2013-06-19T06:25:41-04:00 Benjamin Halfpenny http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=benjamin-halfpenny Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Benjamin Halfpenny Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1640510 2012-06-30T20:07:22-04:00 2012-08-30T05:12:15-04:00

Benjamin Halfpenny http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-halfpenny/
For the keen television viewer, though, there is a further element crucial to the continued romance of the above: the presence of informed and informative commentators spread over two weeks and 19 courts.

These include, of course, the reputable ex-pro pundits: Becker, Wade, Smith, Austin, McEnroe, etc. They are almost all eloquent and insightful, positive of the play, constructive in criticism, and genuinely pleased to be there. Alongside them are the lead commentators, men (they are indeed all men) who exhibit similar affection for and knowledge of the game. These include Petchey, Cotter, Bradnam, Mercer and, as many on Twitter are exultantly realizing, the great Barry Davies.

As with Wimbledon there are many reasons to love Barry Davies. In fact, most are covered by this brilliant Rob Smyth article from the Guardian in 2008. He is at once enraptured by brilliance and completely disdainful of incompetence. He is tremendously articulate without being verbose. His voice is distinctive and gently reassuring. He illustrates a supreme knowledge of more than one sport and can complement them - like comparing a drop shot on Friday to Pirlo's penalty against England. He asks questions of his co-commentator. He allows the play to develop and sets it as the centrepiece rather than his own voice. And, with his trademark howls of emotion, he can inspire individual memories of sporting action.

His exclamation of 'Where were the Germans? But frankly, who cares?' during the Britain-West Germany Olympic hockey final in 1988 is oft-mentioned in the pantheon of legendary commentaries, as is his 'Look at his face! Just look at his face!' description of Francis Lee's goal for Derby against Manchester City in 1974. My personal favourite - which will forever send a shiver down the spine - is his primal, breaking yelp during the 1998 World Cup: 'Beautifully pulled down by Bergkamp...oh what a goal!'

Indeed, it is this primal outburst that proves the most crucial element of Davies' commentary, and why he retains such affection. Due to his less is more approach his instinctive reactions to moments of significance become more pertinent, and synchronize perfectly with the human response to sport. When we witness something great we do not think brutish sentences of hyperbole or utter definitive speech; we scream in delight, choke in disbelief, punch the air, and sink in despair. Davies responds like a fan in love with sport, living for these moments.

Four years on from Smyth's eulogy a call for Davies' return is wistful. Davies is now 74 years old and no doubt enjoying the odd relaxed assignment rather than contemplating a Sunday trip to Wigan for MOTD2. For those seeking a continued fix Davies will reappear in London, July and August, to commentate on Olympic hockey.

Yet his re-popularity is concurrent with and in some cases fuelled by an increasing repudiation of hysterical football broadcasting. While criticism of the studio and commentary box pundits has become bilious, lead commentators are increasingly viewed as unnecessarily loquacious and banal. Clive Tyldesley used to stand as chief villain, but Guy Mowbray has begun to choke himself with portent. Peter Drury's desperation to land a soundbite in the opening match of South Africa 2010 was a head-in-hands moment, and not for the right reasons. In the latest European Championships the number of times pre-prepared puns were made about Greece and the recession was enough to make one scream, over and over again. Jon Champion's (something like) "we've got disconsolate Greeks and bouncing Czechs" was the worst.

As sporting events have all but disappeared from terrestrial television we do focus more on the broadcasts which remain, and this enhances the likelihood of criticism. It is also true that many sports retain excellent commentators - especially swimming, cricket and rugby league on the BBC.

Yet the modern football commentators could learn a lot from the dignity, emotion, calmness and monosyllabic profundity of Mercer, Alliss and Davies. Contrary to the current principle of prattle, silence and simplicity is the most attractive and powerful approach.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1432916 2012-04-17T18:11:06-04:00 2012-06-17T05:12:01-04:00

Benjamin Halfpenny http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-halfpenny/
I was moved to think about these abstracts after the price of a first class stamp rose to 60p.

Although most commentators asserted that a premium should be paid for an increasingly unused and loss-making service, I couldn't help feeling a little sad. In bold letters read: with the rise in cost comes the decline of the letter, the touch of the pen finally backspaced by the efficiency of the keyboard.

