contaminant media


Playlist of some of Contaminant Media’s films
September 18, 2009, 1:33 pm
Filed under: animation, children, democracy, documentary, environment, ethical, film, palestine, politics | Tags: , , ,

This is a You Tube Playlist of a selections of films Contaminant Media has made over the last 3 years…

We hope you enjoy them…



1 minute to save the world…
July 9, 2009, 10:50 am
Filed under: film
1 minute to save the world

1 minute to save the world

If you had 1 minute to save the world from the devastating effects of climate change – what would you say/do? This is the idea behind this competition for filmmakers to create 1 minute films and have them judged by a panel of experts in October…

It’s definitely worth a try all you budding filmmakers out there!

Find out more on their website

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Peter Kosminsky…
April 9, 2009, 4:13 pm
Filed under: democracy, film, politics | Tags: , , ,

Split screen                         Peter Kosminsky                              Telegraph 9th April 2009

On the set of Britz: Peter Kosminsky (right) with Riz Ahmed

On the set of Britz: Peter Kosminsky (right) with Riz Ahmed

In the aftermath of the July 2005 Tube and bus bombings in London, the director Peter Kosminsky set out to make two films that examine the wildly differing views of a British Muslim brother and sister – a project that was to raise profound questions of his own

Thursday, 12.40pm on July 21, 2005. Deep underground, on a Victoria Line train approaching Warren Street station, a man named Yassin Hassan Omar reaches into his rucksack, closes a switch. The backpack explodes, but not with the force intended. The carriage fills with the smell of burning rubber. As the train enters Warren Street, people clamber over each other to reach the exit. Omar cries out. He seems shocked and disorientated, unable to understand why he is still alive. Passengers tackle him but he breaks away, fleeing into the dark.

Eighty feet up and 100 yards south, I was sitting with colleagues at a street cafe discussing how to follow our film about the suicide of Dr David Kelly – transmitted on Channel 4 as The Government Inspector just a few weeks before. Ambulances and fire engines screamed north up Tottenham Court Road as we sipped our frothy coffees. Barely a fortnight before, 52 had died in similarly unheralded attacks on the transport network of our city. As we watched anxious young policemen searching passing Asians and taping off London’s northern thoroughfare, it felt as if we were under siege.

In the days that followed, and as the identities of those responsible for the July deaths emerged, it became increasingly clear that there really was only one possible subject for our next film. How was it that a group of second-generation British Muslims, born here, raised here, educated in British schools, steeped in British culture, could have become so angry, feel themselves so powerless and disenfranchised, that they would strap explosives to their bodies and set out to kill and maim their fellow British citizens? We abandoned our other storylines and turned our attention to making a drama that might help answer that question. Britz, two films about how a fictional Bradford family react to being Muslim in Britain today, was the result.

I myself am a second-generation Briton, at least on my mother’s side. She was what would now be called an asylum-seeker, fleeing certain death in Vienna, arriving alone at Victoria station with a label tied around her neck. I only exist because Britain gave her sanctuary. All my life I’ve felt the consequential battle within me. On the one hand, the desire to be accepted – to obscure (if I’m honest, to conceal) my foreignness and out-British the Brits. To dress like them, act like them, react like them, to dig into their society and succeed according to their rules. On the other hand, the competing desire to be true to who I really am, to deny Britishness, on occasion to pour scorn on its arrogance and small-mindedness and, to be faithful, culturally and intellectually, to my immigrant forebears, who, when you get right down to it, weren’t very British at all.

This confusion, this sense of muddled identity, was my starting point in trying to write about what it might feel to be a young, second-generation Asian Muslim growing up in Britain today.

When I was a child, I used to imagine what it would be like to have a younger sister. Worryingly, I think this may have been little more than the desire to have an adoring younger sibling whom I could guide and protect. Over the years, this sister became more rather than less real to me. In my imagination she was the better part of me, unfettered by doubt, with the courage of her convictions, the precocious child who never lied and was pretty tough on those (such as her inadequate older brother) who did. My imaginary sister reached her apogee in the stories I told my daughters to help them get to sleep at night. Predictably, the gentle and humane Tilly (that was her name) proved popular with my children and, as bedtime approached, I was often found struggling to think up new adventures for her. When imagination failed, I drew on my own experiences, though, as ever, Tilly behaved with more integrity than I could ever have mustered.

