When moral standing is made homeless

Knowing when you are there

Like mine, I could imagine that many minds are filled with one type of regret or the other, where an unfortunate lack of insight at an opportunity we find ourselves in is not used to any benefit until we have left that position.

The power of hindsight reveals how we have misused both opportunity and responsibility, when that unique situation we were presented with offered more than we realised we could do.

A friend tried to contextualise this with people who have been in power, position, and providence, who failed to understand what they could do to change, improve, or give enduring value to things and on their exit have resorted to writing memoirs about how they were unable to do things they were so uniquely able to do, when they were in that position.

Perfect vision outside power

However, this extends into other spheres of existence how when not endued with power, much is said, but when those who saw so clearly out of power assume power, the realities dictate everything that borders on hypocrisy and worse.

How one can soon forget the moral standing that comes with position that you are left defending the indefensible and justifying the unjustifiable.

Much as a critique of our current government is difficult, it can be encapsulated in the recent resignation last week of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Homelessness and Democracy) whose brief and responsibilities need detailing for context and understanding.

• Homelessness and rough sleeping
• Housing delivery and strategy engagement
• Homeownership and homebuying process
• Supported housing and domestic abuse
• Elections policy and delivery
• Planning casework

A total lack of awareness

It just so happens that as she was pushing reforms through the parliamentary process, she ran afoul of the protections she was seeking to put in place. She evicted her tenants on the pretext of needing to sell her property, only to put the property back on the rental market, a couple of weeks later, at a hiked-up rate.

She might protest that she had done nothing wrong and every idea that this was rank hypocrisy might have been an unfortunate coincidence of realising her property could not be sold for the asking price, leaving her no other option but to access the rental market again, but other lives are unravelled and upturned, I dare say, landlord greed entered the fray.

Invariably, she created an untenable situation for herself in government, that the only recourse was to tender her resignation. You cannot superintend a law where appearances suggest that it is one law for others whilst you find yourself outside the ambit of the same law being promulgated.

Then taxes went up again

Moreso, I can remember in March 2024, the current Prime Minister then in opposition lamented that we had reached the highest tax burden in 70 years, only for them to gain power in July 2024 to find a £20 billion black hole.

That has instigated another tax hike that might take the burden to the highest in about a century, but how amnesia has overwhelmed any reckoning or memory. [BBC News: Tory Budget 2024: Is the tax take the highest for 70 years?] [BBC News: Labour Budget 2024: Key points at a glance]

Meanwhile, that was £45 less, per month, on my take home pay when it all took effect, and they are not yet done with the proposed tax rises. It just looks like the black hole is getting bigger. [BBC News: Reeves must raise tax to cover £41bn gap, says think tank] [The Guardian: Reeves and Starmer to prepare ground for tax rises in a difficult autumn budget]

Let’s talk for the voiceless

It is easy to talk in opposition, when in power, reality bites and the choices to be made are more impactful and far-reaching than they let on. Let us not delude ourselves, our politicians are in the same game of trade-offs, beholding to some with great influence and less so to those without a strong voice.

Except if you were a tenant of Rushanara Ali who were fortunate to have their distress amplified enough to force the minister’s hand, you are like many, on your own. [BBC News: Homelessness Minister Rushanara Ali quits over rent hike claims]

The responsibility of having opportunity and being in power is a great one, we often fail to make it easier for those who gave us that opportunity to do something significant.

Home and away with József Szájer

25 men in the buff

The amiable and extroverted József Szájer from Hungary would easily have been unknown to me or many other people until he broke the lockdown rules in Brussels and that would have meant nothing, he was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and should have gotten a get out of jail free card with his diplomatic passport.

However, with a slightly closer look at this matter reveals that Jozsef has been a very naughty boy, he apparent clambered down a gutter from the window of a first floor apartment, which apparently was above a gay bar, but let us not jump to unfounded conclusions, but it was where a party of 25 naked men had gathered for everything left to our imagination.

