Save Us From Cyclone Yashika

It’s almost a decade since I started helping the Chagossians in their quest for justice.  It is a cause I plough many hours into with very little in the way of reward in terms of progress.  It’s a cause that touches upon the sensitivities of issues like national security so is therefore under-reported in the domestic media, and we find ourselves forever fighting against the tide. 

We keep going because it’s the right thing to do and we all care passionately enough to dedicate so much of our time to securing a fair resolution.  I once started a petition which was exclusive to UK citizens and achieved just over a thousand signatures in a year.  A White House petition which was open to citizens all over the world racked up 25,000 pledges of support in a year.

Last week a very unusual campaign managed to rack up that many signatures in a single day.  I regard it to be a very misguided crusade, which is strange when usually I’d be someone who would naturally be drawn to support such a movement.  I am the complete polar opposite of someone who is traditionally right-wing and by nature anti-immigration.

I absolutely love immigration.

I’ve always been very bitter about the restrictions which are placed on the movement of migrants wishing to settle in the UK who have originated from a country that was once a colonial outpost.  My view is that the UK should indeed be operating an “open door” policy when it comes to migrants from countries whose ancestors contributed so much to the prosperity of this country.

It’s not a popular view, but I have always maintained that the UK owes an enormous debt to parts of the world which were once part of the British Empire.  And when right-wingers revert to type with arguments like “we’re full”, I just bat them away on the basis that Britain raided these countries dry of their natural resources.  I think it is terribly unfair to deny a right of residency to descendants of people born into the British Empire.  They should have the right to share in the success which was built on the blood, sweat and tears of their ancestors.

So when I become aware of anyone from the Commonwealth struggling to attain residency in the UK, my instant reaction is to support their efforts.  If I hear of Mauritians wanting to stay in the UK, that desire to support their efforts is magnified even more because I immediately think of my late Grandparents who made the journey to the UK with my dad, aunts and uncles in tow almost half a century ago.

Unfortunately if you insinuate that Mauritius is effectively a glorified banana republic with no concept of law and order, well then I’m afraid you will quickly alienate any goodwill from someone like me.  Because it is just not true: Mauritius is not in a state of war or under martial law.  It is a normal, stable and modern democracy.  Mauritius, like Britain, does have a legal system, a judicial process, a respect for the rule of law and a police force which serves to uphold these principles. 

Yashika Bageerathi has been ordered to leave the UK after her application for asylum was rejected.  The application was based on an incident of sexual assault which is understood to have taken place in Mauritius around five years ago.  The family have stated that they are frightened to return to the island as relatives of the assailants will be waiting at the airport upon their return.  Yashika, now nineteen years of age, is in the final stages of her A Levels at a school in north London.

It is quite a story, but there are critical questions which need to be answered.

Why did the Bageerathi family travel over six thousand miles?  Reunion Island is around an hour away and is part of the French Republic and therefore part of the EU.  Their claim could have been assessed there.  Or if they were seeking more space between themselves and the perpetrators, it would have been possible to stay within the Mauritian Republic and reside on Rodrigues Island which is four hours away.

Furthermore Yashika’s mother arrived in the UK in 2009 but her children did not arrive until 2011.  If Mauritius was such a dangerous environment for the family to reside in, then why on earth would any rational thinking mother leave her children at such risk for two years?  Surely even two weeks would be too long.

This case is an insult to every individual who genuinely flees persecution, wars or humanitarian disasters in their homeland.  I don’t recall hearing about snipers on the rooftops of Pointe Aux Sables or tanks proceeding down the streets of Rose Hill.  Yashika is a Hindu-Mauritian which by definition means she cannot be a persecuted minority on the island as she is actually part of a majority who make up two-thirds of the population.

This is textbook propaganda for every anti-immigration right-leaning voter in the UK and a trophy for little Englanders: the fabled bogus asylum seeker.  It’s such an obvious case of an application that should never have been submitted in the first place.

This episode has the potential to be hugely damaging for Mauritius and will possibly tarnish its global reputation.  Mud has a tendency to stick so Mauritius will be depicted as an island where atrocities against women are rife.  This is unfair when the statistics simply do not support this claim at all.  Alarmingly the reverse is closer to the truth.

In 2012 there were 418 reported (p.47) acts of sexual offences in the Republic of Mauritius.  In the same year, England & Wales recorded 53,700 cases of the same categories of crime.  Given that Mauritius has a population of around 1.3 million compared to England & Wales which has around 56.6 million residents, the numbers can be adjusted to provide an accurate comparison.