So it was that when, just over two years ago, I was wrestling with how to dramatise the battle for allegiance in the mind of a second-generation immigrant, I hit upon the idea of splitting the opposing sides of my own internal debate into two parts: a brother and a sister. To the brother I would give my desire to integrate, to be British. To his sister I would give my rebelliousness, my desire to overturn the applecart. They would be emotionally close but have wildly differing views on Britain, her politics and the role of a second-generation Muslim in her midst. They would both be living secret lives and they would confront each other at the climax.

As a writer and director with a track record of dramatising truth, the prospect of writing two entirely fictional films without that prop was rather intimidating. I needed to commission some research, if only to help me create a world of which, at least at the outset, I knew so little. Muslim researchers and friends began an extensive series of interviews, in London, Leeds and Bradford, designed to cast light on the mindset of second-generation British Muslims. Meanwhile, my long-time research collaborator, Rosanne Flynn, began looking somewhere very different – at the Security Service, MI5.

Following the July bombings, it became known that MI5 was recruiting British-born Muslims. Such an option, I thought, might be attractive to a young man determined to prove his loyalty, to dig his way into the very heart of the British establishment. But the more Rosanne researched, the clearer it became that any such recruit would face a terrible dilemma. Most if not all of those being targeted for surveillance by MI5 are Muslim. Coming from Bradford, Sohail Wahid (the brother in my drama, played by Riz Ahmed) would rapidly find himself spying on his own friends, even his extended family. For a young man struggling with his identity, such a mission might test his loyalty, his determination to be British, to breaking point.

If digging into the secretive world of MI5 was difficult, the task faced by our Muslim researchers was even harder. Sohail’s younger sister, Nasima (played by Manjinder Virk), was to be a medical student in our drama. But political activism, born of a smouldering resentment against British foreign policy and the raft of newly enacted anti-terror legislation, would eventually lead her to militancy.

We needed to understand the thought process behind the decision to go overseas and train. And we needed to discover, in some detail, what goes on in those training centres. As you might imagine, people were not keen to discuss these matters, especially in the aftermath of the July bombings. Our research team were surprisingly tenacious but some of the detail had to be taken from open sources.

I’ve always been interested in the way point of view affects perception. Watch a stilted exchange between a man and his mistress through a half-open door and you might conclude that the relationship is over. Watch the same conversation through the window, from where you can see that the man’s wife is also present in the room, and you will come to a very different conclusion. Your perception depends on your point of view. I decided to build the two parts of Britz round this idea.

The first film tells the story of the events leading up to the sixth anniversary of 9/11 from the point of view of Sohail Wahid. His sister Nasima is little more than an incidental character in his drama, which focuses on his induction into the International Counter-Terrorism Department of MI5. The second film goes back in time to the same inciting event, their younger brother Rafiq returning from school with a bloody nose, but sees all subsequent events from Nasima’s point of view. Exchanges between brother and sister that seemed casual or unimportant in film one develop a critical importance when seen from Nasima’s perspective in film two. On two occasions, Sohail might have intervened to change the course of his sister’s life. But it is only by revisiting these events from Nasima’s point of view that we understand the magnitude of the opportunity lost.

The shoot was one of the toughest but also one of the most rewarding that I’ve experienced in 27 years behind the camera. There are memories that will remain with me for as long as I draw breath. During a recce of the central mosque in Leeds, we were shown a room where bodies are washed prior to burial. The washing process, undertaken in accord with Koranic teaching, is carried out by the same-sex relatives and friends of the deceased and has rarely, if ever, been filmed. The event as described seemed likely to have such a powerful impact on a young woman like Nasima that I rushed back to my hotel room and wrote it into the script. The elders at the Mosque in Leeds could not have been more helpful, guiding us through the process and making sure that the burial materials we used were authentic. We planned the scene carefully, rehearsing the correct way to wash and wrap the body in our hotel room the night before. But nothing could have prepared me for the emotional power of shooting that sequence. Standing quietly watching the event play out in real time, with as unintrusive a camera as I could contrive was one of the most emotional experiences I have had on a film set. Our supporting cast for that scene had all had direct experience of the event we were recreating – the preparation for burial of their own dead relatives and friends. For some, the emotion was still very raw and no help was required from the make-up department to conjure the tears. In fact, I think it’s true to say that most of us were in tears – members of my world-weary crew, as well as their lachrymose director.

