Following on from the previous blog entry on compassion, it is always inspirational to hear from others who have already embraced and idea and journey a bit further on the road less travelled.

The Charter for Compassion is a cooperative effort to restore not only compassionate thinking but, more importantly, compassionate action to the centre of religious, moral and political life. The Charter seeks to change the conversation so that compassion becomes a key word in public and private discourse. It is designed not simply as a statement of principle; it is above all a summons to creative, practical and sustained action to meet the political, moral, religious, social and cultural problems of our time.

Charter for Compassion

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary, in both public and private life, to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others - even our enemies - is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women to:

- restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion;

- return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate;

- encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity;

- ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures;

- cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings, even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarised world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

Compassion | Respect

Young people tend to receive a disproportionate amount of bad press. Unfortunately, this can create a negative mindset for many of us who are of the next generation or older. The story that follows demonstrates how not everyone holds negative attitudes and how, in fact, positive approaches can profoundly change someone’s life. It relates to one act of kindness that befell British writer Bernard Hare in 1982. Then a student living near London, he tells the story to inspire troubled young people to help deal with their disrupted lives.

“The police called at my student hovel early evening but I didn't answer as I thought they'd come to evict me: I hadn't paid my rent in months. But then I got to thinking: my mum hadn't been too good and what if it was something about her?

We had no phone and mobiles hadn't been invented yet, so I had to nip down the phone box. I rang home to Leeds to find my mother was in hospital and not expected to survive the night. "Get home, son," my dad said.

I got to the railway station to find a train going as far as Peterborough that night but I would miss the connecting Leeds train by twenty minutes. I bought a ticket home and got on anyway. I had a screwdriver in my pocket and my bunch of skeleton keys. I was so desperate to get home that I planned to nick a car in Peterborough, steal some money, something, anything! I just knew from my dad's tone of voice that my mother was going to die that night and I intended to get home, if it killed me.

"Tickets, please," I heard, as I stared blankly out of the window at the passing darkness. I fumbled for my ticket and gave it to the guard when he approached. He stamped it, but then just stood there looking at me. I'd been crying, had red eyes and must have looked a fright.

"You okay?" he asked. "Course I'm okay," I said. "Why wouldn't I be? And what's it got to do with you in any case?"

"You look awful," he said. "Is there anything I can do?"

"You could get lost and mind your own business," I said. "That'd be a big help." I wasn't in the mood for talking.

He was only a little bloke and he must have read the danger signals in my body language and tone of voice, but he sat down opposite me anyway and continued to engage me. "If there's a problem, I'm here to help. That's what I'm paid for."

I was a bubbling cauldron of emotion and he had placed himself in my line of fire. Other than physically 'sending him on his way,' the only other thing I could think of to get rid of him was to tell him my story. "Look, my mum's in hospital, dying, she won't survive the night, I'm going to miss the connection to Leeds at Peterborough, I'm not sure how I'm going to get home.I'm a bit upset, I don't really feel like talking, I'd be grateful if you'd leave me alone. Okay?"

Okay," he said, finally getting up," and wandered off down the carriage. I continued to look out of the window at the dark. Ten minutes later, he was back at the side of my table. Oh no, I thought, here we go again.

He touched my arm. "Listen, when we get to Peterborough, shoot straight over to Platform One. The Leeds train'll still be there. As soon as you get on, it goes. I've just radioed Peterborough and they're going to hold the train up for you."Everyone will be complaining about how late it is but let's not worry about that on this occasion. You'll get home and that's the main thing. Good luck and God bless."

" I was suddenly speechless. "I, erm…" "It's okay," he said. "Not a problem." He had a warm smile on his face and true compassion in his eyes. He was a good man for its own sake and required nothing in return.

"I wish I had some way to thank you," I said. "I appreciate what you've done."

"Not a problem," he said again. "If you feel the need to thank me, the next time you see someone in trouble, you help them out. That will pay me back amply. "Tell them to pay you back the same way and soon the world will be a better place."

I was at my mother's side when she died in the early hours of the morning.

My meeting with the Good Conductor changed me from a selfish, potentially violent hedonist into a decent human being but it took time. "I've paid him back a thousand times since then," I tell the young people I work with and I'll keep on doing so till the day I die, “You don't owe me nothing; nothing at all. And if you think you do, I'd give you the same advice the Good Conductor gave me: pass it down the line."

Attitude | Respect

I recently read that Lemos & Crane is working with the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, with support from The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, on a three-year project looking at harassment of people with learning disabilities.

