Driving To The Brink

It’s probably a fair assumption that even in Britain there remains some low-level of gender discrimination, a mark of a bygone era of patriarchies. More often than not, this continues to manifest itself in various forms of slanderous remarks, wittingly made acceptable by terming it a joke. Perhaps most prevalent amongst these ‘joking’ insults is the seemingly innocent observation that “women drivers can’t drive”.

Yet, there are places where this same phrase is taken more literally: women in Saudi Arabia are actually banned from driving as part of the law. And a law that seems without any reason to support it, with the King of Saudi Arabia repeatedly professing that “there will come a time for the law to change.”

Women of the state appear to have gotten bored with the deliberation over when to lift the ban. Today, females staged a mass protest in its most demonstrative form: those that held an international licence were urged to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive.

Punishment for the offence is more sever than a Westerner might anticipate. Violaters are subject to a wide range of possible outcomes, from prison sentences to public lashings. More, these women are often subject to suffer the wider implications for their actions: they can lose their jobs, receive hate mail, threats online and lose their friends. Simply for taking control.

Imagine having to find a dependent to ferry you everywhere all the time. Not exactly the violation of human rights that is foregrounded by most, but a slight on freedom none the less.

Yet, I find myself wondering whether it is not a slightly hypocritical view for the West to suddenly be outraged by actions that these very countries condoned just 150 years ago (and even more recently). The ban reads to me as though a draconian, Victorian measure: and after all the Victorian era was the golden era of modern enlightenment. Perhaps this discrepancy in gender equality is something that each region and country must contend itself with in order to reach a cosmopolitan attitude.

Of course, the reasons to leave all laws as they are strike a reader immediately. Saudi Arabia is in the centre of a hot bed of political unrest and uncertainty. The Middle East has this past year ignited with uprisings and revolts that have marred the region with destruction and death. In a country that remains prosperous and with relatively low crime, there is no sense in disrupting the current politics in case it proffers the spark for wider social revolutions. Besides, a large enough proportion of the population seem so acceptant of the driving ban that their instant reaction is to shun those who make a stand.

Indeed, the powerful Shura Council have widely promoted a highly propaganda based study on the effect of women driving in society and claim that any licence for women to get behind the wheel is a full throttle approach to an increase in divorce, prostitution, drug abuse and child baring out of wedlock. How should the women make themselves heard against such controversial views?

A starting block would be ensuring the incoming choice to vote: 2015 set to be the year in which women are included in the voting system for the first time. King Abdullah, at 87, may not live to see such an event however, and there are worries that any possible successor may revoke the right.

The worry is that anarchy can come from the smallest of changes in one of the most volatile areas of the planet at the moment. Yet surely this fevour for activism is more likely should changes not present themselves as in the offing? It will only be a certain amount of time before neighbouring action causes enough friction to instigate action, and that would bring about the very scenario the government are trying to avoid.

Whilst Saudi Arabia is not a Western country, and does not want to be perceived as adhering to Western norms or culture, some lenience may be the only way to ensure a continued peace and stable state.

The Full Food Picture

If the worldwide events of the last 18 months in particular have taught us anything, it is that social media should no longer be under-estimated as a medium of leverage and influence. From the Egyptian revolution, to the London riots, to the continuing Greek debt crisis, the internet sphere of communication is sure to pioneer social revolutions from here on out.

This idea is evidenced as one youngster’s blog is banned in Scotland, with the effect that the already popular NeverSeconds site has become an overnight sensation and many have rallied behind the posts.

The premise behind the blog is a primary school child taking pictures of her school dinners each lunchtime, uploading them to her blog alongside health ratings, mouthfuls, pricing and other details about the meal.

In the past month, the blog has managed to secure support and interest around the world, young Martha – known online as ‘Veg’ – has been inundated with images of school meals from across the world, with those who forward photos applying the blog’s standards of information about each meal.

Such an easy concept, the blog has not only risen to prominence on the internet, but has caught the attention of important chefs, such as Jamie Oliver.

Yet, the Argyll and Bute council banned the youngster from uploaded pictures of the school food to her blog following a local newspaper article on the site with the headline “Time to fire the dinner ladies”. The council issued a statement in which it explained that since coverage of the blog had raised issues and concern for the jobs of catering staff at the school, a decision had been made to stop photos being taken. In addition it suggested that “The photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils”.

Controversially banning the blog has sparked an internet wide rally to arms to lift the ban on Martha’s blog, which not only worked, but has generated many tens of thousands of pounds for Martha’s chosen charity, Mary’s meals. The amount raised at the time of writing is in excess of £30,000, up from just £2,000 (a mean feat for a primary school child) on Thursday.

Banning the blog appears to have been a rash and ill-considered decision by council officials. Whilst their claim that the subjective opinions of Martha have caused concern and worry to the staff need be considered, the child and her father had previously sought permission to start up the blog, which the school granted. Withdrawing that right only seems to spark concern over the quality of food on offer all the more, as if the catering companies and canteen staff have something to hide (Martha never found any hair in her food at least!).

