Adventures of an armchair activist: Going green-er… gingerly (1)

Going Green-er…

Last week’s UN report on biodiversity and ecosystems, together with the 2018 IPCC report on global warming have dramatically highlighted the damaging effects that we are imposing on our planet. Greta Thunberg and the leaders of Extinction Rebellion are surely right in emphasising that this is the most pressing issue for all of us: politicians, corporate leaders, and individual citizens alike.

So it seemed an appropriate place to start in my deliberations on how to live ethically in an exploitative, unjust, consumerist world.

I am so grateful for the beauty and goodness of our world, and the privilege I have in being able to enjoy that beauty. I long for others too – both now and in the future – to be able to enjoy and appreciate this goodness, and for the destruction and exploitation that has devastated so much of our planet to be rolled back.

And yet, as a wealthy consumer living in one of the wealthiest nations of our world, I have to acknowledge that – in spite of the small steps I have taken to reduce my carbon footprint – I am really more a part of the problem than the solution.

…gingerly

I recently calculated my carbon footprint and my conservative estimate came out at 7.69 tonnes of CO₂ per year – higher than the reported UK average of 6.50 tonnes (although I note that other sources put this at closer to 10 tonnes), nearly double the global average of 4 tonnes, and four times the required target of 2 tonnes.

So what are we doing about it? What could we be doing? And where is it that we are struggling?

The biggest contributor to our carbon footprint is flying. Lois and I both do it: to visit family and friends abroad; for work and conferences; to support others living and working in challenging circumstances. Neither of us enjoy it: the long waits in airport departure lounges and arrivals halls; the uncomfortable seats and tray food; the jet lag; and most of all, the knowledge that with every flight we are contributing to the destruction of our planet. But still we do it. We do what we can to offset our flying by buying carbon credits, but recognise that can never undo the damage we are doing. We try to limit our flying: not using a plane if there is an alternative transport option; limiting our flying to visiting family and friends; cutting down the number of such trips; avoiding international conferences where possible; and taking holidays in this country rather than abroad. And yet, we chose a cross-national marriage, our families are spread across four countries and our friends even wider, and we do want to prioritise our relationships. So we will continue to struggle with this. Is one long-haul flight per year acceptable? Is seeing grandchildren just once a year enough? Should I turn down invitations to international conferences on environmental grounds?

Other forms of transport make up our next biggest contribution. Here, perhaps we are taking some worthwhile steps (literally) by walking, cycling (me), and taking public transport when we can, rather than driving. Last year, we passed on our diesel estate to Joe and bought a smaller, hybrid car. Perhaps we should have gone fully electric, but the cost, patchy infrastructure, and limited second-hand market all put me off doing so at this stage. So we try not to use the car unless we have to, tend to drive at 60-65 rather than 70-75mph, and avoid heavy acceleration and braking. We are privileged, living where we do, that I can get into town by bike in 20 minutes, or the University in 30; that we have 4+ buses an hour going from outside our door to Coventry or Birmingham; and that we have such a good rail network from Coventry and Birmingham International. But it does frustrate me that rail travel is such an expensive (and time consuming) option. Travelling to Nottingham to see Esther and Rob would take 2 ½ hours and cost around £50 by train, compared to 1 hour and about £5 by car; further or more remote excursions increase dramatically in both time and cost. So, do we go further in our efforts to travel sustainably? Should we aim to ultimately get rid of our car? Do we sacrifice efficiency and cost (both of which we can afford) for the sake of sustainability?

When we set up Breathing Space a year ago, we deliberately chose a place on the outskirts of Coventry so it would be accessible by public transport. We have the advantage of regular buses to outside our front door combined with a sense of peace in the garden, and countryside walks from our doorstep. We encourage others to travel sustainably to Breathing Space. The reality is, however, that most of our visitors come by car, even those who live in Coventry (and we would probably do the same if it were us visiting somewhere else in the city). We don’t apologize for having no parking available on the property and will install a bike rack once the access ramp is completed, but is there more we could do to promote green-er travel among the users of Breathing Space?

And we have voted (in both local council and European elections) for the Green Party – a party that clearly has greener transport policies in its manifesto, and has done for years. But could we be doing more to lobby the government to incentivize train travel? to not build more airports but actually close a couple? to fund cycleways within towns?

So there we are – struggling to travel sustainably; succeeding in some aspects and failing in others; wrestling with the dilemma of balancing family relationships with green living.

What about you? Are there ways you have managed to cut down on environmentally damaging travel? Do you struggle with the same dilemmas as us? Do you have any suggestions that we could take up? Add your comments to the blog or join in a conversation on Facebook…

May 3, 2019May 3, 2019

Fifty years of nuclear deterrence: a cause for celebration or a cause for lament?