And then there was the scene, shot in bitter mid-winter in London but simulating 45 degree heat in Rawalpindi, where our young leading actress lowers a bomb over her head for the first time. The vulnerability of her bare flesh juxtaposed with that grizzly device had a power I could not have predicted. The expression on her face – trying not to shiver from the cold, trying not to cry from the wretched emotion of the moment, is with me now as I write this piece.

Of course, you could say that the entire endeavour is wrong-headed. What comfort can it possibly afford the friends and relatives of those who died on that summer day in 2005 to see someone go through a similar process of radicalisation? Would it not be better just to condemn it unequivocally, as the act of madmen, and then have the good grace to shut up?

Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s that easy. I don’t think we do any service to the survivors of that carnage to suggest that the perpetrators were insane or irredeemably evil – motivated by nothing more than religious fanaticism and a desire to spend eternity in a virginal embrace. We have to confront the fact that these were not overseas mercenaries, visiting soldiers of the global jihad, they were British – born here, educated here, iPod-owning, Man U-supporting, people like us. Unless we can understand how they came to be so angry, so disillusioned with our democracy with all its famed checks and balances, so cornered and desperate that they would blow themselves apart for their cause, how can we ever hope to combat it? How can we ever hope to stop such a despicable event occurring again?

Others might say it’s really not my problem. I didn’t pass these new repressive laws; I don’t support the foreign policy of the British Government. I’m innocent. Are we? Are we innocent? I know the impact the anti-terror laws are having on British Muslims, even if I choose to look away. I know how the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan and how uncritical support for Israel are seen by Muslims here and overseas but, like so many others, I do nothing; I look away. Can I, under these circumstances, claim to be truly innocent? Can you? Can we really, with honour, complain if we get caught up in the inevitable backlash – here on the streets of our green and sometimes pleasant land?

‘Britz’ is on Channel 4 on October 31 and November 1 2009



Globalisation in reverse?

As the shock of the global credit crunch subsides, the next phase inevitably kicks-in: steeply rising unemployment and growing domestic political pressure for a return to protectionism. As the global economic hangover hits home, the world’s nations, like a bunch of recalcitrant teenagers, sink into their morose, self-centred protectionist sulks.

But is greater protectionism – each nation for itself – the answer, or should free trade and open markets be maintained? That’s the question facing governments, trade unions and citizens alike – or so they think. But answers to the financial crisis, as well as to global warming, poverty and many other global problems do not lie in changing the mode of trade. That’s because protectionism and free trade are equally flawed and equally contradictory. Neither offers the answer.

The problem with free trade is that the free movement of capital forces nations to compete destructively to attract footloose global investors, resulting in a race to the bottom as each nation competitively de-regulates and dismantles environmental and social safety nets. And it is that competitive de-regulation, we now realise, that fuelled the financial recklessness and risk-taking which led to the global financial crisis in the first place. Little wonder that over the last twenty years of de-regulation the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and climate change was left to run rampant.

It’s been clear for some time that free trade has reached its limit. Years of failure to reach agreement in the Doha round of WTO trade liberalisation talks have shown that already. But reverting to protectionism is not the answer. For that simply unleashes a competitive, beggar-thy-neighbour raising of retaliatory tariff barriers, anti-dumping suits or other more subtle forms of trade or employment discrimination. Protectionism only raises international tensions and, as many astute commentators have noted: where goods are prevented from crossing borders, armies soon will. Moreover, when it comes to protectionist policies, almost no government is beyond reproach, so any government complaining or litigating against others only risks looking hypocritical.

The problem with both free trade and protectionism, then, is that they’re both predicated on the same unsustainable premise: on an underlying state of destructive competition between nations; on a vicious circle no nation can escape. The answer lies not in competitive free-trade nor in competitive protectionism but in something quite different: in co-operation. It lies not in the mode of international trade but in changing the mode of international politics.

The hangover the world’s teenager-nations suffer is, for the first time ever, global. That’s why fiscal stimulus policies carried out on a nation-by-nation basis won’t be effective, as Gordon Brown repeatedly points out. Even China, once thought to be the undisputed winner in the global economy, suddenly finds growth faltering and thousands out of work as global demand for its exports chokes off. Unlike the 1930s, no nation is immune and we are all in this together. We live in a global world and only global solutions will do. So, like it or not, nothing short of global governance can cure simultaneous national hangovers. All the while the global economy remains riddled with conflicting interests, undermined by tax havens and dogged by the ability of corporations and the rich to avoid paying taxes, traditional national governance cannot hope to solve our problems.

