RIP Kevin Headley, who died too young - like too many homeless people

Kevin Headley graduating from the FDGU journalism training programme at Groundswell/photo: Veronique Mistiaen

This is what I find most poignant:  Kevin, wearing his ubiquitous black hat,

looks straight at the camera. In his deep, quiet voice, he says: “Life expectancy for rough sleepers is probably between 42 and 47.”

Kevin was interviewed for a video during an awareness day at the homeless charity Groundswell.  People who have experienced homelessness, NGOs and members of the public had been invited to discuss how to improve public perception of homelessness and create engagement. As always, Kevin came armed with lots of statistics and strong arguments.

A few weeks later, he was dead. 

Kevin Headley, who sold the Big Issue outside Hackney Wick station in London for many years, died in hospital on May 5 after suffering a suspected heart attack. He was only 52. 

Homeless people die on average 30 years younger than the national average, according to a study by the homeless charity Crisis. These statistics are a terrible indictment of the way our society treats homeless people - and something that Kevin campaigned and worked hard to change.

I’ve met Kevin at Groundswell in September when I began training a dozen of people who were homeless or had experienced homelessness on how to be journalists.  The six-month project, called From The Ground Up (FDGU), is a collaboration between Groundswell and the Pavement, a pocket size magazine (and website) full of useful articles and resources for homeless people. The FDGU project is funded by Comic Relief.

FDGU’s aim is to equip “peer journalists” as Groundswell calls them with the tools they need to identify and report on issues important to them – issues often overlooked by the mainstream media.

The peer journalists had decided to report on shame experienced by homeless people and the impact it has on their health, well-being and ability to improve their situation. Kevin didn’t like that theme because he strongly felt that homeless people have nothing to be ashamed of and that it is society, which should be ashamed. And of course, he was right. The peer journalists also  wanted to talk about suicide, which is much higher among homeless people than among the general population. They’ve produced amazing work, which has been published in the Pavement in Jan/Feb 2018 and Marc/April 2018 and they keep contributing to the magazine.

During our workshops, Kevin would often sit on the side, hiding behind dark glasses. At first, I thought he might be dozing off, something not unusual as some peer journalists spend their nights on the streets or in noisy hostels and night shetlers. But there was always a mischievous smile on his lips and then, when feeling inspired, he would make a contribution – not always on topic, but always full of facts and interesting ideas. He had just been given his own page in the Pavement – the problem page, “done with a light and practical touch”, as Nicola Baird, the Pavement's editor described it.

He drew beautifully and loved working with artists and curating local art events and festivals.  He also worked as “health peer advocate" with Groundswell, helping people who are homeless access appropriate healthcare.

Kevin had so much to live for. He was dearly loved by so many and was full of projects and ideas. Let’s never think of Kevin as just another dreadful statistic. Homeless people shouldn’t have to die young. Homelessness is not inevitable.

The Women who Stopped the Nuclear Deal

Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakaka in front of the country’s only nuclear power station - Koeberg/Courtesy of the Goldman Environmental Prize

 

 

Two South African women, Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid, yesterday have won the Goldman Environmental Prize, the world’s largest award honouring grassroots environmental activists, for stopping their government’s massive secret nuclear deal with Russia – a deal that would have threatened the country’s health, environment and finances.

Their improbable victory against the powerful nuclear industry and South African government shows that, in McDaid’s words, ‘people can make a difference and that the country will not be sold to the highest bidder. It is a victory for democracy.'

I’ve met both women, who have been fighting injustice most of their lives, in London last week, while on their way to collect their award in San Francisco. Here is their story, which I have written for the New Internationalist.

Exposing corruption

In 2014, under the leadership of President Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s government made a secret deal with Russia to build eight to ten nuclear power stations throughout the country (currently the country has one station, operated by the state-owned electricity utility, Eskom). The $76 billion deal was unprecedented in scope and cost, and its terms assigned all liability for nuclear accidents to South Africa.

It looked like a done deal, but the two women stood in the way.

 ‘I work with women who don’t have access to electricity - they cannot afford to pay for it - so building a trillion rand nuclear power project with taxpayers’ money was never going to be the answer,’ said Lekalakala, 52, the director of the environmental organization Earthlife Africa.

Research has shown that nuclear is not needed for the country’s energy future, added McDaid, 55, climate change coordinator for Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), which had long advocated for renewable energy to address climate change and had taken a stance against South Africa’s nuclear industry.

The women started asking how the government was making decisions about the country’s energy needs, and when they started scrutinizing the processes, they uncovered unlawful activities. Earthlife Africa obtained a copy of the secret South African-Russian agreement, which they shared with the Mail & Guardian, who published it in February 2015. The newspaper investigation uncovered more corruption and misconduct.