Today at Westminster Abbey a service was held to ‘recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the [continuous at sea] deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world.’

I am extremely grateful for the peace we in the West have enjoyed over the past fifty years. I recognise that there are many in our armed forces who are committed to peace keeping and long, as I do, for peace throughout the world.

And yet I struggle with the very concept of celebrating what is ultimately the world’s most deadly weapon of mass destruction in a Christian service of worship. To me, this is totally at odds with the God I believe in, and with the very life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the ‘Prince of Peace.’

‘This sends out a terrible message to the world… that, here in Britain, we celebrate weapons – in a place of worship – that can kill millions of people.’ – Kate Hudson, general secretary of CND

In 1969 Britain launched its nuclear deterrent service. I have grown up with the very real threat of nuclear war. I am grateful that that threat has not materialised, and I am grateful to the women and men of our armed services and to those working in international diplomacy who have helped ensure that we have lived in peace.

Whatever our views about the effectiveness of policies of nuclear deterrence, however, we have to acknowledge that they are built on the foundation of the most awful weapons of mass destruction.

The UK holds 120 operational nuclear warheads. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II killed between 100,000 and 250,000 people. Today’s nuclear warheads are far more powerful.

Westminster Abbey describes their service as a service to recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world. However, by linking it to the nuclear deterrence programme, whatever the intention, it gives the message that the Church of England not only condones, but actually celebrates – in a service of worship – these weapons that carry the potential to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent people.

‘To celebrate a device that is designed to indiscriminately kill and destroy thousands of innocent civilians is totally incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with our commitment as a Church to peace and to the flourishing of all humanity.’ – Rt Revd Roger Morris, Bishop of Colchester

For me, the very existence of nuclear weapons is a cause for lament, not for celebration.

April 29, 2019

Adventures of an armchair activist (a reluctant radical)

For the past 20-30 years I have had the privilege of knowing some amazing people who are living out incredible, radical lives: people who have actively campaigned for social justice, human rights, disarmament, or care for our planet; people who have been criticised, vilified, and arrested for doing what is right; people who have chosen to live in deprived urban communities; people who have given of themselves to serve others, who have welcomed homeless people, ex-offenders and addicts into their homes; people who have chosen to buck the trends of our culture and live simply and sustainably, or in community.

So, surrounded by dynamic, inspiring radicals, I have tried to emulate some of this in my own small way. The principles these people stand for are all principles I want to uphold. I long for justice for all, an end to the inequalities and oppression of our culture; I long for peace and non-violent approaches to tackling divisions; I long for a world where we do not exploit the earth or its inhabitants; I long for a society where those who are most vulnerable are protected and cared for.

A reluctant radical

And yet, for all my aspirations, far too often, I seem to end up frustrated, or half-hearted in my attempts to live out my beliefs. I try to live a life of simplicity, but love my comforts too much. I try to travel sustainably, but find myself too tied to my car. I try to stand up for justice, but just don’t seem to find the time to get properly involved. I try to show compassion and care for the vulnerable, but sometimes it just seems too exhausting. I try to shop ethically, but can’t seem to get round those corporate giants. For all I may decry this injustice and exploitation, I keep coming back to the reality that I am one of the privileged elite – a well-educated, wealthy, white, able-bodied westerner. And as such I have to acknowledge that, far from bringing solutions to all of this, I, too, am part of the problem.

I suspect I’m not alone in this.

How then shall we live?

But rather than give up, thinking it is all too difficult, I thought it might be good to explore what we can do: to consider the little steps we can take that might just make a difference; to share some of the steps Lois and I have taken, and those we’ve struggled with; to commit to dipping our toes in the water just a little bit more; and to invite others, too, to share your experiences as armchair activists, or reluctant radicals.

In a world where consumerism seems to rule, where injustice is rampant, in which our planet is being ruthlessly exploited, it must be possible to live ethically.

So I will try posting a few blogs and see where that goes. And if you’d like to join in the conversation, please do add your thoughts.

April 3, 2019

Authoritative Leadership and Relational Power

An opportunity for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

A few years ago I wrote an editorial on authoritative practice in child protection. The concepts I explored in that editorial, and later developed in our 2011-14 Triennial Review of Serious Case Reviews have formed the basis of what I have striven for in my own safeguarding practice. It seems to me that these principles of authoritative leadership are what is so badly needed in today’s political storms.

At the heart of authoritative leadership are three values of authority, empathy (or compassion), and humility.