We should remember that the emergence of national market economies in the 17/18th century produced similar national hangovers: periodic recessions, bank runs and adverse social and environmental fall-out. None of that is new. So how were those problems overcome? By crisis! That fall-out eventually drove each national society to demand its government to regulate its growing domestic market. When they did, the problems were largely solved. The fall-out we see globally today is no different – and neither is the solution. Global problems will soon become so dire that governments will eventually be forced to regulate transnationally. So Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are absolutely right to call for international policy co-ordination. But given the current framework of competitive international relations and the fact that governments, economists, business-people and trade unionists are all still asking themselves the wrong “free-trade vs. protectionism” question, politicians haven’t the slightest clue how to achieve it.

Some of you may fear that global governance means yet another level of distant, burdensome government bureaucracy, or that our national identities will be lost, or that national governments will lose their freedom to act. But it is the very lack of cooperation between nations – the lack of a seamless global regulatory regime – that caused this crisis in the first place and is now preventing nations from acting adequately to halt it. Far from limiting national freedom of action, co-ordinated policy across national borders would actually enhance everyone’s freedom of action. While individual governments today fear taking any action that might displease the rich or the markets, co-ordinated action would at last allow them to reign them in decisively without fear of them moving elsewhere. Co-ordinated international action across a multitude of issues would allow the world’s nations to deal decisively with today’s global problems. But would we be wise to wait patiently in the hope that politicians will make that a reality? Would we be wise to think politicians can achieve this on their own?

Happily, citizens who support the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign aren’t waiting around to find out. Simpol is a unique global campaign which allows citizens to use their votes in a completely new way to drive the world’s politicians towards implementing the right global solutions – simultaneously.

The basis of Simpol is that all or sufficient nations are to implement the needed stringent measures simultaneously, so avoiding the fear that first-mover nations would lose investment and jobs to other countries. By posing no-risk to any nation’s economy or its international competitiveness, simultaneous action removes the excuses for inaction and delay and opens the way to far more robust policies being adopted than relatively weak agreements we see governments trying to implement today, such as the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming. Not only could simultaneous international action open the way to solving the global recession, it would allow global warming and a host of other global problems to be solved too.

Announcing his support for Simpol, Lembit Opik, one of a growing number of MPs who support the campaign summed it up when he said, “We live together at once, on the same small planet. There are some things we should do together, at once, on this same small planet. The compelling logic of Simultaneous Policy is really collective common sense – it’s a campaign to find out how common sense really is!”

But what about nations that refuse to cooperate internationally? To secure sufficient international political will for the implementation of the Simpol, citizens around the world who support it, known as Adopters, not only decide the global policies to be implemented, they tell all the politicians in their constituency area that they will be voting in future national elections for any candidate, within reason, who has signed the pledge to implement the policy alongside other governments. Or, if they have a preferred party, they encourage that party to support Simpol. In this way, citizens are seizing the political initiative, firstly, by taking the task of global policy-making out of the hands of politicians and, secondly, by intensifying the competition between candidates to a point where politicians who fail to support Simpol risk losing their seats to those who do.

This new way of voting even though adopted by only a relatively small number of people has already resulted in 27 UK MPs and countless candidates pledging to implement Simpol alongside other governments. With more and more parliamentary seats and even entire national elections being won or lost on fine margins, it needn’t take many of us to make it in the vital political interests of the main politicians and parties to support Simpol, thus offering Adopters the opportunity of driving even uncooperative governments to sign on.

Ambitious, no doubt. But do we really think politicians are going to save the world for us? Do we really think they can achieve international cooperation on their own? It’s not just politicians who need to grow up and take responsibility: it’s us, too. What Simpol offers is a powerful way for us to do that; a powerful way for citizens to show our politicians that “when the people lead, the leaders will follow”.

Joining Simpol is free and takes just a moment: Please go now to Simpol John Bunzl, March 2009.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Community Filmmaking…
February 17, 2009, 9:57 am
Filed under: digital revolution, film | Tags: , , , ,

mg_main_wMichel Gondry is determined to promote community filmmaking, writes Andy Seccombe | February 14, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FRENCH director Michel Gondry has shown what he can do by stretching the imaginative possibilities of film; now he’s asking amateur filmmakers to try it themselves.

The Oscar-winning auteur behind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science of Sleep and last year’s Be Kind Rewind has written a memoir, You’ll Like This Film Because You’re In It: The Be Kind Rewind Protocol.