Amidst the frenzied hustle of business, and what feels like an inexorable 'click me quick' culture, letter writing is indeed helplessly, uselessly, non-instantaneous. Even licking an envelope is considered a drag. But the written letter, with its time, its affection, its individual beauty and thought, remains an art form. A creation. And as such it suddenly seemed to represent this coalition's attitude to culture: a cultural pursuit must be first financially viable, and optimally a wealth generator.

My thoughts have been bookended by two slices of Conservative rhetoric. First, David Cameron's 'We're all in it together' mantra; and second, Minister for Culture Ed Vaizey's recent Guardian article on the importance of the arts: 'We've secured the arts budget because we know how important the arts are, not just for ourselves as individuals, but for our economy and our image abroad.'

Now although Cameron's motif has attracted cynicism - for a millionaires' cabinet and the 45p rate - he is at least right in one aspect. When it comes to 'culture', we are indeed "all in it together". As individuals we are not only 'in' a wider collective culture but 'to' and 'of'. People of all wealth and background shape it, define it, maintain it. And Vaizey, in his words above, is clear on this. He understands that the arts - evocative expressions of and trending forces for culture - are 'important' for the individual and the collective.

Yet Vaizey also sees something else. Something his cabinet see every day, something that is as intrinsic to the attitude of the coalition as freedom of expression is to culture: pound signs. For, in Vaizey's piece, the emphasis was not on cultural expansion or cultural innovation, but on the importance of culture to the economy and to Britain's image. The latter is not, as you may at first think, a mere part of patriotic vanity; it also cries, 'investment'.

The most emphatic example of this is the doubled budget for the Olympic and Paralympic ceremonies, now standing at £81m (slightly more than the cuts to the Arts Council's annual budget). Secretary of State for COMS Jeremy Hunt justified these overpriced spectacles, celebrating the 'heritage, diversity, energy, inventiveness, wit and creativity that defines the British Isles', by citing 'an extraordinary business opportunity' and an opportunity to strengthen the national brand.

The issue of quantifying culture was explored in some persuasive articles and features on the Guardian website over the winter. Academic Dave O'Brien argued that 'when the cultural sector is straining to prove its worth with questionable narratives of economic impact, better decision-making informed by methods approved by the treasury can only be a good thing'. Tiffany Jenkins of the Institute of Ideas countered that focusing on financials would hinder a healthy, critical approach to the arts.

With the current fiscal restrictions it is neither surprising that arts funding has taken such a universal beating, nor reasonable to expect that arts funding would be held above social services, the disabled and the business sector. One also expects some sections of the arts world to counter economics with economics - to justify or argue for more funding in pragmatic, bottom line terms.

Vaizey's recent comments, however, reinvigorate concerns for the nature and climate of British culture, rather than just funding. First, with the financial focus of this government, 100% university arts funding cuts, and the rise of the 'iLife' - all chrome and screen and inescapable multi-platform - there has been a tangible shift in British society towards mechanization, materialism and monetization. We therefore need culture ministers who acknowledge economic restraints on the arts but also fight for artistic independence and triumph art's intrinsic and original value. In Hunt and Vaizey, we do not have them.

Second, by cloaking culture in the language of business and increasing pressure on arts organisations and projects to meet financial targets, this government is forcing them to choose the most likely methods to do so. The unfortunate irony of this policy is that the ambition and originality that made British culture so great will diminish and its desired economic vitality will decrease.

Without a change in attitude and language the coalition's cultural legacy is clear. 'Nations of the world, welcome to Britain 2012: a once great cultural nation, see! But to be soon a colourless economy.']]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1284292 2012-02-17T09:17:27-05:00 2012-04-18T05:12:01-04:00

Benjamin Halfpenny http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-halfpenny/
The case for continuing to give aid to India is a strong one. As far as Indian commentators want to paint a picture of neo-colonialism, the numbers of Indians living in poverty - one third of the world's poor, or 480m people (46 percent of its population) - justify David Cameron's argument that the international community has a 'moral obligation' to help. The bilateral funding of £280m looks to support a wider multilateral effort through specific schemes in targeted areas, recently announced by Secretary of State for Development Andrew Mitchell as the three poorest Indian states. This aid may indeed be a 'peanut' in India's wider development spending, as their finance minister described it, but at least it is there, and at least it is working towards ensuring that fewer people are denied the human right to food.

