bali rai

2011-08-11T02:44:00.000-07:00

“Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.” Mohandas Gandhi

The reaction to this weeks rioting in cities around England has saddened me almost as much as the looting itself. From the very start I’ve heard both politicians and members of the public talking about “feral rats”, “chavs” and “scum” in relation to those who were out on the streets. Additionally, anyone who has attempted to introduce reason to the debate, by trying to discuss the social issues that have led to the disturbances, has been shouted down and accused of sympathising with criminal acts. Such over-simplification of what is a deep and underlying crisis for the country does not help. Indeed it will only make things worse and leave unsolved the problems that lead to such unrest. That ISN’T a defence of the people, young and old, who have committed these acts. I do not condone the burning and looting of homes and businesses and nor does any other sane person, yet I also cannot support the vicious, prejudicial and ugly reactions to the issue.

My first contention is with the nasty language being used to describe the youngest perpetrators. Many have used the phrase ‘uneducated’ as a baton to beat these rioters with. Lack of education, in a country where it is free, speaks of a failing in society. After all, whether we like it or not, these people ARE members of our communities. If some young people are badly educated it is because the system has let them down. Far too many “problem” pupils are thrown away by society, doomed to spend their time bouncing from exclusion to exclusion, or ending up in the prison system. Many of these pupils come from similar backgrounds too – the white underclass and the black community in particular, and no one has bothered with them until they began to burn things. Small-scale rampages and ghettoised violence have occurred for years in our inner city areas yet it has taken this awful level of unrest for our chattering classes to sit up and take notice. They didn’t care when they termed it as ‘black-on-black’ crime, white working class hooliganism, or British Asian cultural ghetto-ism, because it didn’t affect them directly. Now that it’s appeared on television screens and the Internet, they can see votes being lost and they’re choking on their canapés whilst wringing their hands, or calling for tanks to be deployed in the streets. Never mind that the actual violence is being suffered by ordinary law-abiding and hard working innocents, and not politicians and Newsnight presenters. Ignorance is a two-way street, and if the underclass is disrespectful of the law, we, as mainstream society, are equally disrespectful of the underclass.

In order to stem this tide, we must begin to ask why such young people fall out of the school system, and how we can ensure that they don’t. We need to work with parents, teachers and social workers, not castigate them, and reach out to these communities by LISTENING to them and addressing their grievances. Our governments are too willing to mess with the education system for ideological reasons. What they should be doing is truly concentrating on those who benefit the least from school. This is no easy thing to achieve, and such analysis should have started two decades ago, but we must try.

Furthermore, describing these people as “feral rats”, “animals” and “chavs”, or labelling an entire sub-section of society as ‘sick’, which David Cameron has done, is equally unproductive. It says more about the accusers than the accused. There is a basic tenet of sociology that the people using such foul language should learn. This self-fulfilling prophecy is at play on our streets everyday, and yet many of us continue to ignore or downplay its effects. You cannot encourage these rioters to stop and think about their actions by calling them names, and then complaining when they act up to those insults. Calling them sick will lead to more trouble, not less. These people are not participating in mainstream society and haven’t done so for a very, very long time. They are alienated and bored, have low self-worth, difficult family situations and awful prospects. Seduced by easy money and supposed glamour, they form gangs and/or turn to crime. They lack respect for institutions because they’ve never been shown any. They burn and loot because, for most of them, there is nothing to lose. If these people are failed members of our country, it is because WE, as society have failed them first.

You see, these young people weren’t born violent, disrespectful or greedy. Somewhere between the cradle and secondary school, they’ve managed to take on values that are opposite to the norms of the mainstream. Our job is not to vilify them but to understand why this has happened. For me, the answers lie in rampant materialism, in a culture of instant gratification, and in an economic and social climate that encourages “me first” attitudes. Everywhere our under classes turn, they see the “fruits” of selfishness and self-gratification, from politicians stealing taxpayers money in bogus expense claims to illegally conducted wars. They see the hypocrisy in asking them to bear the brunt of this economic downturn, when it was rich people, bankers and speculators, and politicians who created and then exacerbated the disaster. They watch overpaid footballers preening in expensive jewellery, driving supercars and complaining that they deserve a pay rise because sixty grand a week just isn’t enough. They see talentless morons make money from exposing their breasts or appearing on reality television shows. They see big businesses and rich individuals get away with tax evasion when the rest of us are chased mercilessly over pennies by comparison. They hear themselves described as ‘scroungers’ by morally bankrupt newspapers, whose owners reside overseas to avoid their responsibilities. It’s no surprise to me that some of the first shops looted were those offering high-end, expensive goods. These symbols of “success” are pushed like some kind of drug by the mainstream everyday, from Blackberrys to Blu-Ray players. The poor sit like animals in some unethical experiment, inside cages, with such rewards visible yet just out of reach.