Mauritius is broadly 44 times smaller than England & Wales in terms of population size.  Applying this rule, Mauritius would have recorded 18,392 incidents of sexual offences if it had a population in proportion to England & Wales.  Thus the number of sexual offences recorded in England & Wales is 291% higher than Mauritius per 1000 people according to the year of comparable data from 2012.

Of course such comparisons must be treated with caution and are only used as an indicator as opposed to reflecting the entire picture.  Sexual attacks against women are still amongst the most under-reported of indictable offences.  That is aside from the disgracefully low conviction rates.  However that is a global issue which shames us all from Mahebourg to Middlesbrough.  It is certainly not a problem exclusive to Mauritius.

I think it’s incredibly sad that a teenager is being detained behind barbed-wire fencing at a high-security immigration detention facility in Bedfordshire.  I also think it is tragic that a young lady can’t continue her studies and finish her education.  Yet I don’t want to pledge my support to such a campaign which has spread lies and inaccurate myths about Mauritius.

The Mauritian Government, having liaised with the local authorities, have no record of any crime being reported on the island.  This is why the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain attempted to meet with Yashika during her detention at Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire in order to discuss her concerns of being returned to a country that was her home until three years ago.

When supporters of the Chagosssian cause strive to raise awareness, we do so by sticking to the facts and the truth.  We don’t spread any lies; we don’t feel we need to.  Anyone familiar with the tragedy will know that the horrors speak for themselves.  I suppose in doing so, we ensure that we maintain the moral high-ground.  I resent the “Save Yashika” campaign because it is littered with inaccuracies bordering on fiction.

The Chagossian quest for justice may not be as trendy as the latest fashionable cause, but it is a force for good and upholds the facts.  “Save Yashika” is just an ill-advised crusade which became a force of nature with a destructive and reckless power.  It resembles a cyclone flattening everything in its path, especially the inconvenient truth.

The Legacy of Kaya

I first came across Joseph Reginald Topize’s music towards the end of the Sega Club era in the early 1990s.  The name was quite a mouthful so everyone referred to him by his nickname: Kaya.  My dad was quite scornful of the sound being produced by this new wave of Mauritian artists.  This was a concoction of the traditional Mauritian music of Sega combined with a strong influence of Reggae. 

This pioneering breakthrough was called Seggae and my dad couldn’t stand it!  Almost overnight Kaya was feted as le Roi du Seggae (the King of Seggae).

15 years ago last week, Kaya was found dead in a police cell at the maximum security Line Barracks prison in Port Louis, Mauritius.  Witnesses recalled the sight four days earlier of police officers arriving to take into custody the slight but highly influential musician.

He had been arrested for smoking cannabis at a festival calling for the decriminalisation of the drug.  He had challenged the Mauritian Government’s authority publicly and was the only one of eight taken into custody who did not deny the charge when arrested.

Immediate evidence pointed to a cover-up.  Dried blood ran from his nose to his ear and had accumulated on his neck inside his hair.  As opposed to being discovered facing upwards as the trail of blood would have suggested, he was found face down.  His body had clearly been moved as it was impossible for the blood to have travelled upwards towards his neck, thus defying every accepted principle when it came to the laws of gravity.

An initial autopsy revealed he had suffered a blow to his forehead resulting in a fracture of the skull.  A dreadlock had been torn from his head.  His tongue had been trapped between his teeth in a posture that supported the theory that he had suffered a sudden (and almost certainly violent) trauma to the brain.

The uprising that followed engulfed the island and led to violence not seen for over thirty years.  Five people died and over a hundred were injured during four days of social unrest.  A Seggae artist who had joined the protests against the death in custody of Kaya, Berger Agathe, was shot dead by police.

I have heard accounts over the last few days which are still harrowing after all these years.  One was four years old at the time and on holiday in Mauritius, and remembers the sight of his mother struggling with the effects of tear gas which had entered the house where they were staying.  Another told me how her cousin was shot by police. Miraculously he survived albeit living with a stark reminder of what some referred to as the “Mauritian Revolution”.  To this day he has a bullet lodged within his head, an extraction impossible due to its precarious location.

When the roadblocks were removed, the businesses reopened and Mauritius returned back to normality, the islanders undertook a long period of soul-searching.  Once the navel gazing ended, wide reaching reforms were implemented which dragged Mauritius kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. 

It is almost impossible to comprehend that just fifteen years ago, complaints about the misconduct of police officers in Mauritius were dealt with at the front desk of the local police station.  Eight months after Kaya was killed, the Complaint Investigation Bureau was established.

It is equally difficult to remember that fifteen years ago there was no public holiday that marked the abolition of slavery, a day so closely entwined with the history and heritage of around 30% of Mauritians.  Creoles, the descendants of African slaves, were being supressed on a cultural and social level.  The social mobility of Creoles has increased faster in the last fifteen years than it had done in the proceeding thirty years.