Both women decided they had to act. ‘You just don’t roll over when wrongdoing happens: you fight,’ McDaid said.

So Lekalakala, who is from Johannesburg, and McDaid from Cape Town, pooled their shoestring budgets, resources of skill and constituency within their small environmental NGOs to create a formidable collaboration. Along with their organizations, they highlighted the health and environmental risks, and financial implications from this massive nuclear upscaling.

For more than two years, they woke up early every Wednesday to greet ministers with anti-nuclear banners as their shiny black cars approached Parliament. Sometimes, it was just McDaid in the rain, sometimes they were dozens of protestors. They also organized pickets in front of the department of environmental affairs and the state-owned energy company Eskom, as well as countless protests, rallies, public meetings and petitions.

Seeking a just energy future

In the process, they built a broad coalition of various interest groups: women’s groups, youth groups, civic society groups, organizations against corruption, religious groups, trade unions and businesses. ‘So many different people and so many different organizations got involved. They could relate to what we were doing, they could see the impact of the deal on their own lives,’ Lekalakala said.

‘It started with the environment, but now, it's a whole movement for a more just future: us standing up and holding our government accountable in a democracy. And the movement keeps growing,’ McDaid added.

Along with their organizations, the two women also took the Zuma government to court on the grounds that the deal had been kept secret and bypassed legal process, without any public consultation or parliamentary debate. For many people, the deal was emblematic of the lack of transparency and corruption in the Zuma government in which a few people benefited while the rest paid the price. ‘The nuclear deal was never about energy. It was about the greed of a few individuals,’ as McDaid puts it.

The court battle was fought over a year and a half. But on April 26, 2017, the Western Cape High Court ruled that the nuclear power project was unconstitutional, invalidating the agreement and stopping the nuclear programme. The landmark legal victory also means that any new nuclear deals for South Africa have to be disclosed and approved by Parliament.

‘When the judge made the announcement that we got everything we had asked for, I broke down in tears,’ remembered Lekalakala. ‘And I shouted right there in court, although I knew that you have to keep silent in court,’ added McDaid.

‘So many times we thought that the forces against us were too great. Our first court appearance got postponed and we were running against time. They attempted to block us, to wear us out, to make us run out of money (we did run our of money, but our legal team were amazing: they kept carrying on), but all this only made us more determined to fight,’ said McDaid.

Despite their huge victory, the women fear that the nuclear build could be resurrected once more funding becomes available. So they are continuing their campaign and are calling on the new South African government to remove the entire nuclear build development from its integrated energy plan.

Yet Lekalakala and McDaid are optimistic, believing that their campaign for a transition to a low carbon economy with a decentralized and socially-owned energy supply has never had a better chance of success. ‘The science and the economy are on our side,’ said Lekalakala. ‘The international community agreed that we have reached an unprecedented level of greenhouse gas, so we need to act quickly – there are alternatives to fossil fuels that are more beneficial for the planet and individuals. The world is changing. Everyone is pushing for renewable energy.’

 

 

Gina Lopez, maverick environment activist fights Philippines’ mining

Courtesy of Gina Lopez

-->

I felt so energized and inspired after interviewing Gina Lopez, the Philippines’ former environment minister, for this issue of New Internationalist.

She is both a philanthropist and an environmentalist - a fiery, fearless, maverick activist who is not afraid of fighting the Philippines' powerful mining industry.  She believes that protecting the environment and promoting social justice go hand in hand.

She is irreverent, funny, full of energy and always in action – rolling her sleeves, campaigning, cleaning slums, jumping into a river to make a point, climbing a rock – and giving ministers and industrialists a piece of her mind.

"Yes, mining creates a few jobs and perhaps a few schools, and a few people enrich themselves, but thousands suffer and water sources are polluted for generations afterward.  Mining is just greed and selfishness."

As a minister, she banned open-pit mines and moved to shut down more than half of the operations of the country’s mining companies, after audits showed massive violations against the environment and the law. It cost her her job.

She is not your typical environmental activist. The daughter of one of the country’s wealthiest families, she fled the Philippines in 1972 to avoid political persecution during the Marcos regime, but returned in 1986 after being educated in the US, becoming a yoga master, and then working with disadvantaged communities in Africa. She still meditates every day.

She uses her connections as a shield in a country that is one of the world most dangerous places to be an environmental activist. “My family owns the biggest media company, I don’t think someone would want to harm me. I am not afraid of anything,” she told me matter-of-factly.

