Belize

(Guest post FE)

One of my best friends is currently on his travels and I always find what he has to say extremely worthwhile. He recently sent me in something about Belize where he has had the pleasure of living for a short while. Unfortunately his post confirms some of his expectations about Belize. I love to post things other people have written for me and it is great to hear about places we consider foreign. Their problems are as much our problems and we must all stick up for one another. One world, one population.

...........................................................................................................

Belize

My travels in central america so far have confirmed what I feared most yet unfortunately expected. Unbelievably colourful land, vibrant wildlife and blue oceans along with such beautiful and kind people. The people however, live in such poverty and injustice. 

Belize is a prime example. It is a country where its people suffer directly at the hands of corrupt politicians and greedy capitalists in this world where money is power. It has become an investors dream and a millionaires play park due to its Caribbean island culture alerting the wealthy from all over the globe... Especially near by in the states. They come barging in, brush the locals out of their lovely wooden homes and ping them further up the hills in the name of profit. And governments turn a blind eye. Morals are forgotten.

In a country that receives over 1.5 million tourists each year, all of whom pay a 50 dollar exit fee when leaving the country, somehow has some of the worst poverty on this planet. That's an annual income of 75 million used in a country whose population is just over 300,000. Someone's profiting and its not the people who watch the villas appear next door to them.

Everything in Belize seems to be up for sale. Islands, beaches, farms and villas are all up for grabs if you have close to a million. The average wage of a Belizian worker is £9 a day for a 12 hour shift (Words from a local labourer in Placencia, although he states this is a good earning). Local people will never be able to buy a house or a plot of land in their own country. The best life a Belizian is offered is to be a slave to somebody else's dream. What a life. And Its accepted.

Leonardo Di Caprio recently bought a 104 acre island off the north of Belize for £1.75 million and turned it into an ultra luxury resort for millionaires and friends. The privatisation of this once 'open' local island just highlights the freedom some people have in this world while others can only help build it for them and dream of it for themselves. Banning local people who cannot afford a 1200 dollar/night room or a 300 dollar meal is not a morally positive move despite Di Caprio's claims it is. All those like Di Caprio tear the heart out of local villages and communities in order to rent or sell their property and investments. The prices of these homes are just astounding. Who are these for? Who is this good for? People are having to relocate to make way for empty houses and no one is there to listen or give the poor working class a helping hand. Its simply not right. The gap widens.

There is now talk of Canadian and American corporations introducing marijuana farming in Belize as the labour would be cheap. Basically, someone wants to make a bigger profit as they can pay workers the minimum wage (which doesn't actually exist in Belize) and the government are allowing it. Yup, more exploitation. Governments and corporations working together in the sole interest of themselves and not the workers. Once again, an ex-pat tells me "but it will create jobs". Yes, it will create a few jobs but It will also make a few men at the other end incredibly rich. Its not solving 'the poverty gap'. Corporations could easily house and feed all Belizians with the money that's coming to them, but that's not going to happen, is it!

The saddest moment was when we left Placencia and the local taxi driver asked us where we were from. "Scotland" we replied. "Ah, I have family from Scotland. My great great granddad was Scottish". "You should come over and visit one day" I said. "I wish I could. I would love to travel the world and see how different people live, but unlike you, I cant".

GUEST POST BY FE

Drugs...here for a good time? Well, they are here for a long time!

The war on drugs rages on. From drug dens in the city I dwell - Edinburgh, to cocaine stashes in Columbia. Drugs truly are everywhere in the modern world. There are of course many types of drugs and many differing ways in which they take hold of your mind. In certain places drugs are legal and in other places only certain drugs are legal. In a lot of countries drugs are banned completely. It is a topic which certainly divides opinion. Should we legalise drugs or should we keep things the way they are in Britain and keep them illegal?

When I was younger I was always extremely paranoid about ever letting on to anyone that I had ever tried drugs due to the stigma, but now a little older and wiser I don't care about that. However, although at times in the past I have gone over the top before in my experimentation, I have learned my lessons from it. Now when I say that I don't mean I took drugs all the time or was in any way shape or form an addict. I just mean much like alcohol, I took a little bit too much of something to the temporary detriment to both my mind and trainers. Those against drugs would say I flirted with danger and those that are for decriminalization would say it has ensured I wont make the same mistakes again. I agree with the second opinion as it is my opinion that everything in moderation is fine. Alcohol is the obvious comparison to make with drugs in so many ways and it baffles me how so many people can be fine with booze but hate things like marijuana or ecstasy. Especially when we have figures from how much alcohol costs the NHS in Britain every year.