Just six years later publications like the UK-based Mauritius News were even suggesting that communalism on the island was declining.  I think it was a slightly premature act of self-congratulation.  But to deny there had been progress would be uncharitable in the extreme.  Non-Hindu police officers were almost unheard of prior to 1999.  The island had only known Hindu Prime Ministers during its first three decades as an independent nation.  

The project is far from complete as my last post outlined and there is still so much to do.  However Mauritius is a much brighter place than it was fifteen years ago.  Kaya changed the musical landscape of Mauritius by introducing a new sound which broke new ground.  Fifteen years after his untimely passing, his influence continues, reaching far wider than probably he ever imagined would be possible.

Rainbowology

I have been spending the past fortnight in Mauritius, it is my first visit in almost two years.  It may sound strange to some, but that's rather a long time for me.  I once visited three times in eight months, although it was a necessity in order to finalise my citizenship which I acquired five and a half years ago.  To say I hold a great deal of affection for this place is as big an understatement as suggesting I have a slight passing interest for a certain football club from North London.

When I speak of my love for the island commonly referred to as the land of shooting stars and rainbows, people often think I am dazzled by the white sand and turquoise sea or the mountainous peaks which form such a striking backdrop of the central portion of the landscape.

However I believe that these are mere footnotes in terms of the real beauty of somewhere which truly does take your breath away.  Most will realise I am a proud lefty and I find it fascinating how the political debate in Mauritius takes place on the left.  I site the example of how the then opposition Labour Party had to offer free travel to schoolchildren in the 2005 general election in order to outmanoeuvre the governing Movement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Party who had already implemented extended travel concessions for the elderly.  A political debate based on who can give more to the people: beauty really does goes beyond the palm trees here.

Even the most "right-wing" faction, the  Mauritian Socialist Movement (MSM), a centre-left party, would be to the left of the ground taken by the UK Labour Party.  There is no squabbling over nasty right wing values here.  It's why I often remark that while I would align myself personally with the MMM, I can never spout the kind of vitriol I do in the UK where I despise voters of parties like the Tories, UKIP or the BNP etc.  I  believe the MMM offers the best alternative for left-wing sympathisers like myself, but the truth is that neither of the parties in Mauritius fill me with horror in terms of their views of how to run the country.  If the MSM were standing in the UK they would get my vote over the UK Labour Party every single time.

I also find it fascinating how every single religion is afforded equal recognition.  It is true that following the arrival of Indians after the abolition of slavery the number of Indians quickly assumed a position as the majority.  But to suggest that only the Hindu culture is celebrated would be a gross misrepresentation.  Every single religious festival is recognised with a public holiday.  The running joke here is that it is unusual to have more than three weeks without one.

Most who know me will appreciate that I don't really regard myself as religious.  I was brought up as a Catholic and attended eleven years within the framework of a Catholic schooling education, although it's been many years since I attended a church except for a funeral, christening or wedding.  That being said, I probably lean more towards Catholicism than any other religion.  That is to say if I was pushed to make a choice.

Some visitors to Mauritius could find the overt presence of religious symbols to be quite unsettling, but even I can recognise a unique beauty in the expressive nature of it all.  I probably wouldn't feel the same if one religion had been afforded a certain status above all others, but that is simply not the case here.

The early mornings are alive with the sounds of mosques calling to prayers, the Hindus have their various processions.  Christians celebrate the various sacraments with equal vigour and even the Chinese do not escape as the Spring festival (Chinese New Year) turns the island into a cacophony of lights and sounds as the symbolic dragon chases away the evil spirits.  And nobody is alienated from the celebrations, there is an eagerness to celebrate one another's culture in a way that I have never experienced elsewhere in the world.

Even for a religious cynic like me, I am profoundly blown away by it all.

It hasn't always been this way though.  The history of this beautiful land is littered with various race riots which dominated the first three decades following independence.  The last in 1999 followed the controversial death in police custody of the Seggae artist Kaya.  During the uprising that followed another singer Berger Agathe, was shot dead by police.

So much changed after 1999 and as this republic entered the 21st century there was a renewed acceptance that a threshold had been crossed and that there will never again be a return to our kaleidoscope of cultures clashing once again.  And in the main things have moved on.  The descendants of African slaves, Creoles (like those of my paternal heritage), for so long victims of oppression by a sizeable and powerful Hindu majority, were finally elevated to positions of authority in the national structure which would have been unthinkable only a few years earlier.  In 2003 the first non-Hindu Prime Minister, Paul Berenger, took office and again a barrier had been broken.