A big boy about

When the police apprehended Jozsef, he had on himself, a rucksack full of narcotics that he avers he did not use, and I believe him, quite absolutely. If there was anything to spice up this story, he has been married to Tünde Handó, a jurist since 1983 and they have a 33-year old daughter, Fanni Szájer, whose paternal grandmother is Edit Kiss. All names that might travel well in Hungary but will run the gauntlet of humour you cannot squelch from an English perspective.

One can assume that 25 nude men in an apartment are just admiring who is the bigger boy along with discussing the physics, chemistry, or even the biology of piston mechanics. That anyone would implicate these fine men in activities of a lewd or sexual nature would be beyond the pale.

Saint at home, a sinner abroad

Yet, one must not overlook that Jozsef of a right-wing persuasion helped make the life of people who are not heterosexual unbearable, intolerable, impossible, threatened, and precarious in Hungary whilst living free to explore all sorts of proclivities in Belgium. It is not like he had committed a grievous sin until it appeared that he might have been living a double life, one at home in Hungary and another away in Belgium, and by all respects, this looks a bit hypocritical if not downright atrocious, for which, very little sympathy will be present and forgiveness is far from view.

As so, Jozsef quite suddenly and almost quietly, immediately resigned his posting to Brussels and sought to put it all behind him, but not that easily, on the part of his family, he does need to mend relationships, but for the others that have suffered for his politics and policies, he will walk the path of notoriety, ignominy and infamy, and much more besides. Shame on him. Maybe the title of the blog should have read crudely, Homo and a gay with József Szájer.

[The Guardian: Right-wing Hungarian MEP resigns for attending 'sex party' that broke Belgian lockdown]

[EuroNews: Brussels 'sex party': Hungarian MEP József Szájer fled along a gutter with drugs in backpack]

An ode to the sententiously sanctimonious

No less a fit of rage

The maddening effrontery of it all, you come into my life from 35 years ago with muscular heartless Churchianity to dictate how you think I should be living my life? No words can begin to express my outrage, you don't know me, get off my lawn before I set the rabid dogs on you. I have forgiven too many an intrusion, I would allow it no further.

Lacking in decorum or courtesy, without greeting or supplication, attracted like a fly to faeces you homed in on my situation, uninvited and without permission to poke your nose in my business with the audaciousness of a bull let loose in a china shop. You confuse my gentleness for the opportunity to control me. How dare you?

Now you care about my eternity? I was about to scoff. Where were you when doctors gave me 5 weeks to live as cancer ravaged my body and otherworldly pain camped in every sinew? In my days of sorrow, you were invisible and now you come like a thief to steal my joy? You will not prosper in this or another.

Busybodies in the garb of false religion, clouds of locusts that feast on souls to ruin them, who have never known love in themselves or of God, laden with conflicts that they project on others, seeking relevance in their presumed superiority to others, the ilk of which even Jesus adjured as the brood of vipers.

The wrath of God is upon you, for ye all are a plague on humanity, standing in the way of grace and mercy for those more deserving of the gospel of truth. You find fault and fling scripture about like manure offering no succour but condemnation, ye are the accuser of the brethren. Ye all shall perish without a tit or jot to your memorial. For thus is it written of you.

Opinion: Thank you, Kellie Palace Maloney for accepting who you are

I see

I just read that Frank Maloney, the boxing promoter is now undergoing gender reassignment having apparently been living as a woman for a while.

Now, Frank Maloney would in all terms be regarded a tough man with regards to his career as a boxing promoter, that business environment is at best brutal, if not quite difficult too.

However, she is now to be known as Kellie Palace Maloney which is both brave and interesting.

The conflicts of before

The Wikipedia entry for Kellie Maloney which has been revised to accommodate the feminine gender of the person, reads as an interesting struggle with inner turmoil between what was presented as publicly hard-faced whilst privately conflicted.

Besides having been a boxing trainer, manager and promoter, she made uncomplimentary comments about the lesbian and gay communities and when she dabbled in politics, she stood for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) whose right-wing populism is fearful and worrisome.

It would be curmudgeonly to suggest that publicly, Kellie had been a vocally strident opponent of the things she was as a person, in what is a bizarre form of aversion therapy bordering on rank hypocrisy, yet, people do have a long and difficult journey to realising who they really are and are ready to be.

