Iceland and the Secret Revolution

So, I came across an article by Deena Stryker today, thanks to a friend, and the content astounded me. Did any of you know that Iceland had been the scene of a revolution of over the past few years? No, neither did I.

To take you back, in 2008, Iceland declared itself bankrupt. The reason being that previously, 2003 to be exact, all the banks in Iceland had been privitased, and the bankers had begun to offer minimal cost online banking which overall was aimed to attract overseas investors with great returns. The account were called IceSave. The investors inevitably flocked, primarily from Holland and the UK. However as the number of them increased, so did Iceland's foreign debt. Stryker informs us that in 2003, Iceland's debt was 200 times in GNP, and by 2007, it had risen to 900 times in GNP. Unsurprisngly, when the 2008 financial crisi hit, chaos ensued, ergo, bankruptcy.

Of course, as the largest banks were nationalized, Iceland was under growing pressure to come up with a strategy to pay back it's huge debts to investors. Protests and riots ensued, forcing one governemnt to resign, and the reinstating of a new one to come up with a plan to ease the crisis. Long story short, the decided plan was that each Icelandic tax payer, would be taxed 100 Euros a month for 15years, at 5.5% interest to pay the debt back. However, to the Icelandic people, this was not acceptable. Why should they be taxed to pay back the debts of private bankers? These debts were not incurred by them, it was the fault of other individuals who were running these previously privately owned banks. A fair point, in my opinion.

The Icelandic people protested, and what is more shocking, so did members of the government. This was the extraordinary time when the people of Iceland fought back until nothing could be done, except to give them what they wanted. The relationship between the state and the individual was torn apart and changed forever. Eventually a referendum was called, and in March 2010, 93% of voters voted against repaying the debt. However, the revolution did not stop here.

Iceland then decided to reform the entire system of state, from a new government to a new constitution. They wanted free of the constrictions of the powers that had dragged them into this mess. So, to begin with, the people of Iceland elected 25 of it's citizens, from a possible 522, who had no political party alignment, and had originally been selected by each gathering votes of at least 30 other citizens. These 25 electees now form the body making decisions in constructing the new constitution.

Perhaps even more astounding than this, is that the constitution is not being drafted behind closed doors in big board rooms of government buildings, it is all being done out in the open, publicly, on the internet. Each Icelandic citizen has the power to contribute and view the sculpting of their new constitution. This really could be the constitution of the people. It is the stuff of stories and tales of long ago, but the people of Iceland have shown us that it can be bought to the present, and can be a relevant and real event. The new constitution will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next election.

This story is one of power and of inspiration. So, why haven't we heard about it? (Aside from the fact the the UK, amongst other countries, threatened to isolate Iceland in a bid to get things their own way) Should we not be concerned as a nation that our media and our governemt seem to still be able to hide from us what they do not want us to see or hear? With all the uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East making headline news for weeks and months this year, it seems something of an anomaly that news of Iceland did not make the same headlines. This country should be celebrated for the changes it's people have brought about, and yet I do not recall hearing or reading about any of this in the context that it should have been. This free speech world we live in seems to be failing us.

I leave you with this thought; Have these events been hidden from us? Or is it just that our culture is so focussed on the negative, the barbaric, and the inane, that something as profound as a nation of people taking control of their own country, just isn't considered important enough? How does this slip under the radar?

Societies Sleeping

Jussi Puikkonen has been tipped as rising start in photography and he was recently featured on dazeddigital.com. 

Jussi is a Finnish born photographer, who only graduated in 2007, and has gone from strength to strength since his first book of photography 'On Vacation'. 

This collection focuses on frames of sleeping Finland during the months when it's residents are tucked up behind closed doors, while the weather rages and the temperature drops below freezing. The tourist spots without tourists, and the busy streets without the footfall of the summer season. He captures moments of abandoned beauty and creates a world where you can wander alone with your thoughts, or perhaps just hand in hand with someone as beautiful as the surroundings. 

Jussi Puikkonen has since worked on everything from editorial shoots, commercial projects and purely artistic photography. But this first project tells us everything we need to know about the raw talent this man has. 

Go to his website to view more of his outstanding work.

http://www.jussipuikkonen.com/

Can I get a foundation with that please?

It’s the new accessory apparently. They’ve added another must-have to their handbags and shoes and sunglasses. Now they’re all aiming for a charity venture tucked underneath one arm as they hook their Prada handbag and toy Chihuahua on the other.

Now maybe these are the words of a cynic, who knows, however, it is undeniable that the world of celebrity has become more heavily entwined with the world of humanitarian activism. There have always been the select few celebrities that have been known for their morals and have stood up to shout or sing a clear message to the people, Bono, John Lenon, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman and Bob Geldoff to name a few. And these few were known for their songs of freedom and truth. They were activists in their careers too. But now it seems celebrities of all shapes and sizes are flocking to sign up to create their own foundation.

I have always loved the idea of working for a charity (something that I now do) and have always been one to support fundraising and charity ventures. Money or food or water to the needy is exactly what the world should do more, so in that respect, surely it’s a great thing that so many celebrities are setting up their own foundations to help people and give something back to those who need it. The only reservation I have is this… Is it really plausible that this wave of popularity for helping others is something that so many celebrities have had the inspiration to do out of pure generosity? There is no denying, that appearing to give back to the world, and care for those less fortunate than you, is a very effective PR maneuver. But is it cynical to look at it this way? Or realistic?

This week, Lady Gaga has set up her own foundation, the 'Born This Way Foundation' to help those who are bullied. News also circulated that Cheryl Cole is setting up her foundation, 'The Cheryl Cole Foundation' to help young people in the North East realise their potential. And of course we have the more established ventures, such as Elton John’s AIDs foundation. 

No one can deny the need for more humanitarian aid, more compassion and more fairness in this world. But do we believe all these foundations are set up with the right intentions? I am sure that all the celebrities who take a hand in helping others, do it with good intentions. But where has the humility gone? These seem far too much like acts of vanity for me to be entirely comfortable. The most inspiring stories, in my opinion, are the ones you hear about somebody leaving a bag of money outside a charity with an anonymous note. They do not seek recognition, they do not need thanks, they wish to remain anonymous, because at the end of the day, they know it is not about them, and it is not themselves that need the publicity. It’s the people they are trying to help. Unfortunately when a celebrity sets up a foundation or gives a large amount to charity, the focus is almost always turned onto them. They get the limelight and not the people who need it most. The media should be focusing on bringing awareness to the causes that the charities support, not the founders, just because they had a number 1 album and wore Gucci down the red carpet last week. If anybody needs less publicity, it’s the people that are in our newspapers every week. And it's not just me that feels suspicious. At the end of 2005, there were headlines that the charity organizations involved in the Make Poverty History campaign were angry and felt that the whole thing had been hijacked and become about the celebrities, not about making poverty history. After all, what do most people remember from that campaign? Of course it's the hype of the Live8 concert, and not the ultimately far more important G8 Summit.

Furthermore, if a celebrity really feels that there are others who so desperately need money and support more than they do, why aren’t they giving out of their own pocket? They live extravagant lifestyles, often own a multitude of houses and cars. Would it really dent their pockets that much to give the odd few thousand a year, or even a month? Probably not. But then even if they did do it, you just know that suddenly their face would be all over the news, and maybe surprise surprise their next single might be released a month or two later? Although I do not wish to come across as though I am preaching to the masses. I do not always give when I have the chance, or perhaps even when I should. I could give a little more each month than I do, I am as guilty as anybody else of being selfish. But just because Lady Gaga say ‘Stop Bullying’, should we suddenly see her as the new Mother Teresa? No.

So what do we think? Should we shut up and just be happy that there’s money being raised for a good cause? Or do we recognize that these organizations may well be the well hatched plan of a PR agency who have decided their client needs to come across as a bit more caring, a bit more down to earth, a bit more compassionate? Personally, I don’t want to complain about any money being raised for a good cause. But I think I’d be a bit happier about it if I knew the organization stood for itself, and wasn’t just another brand name a celebrity can attach itself too. Perhaps they do all have hearts, and they do all believe in their cause, I hope they do. But I don’t like the idea of compassion and charity becoming the next big thing in the world of celebrity must-haves. It should be exactly what it says on the tin, and it should be all about the people it’s helping. Not the people who have slapped their name in the title.