Yet in 2013 elements of an archaic school of thought remain.  During this visit I found myself consoling a friend, a Muslim, who was coming to terms with the end of her engagement with her Hindu finance.  It wasn't because he could not accept her, he was of a generation who genuinely couldn't care less.  But his parents rejected her on the basis of her faith.  Her acceptance of it all as if it was somehow expected was something I found deeply troubling, not to mention so disheartening.

It is perhaps something I have chosen to ignore.  I have become so used to the group of friends I have built up over the past nine years that it seemed normal to see a Chinese Mauritian in a relationship with a Creole, or a Hindu with a Muslim.  To realise that it is not as universal as I thought has been something of a wake-up call.

I refuse to accept that Mauritius is as divided as the sectarian disputes which marred the first three decades following independence demonstrated.  But there is still work to be done to finally stamp out the attitudes of the generations which contributed so much to the problems of this period.  I will still argue that Mauritius is the Rainbow Island, a term which pays homage to its unique cultural make up.  That being said we cannot afford to think that our work is done- we still need to do more to ensure that nobody should be forced to choose between the love of another person or the love of their family, purely because of a difference of religious or cultural origins.

It is still my dream that observers will one day visit Mauritius from around the world to learn how an island the size of Surrey can accommodate 1.3 million inhabitants within a harmony that the rest of the world seems light years from replicating.  And make no mistake about it: Mauritius is closer to achieving that goal than anywhere else in the world.  But as this visit has served to reinforce, we are not there yet.

Until everyone can love whoever they wish based on personal choice as opposed to rigid cultural prejudices, the fabled pot of gold at the end of the rainbow will remain a fantasy from a ladybird fairytale.

An Unpalatable Choice

Black History Month in the UK is barely three days old but already some have been left reeling at the news which will see the country’s first black radio station reach the end of the line.  Choice FM will disappear as we know it from Monday after 23 and a half years on the air.

My earliest memory of Choice FM can be traced back to February 1990 when my younger sister and I were staying overnight at our big sister’s.  She had the radio tuned into what was a test broadcast on the designated frequency for the fledgling broadcaster which was to launch the following month.  There’s a beautiful symmetry to this because it was the same big sister who I hold responsible for introducing me to the station now known as Capital FM around three years earlier.

Capital began acquiring shares in Choice in early 2003 leading to wholesale changes at the station.  The most striking of which saw the departure of Geoff Schumann who along with Martin Jay formed a formidable double-act which shattered audience records at the station.  The station’s relocation from Southwark to Leicester Square was another erosion of the unique footprint and was a symbolic gesture of a corporate juggernaut taking an alternative direction.  Other modifications included the removal of prominent reggae DJ’s from the broadcaster’s schedules between the hours of 7am and 7pm.

The end of the station was savagely as swift as the bloodbath nine years ago.  On Wednesday the Voice newspaper reported on speculation that the station was to be rebranded as Capital Xtra.  A little over 24 hours later came the confirmation of the news sparking outrage from listeners who had remained loyal to the station despite all of the betrayal and recriminations from the original transfer of ownership in 2004.

Listening to Choice over the last decade has always posed something of a moral dilemma.  The station retained a handful of DJ’s who survived the cull of the organisational restructure.  Martin Jay’s Caribbean Affair on Sunday nights was still the most listened to soca radio show on British radio.  Nonetheless it always resembled the scenario of stumbling across a copy of a rag like the Daily Mail and trying to sneak a peep at the sports section- despite knowing full well that the paper’s overall editorial line aggressively undermined everything you believed in.

That is why the discovery of internet-based stations like Large Radio has been something that I have embraced so emphatically.  It is why when my weekly favourite the Calaloo Show recently ran into difficulties, I found myself listening to its archived content via podcasts instead of catching up with the Sunday evening soca show on a station I no longer harboured any affection for.  I believe it is online that the future of radio broadcasting for minority music lies. 

Of course the nostalgic side of me does reflect on the dreams and aspirations of the founders Patrick Berry and Neil Kenlock.  Indeed Berry’s comments about “protecting the uniqueness of our programmes” ahead of the sale in November 2003 suggested that his intentions were honourable.  The demise following the sale of the broadcaster to Capital in 2004 should not diminish what the two helped to create in 1990: the UK’s first legal black radio station.  Nothing can overshadow the first thirteen years which provided a remarkable chapter for radio entertainment in this country.

I mourned Choice FM’s passing many years ago.  For almost a decade the brand was appropriated by parties who had poisoned its powerful legacy and provided us with a creation which was a world away from the community based station.  I am delighted that the Choice FM brand is being consigned to the history books.  It was obnoxiously insulting that the name used bore so little resemblance to the groundbreaking station established all those years ago.