Coming to terms

Coming to a point of self-acceptance where one does not care for accusation, abuse, stigma or shame is a personal victory of sorts over the wider influences of society that persuades people to conform and toe the line.

Surprised as I may be at this development, I can only congratulate Kellie Maloney for taking this decision in the pursuit of her happiness and the fulfilment of who she really believes she is.

However, like many us on the journey to openly accepting who we really are, there are some well-rehearsed lines of why we conform and how we get to the point where we are ready to live.

Offloading burdens

“I was born in the wrong body and have always known I was a woman. I can’t keep living in the shadows, that is why I am doing what I am today. Living with the burden any longer would have killed me.”

We could find different paraphrases of these lines spoken by Kellie Maloney to address many choices we have made under pressure to conform, for careers, for relationships, for coming-out, for gender reassignment and the much wider spectrum of human endeavour and expression.

Whether society is open-minded and accepting of it is the different topic, but too many of us have sacrificed ourselves to living with a burden of who we are not and it has left us unhappy, depressed, despairing, ashamed, guilt-ridden and sometimes suicidal.

The amazing thing is how easy it is to breathe when we release ourselves into living the truth of who we are and just get on with enjoying our lives.

Kelli Maloney, thank you for accepting and becoming who you are.

Opinion: Our low threshold for standards

Our sense of judgement

Some events of the last few days have now opened my eyes to why Nigeria would languish at the bottom of corruption rating indices.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Ranking places Nigeria at 144 out of 177 countries with a score of 25 out of a hundred countries.

I observed in a number of tweets that the corruption measurement parameters are skewed to a Western perception of transparency to which we have very little sensitivity.

The poisoning of openness

For instance, there are too many areas where "conflicts of interest" have no particular meaning as pertains to public office.

People or organisations might have multiple interests which could affect their motives or cloud their judgements on issues where independence are critical for a transaction to be above board.

Neopatrimonalism is the order of the day where officials dole out without accounting or accountability to obtain favours and allegiance.

Here, especially people in power buy access, influence, allegiance, obeisance or votes by using the commonwealth of public funds.

Transparency is more a dictionary word rather than one of civil engagement required in all transactions.

Few talent pools

Whilst we are aware of nepotism, influence peddling and malfeasance, they all seem to be instruments of acquiescent brokerage.

We acquiesce to the abuse of power, privilege and office; as much as we can rail against this when it is not in our favour, we are accepting of the gains that this brings us without quibble, concern or even conscience.

The extension of this is the tribal and clannish tendency to want people like us in power rather than the best people we could find do things for the good of all.

The number of states in Nigeria is evidence of the many pools we have to fulfil positions to represent federal character but these many pools do not constitute adequate talent pools to tackle the challenges that face Nigeria.

Low thresholds for standards

For instance, we have a Freedom of Information Act that appears to be a tool of courageous engagement than an everyday call to accountability.

In the almost 30 months of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, we have not seen its common usage in unravelling the obscurantist tendencies of the government, this especially in determining the cost of our democracy, how much oil we produce, how it gets spent and the real cost of the fuel subsidy.

The fundamental ethical demands of honesty, openness, integrity and so on, have a much lower threshold of fulfilment.

Normalised abuse

We have low expectations of ethical conduct, this accompanied with a very low emotional intelligence of the leadership that they are not discerning of issues enough to adapt or adjust until shamed, blamed, defamed embarrassed into taking appropriate action.

Rather than address the issue upfront, we seek moral equivalences and comparative scenarios to excuse reprehensible conduct or justify positions we have taken.

Consequently we are almost inured to the abuse of power and office, whilst those in power cannot be made fully accountable because the pursuit of truth, fairness and justice is neither with determination nor resolute.

Objectivity and honesty

I reflected on this as I read comments on certain blogs that partly inspired the blog I wrote yesterday - Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

The bigger lesson I want us to take away from that blog remains – With Full Disclosure, whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty, when you juxtapose that statement with another - Without Full Disclosure, whilst people might not question your objectivity, they will question your honesty.