Before the so-called “silent majority” start with their reactionary ‘I had nothing but I didn’t steal’ comebacks – a pause for thought. I am NOT condoning theft, not am I excusing such actions. I am simply saying that in order to solve a problem, we must first understand where it comes from. The reality is that we have created a small sub-stratum in society that does think it’s okay to simply take what they haven’t got. Arguing over the legal rights and wrongs will not change that; it will only impose more pressure on our prisons. Anyone wishing to understand why penal deterrents alone don’t work needs only to analyse inner city America to find the answer (ditto privatised schooling for the mainstream). The question that is being ignored here is this – how do we change this mindset? How do we change this culture?

Well, we don’t change it by allowing our politicians to take the moral high ground, because they don’t deserve such elevated standing. We don’t change it by claiming that an ethically bankrupt and failing economic system will bring prosperity to everyone, when a simple glance at modern history tells us otherwise. We won’t change it by calling the rioters names or ignoring the underlying problems that lead to their criminality. We have to understand that our society created these people as much as it created us. It’s no good to point fingers and claim that we know better and they don’t, or to moralise about how “evil” they are. We have to teach them know better. We need to provide the missing moral compass, to create the sense of belonging. We need to bring these people back into the mainstream by treating them as human beings and not punch bags on which all of society’s ills can be blamed. I wrote on Facebook that a fifteen year old stealing a telly is much less criminal than a banker or a businessman stealing millions in unwarranted bonuses or unpaid taxes. Those youths we saw on our televisions didn’t create our society and its norms. They didn’t bankrupt the country nor have they the power to do so. They don’t shape society, they are merely products of it. They are misguided and apathetic, disrespectful and unsympathetic. In that regard, they mirror society’s response to their own lives.

“A riot is the language of the unheard.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Killing Honour

2011-05-30T10:29:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the inspiration for stories comes not from the imagination but from a feeling. That is the case with my new novel ‘Killing Honour’ and the emotion in question is anger. It’s a story I had to write and it opens up a secretive issue to the wider British public. Honour-based violence (HBV) is a topic often ignored by the mainstream. The murders make the news of course but for the estimated seventeen thousand incidences of abuse that occur each year it’s another story. It’s often hard for British people to understand why such things happen. My aim was to counter this and explore the concept of honour itself.
The South Asian view of honour is complicated. Many apologists use religion to excuse such actions. Others point to cultural differences. Family reputations and the respect with which they are held in the wider community are major drivers for HBV. It is also driven by religious, social, cultural and even political differences. Often HBV can be sparked by the smallest and seemingly inconsequential of factors – wearing make-up, getting a haircut, and even talking to members of the opposite sex. It’s not just a South Asian thing either. HBV exists in communities all over the world.
Most victims are female which tells you everything you need to know, in my opinion. The excuses for HBV – whatever they may be – hide a simple truth. HBV is about men and their power over the women. It is about macho, paternalistic (and usually badly educated) fathers, husbands and brothers exercising brute force to keep their reputations intact. Men suffer HBV too but usually as a consequence of their interaction with someone else’s sister or daughter. It is women, young and old, who bear the brunt of these horrendous actions.
My family is descended from Punjabi farmers in the north of India. The vast majority would call themselves Sikh and most are peaceful and find the thought of HBV abhorrent. However incidences of HBV are not rare in sections of my extended family. There are at least three cases that I can recall instantly, one of which led to suicide. That’s without mentioning the number of females who’ve had to give up their independence. Teenage girls who’ve been banned from talking to teenage boys and wives banned from wearing ‘western’ clothing. Cousins who’ve left home because of the “shame” of unwanted pregnancy, or aunts that suffered years of abuse from Indian-born partners.
Since my teenage years I’ve reacted with anger at the hypocrisy of so-called ‘Sikh’ men who have no understanding of that religion. The Sikh religion neither advocates nor condones HBV, something I wanted to make clear in my novel. The issue is driven by outdated customs that have no place in British society. Customs that should have been left back in the rural Punjab, and even there, should never have been allowed to fester. I have never seen the ‘honour’ in these vile actions and I never will. There is no honour in beating your sister or your wife because they happen to live by a different moral code to your own. My story challenges those who condone such things or choose to ignore their existence, as a large section of the British Asian population do.
In many ways Sat’s journey through ‘Killing Honour’ is driven by my own feelings. From the moment he hears of his sister’s supposed affair through to his confrontation with his own family, his thoughts and actions are based on my own emotions. He continually questions the views of his father and brother, failing to understand how they can disown his sister on the word of someone she is married to. He rages against their concept of ‘honour’, their concerns over what the wider community might say, and becomes an outcast in his own home. These strong emotions drive the story and they come from inside me. They give the story energy and the main character a passion that I hope will encourage readers to question HBV and our response to it as a society. I did worry that Sat was far too much like me and that his anger might put readers off but not anymore. That strong emotion is what makes this story and I’m very happy about that.