I concede that the reaction to this week’s news has surprised me, I hadn’t realised such a sizeable proportion had stayed loyal after all this time.  Nobody I knew who listened back then tuned in anymore.  We always viewed those who did as refusing to accept that it had died and were clinging on to a corpse in a desperate attempt to turn back the clock.  An audience which was at best misguided and refused to listen to warnings of the time that eventually this week’s developments would come to pass.

It was an insatiable lust for something that had ceased to exist, worshipping a shell of its once glorious incarnation.  Necrophilia?  The dictionary suggests that the definition is not so out of context here, though probably it is an exaggeration to suggest that those who continued tuning in could be characterised as such.

However it is undeniable that a decade ago the audience had a decision to make.  It is most surprising that so many made such an unpalatable choice.

Evilisation

My dad had a habit of confusing my sister and I as kids when it came to vocabulary.  Despite only arriving in the country as a fourteen year old he had a reasonable enough command of the English language and regularly applied some of its most colourful aspects.  He could turn the air bright blue in the blink of an eye.

My sister and I were no fools; we knew we’d never get away with swearing at our dad.  We would swear at each other, but only when he wasn’t around.  But there were other less obvious examples that my dad would vigorously take exception to.  Like “destroy” or other phrases that we had picked up from cartoons like He-Man or Thundercats.  Terms like “evil” for example.

As is common for most siblings a couple of years apart, we used to fight like cats and dogs.  I never forget one occasion remonstrating with my dad and telling him that my sister was “evil”.  He flew into a rage, declaring that such a phrase was inappropriate and far too strong a term to be used so liberally.  It was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that such a word should never ever be used to describe my younger sibling.

For a phrase with such a powerful emotive impact its frequency of usage is quite astonishing.  When we hear of high profile court cases, the defendant is often depicted as evil.  It has even been used in sport reports.  When Ben Johnson was unceremoniously stripped of his gold medal in 1988 at the Seoul Olympic games, the BBC reporter Ron Pickering used the term to describe the act of cheating.  Ben Johnson has rightly been subjected to a number of condemnations for his actions over the past quarter of a century. Stupid, naïve, selfish, irresponsible and careless probably all of which could be applied, but evil is bordering on the ridiculous.

This year the phrase has been regularly utilised to describe two acts of grotesque violence: on the streets of Woolwich and a shopping mall in Nairobi.  Two incidents which were inexplicable to any balanced individual- we are unable to explain why anyone would be able to commit such acts of brutality.  What we cannot interpret or rationalise means that we have to resort to a default position as a realisation that something is “unknown” leaves us exposed and almost vulnerable.  Therefore we must have a bucket to effectively “scoop-up” and collect all these episodes which are otherwise impossible to fathom, an expression which we refer to as “evil”.

An abnormality of the mind like schizophrenia was identified barely a hundred years ago.  Prior to that medical breakthrough a schizophrenic was labelled as “evil” or “possessed” or even a “witch”. As an evolving society we continue to identify new medical conditions, it is very possible that in 2-300 years time a whole new selection of mental illnesses will be identified and treatable. 

It is not out of the question that many of those conditions will account for behaviour which today we are unable to diagnose so revert to a default position of classifying the unexplained as acts of evil. My ex’s brother was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic but in another lifetime he could have been drowned in a lake or worse.

I’ve highlighted previously about my own personal experiences of living through three murders at separate stages of my adult life and consequently debated endlessly the existence of evil.  I now think that for anyone to have the capacity to take another life only demonstrates that there is an imbalance within that individual.  It is an abnormality of the mind and as such they are ill.

We as a society may not have evolved enough yet to determine a medical condition with an elaborate name to quantify such a phenomenon, but I genuinely believe that someday it will be treatable.  And just like now, everybody will look back in history and wonder how so many could have got it so wrong.

I’m no doctor or psychiatrist.  It is just a theory based on personal experiences, but I can’t subscribe to this collective notion of a convenient category which classifies what we are unable to understand. 

Nottingham Carnival & The Carnival Tax

The longest British heatwave in seven years may be a distant memory as the unsettled spell of weather continues, but nonetheless we are of course in the middle of the summer season.  It is a period of the year which is illuminated by the festivals and carnivals which add so much character to the calendar.

I have written previously about my love of carnivals and the symbolic importance that it represents for so many including myself.  During the same piece I held up Nottingham as a shining example of defending the spirit of what carnival stands for by the decision taken in 2011 to become the first carnival to go ahead after a summer of civil unrest.  The carnival followed just days after a police station in the city was firebombed and I commended the decision as being both correct but also brave since other carnivals around the time were being cancelled.