You have a trade-off between objectivity and honesty predicated on full disclosure, that subtle distinction is what had me in the middle of the absurdity of apologising for manifest hypocrisy.

I have to admit and accept that my cultural influences are probably too diametrically opposed to my greater engagement that we all probably have a long and hard job of re-education and reorientation to appreciate that we need to raise the bar for ethical conduct.

Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

And I did

I rarely leave comments on other blogs, not even under duress, but this once I did, because, there was a need to say some pertinent things.

The issue concerned people who I consider friends from Social Media, I love my friends, and I cannot bear to see them warring in public, at the same time, I am rarely sentimental about my desire to have people cut it out and return to a modicum of peace.

I hope that when I view matters brought to my attention, I am able to see things sometimes quite radically different from others, it is a matter of perspective and there are many narratives to any situation all depending on where we observe things.

The spirit of gratitude

Like a popular author once said, we should be careful of the single story, and I rarely reiterate the story told by others if there is another angle of approach.

Broadly, this issue concerned charity, opinion, confrontation, offence, recalcitrance and opportunity for vituperation in the aftermath.

My view of charity is simple; there is only one valid response, it is gratitude. For they who bring succour and respite are angels in disguise for that time of need.

That angels displaying human nature can later on turn out to be obnoxious does not obviate the good previously done, its value for that time, place and setting is immeasurable.

The conflicts of gratitude

Demands can be made by the generous to serve interests inimical to the views of the recipient, but it is for the latter to adapt with reserve, circumspection and wisdom, it tests the patience and resolve. It is not beyond the capacity of all to exercise such.

We all have opinions, but the better part of valour is knowing how to make forceful points without alienating a source of goodwill. Goodwill should not present a sense of enslavement, and it is reprehensible for those who have done a turn of good to make unreasonable demands of those they have helped.

The fundamental, much as it is difficult to understand is that the act of generosity is meant to attract commensurate gratitude. There is no time limit to the expression of gratitude whilst it can accommodate the expression of truth with moderation, consideration and circumspection, which should not contemn the deeds of those who have visited with an outstretched hand.

No hypocrites with full disclosure

That said; there is a wider and broader issue when it comes to having opinions and views you want to share. There is no restriction on the freedom of expression but it is hypocritical to posit forcefully on issues where you have once been a beneficiary of a related cause without declaring an interest.

It is called “Full Disclosure.” This allows people to understand that you have an interest as you have a strong viewpoint, and whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty.

There is a reason why honesty is the best policy, because with it comes transparency, clarity, openness, fairness and truth.

The hypocrite has no refuge

In my opinion, the best way to tackle a festering problem is to determine its root cause, and there is no doubt in my mind that the absence of full disclosure in an original opinion opens that person to the excoriating rebuke of hypocrisy. The form criticism for hypocrisy could take varies, but we would be naïve to think there are parameters of engagement when it comes to condemning hypocrisy – no, there are none.

When seen in that context, it is easy to apportion blame, but it is hoped that people would engage to ameliorate the situation, albeit in the public space.

In closing, I would say, never sequester your freedom of expression, but if you have an interest in the matter or have been a beneficiary of the system that you have a strong opinion about, err on the side of full disclosure and save yourself the ridicule of being called out as a hypocrite.

Gays may face a 21st Century Nigerian Inquisition

The god-squad and the mob

One might almost abandon hope that any reason, objectivity or compassion would come to play in the bill to ban homosexual activity in Nigeria, all is not lost, a public hearing has been held and there is a delay as reported by Black Looks.

Of all the issues and problems that afflict Nigeria and the need to address issues that affect people's lives everyday, the legislators have found time in the dying days of their tenure to be pre-occupied with criminalising a minority.

The premise being the religious and cultural background of Africans where the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) said homosexuality is barbaric and shameful; the National Muslim Centre portends homosexuality is - "immoral, and runs contrary to our cultural and religious values".