In her speech yesterday, Theresa May reached out to the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, offering to work with him to try and find a way forward for Brexit. In doing so, I believe that she was showing the marks of a true leader, and opening an opportunity for both of them to display the kind of authoritative leadership that our country so badly needs. She has come under intense criticism for doing so, both from the media and from her own party, with her approach being condemned as a sign of weakness.

Far from being a sign of weakness, I think Theresa May has shown both courage and integrity. I hope that Jeremy Corbyn will show the same courage and integrity in response.

Authority

In my 2013 Editorial, I suggested that

‘Authority, properly understood, is not assumed or unregulated power, but something that is earned, and is dependent on the holder’s character, knowledge and skills as much as their position.’

I may not agree with everything that either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn say, do, or stand for, but one thing I admire in both of them is their integrity. It seems to me that they both hold strong principles and genuinely are striving to do what is best for this country and its people. They have held to these principles, even in the face of criticism from within their own party.

It seems to me that true authority arises not from unilateral, assumed or unregulated power but from relational power, and this is what is needed in our current political climate.

‘Relational power may be seen as including three elements: the ability to be actively and intentionally open to the world around us; the capacity to create ourselves out of relationships with others; and the ability to sustain internal relationships, to influence others by having first been influenced by them.’ (Mesle, CR. 2016 Relational Power, Personhood and Organizations)

Empathy

To be open and attentive to the rights and needs of those around us, to actively listen and learn from them, and to support while being prepared to challenge and not collude are marks of true leadership. This is the kind of political leadership we have seen recently in New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern in her response to the shootings in Christchurch.

I was challenged recently to listen more to those who are arguing in favour of Brexit, rather than remaining entrenched in my own views; to seek to understand why others take the position they do, and to see that in terms of those who see leaving the EU as a route towards greater justice. I may not agree with their conclusions, but my friends were absolutely right – I do need to look at the other side of the coin and not dismiss those views that run counter to my own.

In her speech, Theresa May described Brexit as something ‘that the British people voted for’. It may be just a small change in language, but this came as a breath of fresh air amidst the ongoing claims that Brexit represents ‘the will of the people’. By referring to leaving the EU as what the people voted for acknowledges that this was what 17 million people voted for 3 years ago, in response to what has been shown to be a flawed referendum. It leaves the door open to recognising that this may not any longer represent the will of the people. Perhaps in this, our prime minister is showing the seeds of empathy and listening.

Humility

Humility is the value that is perhaps most misunderstood and frowned on in relation to authoritative leadership, and yet I believe it is the most crucial component of such leadership.

Humility needs to be understood, not in a derogatory or self‐deprecating way, but as a positive quality that enables leaders to recognise their own limitations, to acknowledge and use their skills and strengths, and to seek to improve their leadership.

Humility recognises that none of us possesses a monopoly of knowledge and skills; that we are interdependent on each other; and that we all have weaknesses as well as strengths, so we need to be constantly seeking to learn and to grow.

So much of what I see in parliament at the moment is arrogance, entrenched positions and self-interest dominating the debates. I long to see confident humility displayed in our leaders. I believe we caught glimpses of it in Theresa May’s speech yesterday. Jeremy Corbyn has the opportunity to take the same path. And, if they come together, I believe they could find a positive way to take us forward, whatever the final outcome may be.

A second referendum?

If Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn wanted to show real leadership, they could do far worse than seeking to ascertain what the British public want now, in 2019, with the full facts before them and clear options to choose from. It may well be that a majority would still want to leave the EU and would support a deal to achieve that. If so, the government would have a much clearer mandate to proceed. Conversely, if a majority now voted to remain, a clear reappraisal would be needed. The government has respected the outcome of the referendum by seeking to come up with a deal; true democracy should now return to the people with that deal and any alternatives. That would be authoritative leadership in action.

February 20, 2019

Sajid Javed and Shamima Begum: The courage to act with compassion

Over the past few days I have found myself increasingly troubled by the case of Shamima Begum – the young British mother wanting to return to the UK with her baby after fleeing the country as a teenager in 2015 to join Islamic State in Syria.

Yesterday the Home Secretary, Sajid Javed, ordered that she be deprived of British citizenship and barred from returning to the UK.

I am concerned that this decision has arisen from a background of fear. In taking this step, I feel that the Home Secretary is:

ignoring the nature of the grooming and exploitation process that underlies radicalisation;
trying to tackle an organisation that tramples on human rights by further abusing the rights of an individual; and that
rather than protecting the British public, this measure could ultimately escalate both fear and resentment.

In view of this, I have written this letter to the Home Secretary.