Why I’m supporting Sikhs Against the EDL.

2011-04-05T01:23:00.000-07:00

On being asked, I jumped at the chance to back Sikhs Against The EDL. I have spent a large part of my life opposing racism and prejudice and the English Defence League represent everything I stand against. However the fact that we need a Sikh group to oppose the EDL highlights an issue which very few have dared to raise before – the inter-ethnic religious and racial prejudice that exists in sections of the British Asian community in Britain.
I was born in 1971, a time when the British Movement and others were hunting ethnic minorities on the streets of Britain. Back then the different religious and racial groups banded together, to protect each other from the threat. I’m sure there were some problems, but on the whole it was a collective effort. That’s why I grew up with friends from every racial and faith background around. There was no divide in the British Asian community between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims – to the skinheads we were all “paki’s” anyway. People shared the bad experiences with the good and at school and on the streets we lived together.
So when I saw Guramit Singh was involved with a racist, far right organisation, and that he excused his support for them by lying about the Sikh faith, my blood boiled. Let me make clear right now that I do not profess to be a true Sikh. I come from a Sikh family and my mother is a devout follower but I am not. Like many other British Punjabi’s I attend the gurdwara but don’t wear the turban or follow the dietary rules. To call myself a Sikh would be hypocritical. That DOESN’T mean that I disrespect the religion. Nor does it negate my views on the subject. I understand Sikhism and I know that it is a religion built on peace and unity amongst ALL of humankind. Guramit Singh does not understand this.
However he is not the only one. Too many people from my background use Sikhism to excuse nasty prejudices towards Muslims in Britain. They misrepresent what happened during partition to serve their own ends or misquote sections of Sikh teachings to claim that Sikhs have always been at war with Muslims. Or they sit in pubs, wearing the khanda and the kara, whilst they down their pints and talk rubbish. They are happy to stir up trouble because, like Guramit Singh and the EDL, it suits them to do so. This is exactly how the racists, the fascists, the xenophobes and the neo-Nazi’s win. By dividing to rule. It is the tactic that the imperial powers used to great effect across the world, turning people against each other, whilst their armies took control of the resources and enslaved the locals. This is NOT the way of the Guru’s. It is the OPPOSITE of the moral code by which a Sikh should live.
I believe in peace. I believe in the unity of all humankind. I believe that it is wrong to target minorities. The EDL do not want peace. They want the other ethnic minorities to turn against Muslims. This suits them because they can get what they want - one minority at a time. Their true aim is the removal of ALL minorities from the UK. They won’t stop at Muslims. Give them the chance and they’ll turn on Sikhs, Jews, blacks, and gays – anyone they don’t like. This is exactly how Hitler won power and we can learn a great deal from history.
Instead of turning against Muslims we must do all that we can to stand with the silent, peaceful majority against extremists from all sides. I don’t intend to shy away from the problems the Muslim community faces, with its youth being corrupted by a small section of lunatic’s intent on war and destruction. But to tar every Muslim with the brush of extremism is dangerous and wrong. Islam, in its true form, is a religion that has given so much to the world. Islamic scholars have made major advances in medicine, astronomy, science and architecture across the centuries. The strong links between Islam and Sikhism and between the Mughal emperors and the Sikh Guru’s are well documented. The holiest site of Sikhs, the Golden Temple of Amritsar, had its foundation stone laid by a Muslim. All of these things should show every Sikh or their descendent that supporting the EDL stands against the teachings of the Sikh faith.
It is not only Islam that suffers from people rewriting its message to suit their political ends. For many years I have despaired at the various sants and baba-ji’s who failed to listen to the words of Guru Gobind Ji and claim that they are new spiritual leaders for Sikhs. The last remaining Guru is the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. It is the ONLY leader of Sikhs – the eternal Guru, if you like. Yet everywhere from Canada to the Punjab, men stand up and claim the status of saints whilst turning one Sikh against another. That is exactly what has happened to the Holy Qur’an too. Hijacked by fascist warmongers who know nothing of their faith but use it to defend their actions. After all a true Muslim would know that they cannot commit suicide and enter into Paradise. We must stand together against the EDL and other extremists – united as one race – the HUMAN race, whichever God we choose to follow – or not - as the case may be.
A friend of mine had a T-shirt with the symbols of every major world religion printed on it. Underneath the symbols it read ‘God is too big for just one religion.’ It is a thought that people like Guramit Singh would do well to consider. It is a fundamental teaching of the Sikh faith and serves to express fully my views on all religions.