A more complex cause for concern is the heightening of institutional homophobia in Uganda. Although an anti-homosexuality bill was shelved last year, shortly after a major gay rights activist, David Kato, was murdered with a hammer, it has recently been reintroduced for consideration. Threats of death have been excluded, but draconian sentences for 'serial offenders', activists, and complicit family members and landlords remain. Then, in the last few days, the Minister for Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo has stormed an LGBTI meeting forcing a leading activist, Kasha Jacqueline, into hiding.

Lokodo's latest aggression will certainly be condemned in London and Washington. Since 2008 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have fervently asserted that gay rights are human rights. Along with Cameron, they have also supported UN OHCHR's landmark 2011 report on homosexuality and violence, which called for the worldwide decriminalization of gay rights and the abolishment of death penalties. Following the reintroduction of the Ugandan bill, British and American leaders reiterated a threat to cut aid to states restricting gay rights.

The issue of how the distribution of aid fits with gay rights is both complicated and comprehensive. While the Ugandan government has stated that the bill does not have executive support, homosexuality is still illegal in Uganda. A recent UN declaration on the protection of gay rights found 19 dissenting votes against 23 ayes, and homosexuality remains illegal in more than seventy-five countries - predominantly in Africa and the Middle East. In these countries, many of which receive aid, homosexuality is not a human rights but a cultural issue: a form of sin which depraves the sanctity of the state, or something simply not accepted as normal by many people.

The first of two fundamental questions is how far Western governments can, should or will determine the levels of aid by what recipient countries perceive as their own cultural values. Some in Uganda have reacted tersely to these 'lectures'. A presidential adviser accused Cameron of an 'ex-colonial mentality' and suggested a preaching US could 'go to hell'; a diocese bishop similarly stated that if Britain wants to withhold aid for the suffering of Uganda's cultural norms, then so be it.

As it stands, gay rights are not universally enshrined as human rights. While Nelson Mandela ensured that gay rights were embedded in the normal rights of the South African constitution, this is not a replicated pattern. Without a globally-accepted convention on gay rights, lecturing countries on their freedom record is akin to criticizing the Indians for their space programme; it is merely critiquing choices of foreign governments.

Second, one must ask whether the exigency of aid transcends principles of perceived, rather than enshrined, human rights. Is it right to ignore violations of principles that democracy holds dear in order to help the poorest and oppressed? The answer has to be yes. As various LGBTI groups in Uganda and Africa have pointed out, withholding aid harms LGBTI people it would otherwise help, and such actions could also demonize homosexuality further within local communities.

If countries wish to justify their convictions, then, we need an international system which reflects and enforces the rights of gays without depriving the needy of aid. An immediate solution is for Britain and others to give a greater proportion of their bilateral aid directly to communities rather than central governments, thereby precluding financial support for regimes they wish to criticize. Andrew Mitchell has iterated that this will be a major trend of future development policy.

But a wider, longer-term solution has to be the reformulation of the global principles under which aid functions. As the pattern of aid shifts towards more south-south relationships, we need to ensure international conventions encompass a more comprehensive definition of human rights. A non-binding declaration on gay rights has already been passed, but it is now time for the United Nations to officially consider gay rights amongst other human rights. Such a move would have the support of the US, the EU, and leading African countries like Rwanda and South Africa. With a framework establishing gay rights as a human right, the cultural norm argument would be undermined.

There is, however, a caveat. And that is teeth. International bite to enforce these beliefs, to uphold the preservation and promotion of gay rights. It has been suggested that such an international framework could be supported by trade sanctions for non-compliance, but sanctions only work if countries are prepared to give up trade agreements for principles. And when we consider gay rights, one wonders whether Britain would be prepared to lecture and threaten Saudi Arabia as they have done Uganda - a country where the death sentence for homosexuals is real, rather than a footnote in a former bill.