It’s all about encouraging people to create their own entertainment as an alternative to commercial offerings.

“Most people are being told they can’t express creativity or it’s something either for a privileged group or for kids,” says Gondry, 45. “Reaching out to those people, giving them a chance to express themselves, we reveal treasures, unknown treasures.”

Gondry is all about DIY filmmaking and the Neighbourhood Movie Club. The concept rose to prominence last February with the launch of Be Kind Rewind, in which Jack Black and rapper Mos Def play two bumbling friends forced to swede, or recreate, Hollywood blockbusters (including Ghost Busters, The Lion King and Rush Hour 2) without a budget. Accompanying the film’s release was an exhibition at New York’s Deitch Projects art gallery, where school groups and visitors made movies in an installation space decked out with multiple film sets.

In the book (described as a “functional memoir”), Gondry outlines the Be Kind Rewind Protocol, a set of filmmaking guidelines that emphasise fun, democracy, detailed planning, a single cameraman and the avoidance of so-called professionalism in community creativity.

“I resent professionalism in those instances because (it tends to) limit creativity,” he says. “My experience at the Deitch gallery was that some of the teachers acted as if they knew how a professional would, and it limited the creativity of their pupils.

“We had to correct that, to make sure the community was the leader, not the teacher.”

Gondry also makes clear in the book that the exhibition (which travelled to Brazil in December) and community filmmaking are not about training people for the film industry; it’s anything but. Instead, Gondry wants people to explore their own creativity, embrace their community and not rely on Hollywood for thrills.

“I don’t mean to replace the system,” he says. “I’m proposing something different. It’s an activity that can lead to creativity but I don’t think it can lead to a real job. I don’t even know if it’s a form of art. (With this idea) I’m actually stepping out of the film industry.”

In an amusing, light-hearted style (one shoot involved naked women and a live chicken), Gondry writes about the misfires and successes of the Deitch exhibition as well as his experiences in community filmmaking.

“That’s the whole arc of the book: that this can exist without the film industry or art industry, because in some way it was sort of rejected in both,” he explains.

“I can’t go everywhere and do it myself, but I think I propose a recipe that allows people to do it themselves.”

Gondry says one of his goals is to get people to assert the value of communities. True to this ethos, he recounts how he assisted his Brooklyn neighbours in creating a local movie-club film, There’s a Hand in My Soup. “We just shot in my street, basically, in three or four houses. It was very contained,” he recalls. “That was interesting because I wanted to demonstrate the protocol could work in a real world.”

Previously based in New York’s East Village, Gondry moved to Brooklyn’s East Williamsburg last February. He also spends two months of the year in his native Paris, where he scheduled another community film project last December. He explains that the two creative environments could not be more different.

“In Brooklyn, or in New York in general, I can wake up with an idea in the morning and achieve it in the afternoon,” he says. “In Paris, you would have to count one week, if not one month, if you’re not discouraged.”

Gondry is certainly living and breathing his philosophy of inclusiveness, revealing in his book the street (Orient Avenue) on which he lives: a somewhat unusual disclosure by a filmmaker with an international following. The acclaimed director isn’t afraid of attracting attention and says that when people recognise him, it’s always with a respectful interest: they usually just have a question about DVD extras.

“People sometimes talk to me but it’s not like if I was an actor or public figure, it’s not (the) type of stalking that you could encounter,” he says. “Most of the time people talk to me when they recognise me or tell me they’re happy because I give them the energy and inspiration to start being more creative, which is exactly what my purpose is.”

Gondry has a few projects on the boil: another draft of his film The Return of the Ice Kings is in the works and he’s writing a script, set on a school bus, that explores how group dynamics affect children’s behaviour, a theme he’s been obsessed with since childhood.

It’s a project he may pitch to Hollywood studios one day (as opposed to his neighbours) and Gondry admits he’s aware of the contradictions of working in the insatiably commercialised world of Hollywood while concurrently promoting an alternative.

But in keeping with his aim to promote community-based, non-commercial creativity and entertainment, Gondry is also willing to contribute more than just a protocol. In the closing paragraph of his book, he offers readers a free digital camera if they send him a proposal for a neighbourhood movie.

“If 200,000 people ask me for a camera, I will be in trouble,” he admits. “But then it would mean that this book has a big impact. That’s the risk I’m taking.”