Leave it to the experts, Mr Gove.

2011-03-22T09:50:00.001-07:00

STOP THE PRESS! Politician talks rubbish about reading and literacy in the UK. Michael Gove wants all pupils to read 50 books a year. That would a laudable vision if it wasn't so damned laughable.

Firstly, in order to promote a reading culture we MUST entrench the need for a library and at least one dedicated librarian in every school. You would think that this is an obvious goal but it isn't. Too many school are sacking librarians, cutting working hours, removing books for technology or simply downgrading the BOOK part of libraries to almost nothing. It should be IMPOSSIBLE to open any institute of learning without putting a library at it's core but that's not the case in the UK. Too many schools place the library at the bottom of educational priorities - idiotic when all the evidence points to reading for pleasure as a fundamental stepping stone to success. What is Mr Gove doing about this? As far as I can tell - nothing.

Secondly, he calls for a panel of well-known authors to decide which 50 books pupils should read. Authors - not TEACHERS or LIBRARIANS or EDUCATIONAL EXPERTS. I'm suitably chuffed that Mr Gove thinks I know know more about teaching English than a teacher but he is absolutely wrong. What the HELL do I know? I write books and I know what I like to read, and yes, I spend a large part of my time working with young people, encouraging them to read or showing them how to write stories. But give a classroom of teens to be taught about grammar and I'm stuffed. Ask me to explain the craft of poetry and I'm finished. If any group is going to decide which 50 books should be read, it MUST be a group of EXPERTS. That means the people who work with the pupils week in, week out. It should NOT be the sole preserve of 'well-known' authors. I mean who decides WHICH authors and what if they pick as equally underwhelming a list as the Millennium Collection - books that most schools couldn't even give away. And why just books? Why not include poetry, comics, graphic novels, newspapers, magazines etc... After all, as most experts will tell you, reading is reading. No really, it is.

And finally we come to the amount of books. Where did he get this figure from? Did he sit and consult teachers and ask them whether it was a feasible number? I bloody well doubt it. I've been an avid reader since the age of seven - and despite my busy lifestyle, I manage at least one novel a week. But then I'm not 15 and doing GCSE coursework or revising. I'm not a 13yr old lad from a deprived background whose parent's don't work, don't read or both. Yes, I know that the pupils who can't afford 50 books a year can borrow them for free from their school/local library - but then this takes us back to my first point. If you want people to use school and local libraries stop cutting their funding or closing them down. You'll find that people are far more likely to use their local library if it actually EXISTS.

I'm all for the promotion of reading for pleasure. Anyone who knows me can see that I'm passionate about the subject. However I'm NOT a fan of politicians who mouth-off about subjects they either don't understand or are completely ignorant of. Mr Gove needs to talk to his mate, Mr Osborne. Money for school libraries, librarians and books MUST be ring-fenced and schools FORCED to spend it. NO school should be allowed to exist unless it has a well-stocked library and a librarian at its heart. Money for local libraries, librarians and books MUST be ring-fenced too and the shameful closures of libraries reversed immediately. Fantastic schemes such as Bookstart and Booked-Up must be continued. Primary school pupils should be encouraged to read WHOLE books, not little extracts, and instead of SATS, perhaps we could let them have an extra reading hour each day instead, perhaps let them write stories too - all the childish things that children that age SHOULD be doing. I'm sure that teachers and other experts can come up with many more things that SHOULD be done. But neither they nor I hold the purse strings. If Mr Gove really wants a literate, well read and forward-thinking nation, he needs to stop his mates from cutting spending on libraries etc...and put that money where his mouth is. If he's really serious, that is. I'm not holding my breath.