Yet for the last five days I have been involved in a campaign of awareness regarding some quite extraordinary plans by organisers of the same carnival to introduce something truly revolutionary without any degree of public consultation whatsoever.  A concept which if successful will have ramifications for carnivals all over the UK and may one day lead to extortionate tariffs being imposed on events like the Notting Hill Carnival where such gatherings will become the preserve of an elite.

I am talking about plans for an admission fee being applied to the entry of the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival.  It is an idea I have dubbed as the “Carnival Tax”.

First let us assess the plans as they were unveiled on the 25^th July when the promotional posters were released to social networks on the same day.  The organisers have requested that attendees make a voluntary suggested contribution of £1 per day upon entry to the event.  This conjures up images of visits to museums where containers are placed within the grounds for patrons to submit contributions of their choice.  These are normally accompanied by a written instruction such as “suggested contribution £1” or other various amounts.  And the containers are usually transparent and are filled with various denominations including many banknotes far in excess of the suggested amount.  It is an indirect message that patrons should “give what they can” so that those who can afford more will contribute more and those who cannot will contribute what they can spare.

It’s a tranquil gentle image and we know it works because we have all seen those containers filled with all sorts of coins and banknotes.  However critically it is managed in a way so as to ensure that nobody feels that they are under duress to make a contribution.  There is no security guard within a few feet accompanied by police officers providing any kind of impression that they are in any way connected to the process of donations.  And most importantly of all the procedure is managed within the grounds of the museum and is not at the entry point nor could it be interpreted as being a condition of entry.

When most people heard about Nottingham Carnival’s plans for a suggested contribution of £1, the initial image many would have dreamt up would have been something broadly along the lines of the scene from the museum.  This would be the idea of patrons roaming freely into the grounds of the event and making a suitable contribution free from any pressure.  It all projects the same gentle operation which would suggest that any opposition would be completely irrational and unjustified.

Unfortunately this is simply not the case in terms of the plans that the organisers of Nottingham Carnival have lined up for next month.  I have had to press them on a number matters over the last few days, including a lengthy exchange of emails with the CEO Richard Renwick MBE but can now confirm that the romantic timid image of the example of museum contributions is a world away from what is being plotted.

Visitors to Nottingham Carnival will know that the event is staged on the Forest Fields in a section of the park which is cordoned off using tall metal temporary railings which serve as a fence.  Some observers have likened the image to “animals in a cage” and whilst I do share the sentiments, I do equally believe that it is a debate to have on a different day and most certainly as part of a different post. 

Entry to the event is solely through one point at the front of the cordoned off area.  It is a designated security point, manned by several security staff of a burly appearance, usually with a police officer or two nearby.  This is the only entry point to the grounds of the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival.

It can be quite an intimidating scene even for people like myself who always attend carnival with the essence of the spirit for which the festivities were designed for.  I have my flag, horns, whistle and vuvuzela ready for action, but even as I am ready to enjoy one of my favourite occasions in the calendar, it is an uncomfortable part of the carnival experience as security staff look you up and down, waiting for any excuse to scrutinise you further at the entry point where you are searched using various metal detectors.

It is this uncomfortable part of the carnival experience where the organisers of the Nottingham Carnival are seeking to enforce their voluntary suggested contribution.  I have requested that they relocate the collection zone to an area within the grounds of the carnival, so that it cannot in any way be misinterpreted as a condition of entry.  This request has been repeatedly declined on the grounds that they have attempted to make collections within the grounds before without any success.  I have countered that the previous collection campaigns lacked enough focus to inform the public who may not have realised just how much trouble the organisers of the event are in trying to put on the show every year.  This could easily be resolved with posters and leaflets emphasising the point, but again from within the grounds of the event itself.

Even the literature which has been produced for the event does not tally up with the message they are now scrambling to ensure is heard.  The poster does not make any reference at all to the contribution being voluntary or that it is suggested, simply that it is £1 on the day.  Oh and that kids go free.

There is little doubt in my mind that nobody from the organisation would be stupid enough to stop anyone attending the event if they failed to make a suitable donation at the point of entry.  Unfortunately there is a broader problem here which will potentially arise.  The process is managed in full view of intimidating security staff and police officers, not to mention a queue of people who are anxious to get beyond the other side of the perimeter fencing.  While the designated individuals managing the collections may not be naïve enough to prevent someone entering who did not want to make the contribution, they can still make the non-contributor’s life uncomfortable.