“What is needed is not a shift in economic priorities - but a greater realization and awareness of the damage some economic activities (mining, logging, rampant quarrying) inflict not only on our economic potential, but on our well being as a people. What is needed is a total economic valuation (monetizing the costs, the benefits) of these activities and then asking the very pertinent question - is it worth it?"

Last year, she received the Seacology Prize, awarded to those showing exceptional achievement in preserving island environments and culture.

You can read my story in New Internationalist here.    

Prafulla Samantara: indigenous land rights' champion

Samantara with the Dongria Kondh/ Credit: Goldman Environmental Prize

 

 

Prafulla Samantara has been threatened, kidnapped and jailed trying to stop a huge mining project on sacred tribal land in Odisha, India.  But he is not afraid and, at 65, not ready to retire. ‘I will keep on fighting until my last breath. I cannot betray the people, the cause,’ he told me when I met him in London in late Spring.

The Indian social justice activist won the 2017 Goldman Environmental Prize  for Asia for his 12-year campaign to block the mine and for securing indigenous communities’ voting rights on such projects.

From a young age, he witnessed the impact of mining and industrial development on small farming communities and the growing inequalities between rich and poor. ‘I’ve seen working people and those at the bottom of society being exploited and suffering. Equality and justice became my guiding principles.’

Yet he recognizes that development is necessary, but not at all costs. ‘In India, 60 million people have been displaced over the last 60 years because of big projects such as mining and dams. Indigenous people are not consulted. They are marginalized, even though they are the owners and guardians of natural resources.’

Odisha, the eastern Indian state on the Bay of Bengal where he grew up, is known for its pristine forests, high mountain peaks and numerous rivers; but also for its vast reserve of minerals – almost a third of the state is under mining concessions.

The Odisha Mining Company had agreed a deal with London-based Vedanta Resources to gouge a $2 billion open-pit bauxite mine on the Dongria Kondh’s land without consulting them. 

‘The Dongria Kondh don’t believe in religion, but in nature. The Niyamgiri Hills are their gods. They get everything from them: their entire livelihood and their social and cultural identity. They believe it’s their duty to protect them at all cost.’ The mine would not only have destroyed their homeland, but also polluted water for millions downstream as far as the Bay of Bengal, and destroyed large areas of protected forests which are home to rare wildlife including elephants and the Bengal tiger. In anticipation of receiving the mining licences, Vedanta illegally annexed 148 acres of forest and bulldozed 12 villages.

You can read my article on Samantara for New Internationalist here.

International Roma Day - EU must end discrimination against Roma

A girl stands behind the foundations of a 2m-high wall separating her community from a non-Roma neighbourhood in Horea Street, Baia Mare, Romania, July 201/photo credits:Mugur Vărzariu

April 8 is International Roma Day – an occasion to celebrate Roma culture, but also to push European governments to guarantee basic rights to Roma.  The estimated six million Roma living in the European Union countries are one of Europe’s largest and most marginalized minorities. Across Europe, they are blatantly discriminated against and are victims of violent attacks while European Union’s governments are turning a blind eye and the EU is not forcing them to protect Roma.

To mark International Roma Day, Amnesty International is releasing a new briefing on discriminationagainst Roma. It says that Roma living in EU countries fall far below the national average on almost all human development indicators: disproportionately at risk of poverty, eviction and violent attack. Education levels are also far below average, only one out of seven young Roma adults has completed upper-secondary education. Education is actually segregated in the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovakia, a practice at odds with both national and EU laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

Forced evictions of Roma communities is regular practice in a range of European countries such as Romania, Italy, and France. Policies promoting or resulting in ethnic segregation of Romani communities have been also pursued.

More than 120 serious violent attacks against Roma occurred in Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria between January 2008 and July 2012, including shootings, stabbings and arson attacks. State authorities, including the police, have in many instances failed to prevent or thoroughly investigate these attacks.

More than a decade ago, in 2000, the EU adopted the Race Equality Directive that prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity in the workplace, in education, and in access to goods and services, housing and health care. As the EU’s executive body, the European Commission is empowered to act against EU member states when they fail to comply with EU law. However, so far this has never happened.

Amnesty’s briefing “Human Rights here. Roma Rights Now. A wake-up call for the European Union" insists that the EU take decisive action to tackle discrimination against Roma in Europe.

 “The EU must implement immediately the considerable measures at its disposal to sanction governments that are failing to tackle discrimination and violence against Roma. Such practices run counter to EU law and the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights it was founded on,” says AI Europe and Central Asia Programme Director John Dalhuisen

 “What we see is the Commission sanctioning countries on technical issues in areas of transport and taxation, for example, but failing to grapple with issues which are of vital importance to millions of people, such as forced evictions, segregation and hate-motivated attacks.