The United States, probably the pioneer in the war on drugs, has used it's military and political might to attack drugs for years. I read an interesting fact that sums up their views on it. In 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), was ordered by congress to ensure that funding for scientific research was stopped to prevent giving the impression that this was being redirected from anti-trafficking stings into medical care and support for drug addicts or into anything that gives argument to legalisation of drugs or for medical use. The ONDCP spent $14 billion on anti-cannabis advertisements aimed at the youth of America and then a further $43 million to find out if it worked. It didn't, and in fact the research showed that the kids would be more likely to take cannabis after seeing the ads than if they hadn't seen them. The evidence was of course suppressed and the ads continued to run despite the findings. In 2007, the USA also estimated that drug use cost the U.S society $193 billion in lost productivity, health care and criminal justice. Back in the United Kingdom illegal drugs costs us about £16 billion a year according to the charity Transform. They estimated that it would cost about £5.6 billion a a year to regulate them. Taxpayers take notice.

In 1920's America prohibition did little to abolish booze. What that did was give gangsters like Al Capone a booming, lucrative empire and encouraged bootleggers from all over to try and earn their dollars worth. Although it made for many great films, the police wasted vast amounts of time and money on attacking the bootleggers and violence was widespread. The fact that the illegality of booze caused the mob to take up it's distribution meant that this violence was forever going back and forward and now that it is legal, we don't need to have off licences shooting up each others stores to eliminate the competition all over the US. I'm not disputing the health risks of alcohol, everything in moderation, I'm just stating that it was the banning of it in the roaring 20's that was a problem. Just like the health risks of drugs. I'm not disputing the health risks with certain drugs. Many of them have been exaggerated of course but I once again state that everything in moderation! I mean often with drugs, it's the mixing of unknown substances with the actual drug that kills. If you are regulating it then this can be eliminated. Lives would be saved.

I think what is staggering at the moment is that we have an example for everyone to see not any more than a couple of hours away in Portugal. They have legalised the personal use of drugs in Portugal since 2001 and the evidence points to this working. You can still be fined and it can cause you an administrative headache but addicts are always advised to seek help rather than always being forced. This method has definitely made a big difference. Portugal's main problem you see was the needle using drug users. There was an ever increasing amount of people using heroin and it was a plague on Portuguese society so they turned to the legalisation of drugs for personal usage. I can almost hear the gasps from over the Atlantic when they read of this if they didn't know it. In fact there are over 25 other Countries who have taken a similar stance to Portugal. Britain doesn't want it so Westminster wouldn't want our population waking up to the fact we don't have to follow their outdated methods and ideas on drugs. So what did this change do to Portugal then?

Dr João Goulão, the architect of Portugal's decriminalisation policy states that it has allowed "the stigma of drug addiction to fall, to let people speak clearly and to seek professional help without fear." Some facts are also important to soak in. Firstly levels of drug use in Portugal are below the European average. Drug use has also declined in those aged 15-24 and although lifetime drug use has increased, that is considered to be the least accurate measurement of a Country's drug use situation. Rates of the past-year and past-month drug use have decreased and this measurement is seen as the most accurate indicator of evolving drug use trends. Why aren't we at least considering this data and implementing something different to what we do now. Look even further a field and in Afghanistan. Sir William Patey, the former UK ambassador to Afghanistan came out in favour of legalising the trade in opium poppies (from which heroin is derived). It is clearly impossible to stop Afghan farmers from growing and exporting opium he claimed and he went on to say "if we cannot deal effectively with supply" the only alternative is to "limit the demand for illicit drugs by making a licit supply of them available from a legally-regulated market". At least reducing drug wars in narcotics producing nations. How many times do we need further reminders and facts that regulation can only be achieved through something being legal. With opium production I'm far more sceptical as to why they haven't made that legal which I'll scratch the surface about later, but the core idea Patey has is good. How the hell can anyone expect to control a black market though. It is medieval thinking because drugs will never be eliminated we have to accept that, so let us find a permanent solution for once in Britain. Yes there will still be those smuggling huge supplies but that can be far easier to track than over stretching a police force to deal with drug crimes all over the place.



The real problem with the drug laws and the way that we look at drugs in Britain is that the people in power have a reason for keeping things the way they are. There are smart guys in parliament, being advised and shown examples of how things could be better for people all the time, but they choose to ignore it. If you believe the Liberal Democrats claims that the Tories have suppressed a recent report, (that there is no evidence that a tough stance on drugs and on addicts, means a reduction in drug use and crime), then that proves right away how undemocratic and murky our government is. I don't often choose to listen to politicians but I know that the Lib Dems are very much for a reform on drugs. I wouldn't rely on them though. This is something the public will need to demand for which is difficult as the public are still fed horror stories about drugs from Cameron and pals. Don't think these same guys like Osborne haven't take or don't do drugs. Don't be naive. These guys aren't squeaky clean. 