For example if someone did not wish (or indeed did not have) the necessary funds to cover the voluntary suggested contribution there is nothing to stop the organisers requesting the contribution from amplifying their voices to a higher decibel.   This would enable others in the queue behind to be left in no doubt that this person at the front of the queue was not paying the £1.  It could then lead to anxious queue members becoming frustrated, possibly calling out insults which are then echoed by others also keen to pass the entry point and enjoy the rest of the day.  Therefore it will have a knock-on effect as others in the queue who may also have lacked the funds to cover their contribution that day, will prefer not to be subjected to such ridicule or abuse and decide to leave the queue early to head home instead.

It is as someone described to me last week as a visual deterrent.  An almost covert strategy to prevent others who do not have the necessary voluntary suggested contribution from joining the queue in the first place.  Is it worth paying £1 to avoid the humiliation or abuse incurred by other members of the queue?  Is it not better to stay at home in order to ensure that exposure to such a situation is avoided?

What about if someone retaliates at the abuse they are subjected to?  What if a fight broke out at the entry point, in full view of police officers nearby?  Essentially the catalyst for such a flashpoint would be an apparent revolutionary idea which was implemented without any consideration for the implications it could lead to.  This in turn would damage the event as a whole because statistically the arrests would be connected to the event and would be used as ammunition by parties who are opposed to the annual festivities.

There is little doubt that Nottingham Carnival is in trouble and the amount of funding it has lost in recent years has been breathtaking.  There are severe funding issues at the core of this issue which serves as a motivation for the organisers to head down this road. However there are questions that they must in turn answer because recent actions do not reflect the responsible conduct of an organisation working under restrictions in funding.  We have all experienced the perils of the current economic depression which has engulfed this country for the past five years, so we all have experience of sacrificing luxuries in order to ensure necessities are managed.  It’s the old cliché of “working within your means”.

So why have the organisers of Nottingham Carnival responded to a reduction in funding by continuing to indulge in lavish “international acts”?  Artists which could be deemed to be extravagant, expensive and unnecessary.  Nobody could deny that the announcement that Ms Dynamite would be headlining one of the days at the event was met by near-universal approval.  But if there was any suggestion that Ms Dynamite attending would lead to such an unsavoury scenario many would have condemned such an idea unequivocally. 

It is a set of circumstances where Nottingham will make history as being the first UK carnival to charge patrons to attend, something which fills me with shame and embarrassment.  It is a fact which I highlighted to Mr. Renwick when I suggested that should his idea go ahead he might wish to contact the city council about their “Proud” campaign as such a pledge could no longer be accurate given the humiliation a lot of us will feel as residents of a city that has allowed such a travesty to go ahead.

Carnivals offer a unique experience.  Performing artists are seen more as a bonus to compliment proceedings instead of being the centrepiece of the annual celebration.  When I attended Preston and Huddersfield Carnivals earlier this summer, I was not enticed by seeing Beenie Man in Lancashire or Shy FX in West Yorkshire.  It would have been a nice surprise but it was not my motivation to attend.  I was attracted by the idea of the carnival atmosphere, in two cities that I had never visited before and provided me with enough happy memories to ensure that I will be returning to both next year too. Both were very simple events with less emphasis on huge headliners but both were delivered without the need to impose a tax levy on visitors.

When people attend festivals there is an expectation to see a superstar.  When I attended the recent Lovebox event in London I was excited by the prospect of seeing the 90s R&B legend D’Angelo.  If I had attended and found the stage was instead filled by Debbie from Dalston, I would have demanded my money back.  Thus my expectation is that the festivals will be full of established stars not “hidden gems”.

Amy Winehouse was one of the biggest artists that this country has ever produced but the story of her on the MasterMind stage in a Sainsbury’s car park in Notting Hill is one that is remembered fondly by all lucky enough to have been in attendance that day.  She was not paid a penny for her performance as at the time she was an unsigned act and was still very much a “rough diamond”.  Where are the opportunities to find the new Amy’s of Nottingham if the stages are filled with Ms Dynamite or Shy FX?  What about Stacey from Sneinton or Rachel from Radford?  This is where the true meaning of carnival has been lost amidst a ruthless strategy to turn Nottingham Carnival into some kind of festival which now charges attendees an admission fee.

I have lobbied the organisers and the CEO about having the name changed; if this farce must take place then at least they could change the name to festival.  Such an alteration may seem trivial or even cheap points scoring, but it is a highly significant amendment.  Festivals normally charge people to attend their events, in return for seeing popular headliner acts.  Carnivals do not, but equally they do not necessarily have “international acts” either.

The £1 Carnival Tax at Nottingham Carnival will not be sufficient to safeguard it's future. The 2013 event will purely be an experiment to see how many people will pay up.  Assuming enough do so, the price will almost certainly rise next year.  And the year after that.  In fact it will keep rising until the number of visitors tails off.  Ultimately it will lead to other carnivals around the UK also following suit.  Each using the current austerity measures as a smokescreen to more sinister motives.  Which will only eventually lead to the biggest of them all: Notting Hill Carnival.  Should that happen, the admission charge will be a lot more than £1.

