Chizz, I Have a Feeling We Aren't in California Anymore

One of the biggest news stories in London is the congestion charge. It is a charge instituted by the city that basically charges drivers for using the roads in central London. Right now the congestion charge is £8.00 per day for all vehicles except those who are exempted from the charge (alternative fuel vehicles, hybrids etc.). Recently the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has proposed an elevated congestion charge with a maximum of £25.00 per day. The new charges would be emissions based. The maximum rate would apply to the highest polluting cars (those that emit more than 225g per kilometer) such as 4x4s, SUVs, luxury sedans. Those people unfortunate enough to live in the congestion fee area can file for a reduced rate but are not exempted from the charge. Of course, those screaming the loudest are the ones that most likely can actually afford the congestion charge – the drivers of the SUVs and other luxury vehicles. I say luxury because the price of gas in London isn’t cheap. Currently the gas runs about 84 pence per liter. That amount roughly translates to about $5.75 per gallon. So if you are driving one of these huge cars, it costs approximately $125 to fill your tank. Londoners would love to pay the $2.25 per gallon I grumpily paid last summer.

Needless to say the papers have been talking about this for weeks. The new charges most likely wouldn’t go into effect for another 3 years or so but who knows. All of the major papers and the rags as well have had editorial after editorial on the subject. Most people like the idea of sticking it to the drivers of SUVs, who have become the most hated people on the planet. So I read with interest a column this week in London’s Evening Standard, a broadsheet that dabbles in news -- sometimes. I don’t particularly care for the columnist, Will Self. I find him pretentious. I read something in his ES column the other day that I found shocking. I had to look and make sure that it wasn’t satire. It wasn’t and I can only assume it is his true feeling. Let me quote the passage I am referring to: (I apologize for the length but I want to give some context)

“The same fury has met the extension of the congestion-charging zone to include Kensington and Chelsea; as if the only people who drove through the hallowed royal borough were Sloanes in Range Rovers. If only this were so! And if only it were also true that the rich alone drove high-emission vehicles. Then, taking £125 a week off them would be a painless way of raising revenue, given that they could well afford it.

But sadly, quite as many – if not more – people on lower incomes are equally hooked on their anti-social, paranoid, polluting status symbols. Round my way you see plenty of black drivers in their 4X4s – and I hardly think they’re on their way to the Hurlingham.”
(Note by WTF Hurlingham is a very exclusive polo club in London)

WHAT???!!!??? I had to read this about 6 times before I came to grips with the fact that this guy actually implied that the black drivers in his neighborhood must be poor and that they couldn’t afford the congestion fee. Racism is alive and well here in London. I have seen subtle and not so subtle signs of it. There was a very highly publicized case in London a few years back where the police shot a man at a Tube station because they thought he might be a terrorist connected to the failed tube bombings just the day before. It turns out that he was a Brazilian citizen and pretty much the police might have shot him because he looked Arabic. It was pretty much accepted that might be the reason. Assumptions are made here very often on the basis of race or color. Another highly debated subject is whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil in the workplace. I am not sure I understand the different methodology of dressing in the Muslim faith when it comes to women. Some Muslim women wear western clothing but cover their heads. Some wear long flowing robes and veils but don’t cover their faces. Some wear veils that cover every possible bit of skin except the eyes. As best as I can figure out, the level of modesty correlates to how orthodox the believer is. But the debate has taken a slightly paranoid and, I think, racist edge. What are these women hiding? Why don’t they show their faces? Why do they have to is my question? I do think they should be required to for passports, drivers’ licenses and other methods of identification. But why does it matter if they wear a veil to work? Now if employers don’t choose to hire a woman wearing a veil that is their prerogative. No PC bull here in London. The only way to illegally discriminate in London is to do so based on gender or race. You can happily not hire any Muslim, Jew or Catholic. You can refuse to hire someone based on age or physical disability.

London is a very cosmopolitan city. I am not that naïve to believe racism has been abolished but I am amazed to find that it is tolerated. There has been no uproar, no outcry, no notice. Can you imagine that happening in the United States? Or California? That columnist would have been called to task and most likely fired. Careers have been ruined for less. A sports radio talk show host was fired for referring to slumping players by their nationality and comparing the team manager's mind to a hot breakfast cereal. I think the quote was "brain dead Carribean hitters" and his "mind has turned into Cream of Wheat". I think that radio host could possibly have a long career here calling rugby and football matches and say whatever he wants.

I will do my bit, I will pen an email to the editor voicing my objection and will probably not buy this paper for a bit. Somehow I think I am spitting into the wind. Ewwww. Exactly.