More information: www.michelgondry.com



UNICEF takes a stand against the arms trade…
October 27, 2008, 10:42 am
Filed under: ethical consumerism, politics | Tags: , , , , ,

UNICEF have pulled out of The Baby Show after links were exposed between the shows organisers and the arms trade. The Baby Show is owned by Clarion Events, who recently extended their portfolio to include several defence exhibitions, including Defence Systems Equipment International – the world’s largest arms fair.

UNICEF were due to receive donations from The Baby Show as part of a one ticket/one vaccination promotion this week. On hearing news of the links between Clarion Events and DSEi, Kate Morrison, a UNICEF spokesperson stated, “We have taken the matter very seriously and can confirm we will not be accepting any donation from Clarion Events.” Furthermore, Pampers who are running the vaccination campaign with UNICEF, have agreed to donate the additional money expected to be raised from ticket sales to the vaccination campaign.

The Baby Show runs at Earls Court between 17 and 19 October and is advertised as, “a great day out with the chance to try and buy all the essentials you need to give to give your baby the best start in life.” The arms trade has been described by Oxfam as “out of control” and state that “as well as prolonging and intensifying conflicts, the poorly regulated arms trade causes huge levels of waste, corruption and debt.”

Since hearing the news regarding UNICEF’s decision, many exhibitors and sponsors have pulled out of the event or expressed concerns about the integrity of ongoing relations with Clarion. Bounty, the “UK’s favourite parenting company” and one of the major sponsors, have withdrawn from the exhibition. Other exhibitors have given statements and are “appalled” and “shocked” by the news.

Vitabiotics, makers of Pregnacare and vitamin supplements, described the link between Clarion Events, The Baby Show and DSEi as “incompatible”. They said that it “will certainly make a difference as to whether we continue to exhibit at future show whilst the DSEi link is maintained.”

Charities have been particularly concerned about the news. Westminster Children’s Society stated, “by no means consider our involvement with this particular event an endorsement in any way of the company behind it, let alone their involvement – direct or otherwise – in such an abhorrent ‘industry’.”

This is not the first time DSEi has come in for criticism. The previous owners of the arms fair, Reed Elsevier, were forced to sell the exhibition after concerns from leading academics and writers from their publishing interests. Their Chief Executive, Sir Crispin Davis declared that the business was no longer “compatible” with their other business concerns.

The Good Agency, a PR company representing The Baby Show refused to make any comment about the links. However, other charities they represent, including Action Aid, have been assured that Good have resigned from the contract with The Baby Show.

A spokesperson for DISARM DSEi, an umbrella organisation who campaign against the arms fair said: “This is fantastic news. DSEi is a marketplace for dealers profiting in death and destruction and this is clearly not compatible with The Baby Show. These companies must, and will, be held accountable for their actions.”

Despite several opportunities to comment on the situation, Clarion Events have refused to make any statement.



Now we must learn to live in the real world…
October 15, 2008, 7:57 am
Filed under: democracy, environment, politics | Tags: , ,

Again George Monbiot manages to offer some interesting comment on what is happening to our economic situation…Having watched Garbage Warrior last night I have come to the conclusion that change is only possible in times of great uncertainty and so can only view this time as positive.

It is unrealistic to think that economic growth could continue in this unsustainable fashion, and so now we have a moment to re-evaluate our relationship with money and wealth.  If economics was going to help us then why are there still 1billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day?

Why have we disconnected so far from the earth that we want to buy everything with a plastic wrapping, and children are growing up not understanding where fruit and vegetables come from…?

Read George’s article…it’s food for thought…

Monbiot.com » This Is What Denial Does



Tanzania and the Maasai in Ngorongoro Park…
October 10, 2008, 11:57 am
Filed under: environment, ethical, politics | Tags: , , ,

This is an article written by Navaya ole Ndaskoi on October 08, 2008.  I am very interested in this story as it seems to highlight a problem of land rights and environmental concerns.

President Kikwete, Thomson Safaris, Rice and our dilemma…

I read with interest the rejoinder by Terri Rice published in Arusha Times of August 9, 2008 (1). From the outset, I must thank Terri for bring it up because I was just waiting. Terri writes, perhaps with pride, that she was a wife of the late Hugo van Lawick. Nobody begrudge her steep rice to the wife of a Baron, she deserve it even. But for the life of her, she should stop creating the impression that she is a dispassionate spokeswoman of Thomson Safaris. She is not! It is time she declared her interest.