Going back to Afghanistan, I ask you to think long and hard about something. Who has control now of the opium producing poppy fields in that country? If we went in to these countries to eliminate the bad guys which we all got spoon fed, then why is the biggest supply of heroin still coming from Western Coalition controlled Afghanistan. Scholar, Oliver Villar, a man dedicated to unravelling the drugs link to government's explains it better if you click here. The US military has openly admitted to having seized control of these poppy fields. Production has risen since then. Too many coincidences I fear. A direct link can be made from the banks making money from the illicit drugs trade and we are all aware by now, how the banks control the puppets in government. I think it is important that we really delve into why the rulers of the world refuse to legalize drugs when it is clearly being shown that it actually decreases addiction and crime in the countries that have implemented it. Wake up people and look into this for yourselves. 

Surely a human aspect comes into it too. Do we really want to just turn our backs on addicts because we perceive them as too weak willed to stop themselves from injecting. By stopping the vast spending on fighting drugs through prison sentences and fighting the trafficking then why don't we look to tackle the root of the problem. The social situations of addicts. There is a huge indicator that those people who have grown up in poorer more deprived areas are the ones who are going to end up "junkies". Spend money on making sure these people are looked after through things such as the option of paid rehabilitation, and why not like Portugal, ensure that we get these people employment. That is a mere sample of perhaps a way to solve the not so complex riddle, but there are minds greater than mine with plans ready to be implemented that we must give audience to. In Portugal they are able to pay part of an addicts wages and get companies to take these people on to work for them. This is because the funds are being spent wisely and they have more Euros to spend rather than on treating these PEOPLE as criminals. Addiction is a disease and let us remember that. Hell, there are actually proven scientific facts that show that cannabis has healing qualities. How can we neglect this data. Also, I was speaking to a friend recently that I hadn't seen in years. He was always very shy in public but not this time. His aura had changed. He appeared confident and at ease with himself. I asked him about it over a pint as we caught up. He told me he had recently done ecstasy for the first time and it opened his eyes, taking away his inhibitions. He never got them back and it has made him feel better in himself. In truth another friend shared a similar kind of view about an experience on MDMA. We both got talking and although it isn't the plan to say to shy people with confidence issues to take drugs, what we concurred is that there are certain aspects in drugs that we clearly don't understand well enough in science. Either this or the data is not forthcoming or common knowledge. Therefore there may well be qualities in some class A's able to help people medicinally. Why rule it out. Why not look into conundrums like this? This is what I want to see money being spent on when it comes to drugs. Helping addicts, scientific research and encouraging employers to take reformed addicts on to work. Lets get this planet changed.

BY EM

Sources:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://johannhari.com/
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

The Extremists and Charlie Hebdo

Firstly, before I say what I have to say, I would like to pass my condolences on to the families of the victims at Charlie Hebdo and in Paris after recent events.

Over the last few days I've felt like my head is going to explode. If ever there was a place to despair at the human race other than in Paris recently, it is on social media. The tragedy in Paris has divided many people and passionately. I found myself uncharacteristically arguing with someone over twitter yesterday in a vain attempt just to show the individual that there was maybe more to the world than the way he viewed it. He kept sending me articles from paper after paper to cement his view and prove it was the only one worth the time of day. This is one of the problems with Planet Earth though. The fact that for some strange reason people take whatever the media say as the divine truth. Why? Do they not realize that most of the mainstream media is privately owned. Obviously they don't or chose to ignore it because it taps into their fears. I've touched on it before here.

Anyway, the reason that I link the mainstream media in to this horrific killing spree is because everything that we are being reported about what happened at Charlie Hebdo is from a media source. We have relied on media outlets to fill us in on events. Now not for one second am I trying to say that this didn't take place or anything like that, but I always question the manner in which things are reported. The emotive language used. The way it has painted Charlie Hebdo for example. The way that we are to accept that the terrorists were solely acting to kill free speech after Muhammad was ridiculed. The media put a spin on things. They don't give any other ideas to the story because blaming Islam and all Muslims will suit Rupert Murdoch and co. I mean the guy literally blamed Islam on twitter for what happened, so anything from the Sun to Fox news are guaranteed to say the same. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.

Now before you talk of me as some sort of conspiracy theorist, I want to explain my thinking. The terrorists responsible have claimed that the shootings were done avenging the prophet Muhammad, but I feel there is more to it than that. The actual perpetrators who pulled the trigger probably did think they were avenging the prophet, but is it so crazy to think that those who planted the seed in the head's of these animals, may well have thought about the bigger picture and what it would achieve for them. Are we assuming that those heading up these terrorist factions are nothing more than mindless killers? I'm asking you to think outside the box at their motives. If we are assuming that these extremists are acting purely in the name of Islam and nothing else then clearly it is in the name of a very different Islam to that of the 1.6 billion or so that follow the Qu'ran. I have a Muslim next door neighbour. I find it pretty insane that he along with his wife, and two very young sons, should have some sort of responsibility to speak out more than anyone else in the World against the actions. They didn't know these monsters and they sure as hell aren't in agreement with what they have done.