Over the course of the blog, the quality of the food that Martha has photographed appears to gradually be improving, which suggests that the school were considering the impacts of the site and changing their services for the better – a move to be commended if anything.

Moreover, it appears to me that the council have failed to capitalise on a unique opportunity of cultural exchange. The blog, receiving international hits and interest from youth to adults alike, could have promised to be the hub of a revolutionary scheme for school meal exchanges. With interesting dishes from Taiwan to Finland uploaded, schools nationwide could have used the blog as a sharing centre to encourage children to try and sample foods from across the globe, teaching about different cultures, healthy food choices and why diets differ to accommodate lifestyles worldwide. In addition, Martha’s blog could have been used as a social tool, allowing users and researchers the opportunity to investigate foodstuffs available to different parts of the world.

A Mary's Meals spokesman said: "We are overwhelmed by the huge response to her efforts today which has led to so many more people donating to her online donation page.

"Thanks to this fantastic support, Martha has now raised enough money to build a kitchen in Malawi for children receiving Mary's Meals as part of our Sponsor A School initiative and has broken the record for hitting a Sponsor A School online fundraising target in the quickest amount of time".

Freedom of opinion and speech needs to be extended to the internet, and it strikes me that this was a grave infringement on the very purpose of the expressionist mode of the blog. Fortunately, in this case, the block backfired and promoted further visits to the site in question; but should the internet become a zone of censorship, there could be grave implications for freedom of expression.

In this case, the collective communities of blogs, Twitter, Facebook and social medias used the arsenal at their disposal to repeal the ban and this is testament to the way in which these domains are becoming more integrated into society not only as a record of our lives, but a historical record of our times, our generation and the momentous occasions to which we bear witness. 

Jewel in the Crown

This weekend sees the country celebrate the rare occasion of a monarch reigning for 60 years, with Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee.

Events to mark the historic moment have been held nationwide, and it is difficult to escape from the bombardment of programmes across the television and radio that proffer discussion and debate on the past six decades.

Similar to the glorious era that saw Queen Victoria on the throne, the Queen’s reign has seen revolutions in lifestyle, communication, opinions, fashions, economy, politics, society and any other aspect of life that one might care to mention.

However, whilst Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmother was a respected symbol of power worldwide, with Britain at the height of her Empire, our Queen does not appear to command the same sentiments from her peoples in this country, somewhat a figurehead of a bygone age.

Yes, congratulations to the Queen for being born of the right family and living for a very long time afterwards some might scoff. Well done on following up an ancient institution of praising a single figure sent from God in an increasingly agnostic populous. Kudos on ‘forming’ our governments, that are just as scandalous as the rule of a single monarch was to in the Tudor era. Hurrah. Cakes and ices all round.

Yet, perhaps such cynical pessimism should be locked away in the Tower.

Imagine being made head of state in almost 20 countries around the world, having a Commonwealth thrust upon you and suddenly being under the scrutiny of millions in an era of unprecedented media intrusion. And having that job for 60 years. Thought the proposition of retiring at 67 was a bad idea did we? I’m sure Elizabeth would have loved that privilege.

As Queen, her majesty is to represent a symbol of British resilience, strength and reserve. This fabric of humanity is something bred into the Queen from her childhood, that saw her father overcome impediments to lead a nation as a beacon through World War Two. She is not likely to give up her throne before death because her predecessors instilled a sense of pride and responsibility into her that few can understand. Integrity of the nation has shifted dramatically since the 1950s, but the Queen remains a stonewall symbol of old fashioned values integrating with modern man.

Admittedly, the power of the royal family is far from the absolute rule of those just a couple of centuries ago; but if anything the quintessential Britishness that the royals represent has grown in purpose.

Consider the French, who, in the middle of Eurocrisis, face a loss of identity to the mega-power of Germany and who look back on their own bloody usurping of monarchy with some gruesome horror. Or the Russians, who deposed of their Tsar amidst waging war, yet are left with a vast void, empty landscapes with no symbol of power.

Many European counterparts have no resolute figures that represent the proud heritage of their nation in the way that the royal family afford our country.

Modern society may deem that those in Buckingham Palace are relics of a bygone age; and yet their lives continue to provide a microcosm of social norms and wants. Never before has a cross-generation of imperial powers captured the public imagination as the current Windsor family. Perhaps Diana rocketed the royals to en vogue status, and her legacy is that the family are much more public property than before, an idea reignited by the marriage of Kate Middleton to William. Whilst the Queen is the staunch, strong and determined head of the family, she remains in the public eye and appears genuinely interested in maintaining links and visits to other Commonwealth nations. Her grandchildren are magnets of an eclectic mix of social respectability on the one hand, with numerous awards for their fighting and fundraising efforts, and extravagant parties on the other. Never has a previous century enjoyed such an intimate insight to regal routines.

As such, the jubilee is not so much a celebration of the power of the monarch, all but absorbed by government, but of the new generation of sovereign, who find themselves dedicated anew to the role of representing the sensibilities, morals and behaviours that are such causes for national pride.