In addition to language skills, the Dutch system tests the immigrant’s basic knowledge of Dutch society. But is it fair to expect immigrants to know what much of the indigenous population does not?

Many natives are not aware of, for example, the basic division of powers in a democracy nor the ministers in their governments. One hilarious example of this came from a politician. The former Belgian prime minister, Yves Leterme, was asked to sing the Belgian national anthem and instead launched into a rendition of the more memorable La Marseillaise from neighbouring France.

The true measure of ‘integration’ should be how well people respect their fellow citizens’ freedom, abide by a country’s laws and live as productive and useful members of society. What people believe and do in private, and how they dress is their own business.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 10 February 2009. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Gastronomy without the gas

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Veggie delights. Copyright Khaled Diab

Veggie delights. Copyright Khaled Diab

By Khaled Diab

The Belgian city of Ghent has declared Thursdays ‘meat free’. Should cities around the world also join the vegolution?

June 2009

People usually associate politicians, particularly in these troubled times, with hot air. But rather than spew out noxious gases, politicians and public officials in Ghent – the progressive Belgian city – have come up with a unique scheme to reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions.

You've probably heard of fish Fridays. Well, the Flemish university town of some 200,000 people has now introduced a weekly "Veggie Thursday" (Donderdag – Veggie Dag).

So, what does Ghent – a picturesque town where cycling is a pleasure and not a death-defying gamble – hope to achieve?

By encouraging public officials, school children and ordinary citizens to go voluntarily veggie one day a week, the city hopes to improve public health, reduce our impact on the environment and enhance animal welfare. In fact, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO): "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

And if the idea catches on, the impact could be enormous. "If everyone in Flanders (population: six million) does not eat meat one day a week, we will save as much CO2 in a year as taking half a million cars off the road," said the Ethical Vegetarian Association spokesperson. Imagine if every city in the world followed suit!

This is the kind of pioneering and creative initiative I have come to expect from the city that has been my home for the past four years. After all this is the place that declared its independence for a day last year in protest against the slow crumbling of the Belgian state. Under its tranquil surface lies a friendly but radical core of progressives, leftists, tree-huggers and eco-warriors.

So even though I ate out in Brussels yesterday, I plumped for a veggie option: a delicious Lebanese mezze. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means vegetarian. In fact, I love indulging in carnivorous delights – I have even overcome my beef with pigs – and sometimes stand weak before the temptations of the flesh.

But for the past couple of years, my wife and I have radically changed our diet and try to eat meat or fish only a couple of times a week. After an initial period of adjustment, we both feel healthier – I've even shed the Buddha belly that I had begun to grow – and better about putting less of a strain on the food chain and reducing our carbon footprint.

Although traditional Belgian cuisine is quite rich and fatty, Ghent has a surprisingly large array of delicious veggie eateries and veggie options on menus, but Brussels easily beats it for its mind-boggling range of cuisines.

"There has been a massive increase in demand for vegetarian dishes at my restaurant over the past few years," Wim Vandamme, a Ghent restauranteur told me. "The selection of vegetarian dishes we offer has also grown considerably." Vandamme says that his clients are eating veggie mainly for their own wellbeing, then comes animal welfare, and finally, the environment.

The idea has triggered interest among other cities in Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Canada. It has also been picked up by media around the world and captured the imagination of ordinary people. "One meatless day a week is a great idea, and no loss for those who want a tasty diet," said languedocienne on the Guardian's environment blog.

It even looks as though the idea may attract more tourism to Ghent. "Right, that's the holiday booked! Ghent here I come!" Ciderguard enthused, as did other commenters.

Of course, there's much more that can be done. But Juanveron's scepticism is perhaps uncalled for: "Imagine the reactions of a starving African or Asian family when they hear that, somewhere in Europe, people will abstain from eating meat for one day (what a sacrifice!)."

The fact that millions suffering from malnutrition and famine is disgraceful and must be addressed, but reducing the meat consumption of the wealthy will help increase global food supplies and push down prices, as well as helping protect the environment for future generations. I think it's time to take this idea global.

Let the vegolution begin!

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 17 May 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

The house doesn’t always win

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Despite the current crisis in the property market, the belief that buying a house is a long-term winner persists. But does the house always win?

June 2009

Despite the economic crisis, property prices are holding steady. Image is the copyright of Khaled Diab

Despite the economic crisis, property prices are holding steady.

The property bubble that enveloped the UK, the US and much of Europe did not just pop, it exploded like a ticking timebomb and has claimed millions of new homeowners as its victims.

Belgium has been spared some of the agony other countries have experienced, owing to tougher controls, such as a high stamp duty of up to 12% and the relative difficulty of getting a mortgage. Although there was also a bubble in which house prices more than doubled in some places in a decade, the property market here has generally stagnated or fallen slightly, rather than collapsed. Properties at the top of end of the market are the ones that have suffered the greatest, while those in the middle have remained quite stable. People who don't need to sell are mostly holding back, reducing supply.

Whether or not it's a good time to be buying or selling, my wife and I have reached a stage in our lives where we need to move. We adore our current home in a working-class neighbourhood of Ghent, the scenic university town. Its main drawback is that it is pretty tiny.

With all the uncertainty in the air, we decided that it would be wisest to find a buyer for our house, before we went out and bought a new property. If we didn't get the offer we wanted, we contended, we could just take it off the market again.

So as not to feel pressured by an estate agent and to save us the very high commissions agents charge here, we decided to sell the place ourselves. We were confounded by the intensity of the response, and after less than a week of playing estate agent, we had an attractive offer.

But the elation at our early success was to prove short-lived, as we discovered that reports of the demise of the property market were greatly exaggerated.

There is something about buying a house that makes you suddenly feel poorer. Before we'd embarked on our house hunt, we were feeling quite flush and thought that we'd have little trouble locating an affordable property.

But after a few demoralising weeks of visiting apprentice ruins, DIY disaster zones or ridiculously overpriced conversions, we realised that the mission would be tougher than we thought. The gems in the market are few and far between and go like hotcakes – so fast, in fact, that we barely get past the threshold or even pick up the phone before we learn it's been sold. How some people can make on-the-spot decisions about a house, when we don't usually even do that with clothes, is beyond us.

This has led my wife to jokingly liken our situation to that of the pregnant Mary and Joseph, with our cat instead of the donkey in this adaptation, looking for some shelter in Bethlehem. But I do hope our baby won't be born in a manger.

Caught as we are in a race against the contractual and biological clock, our quest has been invested with certain amount of extra excitement – actually, stress – and checking property websites has become something of an obsession. We have also widened our search area and are considering the previously unthinkable notion of buying a rundown property to renovate.

Our predicament is shared by many others – and we're in a much better position than many more – and raises some uncomfortable questions. The most fundamental of these is: how sustainable is the property market?

If we, on two relatively decent incomes and with our feet already on the bottom rung of the property ladder, are having so much trouble finding an affordable house, how about people on a single income (or even benefits) and with large families? One young couple in Ghent visited more than 100 houses over a three-year period before they found their dream home at an affordable price.

How about future generations? Will our unborn child need to be a millionaire just to buy a starter's home? Should the government not have some plan for developing affordable housing for those on limited incomes and future generations?

If we buy a house now, are we setting ourselves up for a potentially huge loss in the future? Is renting a better alternative or are you then simply paying for someone else's property with nothing to show for it?

The approach we've decided on is similar to the one we followed when buying our current house, because our concerns were perhaps even greater during the boom years. We view property not as an investment but, first and foremost, as somewhere to live which will be completely ours in our silver years.

In addition, it it is essential that we find a place that we can afford comfortably and not overstretch ourselves financially. This is partly because we want a house to live in, not to live in perpetual servitude to a house. We also want to make sure that our mortgage is still affordable even if we lose one of our incomes, just in case our financial position worsens.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 14 June 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , ,

Related posts