See our culture

This leaves out the animists who probably have no representative to lobby the National Assembly. However, I remember when I was in secondary school in Sagamu, Ogun State in Nigeria, the most feared medicine man in town was known as "Adodi", crudely meaning buggerer or sodomiser.

It cannot be said that his mythical and assumed powers were not derived from the practice in promotion of "our cultural beliefs" of medicine men.

I can go on to say that these religions that are pervading our legislative spectrum are alien to our original culture of welcoming, tolerating and accepting differences whilst minding our own business.

A human rights issue

Thankfully, there is voice of reason within the cacophony of the lynch mob set on homosexuals by the bishops and the imams; the deputy chairman of the house committee on human rights says - "We should not be hypocritical here. I think we should deal with this subject dispassionately. While we are trying to protect morals and values, we must also remember to protect people's rights even if they are a minority".

At least, it has been aired that homosexuals are first a minority and do probably have rights.

A doctor with UNAids goes on to say, "Failing to acknowledge that sex between men will only increase the vulnerability of men - and women - to HIV infection, since men who cannot talk about their sexual orientation are less likely to seek appropriate support services".

Punishing what exactly?

Now, that should get a few people thinking, however, that can get overruled by that perception that if homosexuals can go to jail for 5 years, that would take them off the streets.

After five years of punishment, would the homosexual now be cured and have become a fully fledged heterosexual or would the privation of the female sex in jail provide a ready and willing sexual object for the pent up sexual frustrations of the male prison population?

Homophobia is the Western influence

I never got to place a comment in an article posted by Black Looks about Reverend Jide Macaulay whom as a minister and founder of the House of Rainbow - a church that caters for those the church should be ministering to but have rejected, spitting hail and brimstone upon them with vehemence so un-Christianly - who was disowned and disavow with homophobic wrath by his father almost to damnation.

Anengiyefa left a long comment on that blog and something quite succinct was said along the lines of the fact that homosexuality is natural and it is homophobia that is Western in its progeny being foisted by the so-called religious leaders on our public by the contagion of religion.

That is a truth that sits well with the hypocrisy that allows for religious protagonists to persecute and prosecute those of a different persuasion and that in the 21^st Century; the Nigerian National Assembly is about to usher in the age of the Nigerian Inquisition, other problems are too insignificant to be accorded any valuable time.

The National Assembly in Nigeria is about to vote to criminalise homosexuality, a few voices have been raised about the human rights and health issues, but against the hypocrisy of moral, religious and cultural values, reason and commonsense probably has no chance.

Tolerance as a mindset of choice, prejudice and hypocrisy - Part 2

Finding an English School

One is yet to find a student of English from either Japan or China who has been taught English to secondary school level and been able to speak it fluently.

In Japan especially, where so much emphasis is placed of learning English as a language for greater career opportunities. Japan is an established and developed economy and nation with all the resources necessary to make that work.

One remembers years ago in secondary school when French was taught to us with the brutality of the cane bruises from a psychopathic teacher, it took the fun out of learning a good language and no one picked it up as well as could be expected.

Finding a decent Dutch course

The only people who have had the best induction into the Dutch society have been the foreign spouses of the ruling family, Prince Bernhard and Prince Claus from Germany and Princes Maxima from Argentina, then we have foreigners who are madly in love with their Dutch partners, then the persevering rest who just have to learn Dutch to bring the bacon home.

I am not aware of a cosy learning experience for a language made so difficult not by the tuition, but the by the inflexible practitioners who cannot seem to understand anything said that is not accent-perfect, word-perfect, grammar-perfect and just perfect.

Evidence of this fact also comes from the situation where they cannot understand sentences that mix 2 languages that they speak, it is rather bizarre.

Any learner, after the initial enthusiasm almost always gives up learning when all attempts to speak attract no encouragement.

Everyone switches to English, no matter how bad, we are all forgiving enough to accept what is commonly known as Dinglish - the direct translation of Dutch words into English maintaining Dutch grammar and syntax.

We the Dutch affrim that we are becoming less Dutch

This brings us to an original Dutch idea being promoted as part of the immigration-integration debate that is sweeping Europe.