At the time of writing the organisers behind the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival have been unwilling to offer any compromise on three crucial areas.  Firstly they have refused to cancel the £1 voluntary suggested contribution.  They have also refused to relocate the designated collection zone away from the entry point.  And finally they have refused to rename the event to a festival. 

I have asked that they give way on just one of the three areas, but this has been declined repeatedly.

Consequently I have started an awareness campaign under a slogan of boycotting the Nottingham Carnival.  This is something which has been deeply traumatic because of my own passion for carnivals as a whole and even more so because it is the carnival in the city that has been my home for eleven years.  It is a bizarre position I find myself in but one that I have sought to defend because as I have stated a lot over the past few days: this is far bigger than Nottingham.

This potentially affects carnivals all over the UK and if I do nothing then I am being complicit in a crime which will fundamentally change the events as we know them.  It will inevitably become a watershed moment in years to come and one day someone will tell me that they are unable to attend the Notting Hill Carnival because they cannot afford the £75 admission ticket.  As a result I will be forced to explain how I saw how it started and sat back and did nothing.  I can’t do that.  And if you care for the future of carnivals then neither can you.

Say no to the Carnival Tax.  On the 17^th & 18^th August boycott Nottingham Carnival.

Zoo's Fooling Who?

The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) stands on a platform of fighting for the right of return for Chagossians who were expelled from their islands.  It represents the largest number of Chagossians, a majority who reject the creation of the Marine Protection Area (MPA) in its existing form.

I explained to a supporter the other week that my own personal position is that I am against the MPA in all of its forms, at least prior to any resettlement of the Chagossians.  I believe that any future discussions around marine preservation should be led by Chagossians, to determine their own destiny.  If they want a marine zone, let them decide for themselves- from the Chagos Islands once they have resettled there.  I believe it is cataclysmically wrong to impose this upon the Chagossians who in all honesty have suffered enough.

It is for this reason that I personally argued so passionately at the beginning of 2010 against the zone being created.  I predicted that the area was being used as a mechanism to pre-empt the judicial action in Strasbourg.  Six months later I was vindicated when the release of the wikileaks cables confirmed that the creation of the zone was being used to place ecologists in direct conflict with Chagossians and their supporters.

Earlier this year I brought to public attention the activities of a minority movement within the Chagossian community who were being misrepresented as the voice of the majority.  As I stated at the time, it would be wrong to deny the Diego Garcian Society (DGS) a role to play in determining the future of the Chagos Islands, but that their contribution should be assessed on the basis that they represent the smallest number of Chagossians.

Similarly a campaign currently being promoted by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) to attempt to engage Chagossians in their vision of the future of the Chagos Islands, should not be silenced.  However it is critical again that there must not be a distortion of the current state of play.

The ZSL have made much of Chagossians participating in their series of events including a “family fun day” and it is noted that their campaign does emphasise this point quite explicitly.  The inference being that the Chagossians are endorsing the ZSL’s agenda.  For the avoidance of any doubt, the ZSL support the no-take fishing proposals and the MPA in its existing form which by definition means they are against a permanent resettlement of the Chagossian community on the islands.

There is no dispute that Chagossians have participated in several ZSL events or that some are seen to be supportive of their agenda.  It is just that to date the proportion of Chagossians who have engaged with the ZSL only represent a very small minority, something which is not underlined at all when the organisation highlights the presence of islanders at their functions.  Unfortunately this has created further confusion, coupled with a suggestion that the stance of organisations like the CRG has been damaged or undermined. 

This is not true.  The support for the position adopted by Olivier Bancoult is as strong as ever.  There have always been minority factions who have followed alternative paths, as outlined when I explained the existence of the DGS.  And it is right that different views and arguments should be recognised.  What is not right is for the situation to be manipulated or for inaccuracies to be allowed to fester unchallenged. 

The British Foreign Office has commenced a period of consultation as part of its commitment to “take stock” following last December’s highly contentious European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling in Strasbourg.  Supporters and Chagossians are invited to make their submissions before the 31st July 2013 to the BIOT Policy Review team who can be contacted here.

In 2010 we lost the argument not because a majority of Chagossians were in favour of marine preservation.  It was due to the ecological movement, thanks to a decisive financial advantage,  being able to convey their message more effectively.  Over 250,000 people supported the proposal to create an MPA around the Chagos Islands during the initial consultation.  This month it is up to supporters to ensure that the will of the majority of Chagossians is upheld instead of a minority who can utilise powerful allies.