The Folly of Banning Golden Dawn

Last June, an incident on Greek television revealed a disturbingly prescient commentary on Golden Dawn, the far-right political party whose rise over the past two years has shocked Europe. Ilias Kasidiaris, a young party member and Parliamentarian, was sitting alongside two female politicians on a political chat show. When Rena Dorou, a member of the upstart radical SYRIZA party, challenged him over his alleged role in an assault on a university professor, Kasidiaris dumped his glass of water over her head. Outraged, Communist Party member Liana Kanelli stood up in protest to reprimand him, leading Kasidiaris chivalrous young - chivalrous young Fascist that he is - to slap the 58-year-old woman hard across the head three times. The assault by Kasidiaris - whose other great claim to fame was his denial of the Holocaust during a June parliamentary debate - comes immediately to mind in light of the news that Greek authorities have belatedly decided to crack down on Golden Dawn, a neo-Fascist movement that has existed, in one form or another, for over 30 years and whose political platform can roughly be ascertained by a mere glance at its logo (One of the party?s foundational texts claims that Adolf Hitler, who invaded and occupied Greece, was a ?visionary of new Europe,? a description that, though factually true, Golden Dawn meant as an accolade).

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.thenationalherald.com

FOTOGRAFIA: G-Bo's in the House!

He never played a minute for Greece's national team (although he did play for the Under-20 team at the world championships where he fizzled out in a disappointing performance) but the Milwaukee Bucks of the National Basketball Association thought enough of the potential of Giannis Antetokounmpo, son of Nigerian immigrants who settled in Athens, to make him their number one draft pick this year. He was the star attraction during the team's media day on Sept. 30 in St. Francis, Wisconsin and Milwaukee fans, not wanting to deal with that long moniker of a name, have tabbed him G-Bo. Bet the announcers are glad too because if they tried to say his name during the game the play would be over before they did. Only 18, the 6-10 forward said he knows he's not ready for the bump-and-grind of the NBA, a league that eats up young prospects, but the Bucks like his potential.

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.thenationalherald.com

Should women change their names after marriage? Ask a Greek woman

Since 1983, Greece has required women to keep their birth names for life. It's a model worth thinking about

To change or not to change our last names when we marry. For many women in the UK, US, Australia and beyond, this is a complex dilemma that requires much angst, pondering, and discussion over drinks with girlfriends. I have even been asked by a boyfriend what my "surname intentions" were. Do we go the traditional route or keep our own personal and professional identity? Recently, Kate Winslet jumped into the foray with revelations about why she kept her name during her three marriages, and Emma Watson stirred things up by tweeting that Hermione Granger would almost certainly keep the Granger name.

But here's a little advice you probably haven't heard before. If you're contemplating whether or not to change your name, talk to a Greek woman (or man).

When I called Maria Karamessini, director of the Center for Gender Studies at Panteion University in Athens, she was stunned when I told her how much debate recent articles in the Guardian and other publications had generated on this topic.

You see, Greece enacted a law in 1983 that all women must keep their birth surname. Period.

It was part of a major set of reforms Greece enacted in the late 1970s and early 1980s as the country emerged from a dictatorship and re-wrote its constitution and laws. Maria Karamessini was a college student at the time and took part in feminist movement campaigns for gender equality. As she tells it:

For women, it was an emancipation to keep our own names after marriage. Greece had the most progressive laws in Europe in 1983, and not only for the last names of women. Our feminist movement changed mentalities, but it was gradual. We went from a very traditional society with traditional gender roles.

For the past 30 years, Greece has been a test case for what society would be like if women never changed their last names. It offers a very different model from how women in Britain and America have come to think about this debate. The conclusion most feminists come to is that the ideal is for women to have the ability to chose what they want and men to go along with it. But as studies have shown (or just a casual look around your circle of friends), many women still adopt their husband's name, even when they have other options. In short, societal norms and pressure are hard to alter.

For Greek women, the 1983 law change coincided with a period of great strides for females. They got out of the home and began earning more college degrees and playing a bigger role in society. Of course, these advancements weren't just because women could keep their own surnames, but it set a dramatically different tone in a country known for tradition and godfather patriarch types.

Young Greeks in their 20s and 30s today accept it as the norm. They think about names and identities a lot differently than most other countries do. Boyfriends don't ask their girlfriends about their surname intentions. Violet Tsagkas grew up in Athens, came to the US for graduate school and now writes for Fem2.0. As she told me: "It never occurred to me that [Greece] was unique until I started interacting more with foreigners, particularly after I moved to the US."

Overall, Greeks have had very few problems with the new system. Occasionally, it causes confusion. One Greek woman who helps administer a school told me that it can be challenging to call up students' parents, especially the mothers. She has taken to simply ringing them up and saying something to the effect of, "Are you John's mom?" No one finds that offensive.

The other issue that has arisen for some Greek women is traveling abroad, especially to the Middle East. Greek couples show up with different last names in their passports and some conservative societies don't believe they are actually married. It's not a widespread problem though, and it could be easily solved with a simple marriage certificate that Greek couples could carry abroad if needed. But the conservative government in 2008 used it as justification to change the law slightly so that spouses can decide if they want to add the other spouse's last name to their own. Women (and men) still have to keep their birth name, but they can have both last names now. Data are hard to come by on how many women have taken this option.

One of the big debates in feminist circles is whether it's really any better for women to keep their maiden names, which often are their father's last name. Is that really liberating? Here, too, Greece is progressive. When children are born, parents are get to decide if the child will have the mother's last name, the father's last name or both.

Yes, the name issue only goes so far to help women. Iran, for example, has had a similar system to Greece for about a century, yet Iranian women continue to struggle for many rights. Narges Bajoghli, a scholar on Iran, says that one benefit of Iran's system is that women still have a clear connection to their birth family, which has been valuable to women who find themselves in abusive relationships or other troubles and want to leave their marriages. The flip side, however, is that it has made young girls' "honor" an important part of family life.

This debate will continue in many countries, but Greece's example has altered my thinking. Perhaps we shouldn't just be talking about giving women options, but questioning why we are 30 years behind Greece.

WomenGenderMarriageUnited StatesGreeceHeather Longtheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.theguardian.com

Jewish-Greek businessman's struggle against anti-Semitism

Israel haters thought they could teach me a lesson, that I would shut up through personal disapproval, but it didn't happen." He further claimed his personal persecution was intentional: "I am a successful and young businessman, and since I made aliyah in ...

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.ynetnews.com

The ABC of Greek cuisine

Times of IndiaThe ABC of Greek cuisineTimes of IndiaIt's strange to list this last when Ouzo — Arak for the Arabs, Pastis to the French and Raki or "lion's milk" to the Turkish — is actually the first thing to be thrown back at any Greek ge together. First mixed by 14th century monks on the turquoise ...Greek 101Mumbai Mirrorall 2 news articles »

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Smoke and mirrors

by  Cillian Donnelly

As the European Parliament prepares to vote on the tobacco products directive in Strasbourg, the institutions and industry appear to be heading towards a collision course on how certain products should be regulated. 

The legislation, which has proved controversial after apparent industry pressure to delay the vote until after the European Parliament elections (and with it an attendant new European Commission) has dominated pre-vote discussions. As it turned out, the conference of presidents in the European Parliament have allowed the vote to go ahead on  8 October. 

The legislation essentially centres around five key issues; the main ones being regulation f next generation products, a ban on menthol and slim products, health warnings and packaging and e-cigarettes. 

The last point has proved the most controversial, with particular focus on the activities of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, whose lobbying tactics have gained it huge scrutiny. 

In an effort to have input into the directive, the company has hired 160 additional staff, primarily designed to target the EU institutions, has held around 230 meetings with MEPs, and, as an additional investment, spent €1.5 million on lobbying on this specific dossier. 

“At some point lobbying amounts to intimidation,” one European Council source said. The main substance of the directive was negotiated under the Irish presidency of the firs half of this year. Irish sources acknowledge the industry tactics. Any splintering of the parliament will undermine its negotiating mandate with the council if it to receive a first reading. A second reading, which would mean picking-up the pieces from where this directive leaves off – disrupted, as it will be, by a new parliamentary and commission mandate in may next year – is something that benefits industry. The situation is “on a knife’s edge” according to council sources.

On 4 October,  health ministers from 16 member states released a joint press staement urging an institutional agreement. Those member states were Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Absent from the list are those “blocking minorities” as well as key tobacco-growing states such as Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania. 

According to Irish sources in the council, who remain strong on clamping down on tobacco usage, they are confident an agreement can be reached under the Lithuanian presidency, which expires at the end of the year. 

But even there is an acknowledgement of a steeping over the line from the “huge lobbying campaign.”

Tobacco giants Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) have both  being lobbying heavily around the area of novel cigarette products and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes); the latter being a particular concern of BAT, where it has stated ambitions to be the market leader. By 2023, it is predicted sales of e-cigarettes will outsell traditional cigarettes. 

The intense lobbying assault caused much concern in Brussels, with accusations that the tobacco industry has being virtually writing amendments. Despite denials, the main amendments, largely tabled by centre-right MEPs, are close to how industry would like things. One centre-right MEP, Karl-Heinz Florenz, tried to resist the lobby effort, but was over-ruled by this EPP group. He has been dubbed “the good one” by the Greens, who want tougher regulations on tobacco products, including a ban on menthols cigarettes and plain packaging. Prominent health warnings should also be placed at the top of cigarette packets, rather than the bottom, as favoured by industry.  

The group is also resistant to products such as cigarettes being covered by consumer legislation. However, the Greens admit that the numbers are stacked against them. “We don’t have enough liberals and right-wingers on our side” Green MEP Carl Schlyter said on 3 October. “There is a big risk we will lose e-cigarettes to consumer legislation.”

According to Green co-president, Rebecca Harms, the tobacco industry specifically targeted would-be allies amongst MEPs. Certain key member states, particularly those that benefit economically from tobacco, have also been identified as forming a potential blocking minority in council; France, Italy, Poland, and  possibly also Germany and Spain. 

The tobacco lobbying effort proved to be “a very dark experience” for the parliament, Harms told journalists on 3 October. “We have to re-thing the rules, of what happens between lawmakers in our house and representatives of industry.”

Harms, along with Shylter, the group’s negotiator on the directive, wrote to the  European Parliament President, Martin Schulz, requesting a “zero tolerance” attitude for members who break conventions on meeting with representatives of the tobacco industry. The EU institutions are supposed to follow World Health Organisation rules on contact with the industry, but the Greens allege they are constantly breached. It was on this basis that European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, justified his dismissal of former health commissioner John Dalli.

“You can draw clear conclusions from this,” said Schylter, “when Barroso sacks someone on these grounds, but there are no consequences for MEPs. They are breaking the rules, if not the actual law.”

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.neurope.eu

Solidarity no more

by  New Europe

Europeans, especially those living in countries affected significantly by the economic crisis, have seen their lives mired in uncertainty for the past few years. 

Living standards in some countries have dropped dramatically, a drop precipitated - if not engineered as some say- by the policies of strict austerity proscribed from Brussels. 

A series of revolutions in neighbouring countries have been metastasising ever closer and transforming into wars, coups and rule by militia. 

As a result of those and other wars a steady stream of people is landing, if they are lucky as the Lampedusa tragedy shows, on European shores, stressing the already crumbling state services of member states crippled by the crisis like Greece. 

The global economy is transforming, the personable age is being raised, education is in some cases becoming a paid-for luxury. 

But all these plagues on all our houses, even though in many cases they have resulted in a drop for support and trust for the EU, have also made most Europeans appreciate its founding principles. 

Greeks and Cypriots have moved money and in some cases even businesses abroad and individuals from all crisis-sticken countries, have made their way to other EU member states to find employment and a better future. 

Now as we report in this issue, politicians from member states on the receiving end of internal migration are asking for caps on the numbers of people moving within the EU, undermining not only the reason for which the Union was founded, but what little trust and support this supranational construction of ours has. 

Commissioner Malmstrom recently spoke of the need for solidarity with members states that receive great number of immigrants from outside the Union. How about starting with solidarity for Europeans who find themselves in difficult times and use the Union for the purpose its founders envisaged.

Perhaps Solidarity is not the right word and it's use might be counter – productive in Europe today? Why not exchange it for “Self – preservation” that might better reflect the situation the European Union finds itself rapidly approaching?

Self – preservation not as in a  “free for all” as any individual country trying to secure for themselves exceptions and researching means to circumvent the major cornerstones on which the European Union is based, but collective self – preservation on a European level by at least resisting the short-sightedness that seems to be gripping the continent lately.

 

 

READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.neurope.eu