One man's terrorist.................

The death of Nelson Mandela prompted a poster on an internet forum I frequent to paraphrase the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", the implication being that it's purely a matter of perspective.  I'm not so sure.

Surely the definition of a terrorist is one that uses terror as a weapon to achieve their aims, normally political.  Based on this the very act of using terror as a weapon makes them terrorists.  Classic examples of this would be ETA, the IRA and pre-prison Nelson Mandela.  I include Mandela as an intentional provocation to discussion as most regard him as a freedom fighter and hero.  I wonder if it's not possible to be both.

This begs the question, is using terror as a weapon ever justified?  On 6th August 1945 the USA dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and then 3 days later "Fat Man" destroyed Nagasaki killing in total, an estimated, 150 to 240 thousand people.  Japan was terrorised into submission.  The justification for this is that, in the long term, it saved lives.

On 10th April 1998 the Good Friday agreement came into being, effectively ending all official hostilities in Northern Ireland.  After decades of unrest, terror and murder, the people of the province could finally start to rebuild their society.  Convicted terrorists and murderers were released and greeted by many as heroes, some former terrorist leaders have even been elected to public office.

Both of the above scenarios are a matter of historical fact and yet many if not most view the actions of the USA as justified with the same people viewing the actions of the IRA and their ilk as unjustified.  Is this just a matter of what is still fresh in the memory grating on a raw nerve or is there something deeper, a sense of justice, with the USA being seen as heroes vanquishing an oppressor whilst the IRA were underhanded criminals, murdering innocent people in their own beds just because they didn't like the fact that the UK was trying to protect their own citizens?

I suspect the reality of the situation is, as is so often the case, the truth and moral judgements of things are decided by those who write the history books and only when these matters are so distant in the memory as to not arouse personal feelings will history finally be the judge.

The private lives of public figures

I see that diver and Olympic medalist Tom Daley has announced on Youtube that he still fancies girls but that his current relationship is with a guy.  Some say how brave of him, others ridicule but a totally different thought occured to me:

Why do we care?

I accept and agree that  when a person is in a position that relies on their integrity, infidelity is a cause for concern, I also agree that in other aspects of a public figure's private life certain issues may be of relevance, their financial dealings for example, however, what relevance to any of us and indeed what business of ours is it who a public figure is dating or married to? 

Tom Daley's sexuality or which public or private figure he may be in a relationship with has absolutely no bearing on his public position as a competitative diver.

The world of relality TV and Hello Magazine style publications has twisted the public psyche.  Quite frankly I don't care, do you?

Should Putin's son start dating Clinton's daughter I might just reassess my position though.

What matters?

There is an old Norwegian expression that says that the healthy have many wishes but the sick have just one, to become healthy.  I'm not actually sick in any significant way, I have friends with chronic brain diseases, cancer, high blood pressure and many other physical ailments, not to mention those with psychological problems, bi-polar disorder, depression and the like so my mild episodes of asthma, eczema and general lack of fitness resulting in, what internet figures tell me is, obesity seem to pale into insignificance in comparison.

I work in middle management, a mixture of administration, logistics, personnel management and project/change management.  After many years of wandering from job to job, in search of better pay and a level of fulfilment never fully achieved I finally feel blessed in what I do.  I have enough variety in my working day to stop boredom setting in, I have challenges enough to stimulate my intellect and have the privilege of helping people to develop.  Until you have given someone a chance, someone that no one else was willing to take a chance on, helped them, guided them, given them a structure to work within and goals to achieve, assisted in their navigation through the bureaucracy of officialdom and had them sit on the opposite side of the desk to you and sincerely express "Thank you for kicking my butt in such a positive way", as happened to me not so long ago, until you have experienced all these things and watched a life unfold like the flowering of a lilly, you will not understand the blessings I feel when working with such people.  So why do I still feel so incomplete?

This could easily become an esoteric, self indulgent ramble where I explore the depths of my faith or examine my relationships and ponder the fact that being the only boy in a family of 4 children may have left me emotionally unfulfilled.  There may, indeed, be some personal value in this but I fear it would be rather boring for you, the reader, and I'm not really qualified to come to any meaningful conclusion either.  Besides, I think the answer is far less complicated than any answer this type of analysis might offer, I think I need my ego massaged.

Ask any dying person if they have any regrets and it's a fairly safe bet that they will say that they wish they had spent more time with family or cultivating other meaningful relationships.  Family time is something members of my Church are encouraged to prioritise, so although I am sometimes not always satisfied with the quality of time we spend together, we do get plenty of time together and the fact that we live far from my parents, sisters and their families means that we really make the most of the time we have with them, spending time cultivating relationships is no doubt a worthwhile endeavour but not one that I feel is currently lacking in my life.

So what else drives people, what motivates them up to the point that they face their mortality? Why do we strive?  Is it money?  No, not for me anyway, I have had better paid jobs than the one I have now and it was my decision to leave.  Is it success?  Well there is certainly an element of that but what exactly is success?  I have a beautiful family with well adjusted kids, a comfortable car and home and holidays abroad every year, I am respected in my job and over the years have held many responsible positions with my Church.  So I am relatively successful.  Take a look at society, who are the new voices of opinion? Russell Brand, a comedian, interviewed not once but twice by Jeremy Paxman, arguably the UK's leading political interviewer.  Jade Goody, a reality TV contestant, became the "people's princess".  TV presenter Carroll Vorderman, actor Hugh Grant, former pop star and current astrophysics professor Brian Cox, pop stars Jarvis Cocker, Charlotte Church and Will Young and comedian Steve Coogan have all been guests on what was, for many years, British TV's flagship political debate program Question Time.  Why?  The culture of celebrity!

When I was a child a celebrity was someone who had done something to become a person of renown, a sportsman, an actor, a politician, a singer. A celebrity was someone who had done something that raised them above the ordinary, be that happening to be rather more beautiful than Joe average or working tirelessly to find a cure for some debilitating condition, they were people that stood out from the grey lives that most of us lived.  However, celebrity always carried the promise of material wealth and influence, the outward signs of success.  Since the advent of reality TV, YouTube and the like celebrity is seen as achievable for all.  30 years ago, if you had asked a child in school what they want to be when they grow up you were likely to receive such answers as policeman, doctor, nurse, accountant, architect, astronaut or vet with the odd footballer or cricketer thrown in for good measure.  Now you'll just as likely hear answers like "famous" or "I want to win X-Factor" The culture of celebrity has become revered and respected and weather or not I like it I have to admit, it gives people hope, the kind of hope that was never more than a delusional dream for most of my generation.

But why celebrity, what does it offer that a life in politics, business or any other well remunerated profession can't or at least doesn't for the majority?  Well one element has to be the effort involved.  I remember watching the Iron Maiden documentary, 12 wasted years, in which they described how they went on the road, touring with the whole band and all their equipment in one Ford Transit van, travelling, living eating and sleeping in that one small space for months at a time, honing their craft and building up a following, they earned their success, worked for it!  Now a couple of appearances in a nationally televised talent show and the job is done, a few weeks making a fool of yourself locked in a house with a whole group of celebrity chasing wannabes and the status of light entertainer is achieved.  However, despite developments in the media aiding the process I believe it goes much deeper than this, to a base desire to matter.  Our time on this earth is limited, something we become more aware of the older we get and we all want to know that our lives matter, our egos need to believe that when we are gone we will be remembered, we wonder what our legacy will be.  Sure, our families will remember us, for a generation or 2, but what choice do they have, we forced ourselves on them by an act of biology but if I quit my job today, who will remember me and what I achieved here in 5 years time?

I never really knew what I wanted to do when I grew up and I'm not sure I know now.  I do know that I enjoy writing and would like to think that I might be able to forge some sort of career for myself doing that.  That would certainly leave a legacy, perhaps massaging my ego sufficiently to assuage my feelings of incompleteness. Whether or not I have the ability remains to be seen so I'll leave you with the wisdom of a child: Having answered that when he grows up he wants to be happy the teacher explained to the boy that he'd not understood the question to which the boy replied, "I don't think you've understood life".

Immigratation

I know something about immigration, I'm an immigrant myself.  I like to divide immigration in three categories; social migration, economic migration and refugees/asylum seekers.  There is a technical difference between refugees and asylum seekers but as their reason for migration is essentially identical I will stick to the term "refugee" for the purpose of this article.

I suppose that the first thing I should do is define my categories, as there are often grey areas, some of which may become apparent later.

A social migrant is someone who moves from one country to another for social reasons, most commonly so be with family.  This is not always the case, as with the many migrants moving to Spain in search of better weather or to Australia and New Zeeland in search of a better "way of life" The point of the definition is that they have no compulsion to move for either financial or reasons of safety .  I am a social migrant.

An economic migrant moves country for financial reasons, be this Eastern Europeans moving to the west in search of work or an oil worker moving for career enhancement, the motivation is essentially the same, financial.

Refugees are, as I'm sure all are aware, those poor souls who feel that their very safety is threatened by remaining in their mother country, they flee in search of a worthwhile life and protection.

Your average Daily Mail reader would probably expel economic migrants from the UK as would many an FRP voter expel them from Norway.  Cries of, "they are taking our jobs" and, "they don't understand our culture" or, "they can't be trusted" are often to be heard and repeated from the fearful and the ignorant.  I'd like to think that my own experiences have given me a somewhat different perspective on this issue.

Social migrants are often accepted........but only if they fit in.  As a person moving from one wealthy European country to another I have not struggled with social acceptance however the same can not always be said for those moving from poorer countries for social reasons, family reunification for example, especially those who stand out, in particular those of a different skin colour.

Refugees are almost always accepted........as long as "I don't have to pay". Very few are so callous as to not want those in harms way to be protected but just who should take responsibility is a question that many seem either unable or unwilling to answer.

Norway is a classic example of a country that likes to be seen to take its responsibility to the less fortunate very seriously, it's not without reason that Alfred Nobel's famous peace prize is awarded, not by his native Sweden, but by Norway.  Norway has a reputation of old to uphold and every Norwegian politician all too aware of this.  The problem is, despite large amounts of money being thrown in all directions and an outward facade of social responsibility the most important factor in the whole equation is often forgotten, we are talking about people with real lives, needs, fears and emotions, people who have gone to extreme lengths in order to secure their physical and emotional safety.

I could go on about Norway's treatment of refugees, much of it positive and in equal measure negative.  Indeed the same can be said for many countries around the world but that would be getting away from the point of this article.

I am fully aware of the fact that a certain number of social migrants hold so tightly on to their parent culture that they ghettoise themselves, I am also aware that a number of economic migrants are "just in it for the money" in the respect that they are unreliable or untrustworthy workers and in the same vein some refugees carry their "baggage" with them which can be anything from female circumcision to gang loyalties.  In no way would I ever dream of defending any of these antisocial behaviours but I will try to understand them.  I agree that "we don't want these people in our country" (not that it's the people that are the problem but the habits they bring with them) and I agree that "we shouldn't have to put up with this in our own country".

I also know how difficult it can be moving to another country with a new culture and new social norms, new societal rules, a new language, new laws and new expectations of me.  I know how scary it can be to buy a loaf of bread or take a bus to a destination that has been vaguely described in a tongue barely comprehensible to me let alone having to navigate officialdom and a bureaucracy that locals often struggle to comprehend.  I know the challenging process of opening a bank account, acquiring accepted identification and starting a telephone subscription.  I know how all this feels in a country that many would see as similar to my home nation, indeed the majority here under the age of 50 have a command of the English language that resolves many issues........and still these things were a big deal for me, still I struggled, made errors, frustration grew as did my feelings of helplessness, my shortcomings were only too apparent!  And remember, I had my wife to help and guide me.

Given the challenges that I faced, how do we expect a refugee to cope, or the Polish worker, so poor in his own country that he sees putting himself through the upheaval of starting again in a new country and all challenges inherent as a better, even easier, option.

In my mind it goes without saying that, when moving to a new country, the onus is on the migrant to do what they must to adapt to the society that they adopt but it is wise to remember that they are not the ones complaining about us, it is we that are the complainants.  What do we really want or indeed expect from our new countrymen? Is it reasonable to expect them to relinquish their past, their culture, their heritage because of our desires?

We have a choice, we can either close all boarders or we can embrace, guide and help to facilitate what, for some, can be a quite traumatic transition.

Of course, we could always follow the example of Pontius Pilate in washing our hands of whatever social or moral obligation we might otherwise feel.  It would certainly simplify matters within our own borders,  giving rise to further complications outside them, no doubt the preferable option for many.  Before making such a bold decision I think it wise to remember that we are all immigrants of one sort or another, some many centuries ago others more recently and each and every one of these migrations has changed and enriched our culture and heritage.  Remember this next time you are tucking in to your chicken balti or Peeking duck, spare a thought for the pioneering family members who moved to the Europe (or indeed any wealthy western society) in the last 50 years and the transition they navigated the next time you are basking in the reflected glory of the triumph of athletes like Jessica Ennis, Anthony Joshua ad Mo Farah. When filling your car spare a thought for the oil workers bringing their expertise to Stavanger and Aberdeen. Take things a step further and consider your favourite sporting team without its foreign stars.

I'm not suggesting that immigration should proceed unfettered or indeed that the current situation is desirable.  It is clear that we need restrictions, perhaps stricter than those in place today, guidelines that should be regularly reviewed to adapt for changing conditions. However, through all the complexities of the situation it is vitally important to remember that only we can welcome a guest into our home, if we don't tell them that it's a house rule to remove their shoes on entering and show them where they can hang their coat we can hardly complain when they leave dirty footprints on the Axminster and watermarks on the Chesterfield from their rain soaked jacket.

This is why I don't fit

OK, to get straight to the point, I'm a Mormon, vegetarian, Aston Villa supporting Englishman.  This in itself might not put me in this position of displacement that I allude to until you understand where I live.  I live in the country that provides views like this

and has fabulous old churches like this

Yes, I live in Norway. The land of ice and snow, the home of the Nobel peace prize and beneficiary of immense oil wealth. That pretty much sums up what most people know about Norway but there's a lot more to this land so richly blessed by nature. 

So why don't I fit as a Mormon? Well the Mormon Church, or to give it it's correct and full name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or LDS for short, is such a small organisation here that you would be forgiven, as a Norwegian, for having never heard of us. Norway is geographically not small, being slightly larger than the entire UK including Northern Ireland, but there are only about 5 million people here. Of these 5 million only about 4500 are members of the LDS church. You may be wondering what bearing this has on my "fitting", after all, it's not like the LDS church is a strange cult that removes people from society and the normal meanderings of life.  Well there are 3 things that pretty much everyone "knows" about Mormons; 1. We have large families, 2. We all have several wives (actually, anyone practicing plural marriage will be excommunicated from the Church but why let reality get in the way of these "facts"?) and 3. we don't drink alcohol.  As a non-drinker I often find myself isolated when in the company of Norwegians.  In general Norwegians don't really do social drinking, they drink to get drunk and the concept of someone who never does this is almost openly laughed at.  So I'm in a minority group that does not take part in one of Norway's top 3 activities, skiing, drinking and eating pizza.

I also mentioned that I'm a vegetarian, something unusual but not unheard of among Latter Day Saints and, according to government statistics, I was one in 10 in my age group when I resided in the UK. Norway is the land of the carnivore.  You may think that people in the UK and US eat a lot of meat but in Norway it's a way of life, meat, usually on an open sandwich, with every meal.  A typical day, for your average Norwegian, might consist of ham sandwiches for breakfast, ham and cheese sandwiches for lunch, pork chop with potatoes and carrots for dinner and then back to ham sandwiches for supper. The concept of a meal without meat seems to be something rarely considered by the average Norwegian. I, therefore, exclude myself from Norway's 4th most popular activity, eating hotdogs.

In some respects I am the stereotypical Englishman and one of these is my love of football. This is appreciated by many Norwegians, indeed, they are almost as enthusiastic about the beautiful game as the aforementioned stereotypical Englishman.  This however, is where the similarities end, while a Norwegian will often support their local team they pretty much all place most of their "support" behind one of 5 premier league teams, Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and latterly Manchester City. As mentioned, Norwegians love to talk football and, upon meeting an Englishman, will pretty much always question them about which team they support.  The thing is, they don't seem to comprehend anyone supporting any English team that is not one of the 5 previously mentioned, "why would you want to support a team that hasn't won anything for years?" they ask.  To which I politely suggest that they have misunderstood the concept of support.

The final point I mentioned for my feelings of displacement is the very fact that I'm an Englishman.  Now whilst Norwegians love the English on a social, if on occasions rather patronising, level, they are not terribly keen on employing them.  This is one thing for which the blame lies firmly at the feet of the average ex-pat Brit living in Norway, they don't learn the language.  Sure, they learn enough to go shopping and complete other menial tasks but they rarely become fluent to a degree that works in a business environment.  I am one of the exceptions to this pattern and, indeed, have gainful employment but you would not believe how difficult it is to get to the interview stage.

So all this said, why am I here?  The technical answer to this is that I married a Norwegian but there has always been the option to move to the UK.  The thing is, despite my gripes, my "not fitting", I do, in my own way, fit quite well.  Like all people Norwegians have their peccadillos, their oddities, preconceptions, phobias and prejudices but once you get past these, once you accept that they are the product of a society with a rich history of isolation due to demographic distribution and geographical extremes, you will find a warm, loving and generous people with humour, curiosity and a desire to learn and embrace all and any opportunities that come their way.  Norway and Norwegians are far from perfect and often drive me to distraction but one thing is for sure, if the day comes that I return to my homeland, there will always be a part of me that stays here, Norway will always be my second home.  I'm not sure I'll ever get used to the winters though.