Some thoughts on the European Migrant Crisis

My parents moved from Spain to Germany in the 1960ies in search of a better life, which they found. My family has enjoyed a comfortable life thanks to hard work (lots of it) and the chances this country has offered us. So immigration is something personal for me.

Now Europe is facing the biggest refugee crisis since World War II and many people, including myself, are starting to feel confused and anxious about the situation. 

First of all we all agree that the situation in Syria is terrible and tragic and that it is everyone's duty to help people running from such a horrific war. We have organized donations and tried to support the refugees in any way possible. These people need our help and we are willing to give him, as has been proven in the last couple of months.  

But it would be a lie to say that there is no worry attached to this topic.  We see pictures of trains full of people and people walking towards borders. The current number states 800.000 refugees for Germany alone and they expect the number to reach 1.000.000 by the end of the year. That is about the same amount as the complete population of San Jose (CA) and there is no end in sight.

The governments in Europe are constantly speaking about the advantages for Europe because of the refugees and how our countries can handle it. But the question is: Who can really handle it and for how long? Where is the limit and shouldn’t there be a plan before the limit is reached?

How is it possible that a country like Spain has been assigned the third highest refugee quota, while it has problems in sustaining its own population? This may sound a little selfish, but since it is my home country I can’t help feeling for it. I am tired of hearing stories of how people commit suicide because they can't avoid eviction and how people have to go through the trash of supermarkets to find something for their family for dinner. The latter story I have witnessed myself and it was heartbreaking. 

Many people are shouting for border controls and even closed borders. While I can understand their concerns this would be the easy and unkind way to solve this problem. The truth is that the refugees didn't leave their home for fun but because they didn't have any other choice. While we worry about the next promotion or if we can get that new car we want, they are used to worry about getting home alive. What they have been through is certainly beyond our imagination. We have to help them, simply because this is the right thing to do. 

One thing that is missing in this situation is a proper leadership. Governments can't be oblivious to the fear of the population in Europe and yet they are still not presenting a proper plan of action. It has already been said that accommodation for 200.000 refugees in Germany alone is already missing and more people are coming. This is not considering that the winter is approaching and that those presently housed in tents have to be moved into proper accommodations, when the temperatures drop.

 There are rumors about empty flats being forcefully seized by the state for housing among other things. Of course this scares people not because they don't want to help but because they feel they don't have a say and they don't know what they are at. 

Maybe the present amount of refugees can be handled but how much more can? According to some source 9 million Syrians alone are on the run. That is more than the population of New York City. In addition there are many migrants from other countries. Could Europe still handle that? Would it be acceptable to close the border at a certain number and say: Sorry, we are booked out? Certainly not!

While taking in refugees is the right thing to do, it is an improvised solution to a very different problem: The war in Syria! The truth is that the refugee crisis is merely a symptom of the war.

Down the line it is obvious to me, that people want to help but they feel anxious because our leaders don’t seem to have a solid plan. It seems as if they are making it up as they go along. That situation is dangerous because the fear of the European population can be used by racist organizations. The governments should ensure the people, Europeans and refugees alike, that they know what they are doing.

Edit 22-11-2015:
I wrote this post before the attacks in Paris. I have to admit that my first instinct had been to take this post down. Like the rest of Europe I was shocked and scared. Now I have decided to repost it, as my way of support for Paris and refugees alike.

Cyberbullies are Cowards and How we can fight them

The internet has enabled us in a unique way to communicate with people from all over the world. Unfortunately a branch of people has also emerged in the online community that are generally called "trolls" and who bully people simply in order to get a reaction. These trolls are sadly the living proof that the internet brings out the worst in people. While these trolls might be annoying for adults like myself their actions can cause serious damage to children and teenagers. 

Today's teenagers are sometimes referred to as the "Generation Facebook" because they are literally growing up with the social network. While it enables even the shyest kid to make friends it has also given the bullies a larger platform to torture their victims.

There have always been bullies who have picked on weaker and younger children or on those who simply were different. But this usually ended after school hours or when the victims had places where they could retreat to. Unfortunately in times of social networks and smart phones this is no longer the case. These children are constantly exposed to insults and to gossip which spreads at the speed of light. In the present times any mistake or embarrasing situation is documented with a cell phone and shared with the world. Stopping this is almost impossible. Sadly some of those bullied kids don't have the strength and confidence to stand up to that bullying, some even attempt or commit suicide in their desperation.

The problem with the cyberbullies has two main causes. First the education they receive from their parents. Often enough these parents when confronted with the actions of their children wave those off as normal behaviour and as jokes among kids. They even claim it to be healthy so that children learn up to stand stand for themselves. This also goes for "classic" bullies, who in extreme cases even believe that it is expected of them to bully others. A scene from "The Breakfast Club" comes to mind, when we learn, that Emilio Estevez character has only bullied another kid to impress his father. 

The other problem is the anonymity the internet offers. Although some people don't have a problem with bullying people in real life, most people wouldn't dare. But behind a keyboard many corwards become brave and start picking on others and insulting them. They don't feel remorse since they aren't seeing first hand the effect their actions are having on their victims. It is harder to ignore someone crying in front of you than it is to not think about what the person on the other side of the screen is doing. 

The saddest thing about this problem is, that there is no solution for it on a larger scale and that all the steps we can take a tiny steps in our own behaviour. 

We should start by keeping the courtesy during an argument. I know how hard this can be because being from southern Spain my temprament sometimes gets the best of me, especially when arguing with irrational and stubborn people, who actually insult me. But if more and more people try this, it might become a new fashion. 

Another thing would be to work on the next generation. We have to teach our children, that bullying is not cool or funny, but hurtful. It is in fact cool to stand up for weaker kids and help them. We also have to support our children and show them that they can trust us. We might not be able to stop an internet wave, but sometimes having someone tell you: "It is not as bad as it seems" can make the world of a difference. Kids need to know that they are not alone, when they are being bullied. This gives them confidence and they might be able to stand up for themselves or at least to look for help. 

Finally we should stop engaging internet trolls. These people want to shock and annoy you. The more of a reaction they get the more they push the limits. It is best to "starve them out" in their attention seeking. Our time is too precious to waste it arguing with ignorant people, while we can spend it with our children. All social networks have an "ignore" or "block" button to use and enjoy some internet peace. 

The crash of Germanwings flight 4U 9525 - mental health assessment for airline pilots

The crash of germanwings flight 4U 9525 has left Europe and the rest of the world heartbroken, especially since the revelation that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appears to have crashed the flight deliberately. For me personally this tragedy feels and is very close to home, as I'm a spanish born, living in Germany and someone very dear to me took the very  same flight just one day before the crash. Most likely it was the same plane, maybe even flown by Andreas Lubitz.

In the last few days we have learnt many things about the crash, among others the co-pilot had a known history of depression. This has raised the question, whether  regular psychological tests for pilots should be mandatory. Personally I was shocked that this wasn't mandatory worldwide already and so far has only been implemented in some countries such as the US. 

Being an advocate to end the stigma of mental illness and someone who has suffered from depression herself I can't help but feeling anger at this situation, because in many ways it means that again society has failed. There are many speculations about the reasons why Mr. Lubitz has done what he did, but one thing we know for fact: He was in no way fit to fly a plane full of people. 

It is known that he had a sick note for the day of the crash and had been in treatment for an undiclosed illness. He had interrupted his initial training to be treated for depression and supposedly it was recommended that he should undergo regular psychological checks. Why hasn't this happened? How can it be that nobody saw what was going on? The answers to these questions are hard to find but we need to face the reality. 

Mental illness is still a taboo because it bears a stigma. Here in Germany one of the first things that you are told when you start a therapy is not to inform your employer because it could lead to respercussions at work. In a situation where you are supposed to find help secrecy is again encouraged, which results in the patient leading a double life. One where you try to seek help and fight a disease and one where you pretend that everything is in order. This also leads involuntarily to the feeling that a mental illness is something to be ashamed of, which in turn leads to isolation in my own experience.

In Germany you can have up to a waiting time of 3 years to get a therapy spot through the standard health insurance. This means three years during which a mental illness goes untreated. If you make a therapy through standard health insurance there is a "record" of it, but you can choose to private therapist and pay yourself. Then there is no official record, which is said to have been done by the co-pilot. If he did that to hide his illness or simply because he didn't get a therapy spot we will never know.

Many mental health organizations have raised concerns that the present media coverage might increase the stigma and that many pilots fly safely despite having fought mental illness in the past.  This is true but in my opinion this incident shows that we have to rethink the past regulations, since one deliberately caused confirmed crash is one too many.

There are many physical illnesses such as epilepsy which keep people from becoming a commercial pilot, why not setting similar standards for mental illnesses? It has been proven that around 50 % of the people who at one point in their life suffered from depression will suffer a relapse. After a second episode the likelyhood of a third episode happening is even higher.

Of course many people don't suffer a second episode and aren't suicidal but in a situation where hundreds of people's lives depend on one person there should be a zero tolerance. This may sound drastic but what many people forget is that stress is a common trigger for a mental illness and being responsible for so many lives certainly is a huge stress factor. 

In this respect the regulations also failed Andreas Lubitz. Of course he has committed a terrible action but condemning him as a mass murderer is certainly the easy way of handling this. The fact is that he was a man with a known past of mental health problems and he was in treatment for an undisclosed illness. How could it be allowed that he was put in a stressful situation where he was responsible for so many lives? He was a sick man that should not have  been in the pilot seat in the first place, even if this would have meant crushing his dream. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own, especially since a mental illness affects your view of the world and you don't see things clearly.

Personally I believe that someone with a known past of mental illness should be banned from flying commercial flights indefinetely and that pilots should have to undergo regular intense, psychological checks, so that it is impossible for them to hide an illness. Also when a patient is responsible for other people's lives due to their job e.g. pilots, bus drivers, doctors etc. and he or she suffers from any medical condition that could endanger other people, the employer should be informed without delay. This might have an effect on many people but as stated before in these cases a zero tolerance policy should be the rule.

The Gender Question - Why feminism is hypocritical these days

Some time back I wrote my first post on feminism. Personally I thought the topic was fairly simple but through the feedback on my post I learnt about the various fractions like feminists, women against feminism and men rights advocates just to name a few. 

This was extremely surprising to me because I think this matter is rather simple: 

Equal rights and duties for both genders!

So why is there such a variety of groups and opinions with this topic? I believe this is because many people use this topic as a valve to vent their frustration because the matter concerns everybody. 

Sadly feminism is always linked to strong negative feelings, even with women. Because some women that call themselves feminists look down on women who decide to become fulltime mothers and wives. In my opinion this is extremely hypocritical because it denies women their freedom.

Originally feminism began to give women equal rights, meaning also the right to choose what to do with their lives. So if a woman is being critized for deliberately choosing to become a homemaker isn't this just as bad as when a woman used to be critized for wanting a career? Just because you can do something, in this case have a career, doesn't mean you have to do it. Otherwise we would only have doctors and lawyers and no gardners or horsetrainers. It is condescending to judge someone by what they decide to be their meaning of life.

A lot of diehard feminists also express a very negative attitude towards men. They literally consider them the enemy and behave as if we were at war. This starts by seeing sexism where there is none and reducing all matters to the gender question. But not everything has to do with the gender question, because after all our gender is just one part of our identity. 

Besides why would we, women, want to subdue men? Do these feminists want revenge for the hundreds of years were men have subdued women? Personally I believe that to be just pityful. I consider myself a modern, strong woman and the last thing in life I want is a docile partner, who always says "what ever you want, darling." Because I am a strong woman I want an equal partner, just like the word says. Otherwise it would say servant or minion. 

I believe that these women, who call themselves feminists, are afraid of accepting men as equal partners. If they let go of their "menhate" and without anyone else to blame they might have to look at themselves to find the reasons why things go wrong. In a way they have still one more step to go which is letting go of the fight and take responsibility for their own situation. This is what makes us mature and strong women, equal to any men. 

Equality also means equal duties. It shudders me, whenever I hear of divorces in which the man looses everything even if the woman cheated on him or what not. I believe that it is time to adjust that as well, so that laws protect both parties equally in a divorce. Also the mother shouldn't automatically get the custody of the children, this should be awarded to the better suited parent, regardless the gender. 

Of course there are many parts in the world, where "the fight" is still on and it is important to fight for equality in those. Therefore I support and applaud campaigns like "he for she" and Emma Watson's inspirational speech in front of the United Nations. 

However in the "western world" it is time we realized what we have reached already. Maybe it is time to give up the priviledges such a women's quota we got in the past, because they are now outdated. Only then will we truly have reached gender equality. 

AIDS - the forgotten pandemic

Having been born in 1978 I was a teenager during the nineties which was perhaps the height of the AIDS and HIV panic. It started in the eighties but it wasn't until the nineties that its true meaning hit the world. 

The fact that AIDS still remains a deadly disease has now been forgotten or at least repressed. Since new drugs have been made available, that if therapy is started at an early enough stage, can provide an almost normal life expectency people have started to see HIV more like an inconvinience rather than a deadly virus, while the truth is, it still is.

First of all people tend to forget that you are only fine IF you receive treatment, for that you have to get tested and know about your infection. So think about it: How many of you have been tested after having unprotected sex? How many of you have ever thought: "This one time won't do any harm." The thruth is that one time can be enough. 

Why are we risking having unprotected sex at all? After all there are also many other STDs one can get. Don't get me wrong, of course unprotected sex in a relationship is fine if you have checked everything but in these times people often don't get married until their thirties and no matter how you put it everyone has "casual sex" at one point or at least a handful of partner before finding "the one". There is nothing bad about it as long as people are sensible about it.

The good thing is that in the meantime we have also learnt what interactions with someone who is HIV positive are safe and which can be made safe by using condoms. These days most people know that things like kissing or sharing a bathroom are safe, while sexual contacts without proper protection are highly risky. 

The irony is that people are relaxed enough to actually have casual sex and not think anything about it twice but usually are reluctant to talk about protection because the partner in question might be offended by it. This is because suffering from an STD or HIV is still stigmatized and talking to your partner about protection implies that you consider the option of him or her suffering from it.

What most people don't consider however is that they themselves might suffer from a disease that has not yet been diagnosed. So speaking about protection with your partner is not only for your protection but also for theirs.

If we consider all this, why are we living the way we, as a society, are living? The truth is simple: Because it is comfortable. We don't want  to miss on casual sex or short lived relationships but also are not willing to go through the embarrasment or discussion of speaking about protection with our partner. In reality however we should realise that the freedom being sexually active comes the responsibility of being sensible about it and protecting others as well as ourselves.

HIV is a virus that could fairly easy be extinguished if people would act responsible in their sexual relationships. I am not speaking about only having one partner in life or being puritanic. What I mean is that the openess we apply to sex these days should be also applied to speaking about proper protection. 

My thoughts on the aftermath of the "Charlie Hebdo Attack"

Like everyone else I am stunned and pained due to the outburst of violence in France this week but I cannot deny that there are certain aspects on the matter that have left me with ambiguous thoughts.

First I want to make it clear that I condemn the violence that took place at "Charlie Ebdo" and during the subsequent manhunt completely. What happened there is terrible and makes me want to return my membership as part of the human race. It is a senseless crime that has no excuse. 

On this blog I published an article where I stated that I believed that a joke is just a joke and people should simply laugh at it for the fun and not feel offended. I am not so sure anymore because where does a joke end and racist comment start? Is it clearly defined line or is it merely defined by a person's perception?

I have never read "Charlie Hebdo" but I have seen enough offensive cartoons and jokes to get an idea. While I have found a lot of them extremely tasteless and unnecessary I have never found any really offensive to me. I wondered why that is, considering that I am usually very sensitive to being offended and being a woman, single at 36 years and having grown up abroad, there is plenty material for offensive jokes. So why do I not feel offended? 

After some time it hit me: Because I don't relate to the "people" in the jokes. Jokes are a distortion and exaggeration of reality. That is the simple truth and therefore people shouldn't feel offended by them.

For example: A common impression is that most women love buying shoes, which at least in my case is true. So imagine a cartoon, where someone holds a pair of Manolo Blanik shoes over a cliff and dozens of women fall down the cliff trying to chase the shoes. Does that offend you because it depicts women as stupid and materialistic lemmings? Most likely it doesn't because in reality you won’t jump down a cliff trying to get a pair of shoes. But show this to a few die hard feminists and they will go berserk!

I believe many people are looking to be offended as an excuse to lash out at others, which in this case has had the most tragic consequences. 

Another recent case that comes to mind was the scandal over the Sony hack and the movie “The Interview”. Luckily in this case the result was harmless in comparison to Paris but the world was still in turmoil because of it. 

In my opinion what both cases have in common is that the perpetrators felt that they and their culture had not been respected. The truth is that it is hard to argue against it. Maybe if we try to think how we would feel if the situation was reversed we will understand: 

How would Americans feel if it was known that North Korea had shot a movie about an attempt to kill President Obama? How would we Europeans feel if it were Angela Merkel, Queen Elizabeth or King Felipe? Honestly I guess we would at least think: No funny at all!

Maybe this is exactly the line we have been looking for: How would we feel if we were on the other side of the joke? Maybe this thought can help us to understand others. 

Many anti-Islamic groups such as the German Pegida are using the incident at Charlie Hebdo to fan the flame against the Islam, which is just as disgusting as the attack itself.

I have spoken to many people about this and the fact is that the people condemning the attack the most are in fact Islamic people and it makes sense because they are being blamed for the actions of a few, when people generalize the matter.

The attacks in France were cruel and ruthless and I fear that their impact in the world will be significant. A lot of people stated that it was an attack on free speech; this is however something I cannot completely support, for me this was an attack on people. The freedom of speech is not only a right but privilege and it should be used wisely and with respect to others. I believe freedom of speech should not be misused to offend, humilate or hurt others. Where the line is to be drawn, I honestly can't tell. 

Nobody should think of the attack on “Charlie Hebdo” as an Islamic attack but as a terroristic attack. I believe people prone to violence will always find an excuse to attack others and we shouldn’t blame it on all people sharing the same religion.