The Nobel Peace Prize winning EU has the power to end discriminatory practices that are rife in many of its member States. It must use these now.”

London riots – UK cannot just "arrest its way" out of the social breakdown.

The Government maintains that the riots, which spread through London and other cities two weeks ago,  “were not about poverty” – just mindless thugery.  But analysis of court-case data by the Guardian shows that most of the rioters were young, poor and unemployed.

A Liverpool University urban planning lecturer analyzed the Guardian’s data and found that the majority of the 1,300 people who have appeared in court so far live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41% of suspects living in one of the top 10% of most deprived places in the country. 

The findings are backed up the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), which looked at the relationship between different indicators of poverty and deprivation and the boroughs where violence and looting took place.


Researchers found that in almost all of the worst-affected areas, youth unemployment and child poverty were significantly higher than the national average while education attainment was significantly lower.

The report states: "While poverty is no excuse for criminality, it places additional pressure on families not only to make ends meet but also to spend time together … The political debate is likely to rage on for some time but there is also an urgent need to understand what is happening in communities where violence flared."

The country cannot just "arrest its way" out of the social breakdown.

But so far, all we have seen from the Government is a very punitive response.  Convicted rioters are being handed sentences that are on the average 25 per cent longer than normal ones – an average of 5 months for those charged with theft and handling stolen goods.  A mother of two was jailed for five months for receiving clothes stolen by a looter (she appealed) and kids posting messages inciting disorders of Facebook were handed a four-year sentence.  Have judges lost their minds?  

The Government instructed them to go hard on the rioters to set an example and deter further violence, and also because looting and similar offences are seen as more serious in the context of the riots.  This last argument is strange, considering that is it well known that people in groups do things they would never have done on their own.

I am not condoning the riots and I agree that rioters need to be punished, but these harsh, longer sentences will backfire. They will send hundreds of youngsters to already overcrowded prisons, where they’ll meet hardened criminals.  They will reinforce their views of a society that is unjust, biased, uncaring and punitive, and exacerbate heir feelings of alienation and resentment. 

Instead of handing them long prison sentences, wouldn’t it make more sense to ask the young people to clean up, repair and improve the neighborhoods they have trashed? 

And as a society, we need to address the causes of the riots; otherwise they will flare up again. 

 Ian Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is advocating just that.  Taking an opposite view from the “zero tolerance” of No 10, he declared that the country cannot just "arrest its way" out of the social breakdown.

Young people needed support to help them leave gangs in equal measure to the tough sanctions they should face if they refuse to give up a life of crime, he said in an article for the Guardian.

UK Riots - mindless thugs, but why?

Rioters in Liverpool/BBC

Like everyone else in England, I am trying to make sense of the mindless violence, arson and looting that have spread first across London, then to other cities throughout the country over the last four nights. Four people have died as a result of the mayhem.

Video footages show young men and women in hoodies torching local businesses and family houses, smashing windows, overturning cars, taunting terrified shop owners and residents, ransacking shops, drinking and laughing at the police, who were clearly out-numbered and overpowered.

The images are terrifying and unsettling – especially because the looting and violence are so brazen, and because many of the young people involved, some as young as 14 or 15, seem to have such a good time smashing up the place, like it is all a big joke.

Many didn’t even bother to cover their face. Some have even posted pictures on social networking sites, proudly showing off their haul.

Two girls who took part in Monday night's riots in Croydon, London, boasted on the BBC that they were showing police and "the rich" that "we can do what we want". 

Looters, Birmingham/AFP

 And that is what it looks like. In some areas, young people pillaged for hours before the police arrived. And when the police did arrive, they seemed powerless to do anything.  This new and unexpected feeling of having power and being in control must have been intoxicating to young people who are used to feel powerless. This acted as a catalyst for more violence. 

The devastating riots, which are still spreading across the country, first flared on Saturday after a peaceful protest in Tottenham, London, over the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan, 29, by police.

Commentators say the ensuing violence has nothing to do with the fatal shooting: the riots are not a social protest, but random opportunistic thuggery.

It is true that the riots don’t look like a social protest – the young people are not marching for a cause or rioting with a message; they seem to be looting, burning and smashing things up for the sake of it.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t a deep underlying cause.

The riots started in deprived London’s boroughs hit harder with unemployment. And the recent cuts in social and educational services and programmes have only made things worse. 

The gap between rich and poor is ever growing here. Britain is now one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. And many young people, especially Blacks and Asians, see the police as adversarial and biased.

Many of the rioters have no stake in conformity and feel they have nothing to lose.

"They have no career to think about. They are not 'us'. They live out there on the margins, enraged, disappointed, capable of doing some awful things," says Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs.