petersioen

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

Blog post for the Human Rights Consortium

Conference report: LGBT+ Rights in the 21st Century: Free and Equal?”

First posted on May 10, 2017 on the blogspot of the Human Rights Consortium - School of Advanced Study - University of London 

https://humanrights.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2017/05/10/conference-report-lgbt-rights-in-the-21st-century-free-and-equal/ 

By Peter Sioen*

“There are currently 1 billion people living under British or British inspired anti-gay laws”, the Kaleidoscope Trust’s new executive director, Paul Dillane, said in his opening statement in a workshop at the 18thAnnual Student Human Rights conference held on March 25th, 2017 at the University of Nottingham. Human Rights students and lecturers from around the world met for a whole day to learn about and exchange views on “LBGT+ Rights in the 21st Century: Free and Equal?”. A string of upbeat, energetic speakers constituted a contrast with the bleak reality for LGBT+ people around the world. There were reality checks, controversial thoughts and many expressions of hope.

Professor Dominic McGoldrick, Professor of International Human Rights Law and HRLC co-director warned us in his opening speech that we were going to deal with lots of difficult and controversial issues. His warning proved to be correct. He was the first of many speakers that day to quote the first and recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on LGBT+ rights, who speaks about a “vortex of violence”.

Professor Michael O’Flaherty, director of the EU Agency of Fundamental Rights, put LGBT+ in a European perspective on the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and reflected on all the achievements on LGBT+ rights: e.g. the Yogakarta principles, decriminalisation, refugee policy and the appointment of the UN independent expert. But we still have far to go, Professor O’Flaherty reminded us: in certain countries the situation remains problematic, many problems remain for many LGBT+ refugees, women suffer more, intersectionality is not recognised enough etc. Homophobic attitudes seem embedded, he said. Even 16 EU-member states have been called out by the UN for their insufficient approaches to LGBT+ rights. Professor O’Flaherty referred to a survey his agency conducted which revealed that there is not a single EU member state where more than 50% of LGBT+ people feel comfortable holding the hand of their partner in public. The survey results revealed widespread hate speech in the workplace, homophobia and bullying in schools. Only 1 out of every 10 incidents of discrimination gets reported in the EU. Professor O’Flaherty announced their report on LGBT+ asylum seekers (that has since been released). The major findings in that report included lack of statistics, issues around eligibility, problems associated with the interviews (such as “posture” analysis), problems with homophobic translators and other issues regarding trans people. But he also made 9 suggestions that point towards solutions, which included the fact EU member states can learn from each other, the treaty obligations, that the LGBT+ community is not the problem, the Malta conference, the waking up to trans and intersex issues. It’s a hard time to be working in human rights, he concluded, but “let’s live in hope!”

Arvind Narrain, the Geneva Director of ARC International, picked up on that last point and saw lots of reasons for optimism and hope, certainly with the appointment of the UN Special Rapporteur, who was voted for by a small margin (23 yes votes to 18 no votes and 6 countries abstaining) laying bare strong opposition. He had witnessed how that the people who spoke in favor of the appointment had spoken with passion. Their passion had driven the discussion. But he also saw a passion for a no-vote in the representatives of the Muslim countries. Before the appointment of the Special Rapporteur, LGBT+ struggles were local, said Mr Narrain. The appointment of the Special Rapporteur will give support to local articulation; the reports will have authority and can’t be ignored. We now have a mechanism: how we will use it, is important.  Mr Narrain expressed that he wondered if the Special Rapporteur might be too focused on violence only.

After this plenary session, there were two parallel sets of workshops. The richness and wealth of the programme made choosing incredibly difficult. I presented a paper in the workshop titled “Regional perspectives on LGBT+ Rights: finding common ground”. I demonstrated how the Belgian gay movement had fought for civic acceptance and tolerance, which found its expression in an anti-discrimination law, their main agenda point. They were given civil partnerships very early on, almost like a concession, to make the gay voice go away. But new and progressive governments rushed to make same-sex marriages possible in 2003, as only the second country in the world. I discussed sociological models on how to try and explain the mechanisms of the movement and their achievements. I tried to give context to the current global tendency in the LGBT+ movement to focus on heteronormative marriage and adoption rights, which was not what the old gay movement was about, thus risking to lose some of the colourful, eccentric gay culture. Turkey, Armenia and South Asia were the other regions/countries highlighted in this workshop. In the parallel workshop they discussed “moving forward: remaining barriers to equality”. Presentations were made on blood donation, the non-heterosexual wage gap, pornography and the invisibility of non-binary gender identities in law.

Professor David Harris, HRLC co-director, chaired the plenary afternoon session. Unfortunately, Professor Stephen Whittle had to cancel last minute and couldn’t give his afternoon presentation on “gender-binary legal institutions, the challenge from trans and gender variant people” which I was very much looking forward to. However, the charming and soft-spoken Professor Javaid Rehman undoubtedly made the most controversial and hardest-hitting presentation of the day. He started by making, as he called it himself, two extremely “heretical statements: homosexuality is acceptable in Islam and the Islamic or Sharia law is flawed”. Professor Rehman delivered and substantiated such controversial statements so very successfully and skilfully. 76 states currently criminalize LGBT+ and half of them are Muslim, the other half not (however, the states with death sentences for LGBT+ people are all Muslim). There is no mention of homosexuality in the Quran or the Sunnah, apart from some positive references. He argued that in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is not homosexuals who are condemned, but heterosexual men and that Muslims have now given this story an anti-gay interpretation. In Islam, there was always a tradition of accepting homosexuality; it was through colonial legacy and Section 377 that discrimination and prosecution was introduced. The Muslim tradition was quite liberal before according to Professor Rehman which became repressive due to insecure political structures. He called for a better understanding of the Sharia or Islamic “law” (quotation marks in original). Laws can never be Islamic, he pointed out; laws are always political. Law, also human rights law, is a positive law dispensed by political authority. “Converting repressive religious morality into contemporary positive laws doesn’t make the law Islamic,” said Professor Rehman. Calling for a better understanding of what law is, he stated that Sharia is not law, it’s morality, it has no mechanisms and that it is used as apolitical weapon. He argued that you can’t change a “divine law”, therefore it is not positive law. For instance, the UDHR is a moral document, not law. Professor Rehman further added that OIC states need to change their positive laws.

Johanna Whiteman, co-director of the Equal Rights Trust, shared with us her experiences with LGBT+-rights in Russian courts. Russia has a culture and tradition that is deeply heterosexual, she explained. The European Court of Human Rights doesn’t recognise same-sex relationships, inter- or transsexuality. She said we will have to fight to keep the rights we already have. She presented us with what could be done in countries like Russia where hostility towards and repression of LGBT+ people is on the rise and women’s rights, for instance, are being eroded. The Equal Rights Trusts partners with local organisations, for instance the Russian LGBT+ network. She has done extensive research in Russian jurisprudence, but there are very few cases. Despite her optimism, Ms Whiteman also expressed that courts don’t do their jobs and there are restrictions on freedom of expression. Yet, she also pointed out that there are equality and non-discrimination laws, sexual orientation is a protected trait and there is improvement in legal recognition.

After the afternoon plenary session, there were two parallel workshops, both on a single theme and with only one speaker. The first one, which I couldn’t attend was on “effective awareness strategies of LGBT+ issues”. I attended the workshop hosted by Paul Dillane, executive director of Kaleidscope Trust but also representing the Human Rights Lawyers Association, on “LGBT+ rights: international and regional advocacy strategies”. He called the Commonwealth the “Empire 2.0” and read the hitting opening statement of this report, that the legacy of the British Empire is that now a billion people live under British anti-gay laws, the notorious Section 377. 36 of the 52 countries that criminalise LGBT+ are in the Commonwealth, he pointed out (quoting a different number than Professor Rehman earlier in the afternoon). He also concluded with hope-inspiring initiatives, including the appointment of the UN Special Rapporteur, the Equal Rights Coalition grouping like-minded countries and the all-party Parliamentary group.

The strength of this conference certainly was that it offered such a comprehensive global view. Living in our UK bubble, we sometimes lose awareness of how challenging life is for LGBT+ people all around the world. As a personal observation, I would like to note that the conference was attended by a wide variety of people, including many non LGBT+. To see this level of interest by the wider community, certainly of young human rights students, gives me much hope and trust in the future.

*Peter Sioen is a published author and psychologist with a background in business and inequality. He is currently an MA student in Understanding and Securing Human Rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Website: www.petersioen.com   Twitter: @PeterSioen

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

Is our economy bloated and blasé?

I’ve lost a billion last night. And so has every British tax payer or citizen. Just like that. The British government sold some of our shares in RBS, to test the water, far below the price they were purchased. We knew the temperature of the water was at £330, it needed to be £520 to let us float, more to makes us swim. Selling 5% of our shares, we have now lost a billion pounds. That’s a billion pounds we can’t spent on the NHS or Crossrail 2.

RBS is ours. What are with doing with it? We have started selling our shares before making an end to behaviours and bonuses that led to the crisis. Someone will have to lead the way and make banking clean. The superficial “words, words, words”-approach of banks like Barclays is just smoke and mirrors. Barclays have sent their alibi-CEO Anthony Jenkins rudely home only a few weeks ago as it was probably assessed that the storm in the public opinion had blown over and that the press was now looking away, at Greece and the euro.

 With RBS, we now own a bank and have not taken any actions to change what makes banking so mysterious and therefore so attractive to psychopathic characters and the vulgarly rich. The doors and windows to the trading floors remain closed to our eyes, so we have to assume that what goes on in there is not much different than ten years ago. 

 Coincidentally, yesterday City Trader Tom Hayes was sent to jail for 14 years for rigging Libor. A harsh sentence, some say. They don’t see the vast amount of damage this man, and his colleagues and bosses, have caused to us all and our economy. The damage is so big, we can’t being to asses. His teary-eyed defence of being a ltittle bit autistic and everyone else did it too, didn’t wash. Unfortunately, the British legal system does not have the wattage, voltage and horsepower to chase after all those “others who did it too”. Many of them have disappeared, fled to Russia and the Middle East where the implement their experience in hedge funds. Much sleeker.

 We are going to end up losing 14 billion. The government never thought asking RBS for commitment to compensate us, for instance by promising once it makes profit again, to build new schools and help build the so-called Northern powerhouse and its much needed rail connections.

 Maybe we shouldn’t have bailed RBS out. Our economy might have collapsed; but then perhaps it deserved to collapse. We’ve managed to keep up the façade of a bloated representation of our economic reality. It might have been healthier in the long run to be more honest and show the banks some tough love.

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

The Wolf Of Wall Street is about you - 10th Jan 2014

Smiling mighty from movie posters everywhere, the “Wolf of Wall Street”, looks down on us victorious and very attractive indeed. Whereas the glorification of excess and crime has its obvious dangers, the real Achilles’ heel of the film lays bare at the start of the story. It’s obvious for everyone to see, but few notice it.

The new Scorsese film tells the story of Jordan Belfort, an archetypical stockbroker who earned millions in the nineties on the stock market. We are made to believe this story is a true one. Belfort was convicted of fraud, stock market manipulation and running a so called penny stock boiler room. He spent time in jail but saw that cut down after he struck a deal with the authorities by telling on those he had lured into doing as he did. He is earning a great deal of money now selling and telling his story, but is mostly failing to pay the negotiated restitution.

At the start of the story we see him on his first working day. His new boss takes him out to a fancy restaurant and orders a range of drinks as they sit down, drinks to be served every five minutes. Belfort says that he will stick to water. “It’s his first day on Wall Street,” his boss jokes to the waiter, “he will learn quickly enough!” The movie is based on one of many autobiographies Belfort wrote in jail and which are best sellers. Through this opening scene, Belfort manipulates the audience into believing that he was a poor victim, that he started off all innocent and that others led him astray. I for one, refuse to believe that.

Obviously I don’t know Jordan Belfort myself. I cannot and would not therefore diagnose and label the man. But we must be vigilant and accept the possibility that he is probably a psychopath. In fact, we learn through the court cases and his own books that he spent his life cheating, stealing, manipulating, breaking the law. He did all that with no understanding of the fact he was making victims. I see in the opening scene another attempt of a potential psychopath to manipulate us to think that he is at heart an honest man. It would be naive of us the audience to accept that. It makes us all the victim of his manipulations. He’s just at it again. It is the equivalent of Lance Armstrong telling Oprah: “I have lied all my live, but now you have to believe me.” You are an idiot if you do.  If we want to create real change in how business is done, if we seek a more ethical capitalism, it will be up to all of us to see through the ways of these wolfs. It will be up to us to stop being sheepish.

It is well documented that in the business world, and more specifically the financial world, psychopaths were thriving. This world drew them in like a magnet, they made it to the top and they managed to force their ways and culture upon the companies they worked for and led.

The glorification of such types is not new. “Wall Street’s” Gordon Gekko and even American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman have functioned as role models for ambitious, ruthless people. With the “Wolf of Wall Street”, this is happening again. Despite the fact it appears to go wrong at the end of this story, many audience members will be dazzled by the millions, the hookers, the parties and mostly by the main characters sense of being a winner. Real life villains become attractive scoundrels; many remember only the good bits. And they dream of becoming as rich as the guys they’ve seen on the screen.

Just as we are recovering from the deep global crisis these types have caused, again a new psychopathic role model is put forward. The movie doesn’t show that Belfort’s a million dollar a week salary was money that indirectly came from our – and our parents’ - retirement-funds. Maybe the movie should have shown in continues split screen the millions of people that lost their houses and other investments because of amoral behaviours a few. The could have shown the senior citizens who worked hard all their lives but now live in poverty because they handed over their savings to bankers who promised them healthy and assured profits but ended up with pennies. We don’t get to see the victims in these movies. They are in fact sitting in the cinema seats, not knowing they are the victims and maybe even dreaming of the life they see on the screen, But because of the so-called winners they see on the screen, glorified an mystified, the viewers around the world barely make any interest on their savings accounts any more.

It is the winners that dictate us that we need to adore them, whether it’s Lance Armstrong or Jordan Belfort, whether it’s the high earning CEO or football player. They are the ones putting peer pressure on all of society that being competitive is a good thing. Maybe we need to rethink competiveness itself.

©Peter Sioen, 10/01/2014

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

Thatcher Teachings - 17th April 2013

(Dutch version below; Nederlandse versie hieronder)

Today Margaret Thatcher’s funeral is held, not in Westminster Abbey, the church next to Parliament, but in Saint-Paul’s, the Cathedral in The City, the square mile. Her funeral comes 20 years after Thatcherism was declared dead. But the impact of her policy can still be felt throughout the UK and the rest of Europe today in ways we don’t realise.

At her first election in 1979 she found an economic ruin. The United Kingdom had become the weak link in Europe. British products were avoided worldwide, deemed low quality. The British economy lay flat completely at times. Thatcher’s voters had gone through a winter of strikes without services, work or electricity. Children made their homework by candle light. Many senior citizens died of cold; but barely any gravediggers were found willing to bury them. Thatcher addressed the situation head on. She prided herself on being hard, very hard. She may have saved the British economy from bankruptcy, but at a price. And that price is still being paid today, and not in the UK alone. Her approach had winners but many losers, still today.

She embraced and protected the financial world and lifted regulations. As a result The City boomed, driven by short term superprofits. But she set them free when they crashed in 1986 and saved them with money and her deregulation was free license. As such Thatcher instigated the “anything is allowed and possible” feeling that reigned over The City from then on and which drove other financial centres to behave in the same way. It is that evaporation of ethical and moral boundaries that has led to the financial crises starting in 2008. Those crises are hitting many people much harder than the 1986 one. So, the position Thatcher took in the eighties has an impact today on our bank accounts and certainly on our saving accounts and other financial investments. And also on our shrinking pension funds. Because mass profits for a few can’t happen without losses for a few or very many others.

The grocer’s daughter worked her way up to the top and helped create this new-Victorian idea of upper class, causing a rift in society. She fought hard and ruthlessly to get to the top and considered herself as such the sole role model. Thus she still has an influence on today’s hard and tough style of competing in professional arenas. The economic elite, those with astronomical wages and bonuses, populated her world whilst more and more people failed to make ends meet. She was the longest running Prime Minister so far and the only female Prime Minister of the UK. But in all her nearly 12 years in office and in three consecutive governments, she appointed only one female minister. No Prime Minister since the Second World War appointed less female ministers. As such she stood in the way of a widening of professional happiness and diversity. We are still working hard today to resolve that.

Mines were closed, but thirty years on too little jobs were created for the people who were sent off with benefits. Two or three generations later, children still grow up without perspective on a job and without the example of work ethic. CEO’s worldwide still adore here for the way she silenced unions. But the United Kingdom she is leaving behind is a country of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. It is the ‘haves’ that get noticed around the world and frustrate people, even on average incomes, making them feel like they don’t possess enough and want more.

She left the United Kingdom a lot less united than she found it. The EU is still reeling from her attitude, but she didn't reserve that for Europe alone. She alienated the Northern Irish and the Scottish. The latter might be voting for independence next year.

The special relationship she enjoyed with Ronald Reagan still lives on in the British-American tandem that tries to control world politics. “When Ronnie and I ruled the world …” was one of her favourite remarks during her dinners with the elite that continued to be her dinner guests long after she was forced out of number 10.

She didn't keep it a secret that of all her nicknames, Iron Lady was her favourite. Iron is hard; too hard maybe. It is cold. And it rusts. Sometimes slowly.

[Peter Sioen - career & management coach and psychologist in the City of London, author and international TV, radio & news media commentator and author of the management book Superyou]

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

Thatcher Teachings – hoe Thatcher nog steeds jouw leven bepaalt - 17 april 2013

Vandaag wordt de begrafenis van Margaret Thatcher gehouden. Niet in Westminster Abbey, de kerk van het Parlement, maar in Saint-Paul’s, de kathedraal in The City. De begrafenis komt 20 jaar nadat het Thatcherisme dood is verklaard. Maar de impact van haar beleid voelen wij ook vandaag nog; dat leeft, zelfs in België, Nederland en de rest van Europa.

Bij haar eerste verkiezing in ’79 trof ze een economische puinhoop. Het Verenigd Koninkrijk lag op zijn achterwerk; het was het zwakke broertje van de Westerse wereld. Britse producten werden wereldwijd vermeden. In het VK zelf lag de economie soms helemaal plat. Thatchers kiezers hadden een stakingswinter doorstaan zonder diensten, werk of elektriciteit. Kinderen deden huiswerk bij kaarslicht. Voor de velen bejaarden die stierven van de kou vond men geen werkwillige grafdelvers. Tegen die situatie is Margaret Thatcher hard in gegaan, zeer hard. Daarmee heeft ze de Britse economie misschien van een ondergang gered. Maar dat kwam tegen een prijs, voelbaar tot ver over de landsgrenzen. Haar aanpak had winnaars maar ook heel veel verliezers, tot vandaag.

Ze heeft de Britse financiële wereld in de armen genomen en een hand boven het hoofd gehouden. En schrapte regelgeving die die sector in goede banen en onder controle moet houden. Daarmee kende The City een echte boom, gedreven door korte termijn woekerwinsten. Maar ze heeft ze ook vrijgeleides gegeven en toen ze in ’86 crashten. Ze heeft hen vrijgekocht. Ze heeft hen geld gegeven en nog meer gederugaliseerd. Daarmee heeft Margaret Thatcher mee de toon gezet voor een “alles kan, alles” mag cultuur in de Britse bankenwereld die wereldwijd is overgeslagen. Het is die ethische en morele normvervaging, die ons globaal naar de crisissen van 2008 en daarna geleid heeft. En die crisissen komen voor velen nog een stuk harder aan dan die van ’86. Dus Margaret Thatcher heeft door haar opstelling van toen, vandaag nog een impact op onze bankrekeningen vandaag, maar vooral op onze spaarboekjes en andere beleggingen. En dus ook op onze krimpende gemeente- en pensioenkassen. Want woekerwinsten voor enkelen gaan niet zonder kleine en grote verliezen bij vele anderen.

Als kruideniersdochter die zich opwerkte heeft ze mee het nieuw-Victoriaanse idee van een professionele upperclass uitgebouwd, en zo een kloof in de maatschappij geslagen. Ze had zich hard en hardvochtig naar de top gewerkt en vond zichzelf daardoor het enige rolmodel. Een kleine incrowd feestte mee terwijl steeds meer mensen uit de boot vielen. Daarmee bepaalt Thatcher ook mee tot op de dag van vandaag de keiharde competitieve stijl in de bedrijfswereld. De grote heren met de hoge lonen en astronomische bonussen bevolkten haar wereld. Als enige vrouwelijke Britse Premier heeft ze zelf slechts een één vrouwelijke minister aangeduid in de bijna twaalf jaar waarin ze drie opeenvolgende regeringen heeft geleid. Daarmee heeft ze verbreding van werkgeluk en diversiteit in de weg gestaan, iets waar we vandaag nog hard aan werken om dat opgelost te krijgen.

Mijnen werden gesloten maar dertig jaar later zijn daar nog geen nieuwe jobs. De mensen werden met een uitkeringetje in het riet gestuurd, en twee, drie generaties later groeien hun kinderen en kleinkinderen nog steeds op zonder uitzicht op werk. Zonder gevoel voor werkethiek mee te krijgen. Bedrijfsleiders overal ter wereld adoreren haar nog steeds omwille van de manier waarop ze de vakbonden heeft klein gekregen. Het Verenigd Koninkrijk dat ze achterliet is verdeeld in “haves” and have “nots”. En het zijn de “haves” die internationaal in de kijker lopen en zelfs mensen met modale inkomens frustreren omdat ze voelen dat ze niet genoeg hebben en meer willen.

Ze heeft dat United Kingdom ook een stuk minder United achtergelaten dan ze het vond. Haar eigengereide Engelse houding, gestuurd door dat typisch Engelse (niet Britse!) meerderwaardigheidsgevoel, bewaarde ze niet enkel voor Europa, dat daar nog van nahijgt. Ze vervreemde ook de Noord-Ieren en de Schotten ermee. Die laatsten stemmen volgend jaar misschien voor onafhankelijkheid.

De speciale relatie die ze had met Reagan, leeft nog steeds voort in de Brits-Amerikaanse tandem die globaal de internationale politiek probeert te bepalen. “When Ronnie and I ruled the world …” was een van haar favoriete opmerkingen tijdens haar dinners met de elite nadat ze was buiten gebonjourd uit Number 10.

Ze maakte er geen geheim van dat van alle koos-en bijnamen die ze kreeg, Iron Lady haar favoriete was. IJzer is hard; misschien te hard. Het is koud. En het roest. Soms langzaam. 

[Peter Sioen - career & management coach and psychologist in the City of London, author and international TV, radio & news media commentator and author of the management book Superyou]

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

Superjij: Release and March Media Roundup - 28th Mar 2013

March has been a very special month for me, as my book Superyou went on general release in Belgium and the Netherlands (in Dutch “Superjij”); published by renowned publisher De Bezige Bij. It was welcomed with excitement and very positive feedback. The media-reaction was overwhelming:

A 5 page spread in quality newspaper De Standaard www.standaard.be

2 pages in quality newspaper De Morgen http://www.demorgen.be/

A noted appearance in TV talk show Reyers Laat: can be viewed here, I come in at about 28 minutes http://www.canvas.be/video_overzicht/215000

A nice 2 page portrait in the largest Belgian magazine Humo www.humo.be

A full page in the best-selling newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws http://www.hln.be/

A much coveted slot in Saturday morning radio talk show Interne Keuken http://internetradio.vrt.be/radiospeler/v2_prod/wmp.html?qsbrand=11&qsODfile=%2Ffiles%2Fredactie%2Fherbeluister%2F11_11inke.xml (I come in after half an hour)

A lunchtime interview on Radio 2

Unfortunately, aforementioned articles in the written press are all still behind paying walls, but should be available to everyone in the next few months.

More articles are in the pipeline, for instance in specialised magazine Psychologies and current affairs weekly magazine Knack.

As it was book week in the Netherlands last week, we decided to focus on April for promo over there. A first interview, for the largest Dutch paper, het NRC Handelsblad, a newspaper of outstanding quality, will be recorded shortly. Other media appearances have been booked for mid-April.

Superjij is available in all major outlets as well as online http://www.wpg.be/boeken/overzicht/isbn/9789085424505/

[Peter Sioen - career & management coach and psychologist in the City of London, author and international TV, radio & news media commentator and author of the management book Superyou]

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

On Cyprus - 27th Mar 2013

The Cyprus economy has been over-reliant on its banks. Five years into the global banking crisis, it is unacceptable that it was allowed to go into such dire straits. You would think that financial controllers would be more vigilant, having learned from bank collapses and revelations of evaporating moral and ethics. Moreover, Cyprus is closely linked to Greece: So Europe’s central bank should have been vigilant and should have started clearing up the Cyprus mess five years ago or else on the cusp of Greece’s problems.

So another fire needs to be extinguished with bureaucrat top-to-bottom measures coming from a distant, cold Brussels. The plans are obviously not supported at grassroots level in hot Cyprus. Small, far, nicely tucked away near the Middle East and closely allied to Russia, I fear Cyprus may be sacrificed as a test case. As a tax haven for rich Russians, it is not any different than the Channel Islands for the Brits. Worrying is that people’s savings all over Europe no longer feel safe. Saving accounts should be the one reliable investment, a corner stone of banking for the people. It should be restored in its pre-86 glory, not eroded.

In most European languages, solidarity is a word. It is not heard much these days.

(written by request of the Evening Standard 25/3/2013)

[Peter Sioen - career & management coach and psychologist in the City of London, author and international TV, radio & news media commentator and author of the management book Superyou]

[petersioen]

[petersioen]

A Convenient Crisis - 25th Feb 2013

All over the world banks are still making huge profits; at the bottom of this blog you can find a sample of articles reporting on that. Still we seem to accept that there’s a banking crisis going on. The notion has now penetrated our brains so deeply and settled itself there so neatly, it is now considered a fact. It has moved into the vernacular as if it were a true given, an undeniable object like table or chair. But as most banks have reported very healthy profits over the past months, we need to wonder what this banking crisis really is and why this blanket term is so easily used.

Undeniably, there has been a cluster of crises since 2008, all related to the financial world. However we have now come to understand that some of those crises started well before that date, but were not labelled as such. It was a crisis of culture, of ethics and morals, of law and perhaps a deeper structural crisis in our banks, our investment models and speculation strategies. Those crises were typical of some parts of banks only; they were probably most extreme in the biggest financial cities. It was also a crisis of control. We are still dealing with the fall out, and we are still trying to mend the problems. But most parts of most banks, most employees in most localities were lawful, hardworking and trying to do a good job. They too are now sucked in this maelstrom of banking crisis.

In many countries, banks had to be bailed out by governments who feared bankruptcies would cause profound economic damage. They didn’t want to see the domino effect again that followed the Lehman collapse.

As most of us are still feeling from the double blow of the double dip recession, many banks and other institutions, seem to hide cleverly behind this notion of banking crisis to reinforce positions and powers, fight off legal interference, cut down on customer service and fire many people. The financial world, reeling after the exposure of their smelly internal kitchen, seems to pretend they are suffering. But profits still come rolling in. And smokescreens are erected, once again trying to appeal to the trust of their employees and customers. I feel the real lesson form the crises was that we all needed to establish a business-relationship with our banks, not a trusting one. Having some insight in the mechanisms of the financial world, I can’t help but suspecting that there are many companies and people out there who are earning fortunes on the back of this notion of global crisis, and benefit of keeping the image of crisis going. These people and organisations don’t necessarily care much about the interests of the people they make feel the crisis.

This banking crisis is not how it is presented by the banks concerned, by other financial organisms and by the press. There must be some people out there enjoying the fact that we are all misled.

Last month, Antony Jenkins the new CEO of Barclays whose duty it is to polish up the bank’s badly soiled image, announced that from now on employees need to subscribe to the banks new values: respect, integrity, service, excellence and stewardship. It is frightening to realise that this humongous bank has dealt with our money all these decades without respecting those very basic values. You would think it’s the least you could expect. Excellence is an over-used and now tired word. It reveals a tired mind. Any healthy company would tolerate their employees to have at least moments of weakness; piling pressure on already stress out people by requesting excellence only is almost inhumane. But what I miss most in all the expensive plans for change is the announcement of changes how management is going to operate, because ultimately management is where the responsibility always lies. Shortly after Jenkins announced that his people had to shape up or leave, hence suggesting some were out of shape, and at the same time as Barclays announced their Transform programme, they fired yet another 3700 people. Still, the City is reacting well. Operation image repair seems to have become a success.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/08/28/what-downturn-bank-profits-hit-34-5-billion/ , http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-24/economy/31832758_1_bank-profits-problem-list-bank-net-income , http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/337103/european-central-bank-profit-rose-in-2012

  http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/barclays-new-broom-antony-jenkins-tells-staff-to-toe-the-line-or-leave-8455584.html

[Peter Sioen - career & management coach and psychologist in the City of London, author and international TV, radio & news media commentator and author of the forthcoming management book Superyou]

[petersioen]