This brings me precisely to my point. I believe these extremist leaders have actually achieved exactly what they wanted to do after the killings in Paris. They have successfully created further divisions between all those that follow Islam and all those who do not. Why does that make a difference? Well I'll give you one reason. Alienation. I ask you to think about the innocent Muslims who are sickened by the attacks who right now are probably looking over their shoulder or second guessing every look they now get from anyone outside of their faith. The feeling of being left out, being isolated, treated differently will always have an unbelievable psychological effect on a human being. I mean it would be unbelievably naive to think that the people controlling ISIS or Al Qaeda don't realise the media have an anti Islamic agenda. If anyone is still saying out loud that what I am saying doesn't make sense once again I say look at who controls the media and who makes money from the invasions of countries in the middle East. The two share a fruitful marriage! Fox news claimed Birmingham was purely a muslim city earlier today. It was called a no go area. You couldn't make it up (click here to see for yourself).


These extremist leaders know that by claiming these attacks were in the name of Islam, to avenge the prophet, that the media would use that too. They know they would be all to happy telling how free speech had been battered in. A majority of people on social media hadn't heard much about the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo outside of France, but all of a sudden profile pictures everywhere are of the sketches produced. These people have missed the point entirely and like I keep saying aren't thinking deeper into it. Also, the cartoons are offensive to certain members of society and in MY opinion, I feel with the right of free speech comes the responsibility to not incite prejudice, racism or discrimination. You don't need to know much of Charlie Hebdo to realise they have hurt people in the past with their satire. Whether you think people should be able to take it or not doesn't stop the fact that a lot of people haven't been able to take it well. A lot of peaceful, good people. So my point is if you didn't support them before the shootings it's surely insulting to support them in death, no? If you didn't bother to take an interest and defend them before when they were getting death threats from all walks of life, don't suddenly now. Yes, Charlie Hebdo ridiculed most religions and races. I am aware of that, but we all know had a white Christian committed the murders in the name of Jesus, he would just be called crazy, and we would be looking into every link that could connect his motives to something bigger or explainable - like a history of mental illness for example. These terrorists leaders may not directly always need to hand pick targets for their followers to blow up but they sure as hell know how the acts of terror will be reported and looked upon. The creation of local terrorists are the newest weapon of mass destruction.

It is an utter tragedy that people lost their lives in the manner they did and I am extremely sorry once more but remember every time you post a cartoon of Charlie Hebdo's you may well be causing a lot of hurt to someone who had zero to do with anything that has happened in Paris. When you start to post "Je suis Charlie" on your Facebook or twitter where in the future would you draw the line. What if the BNP's building was blown up for making a racist joke, would we all use their logo in the same way. Just a thought and an example of what I was referring to about a responsibility over free speech. Also lets not forget free speech is allowed depending on what it is about. They don't allow pro Palestine marches in Paris any longer and in Britain you'll find plenty of examples of arrests in Parliament square for expressing your views! Why don't we all go crazy about that?

It is clear that the Western media all stands shoulder to shoulder at the moment,
but not to long ago I was in America and there was a campaign to rename French fries, freedom fries because France had refused to jump straight into the war on terror. The media will do anything to cause a division. I'm sure little has been made about the Muslim saving civilians lately in the Kosher supermarket. It wouldn't suit the agenda to spread that news but then again some people probably think the lad should have stood up and denounced his religion to the killers before he did anything else. Crazy world. The thing that I cannot get my head around is that when you try to encourage people to look into the reasons as to why these murdering lunatics spiraled so dramatically into terrorism you are called an apologist. Baffling. Nobody in Government is talking about sitting down with all the communities of our society to work out ways to help people to integrate better (which is a responsibility of everyone) and none of our Western heads of government would dare try to say that the war on terror may have a huge, huge factor in the rise in terrorist groups like ISIS. The facts are on the table about it as well that is the worst part.

These guys were beasts, ISIS are scum, AL Qaeda are scum as are all extremists but so are the corporate media and they are very much as big a threat to the peaceful people of earth. Ironically both thrive on fear to survive and both use each other to further their motives! No they are not in cahoots. I'm not saying that to make this extremely clear, but they both have agendas that at this moment in time are working very well for each other. Extremists want further wars and violence and so do the media. Wake up to it!! The only solution is to try and drip feed awareness of these kind of things and to really extend the love out to those who are feeling alienated because we are the only hope the world has. United we are stronger. There will never be peace asking differing groups/races/religions to apologize or take responsibility for something the majority have no affiliation with.

By EM