Cameron's Cowardly Words.

2011-02-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

Spending a week working in Bangkok has prevented me from venting my anger at David Cameron's attack on multiculturalism in the UK. For those of you sick of the arguments - sorry - but it has to be done.

Firstly - I and many others have been challenging the cosy assumptions about multicultural Britain for many years now. For my part, I have spent the last DECADE giving talks across Europe about the problems with state policy regarding immigrants and their integration here in the UK. For far too long policy has been about emphasising DIFFERENCE, when the reality of being born into and growing up in multicultural communities is about realising that we are all the same. When me and my mates were kids in the 1970's we didn't see differences. We just saw people. We grew up learning how different groups celebrated festivals, about the food they ate and the languages they spoke. But those of us born in the UK, as second or third generations, had one major thing in common - we were all British, living on British streets and going to British schools. I resent that someone like Cameron - a man who wouldn't know the REAL Britain of it smacked him in his pompous chops - can talk about people like me and be so dismissive of our upbringing and what we contribute to this country. The man has NO IDEA what he's talking about and no amount of employing a 'yes' woman in the shape of Baroness Warsi will help either. Cameron's entire argument is based on lazy assumptions about what multiculturalism is and on the idea that every single Muslim in the UK thinks and acts in the same way - a very dangerous myth to perpetuate in an ever-increasingly intolerant time. And to talk of Islamic extremism without condemning too the extremism which comes from neo-Nazi and far right groups such as the English Defence League smacks of a political agenda. Cameron claims to be an intelligent and compassionate man - a new Tory. His speech gave the lie to both those claims. Here was the old Nasty party in full swing - pandering to Daily Mail readers and racists alike - whilst deflecting anger and disillusion away from their unnecessary and ideology-driven spending cuts. Divide and rule at its most virulent.

Secondly, Cameron assumes that the BME community isn't doing its best to combat the prejudice, illiberalism and small amount of extremism amongst its own. That is a complete and utter falsehood and Bullingdon Dave should hang his neatly-coiffed head in shame. From honour-based violence to forced marriages and beyond, there are countless groups around the UK who ARE doing something. Not talking to self-appointed community leaders like the last government (or issuing blanket statements filled with ignorant prejudice like this one) but actually out there working with youngsters and their families alike. These are people who WALK the WALK, and do it on a daily basis, for the good of the UK as a whole. Yet Cameron, after claiming that more needs to be done, will be cutting the funding of many of these groups who really DO make a difference. Buffoonery that Boris would be proud of. If the Lib-Con government REALLY cares it should take steps today to close the faith schools which divide our children at an early age and discourage integration. It should set-up learning centres for newly-arrived immigrants and HELP them to learn english. It should combat the hatred and lies being spread by the EDL and the BNP, as much as it combats other extremism. It should rewrite our immigration policy and be honest about our NEED for immigrants, as well as being tough on those who break the rules. Pandering to the myths of racists is NOT the way forward and if Cameron thinks that his speech is helping matters, he is sadly mistaken. His words will act as a spark for racist thugs and for those who mutter like lobotomised apes about political correctness "gone mad". The UK today is becoming increasingly LESS tolerant - we only need to watch an episode of Top Gear or to consider, seriously, the xenophobic and/or sexist stereotypes that masquerade as "comedy" on Little Britain and Come Fly With Me (or watch their effect in school corridors and playgrounds) to see that. At such a time we need strong, fair leadership. What we have, however, is far from that. Cameron's words, in picking on an already-embattled minority, stink of cowardice and opportunism. There are MANY issues to be addressed in multicultural Britain but not like this. And not by people who do not understand the communities that they are so quick to denounce.

2010-10-04T03:13:00.000-07:00

I often get asked about self-censorship when it comes to writing fiction for teenagers, and last week it happened again. It got me thinking about about my second novel for Random House - 'The Crew'. I remember a Radio Five discussion when the book was published, during which an adult reviewer claimed that it would corrupt young people. She also called it 'offensive' because it featured drugs, guns and prostitutes. The adult 'hero' of the book was Nanny- a weed-smoking Rastafarian. The reviewer told me that she would never let her 'children' (aged 16 and 17) read such a book. For a moment I thought that I'd gone too far. Perhaps I should have considered such sensibilities and self-censored. Then I began to laugh. There is absolutely no place for censorship in young adult fiction, I replied.