To act with compassion requires courage, but is the only way to tackle the hatred and violence that IS embodies.

Do you agree?

Rt Hon Sajid Javed MP

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Dear Mr Javed,

I am writing to express my concern over the decision you have made to deprive Ms Shamima Begum of her British Citizenship.

While I appreciate your responsibility, as Home Secretary, to protect all British citizens, I do not agree that this step is either necessary or appropriate to do so. Furthermore, by taking this step, you are potentially depriving Ms Begum and her baby of one of the most fundamental human rights, that of having a home and a country.

When Ms Begum left London in 2015, along with her friends Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase, they were all three children and, as I am sure you will acknowledge, were victims of the grooming and exploitation that lies beneath any radicalisation. As a paediatrician and specialist in child protection, I have come across many cases of children and young people who have been subject to all forms of criminal exploitation, including radicalisation. What is clear from these is the very insidious nature of the grooming process and how many of these young people just do not recognise that they are victims of exploitation. These issues were clearly identified in the 2017 Serious Case Review on siblings W and X published by Brighton and Hove Local Safeguarding Children Board and in Mr Justice Hayden’s judgement in London Borough of Tower Hamlets v B [2016] EWHC 1707 (Fam).

The government’s own Prevent strategy and Channel guidance recognise that the process of radicalisation is a complex phenomenon with many similarities to child sexual exploitation and to criminal exploitation in gang membership and county lines. Whether or not Ms Begum recognised it, she was a victim of exploitation. I have no doubt that the processes of grooming and exploitation have continued over the years she has spent with Islamic State in Syria.

In revoking her citizenship and thus denying her the support and care of her family, I believe you are taking the step of punishing the victim, rather than addressing the deeper root causes of radicalisation which led to her taking that step in the first place. This step will do nothing to make the British public safer.

Rather than taking punitive action against a vulnerable young mother and her child, surely, as a free, democratic and humane society, we should respect her individual rights, recognise the reality of the exploitation to which she has been subjected, and offer the compassion due to a mother who has already suffered the loss of two of her children.

By allowing Ms Begum to return to the UK with her child, the way is then open for a full and fair investigation into both the nature of the exploitation to which she was subjected before leaving this country and into any crimes that she may have committed and any potential threat she may now pose to the British people, following due process of the law of our country. That way we also open the possibility for Ms Begum herself to change, to learn from her experience, and potentially to take more effective steps to prevent other young people being exploited in this way.

Yours sincerely

Peter Sidebotham

November 8, 2018

Lament Part Two

The lament I wrote last week seemed to strike a chord.

It was prompted by Lois and I watching an episode of Victoria, focused on Ireland and the potato famine. It may only have been an historical television programme, but it left us both feeling upset and angry, crushed by the sheer injustice of it all.

We were angry about the horrendous suffering experienced by so many millions; angry at the wealthy landlords trampling on the heads of the labourers while greedily holding onto their privileges and comforts; angry with the politicians callously looking after their own political interests while gambling with people’s lives; angry with the bishops, twisting religion for their own power and control, distorting the gospel, and turning a blind eye to the suffering of ordinary people.

And angry with God for creating a world in which children die of starvation and millions suffer to feed the greed and violence of others.

And we felt crushed and angry because this was not just something that happened 150 years ago, but remains a reality today: in Yemen, in Syria, in South Sudan; in China, Russia and Myanmar; and, in different ways, but much closer to home, in the UK, USA, Australia and Europe.

We hear on the news of millions starving and made homeless because of conflicts in the Middle East. And our own government continues to fuel this with arms sales to Saudi Arabia. We hear of lives ruined through gambling and addictions; of aggressive, arrogant men ignoring both laws and morality, and treating others with disdain; of big multinationals treating their workers without respect, destroying our environment, and brazenly evading and twisting tax laws; of the dignity and rights of children, women, and those who are ‘different’ being trampled on; of individuals and families in our own city left homeless, sitting in the shadow of the ever-growing forest of cranes building flash new student accommodation.

Sometimes it is right to get angry.

Sometimes it is right to lament.

November 2, 2018November 2, 2018

Lament

I look out of the window and I see

Clear, blue skies

Vibrant colours of autumn blazing

in the morning sun

Crisp frost bringing out the beauty

of our garden.

And yet I know

thick, dark clouds cover our earth

blotting out the warmth of the sun.

Devastation and despair wreak havoc

across the nations.

And where is God?