Terri wrote that in ‘June 2006 Rick Thomson and his partner Judi Wineland bought, in a transparent bidding process, 12,000 acres at Sukenya in Loliondo.’ Was the land bought? Was it leased? How much, if not at a throwaway price? What is the exactly size of the land in question? Is it 12,000 acres only? Are they not 12,600 acres?

I asked some of these questions in a press conference called by the Arusha Region Peace and Security Committee and was told Thomson Safaris can answer. Implicitly, even the Ngorongoro District Commissioner who told me so did not know the details; so much then about the transparent bidding as well as ‘active support’ of the DC.

I was surprised to read that the Thomsons ‘bought’ the land ‘in order to provide the community with resources they need.’ Which resources is Terri talking about? To the best of my comprehension of the conflict, the Maasai want nothing but their land!

She also talks of ‘the long list of schools and local communities which have benefited from Thomson Safaris’ largesse.’ Assuming Thomson Safaris build schools, pay salaries of teachers, buy school uniforms and so on, what will the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania be doing? Will the said ‘investors’ also feed hungry pupils whose family land, the source of food and life, was allocated to Tanzania Breweries Limited which in turn ’sold’ it to the so-called ‘investor,’ Thomson Safaris? By the way, there is only one school, which is still under construction and like many other schools in Tanzania is in a pitiable state of affairs, in the gigantic Sukenya sub-Village of the Ngorongoro District. Thomson Safaris did not build that school.

Now let me hit on some sensitive issues you did not read in the article under fire: an unanswered deaths and injuries of people in connection to the disputed land.

On April 18, 2008 Lesingo ole Nanyoi was shot in the jaws (2).  Both the Government and Thomson Safaris denied strenuously being responsible for his shooting. To this day, and to the irritation of many, the mad sharp shooter remains unknown (3).

Trent Keegan, a New Zealand-born photo-journalist living in Ireland, flew into Tanzania to investigate the conflict between Thomson Safaris and villagers of Soit Sambu. On May 28, 2008 Trent was assassinate in Nairobi, Kenya (4).

Trent emailed his friend, Tim Gallagher, on May 16, 2008 telling him ‘he was writing a story about a tribe that was being kicked off its land to make way for a safari park.’  (5) Before his death, Trent Keegan was in Loliondo. He was to travel to Dar es Salaam to interview ole Nanyoi who was by then still fighting for his dear life in Muhimbili National Referral Hospital where he was admitted for over two long months.

Before the shooting of Lesingo ole Nanyoi and the brutal killing of Trent Keegan, Shangai ole Putaa, a Maasai traditional leader, died in the hands of the cruel Loliondo police. The Government claimed that Putaa was shot while attempting to escape.  Basilio Matei is the Arusha Regional Police Commander. He is the unyielding spokesman of the force. He asserted:  ‘The police officers said Putaa was understood to know where the guns were hidden and that, when they asked him to show them the spot in question, he tried to run away and that was when they shot him.’
‘The police should find a better excuse, Putaa was the most respected person in the whole Maasai community, being a spiritual advisor and was always with the council of elders in the community,’ said James Leimbikas the Soitsambu Village Chairman. (6)
The pained family of Putaa and other informed sources claim that the old man was tortured and beaten to death by the police. They add that available evidence indicates that the body of Putaa was shot after he died. They assert that Putaa was presiding over a Maasai ritual ceremony on November 6 when two police Land Rovers pulled up with full force and the officers in the vehicles asked to see the old man.  The deceased’s brother, Loserian Minis, said the police officers then ordered Putaa to accompany them on an emergency operation. He said, ‘The police explained that they would bring him back soon after and he asked them to allow me to go with him. But somewhere in the middle of the forest they ordered both of us out of the vehicle, told the Putaa to lie down on a rock and hit him with sticks, clubs and butts of guns.’ (7) Minis said that the police asked for his sword but, ‘fearing the worst, I refused and ran back to the village to seek help’. By the time he returned to the location accompanied by elders all they found was a blood-soaked club. It was not until the next day that Putaa’s body was identified at Wasso Hospital by a local resident who sported it.

It must be remembered that in March 2007 President Jakaya Kikwete of the United Republic of Tanzania toured the Ngorongoro District. It is said that the late Putaa, on behalf of his fellow villagers of Soit Sambu, made a brief presentation to the President, in a closed party meeting, telling Kikwete, in graphic terms, that he as the President should give the stolen land back to its rightful owners. Seven months later, on November 7, 2007 to be exact, Putaa was murdered by the police.