I grew up reading classic children's literature. I remember being a child, lost in Narnia and, at first, egging on the Famous Five. However, as I got older, I longed to read about real issues too. I wanted books that reflected the life I had, and featured characters I could relate to. Yet whenever I read stories that included ethnic characters they were like cardboard cutouts, painted black or brown, but not in any way authentic or believable. Everyone spoke like public school kids and there were always happy endings. And no teenager ever swore, anywhere. Where was the reality in this seemingly endless parade of happy lives and fluffy bunnies? Eventually, I grew so tired of reading about the same old middle class kids, from the same old backgrounds, that I stopped reading young people's books altogether.

Now, I write for young people, and have done for a decade. My primary motivation when I started was to rectify the imbalance I'd seen as a teenager, and that still applies ten years on. Mostly I choose to write about youngsters from inner city backgrounds, where issues such as drugs, crime and lack of wealth are part of the landscape. I also write about being British and Asian, trying to reflect that sub-culture, warts and all. Often this means that I use words or describe situations that some people find offensive. But that's their problem, not mine. Writing about non-white youngsters DOES stop me from selling as many books as I might - but that's another debate entirely.

I strongly believe that books for young people should encompass a wide range of subjects and that NOTHING is taboo. To say otherwise is not only patronising but detrimental to the quality of writing available for young people to read. Serious writing about 'issues' MUST act as a counterweight to wizards and vampires. The very phrase 'issue novel' must be rescued from the doldrums and held aloft with pride. For, if we lose the 'issue novel', we lose any writing about anyone outside the comfortable, white middle-class, mainstream. That's not to denigrate fantasy novels or condemn white, middle class people - it's not about that. It's about trying to provide young adult readers with books they want to read. To limit the open and expanding minds of our youngsters with comfortable, inoffensive, unchallenging stories is to do them a great disservice.

Our inner cities are woefully under-represented in literature, even today. In fact, during times of economic doubt, they are represented even less than usual. Why publish a gritty urban story that explores Britishness when you'll make more money with yet another series about vampires? The vast majority of books are written and published by the middle classes. It is they who, on the whole, consume them. No wonder, then, that so many inner city youngsters find reading so uninspiring. If we are serious about getting our young people, ALL of them, to read, we MUST have literature that reflects ALL of society. So many people have asked why youngsters, particularly boys from deprived backgrounds (of whatever racial heritage), don't read. For me, the answer is simple. It's because the books available aren't aimed at them. They don't reflect their lives or their aspirations. They don't even accurately reflect the way young people talk to each other. And I'm not guessing here. A decade of working in schools across the UK, talking to young people, make me somewhat of an authority. The fact that I come from the very backgrounds that I'm discussing here also helps. After all - as a BME male from a deprived background, I am one of the RARE success stories when it comes to literature and that's just not good enough. Not by half.

Young people also dislike being told what they should read, or not read, to get back to the main point. Yet there are those who would try to dictate such things. Parents who fall for the lie that a book can corrupt someone. Publishers, authors and booksellers who attempt to censor what teenagers have access to (in the internet age where everything is available within seconds), yet also tell young people that reading is important and a good thing to do. I once read a fellow children's and young adult author claim that it was up to writers like her "to defend the morality" of young people from "filth" such as Melvin Burgess' book 'Doing It'. She was wrong, just like the bookshops, parents and publishers who censor, are wrong. Some novels may well offend their sensibilities or morals, but so what? Are their morals the only ones that matter? And since when was morality a uniform thing anyway? There is not one teenage morality just as their isn't a singular adult morality. And no SANE person has ever read a book (or listened to Marilyn Manson) and been corrupted.

As authors, we have the right to choose controversial issues. I believe that our readers too, adult or young adult, have the right to choose what they read. And for us to encourage 'readers for life' we must encourage literature that is more diverse, more challenging and more representative of the lives of our readers. We must challenge the complacency of a predominantly middle class publishing world. And if that means that my characters smoke weed, have sex and say the occasional 'fuck', then so be it. I don't tackle such things to be controversial. I do it because i want to be as honest as possible about my characters. If i offend people along the way, that's fine too. It's not like getting stabbed is it? They'll get over it.

Faith Schools – Divisive and Unnecessary.

2010-07-05T11:06:00.000-07:00

In the multi-faith, multicultural Britain of 2010, something is wrong when we feel the need to separate our children on lines of religion and call it progress. Yet this is exactly what we are doing with the proliferation of faith schools. There are over seven thousand such schools in this country, the vast majority of them Christian, and the rest covering almost every other major faith group. I believe these institutions to be divisive, unnecessary, and long for the day that religion has NO part to play in education.

My old school was a bog standard comprehensive with pupils from any background you would care to mention. A real melting pot – and all of us, whether affluent or poor, Muslim or Christian or whatever religion, were thrown in together. We didn’t learn about other faiths from text books and religious studies. Most of what we learned came from direct interaction with people from different backgrounds. Our teachers weren’t the ones who showed us how to be tolerant. We got our social education from talking to others, being around them. By socialising with pupils of all faiths, we learned about their customs, their morals and their festivals. That, as far as I’m concerned, is as important a part of education as the national curriculum. Moreover, and regardless of the claims of those who support faith schools, such social education cannot occur in a classroom that is mono-faith.

What we need to look at is why certain pupils underachieve and others do so well. Why some people view university as a birthright and others fall at the entrance because the cost is too high. The inequality in our education system (and wider society) is the real national disgrace. I should know. Each year I visit large numbers of schools and speak to many pupils and teachers. These schools are mostly normal, secular comprehensives, in many cases are poorly funded and often falling apart. Yet these are also some of the most vibrant and dynamic places that I visit. Time and again I meet working class and deprived pupils who are bright and enthusiastic and willing to learn. Given a level playing field, such pupils would excel. Yet that equality of opportunity is more than just a myth. It is a lie.

To truly promote a tolerant society, we should be backing our multi-faith schools. We should be making sure that every school has the right funding. That every child gets the same education, regardless of background. And we should put religion back where it belongs. In the hearts and homes and temples of believers. The personal sphere. Faith is individual. Education should equal and universal. It should also be free, but that is another debate entirely.

End Child Detention Now.

2010-04-08T07:47:00.000-07:00

Imagine a country where innocent children, some barely toddlers, go to jail for the supposed crimes of their parents. Imagine that these same children suffer from nightmares, sleepless nights, mental and physical illness and injury. You do not need to go imagine too much. It is not some Taliban stronghold or the return of the Nazis. The country in question is ours.

Save The Children and other concerned groups, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, agree that an estimated two thousand children go to jail each year, simply because they are the children of asylum seekers. Whatever the issues and arguments about asylum and immigration, is it justifiable, legally and morally, to lock-up children who are sometimes barely toddlers. Well I do not think so and nor do the organisations set up to protect children and their well-being.

The children involved have no right to appeal and no recourse to legal action. They suffer from bed-wetting, depression, anxiety, various injuries and illnesses, eating disorders and many other problems. Doctors tell us that such problems are long-term in many cases. These children are taken during surprise raids, ripped away from their normal lives. Often they are detained, released and then snatched again. Such action is in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yet nothing stops it.

In fact, the UK is the only country in Europe to practice this barbaric system. Even the Australian government, for years the subject of campaigns over its detention methods, has stopped jailing children. Yet we continue. The UK’s health professionals and childcare experts are united in their condemnation. And if they are protesting, we have to listen. After all, it is their duty to help keep children safe from harm - all children, regardless of their origin.

There are many alternatives to locking up the kids of asylum seekers and failed immigrants. In the rest of Europe, families stay together. There are open centres and special housing units for mothers and small children. They get access to education and social facilities. These are humane practices. What we do in the UK is far from humane however.

The shocking and brutal act of locking up children is unacceptable. To take the poor, frightened and needy and to criminalise them, to subject them to such terror, is nothing short of child abuse. It is a clear contravention of legal and moral duties. Yet where are the protests?

Are we the British people really willing to excuse this abuse simply because it happens to the children of ‘outsiders’? Child detention is a shameful and inhuman policy, accepted only in the worst of illiberal regimes. It is NOT acceptable in the UK and must stop now.

new account

2010-03-30T15:25:00.000-07:00

after hearing about the value of blogging from Rhiannon Lassister and Mary Hoffman at the CWIG meeting, I decided to create an account. This is just a quick tester - first real blog to follow asap. Thanks to Rhiannon and Mary for the inspiration.