September 17, 2018

Why the Archbishop of Canterbury should wear a Green Party rosette alongside his dog collar

Let justice roll down like rivers

When Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, quoted the prophet Amos, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in his speech to the Trades Union Congress last week, he – not surprisingly – drew harsh opposition from those in power, including a number of Tory MPs. Ben Bradley, MP for Mansfield tweeted: ‘Not clear to me when or how it can possibly be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be appearing at TUC conference or parroting Labour policy’, while his fellow MP in Shipley, Philip Davies, commented that ‘Justin Welby ought to consider removing his dog collar and replacing it with a Labour Party rosette’.

But as the Archbishop pointed out in his speech, the Bible is political – dangerously so.

‘Mary’s song, the Magnificat, central to the New Testament, is so revolutionary that anyone who takes it seriously finds it a threat to power and entitlement.’ – Justin Welby

A Labour Party rosette?

So perhaps Philip Davies is right, and Justin Welby should replace his dog collar with a Labour Party rosette. Perhaps every minister of religion, and indeed any serious follower of Jesus should do so. As Justin Welby pointed out,

‘To speak to the TUC in its 150th year, is to receive the enormous gift of being in the presence of a gathering that has been instrumental over that century and a half in reducing inequality, challenging injustice, and speaking up for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed.’

And ‘reducing inequality, challenging injustice, and speaking up for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed’ is precisely what Jesus stood for, so perhaps his followers should be more outspoken in doing so too.

Or a Green Party rosette?

Shortly after Justin Welby’s TUC speech, I received a copy of the new Green Party Political Programme. And, once again, I am impressed with the clear and refreshing agenda they are proposing, and just how much that aligns with the values the Archbishop was expounding in his speech, and how much they align with the Bible and Jesus’ own manifesto of the Sermon on the Mount.

Caring for our environment

Policies to care for our environment, reduce energy consumption, accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy, reduce waste, and protect and care for all animals; promoting creativity

‘We live on an amazing planet, rich in resources and able to sustain an incredible diversity of life. But we cannot take for granted it will always be this way.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it’. – The Bible

‘Have a good look at the birds in the sky… Take a tip from the lilies of the countryside…’ – Jesus

Challenging privilege

Making every vote matter; reforming the House of Lords; enabling diversity across politics; ending discrimination; an economy which delivers for the people who make it; tackling workplace exploitation and inequality; introducing a Universal Basic Income

‘Reducing privilege increases the power of ordinary people – of all of us. As the establishment shrinks, democracy grows.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘At the heart of the Green Party is a belief that everyone is equal, that all lives have intrinsic value and that personal life choices are deserving of dignity.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,

And lifted up the lowly.’ – The Bible

‘Blessings on the meek! You’re going to inherit the earth.’ – Jesus

‘We will take immediate action to deliver real gender equality and to tackle violence against women and girls. We will make misogyny a hate crime and make it easier to challenge media sexism. We will fiercely protect and enhance women’s rights.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘Whichever of you is without sin should throw the first stone.’ – Jesus to a group of men about to stone a woman ‘caught in adultery’.

Building peace and promoting international friendship

Standing up for migrants and refugees; building bridges; nuclear abolition; increasing international aid

‘We believe in waging peace not war, and are the only Party in England to unambiguously oppose all nuclear weapons, with their potential to end all human life.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘Whatever the outcome or terms of Brexit, we will continue to stand in fellowship alongside our European neighbours, healing the scars of centuries of conflict through sharing and collaboration.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘All peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’ – The Bible

‘They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’ – The Bible

‘Blessings on the peacemakers! You’ll be called God’s children.’ – Jesus

Embedding collective kindness in our society

Restoring the NHS; empowering children in education; promoting local services; renewing communities; and supporting disabled people; making housing accessible

‘We envision a country underpinned by well-funded, locally led public services providing care and support for all – a society rooted in kindness.’ – Green Party Political Programme

‘He has filled the hungry with good things, And the rich he has sent away empty’ – The Bible

‘I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you made me welcome. I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you looked after me; I was in prison and you came to me.’ – Jesus

A dog collar and a rosette?

No doubt others of different political and religious persuasions will find lots of gaps in this, see all sorts of ways in which the church has not lived up to the Bible’s teaching or Jesus’ manifesto, or see more alignments with other political parties. And there will be those who would argue that religion and politics don’t mix.

However, it seems to me that if my faith – or anyone else’s for that matter (whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Humanist, or any other belief system) – is not political then it is of no value at all. And it has to be political in a way that promotes justice, peace, diversity, compassion, and care for our environment.

So I don’t think the Archbishop of Canterbury should get rid of his dog collar just yet. But I do think he is right to speak out for justice and to wear a rosette (preferably green) alongside his dog collar.