Until recently, the Dutch and the Netherlands have been feted as the most tolerant Western society. This is not to say that the Dutch are still not tolerant, however, a vociferous minority purporting to convey popular opinion are being quite facetious about what to tolerate.

The brunt of this sweeping Dutch angst is the immigrant; or rather, the non-European, non-Christian, non-Dutch speaking, non-skilled nonentities that are diluting Dutch culture and turning the Dutch into other things but Dutch.

We all know that the argument that gay marriage compromises the sanctity of the institution of marriage is as unfounded as immigrants making the Dutch become more Arabic, Muslim, non-Western or some other inconceivable tosh. See Part 1.

Learn Dutch in your village

Anyway, in a masterstroke of genius, the Dutch have now decided that families from these improper areas cannot be united without mastering Dutch and the culture, that is understandable, only that they have to do this before they can emigrate.

The Dutch, having mastered the art of making money, linking up with foreign cultures, then profited bountifully from slave trade and pulled out before other slave trading nations saw that as a business, would now have the opportunity to set up Dutch assimilation institutions and schools in these nether lands.

Walk down a kasbar in Casablanca, you might happen upon a Dutch school, I am not quite sure of seeing that in the persecuted Berber heartlands.

The core analysis is simply the fact that the Dutch have surreptitiously created an almost insurmountable barrier to entry without clearly stating that a barrier to entry has been created.

Obviously, minorities from Japan, Australia or America are not affected by this barrier considering it might even be better to set up these schools in prosperous countries that can afford good teachers, provide the right amenities and having able and paying customers.

The world ain’t that fair, neither are the Dutch in this case.

Tolerance as a mindset of choice, prejudice and hypocrisy - Part 1

Marriage for all?

One issue that seems to be of particular divisive content in America and many other as it were Western & Christian societies is the wave of homosexual contracts of partnership which presumably are undermining the institution of marriage.

It begs the question; why should marriage suffer irrelevance at the actions of people who cannot even get married without so much opprobrium and vitriolic commentary piled on them by tabloid and shock-jock radio presenters?

One would think that what undermines the institution of marriage itself are the participants in the marriage, issues of trust, abuse, adultery, lust, divorce, re-marriage, abortion and so on - those are the things that have dampened confidence in that institution.

The force of law cannot change human nature from falling prey to things that undermine what they supposedly believe in.

Examples unformed

In fact, I would contend that the participants in marriages have so undermined the significance of that sacrament that everyone sees it as a basic contract of partnership allowing that standard rights of partnership to be shared or transferred. Hence, every partnership seeks to be registered as a marriage.

It is patently unlikely that the newcomers to the established institution of failed marriage vows could further undermine what has already been condemned to sleaze and flagrant hypocrisy.

To contend that marriage is mainly for child-bearing purposes is also very flawed, it can be argued that many marriages do not flourish because the partners did not give time to knowing each other well before the children are born, after which the children have dominated their lives at the expense of the real partnership which is between husband and wife.

There are so many reasons why marriages fail, but rarely has it been because the husband ran off with another man or the wife with another woman. The absurdity of the defence of marriage on those grounds only becomes ever so evident.

What vows mean

Asking a man on the street, one would be amazed at the number who do not know the meaning of a vow, who might perjure and have relatively no insight into the value of integrity. These are the same everyday people who are convenanted to uphold the institution of marriage. One risks cynicism at this point.

The protection of marriage as an institution really should be the understanding of the vows expressed, the gravity of disavowal if there be any penalties and how to suppress selfishness for selfless sharing - at which point celibacy and eunuchry become a more pleasant prospect. Society does not underpine those pillars of successful marriage as it once did.

Marriage of sexualities

Marriage does not have the high standards on integrity, candour and discretion it once had. It is for the participants to change that, with the possibility of them learning that homosexuals might even be better are holding together a relationship of marriage than those who consider it a tenet of life and heterosexual morass.

The arch-divider and leader of the divided world in the White House waded into this issue like a wild rodeo bull set lose in a china shop - constitutional protection of marriage as the union of man and woman. I have no truck with that, but I doubt if the homosexuals were born out of another union.