In the current state of diplomatic affairs, Britain may complain about Uganda's gay rights record and threaten some reduction in aid. Yet to be truly serious on aid within a wider concern for human rights, Britain and the US must consider the long-term international method of response and manoeuvre. This is going to be far more difficult and important than absorbing 'peanut' barbs from the parliament in New Delhi.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1249327 2012-02-03T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-04T05:12:01-04:00

Benjamin Halfpenny http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-halfpenny/
Barack Obama, fresh from his moves on Iran's central and Tejarat banks, announced that the sanctions "demonstrate once more the unity of the international community in addressing the serious threat presented by Iran's nuclear program." Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, having joined the EU in its sanctions, reflected on Iran's "globally unacceptable" behaviour. And the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, said that tougher sanctions were needed.

World leaders, then, have continued to characterise Iran as a threat or a menace intent on some kind of destruction. This is a view which probably chimes with more than half of wider public opinion on Iran's quest for uranium enrichment: that Iran must be stopped before unstable geopolitics, regional Shia radicalisation, or cataclysmic disaster - the form of which is unspecified, but the threat of which is clear - occurs.

It might be asserted that the other section of public opinion is more sympathetic to Iran. Most eloquently expressed by Mehdi Hasan back in November, this position holds that Iran's geographical location - "encircled by the United States and its allies" - explains the desire for a nuclear deterrent; that Iran sees how North Korea has insulated itself with nuclear weapons; and ultimately that there is still no categorical evidence that Iran is building a bomb, as confirmed in the IAEA's 2011 report.

For both schools of thought, the new sanctions come at the "hard power" end of diplomacy. It is hoped, as evinced by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last Monday, that the move will encourage the Iranians back to the negotiating table with positive intentions. Diplomacy, when contrasted with the 'Strangelovian' desire for military action, is the buzz word for determined moderation, the priority for politicians and journalists alike.

Yet as far as the international community and journalists seek diplomacy with Iran, there is an extent to which the word is being used as an axiom for "cautious Western efforts" rather than a practical solution for peace. Calls for talks are creating this sense of a moral high ground where in refusing to chat - or refusing to comply with Western demands - Iran is seen as being obstinate. And instead of exploring why positive talks are not happening, commentators are working out the next dreadful steps Iran could take.

For diplomacy with Iran to work in the longer term, we need to change the way Iran perceives diplomatic efforts. With tough rhetoric, double-standards and belligerent action accompanying calls for diplomacy, Ashton's appeal looks less of an invitation and more of an enjoinder. Iran needs to feel that negotiations are predicated on some semblance of equal standing, some chance of mutual agreement. As Foreign Minister Salehi said last week: "Iran is ready to negotiate on the basis of mutual respect."

Successful talks, I contend, will require change in four main areas.

First, as displayed by the rhetoric of leaders above, it is commonly stated or implied that Iran is intent on building a bomb to threaten the security of the world. There is neither incontestable evidence for this nor historical justification for the portrayal of modern Iran as an imperial, bloodthirsty menace. Stop the hostile rhetoric.

Second, no leader or multilateral organisation has publicly debated quite why Iran would want a bomb, or indeed what they would actually do with one (bar endangering the security of the world, obviously). In international discourse it is often assumed that Iran would attack its 'enemies' without the second thought for reason or method. Until this conversation enters the public debate, antagonism will persist.

Third, Iran sees that its number one foe Israel complies less with international nuclear rules than itself, yet remains the beneficiary of US aid and is comparatively sheltered from global criticism. Apart from its aggression towards Iran, Israel already has a nuclear weapon, is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), will not disclose the number of its warheads, and will not - like Iran - allow IAEA inspections. So why should Iran comply more if others comply even less?

And fourth, why negotiate when your scientists are being assassinated and the international community raises little more than an eyebrow? Romney may talk of 'terrorism' in the blocking of shipping lanes, but real examples of terrorism are happening in Iran where scientists and citizens are being incinerated in their cars. Is violent coercion and intimidation really the basis for progressive discussion?

We have reached a stage where a flare-up in the Strait of Hormuz is a possibility. States are increasing the pressure for diplomatic exchange, without an apparent willingness to negotiate their position. But, to massage Kevin Rudd's phrase, until the international community treats Iran with the 'globally acceptable' diplomatic respect afforded to Israel, diplomacy has as little traction as belligerence. Diplomatic efforts are not just failing because of Iran; they are also failing because of us.]]>