A letter from the villagers of Soit Sambu to the Ngorongoro Member of Parliament reads in part that the police in Loliondo have been banding together with the security guards of Thomson Safaris to arrest the Maasai and impound their livestock. It reads that over 100 people have been illegally arrested and ordered to pay fines to the tune of about US $ 500 each. This piracy, the letter states, has been a money generating project for the security guards of Thomson Safaris and the police.

The mass media have been asking who shot Lesingo ole Nanyoi. Did the police arrest the crazy shooter? Was he taken to court? Who killed Trent Keegan? Why did the police kill ole Putaa? What is the rationale of allocating pastureland to Tanzania Breweries Limited which in turn sells it to the third party, Thomson Safaris?

Now demanding answers to these questions is like questioning the institution of motherhood. Is Thomson Safaris a golden cow? Is anybody above the law?

I hope Saint Paul will not prevent me from joining the ancestors when my turn arrives because I seriously doubt a company whose directors, according to Terri Rice, ‘Rick Thomson and his wife, Judi Wineland, were invited last year to meet in New York City with President, Kikwete in thanks for their investment in tourism in Tanzania!’

References

  1. See Arusha Times
  2. See Arusha Times 2
  3. On July 23, 2008 The Arusha Region Peace and Security Committee called a press conference which was chaired by Arusha Regional Commissioner. Government officials, one after another tried to distance the police force and Thomson Safaris from the shooting. They also said that the Tanzanian Government should not be held responsible about the mysterious death of Trent Keegan killed in Kenya on May 28, 2008. I have high definition footage of that press conference.
  4. See Trent Keegan’s website
  5. See New Zealand Herald
  6. See Arusha Times 3
  7. See The Guardian
  8. Their photo opportunity with the President



wake up freak out – get a grip…
October 6, 2008, 8:13 am
Filed under: animation, environment, film, politics | Tags: , , , ,

Change

Change is coming; social change on a massive, unprecedented scale. There are three potential avenues through which this change will manifest.

In the best case scenario we ourselves will be the architects of this change, working collectively and creatively to reshape social structures and ways of life from the bottom up to build a new paradigm based on equity and sustainability, and the kind of lifestyles that can still afford us a high quality of life and the opportunities for joy and prosperity that our own generation has enjoyed – albeit with much lower levels of material consumption.

The second option is to allow / demand the state, and very likely other powerful transnational institutions, to impose change from the top down, accepting massive curtailments of our personal freedoms and a new paradigm characterised by unprecedented levels of social control, state intrusion and global governance and enforcement in order to ensure that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations remain at or below safe levels.

The third option is to continue on our present path, and invite change to be visited on us, abruptly, at some point in the nearish future, through the medium of humanitarian catastrophe and eco-system collapse. Society will be certainly be restructured as a consequence; but into something chaotic, unplanned, dreadful, bereft. Only a very small proportion of the humans alive when the shit finally hits the fan will survive this new paradigm. They will be the ones with the access to guns and the lack of conscience required to use them. What will the ‘society’ they build look like?

Doom and gloom aside, what seems clear to me is that there are plenty of alternative models of ways of life we could easily choose to adopt at the level of our local communities – alternatives that could not only avoid ecological Armageddon, but also result in an improved quality of life for those enacting them. What is to be done at the national and geo-political scale is much less clear, but I would point to the work of the New Economics Foundation for some very clear thinking on this problem. Profligacy and materialism are not only bad for their victims; they are bad for their beneficiaries too.

Surely we can do better than this?



BP’s profits at £6.7billion while bills continue to rise?

Compass starts a very sensible campaign – read more here and sign the petition…
Rising energy and fuel prices are affecting everyone but its the poorest and those on fixed incomes who are paying the heaviest price. The warm summer weather will not mask the anxiety and anger at dramatically rising bills for the essentials of life – light and heat. We believe that the moment is right for the government to levy a sensible one off windfall tax to guarantee social and environmental justice both now and in the future. This is why.

The average annual spend on domestic energy per household has now breached £1200. Since 2000 we have faced gas price rises of 100% and electricity price rises of 61% – with further increases including British Gas raising its gas bills by a record 35%. Simultaneously the main energy providers have seen their profits rise from £557 million in 2003 to now over £3 billion. This alongside the recent news of profits made by oil companies – BP is now making £37 million a day with a 23% increase in profits to £6.7 billion for the first 6 months of 2008.