A range of organisations have been invited to take part in the action research and to describe the nature and extent of harassment of people with learning disabilities that they are aware of. Their responses indicate disturbingly common expressions of harassment. These include:

• Verbal abuse and imitative behaviour intended to humiliate, with schoolchildren often being the perpetrators.

• Shopkeepers and staff losing patience and abusing people with learning disability who they perceive to be rude.

• People with learning disabilities being approached and ‘befriended’ for financial exploitation (stealing benefit money, for example).

All of this is, without doubt, profoundly disturbing to the person on the receiving end of such harassment. However, there are many individuals for whom it is not readily recognisable that they have a learning disability. Some time ago, I encountered such a person within a seminar that I was running.

After having outlined what was required for a particular group exercise, one lady approached me and told me that she was unsure what was required of her, explaining that she had a learning disability. Once again, I gently reiterated the instructions. She again affirmed to me that she had a learning disability and how she would struggle.

Patiently, I once more walked her slowly through what was being asked of the groups, asking her to indicate where she was unsure of what was required of her. Given the one-to-one attention, it was clear that she had, in fact, understood clearly what was being asked of her but her self respect had caused her to doubt it. She thanked me for the clarification, again drawing attention to the disability and then proceeded to engaged with the group satisfactorily.

Reflecting on the situation, it appeared to me, that this lady was conditioned to expect not to understand such instructions because she had ‘a learning disability!’ Yes, of course, there would be times when she would need special guidance and attention. That would be part of her needs at various times.

However, language is a powerful tool and, used in the wrong way, can be detrimental to the vision we hold of ourselves. This lady saw herself as someone who was dis-abled, un-able, who had a dis-ability and it was negatively influencing her sense of self-respect. Imagine if we were to change the language so that she was described as ‘someone who has specific or special learning requirements.’ It carries a very different feel to that of being referred to as one with ‘a learning disability.’ Put yourself in her shoes for a minute…….

More than 1.5 million people in the UK have a learning disability. Should we start a campaign to change the descriptor towards a more positive vocabulary and maybe contribute, to whatever extent, in positively effecting self esteem?

Language | Respect

Following the disturbances seen across the country last month, there was much talk about the severity of sentencing and the level of the use of prison both for remand purposes as well as for punishment. While these issues need to be addressed, it’s also important not to loose sight of the soft skills that are required when developing a working relationship with offenders, whether as a prison or a probation officer or in any other capacity.

Heather Munro, the new head of the London Probation Service recently highlighted this when she expressed a ‘new’ approach to managing offenders: respect. Over a lifetime of probation work, she has come to believe that listening to offenders when they express needs and treating them with the same respect businesses show their customers can help to change behaviour and reduce reoffending.

“If we want to cut crime, then vengeance and punishment, disguised as public protection, can no longer remain the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. We should stop reinforcing the loveless and disrespectful world offenders know so well and instead subject them to the tough love that has been denied them at home. We need individual, person-centred programmes to help them change because change is possible in anyone who has the capacity to be honest.”

When respect is at the heart of the relationship, this can be the catalyst to motivate an individual to enter into an alliance with the officer and participate in a process, even if not convinced or its effectiveness. Often, the client will be starting supervision in a state of personal crisis using phrases such as being ‘at absolute rock-bottom,’ ‘I was so depressed,’ ‘I didn’t think I would pull through.’ Problems relating to drugs, alcohol, depression, mental health and relationships would feature heavily in their lives. From this starting point, the offender would have low expectations of the process benefitting them. This entry-point highlights the importance for the officer to develop and sustain a respectful attitude and vision towards the client. (See blog entry: Emotional Proximity, 29/7/11)

When this occurs, the client group will describe the most important qualities in their officers as ‘listening, understanding, approachability, and empathy. Trust is also a dominant quality, inspiring confidence, honesty and truthfulness. When such a relationship develops between the two parties, this underpins each stage in the course of offender supervision: a full assessment, delivering meaningful messages, persuasion of active engagement in methodology, supporting the offender through lapse or relapse (which frequently resembles an act of friendship), and final disengagement from supervision.

However, change doesn’t occur in a vacuum: it is a complex interaction between the offender, the officer, and the range of interventions deployed. At the heart of the relationship lies the trust that offenders speak of which allows them to engage with the work required of them. Offenders will describe such a relationship as one of friendship and trust: ‘someone I could talk to,’ ‘a safe geezer,’ ‘she treated me like an equal.’

If evidence-based practice is to continue to be the key to effective supervision, more and more we need to hear about the successes that are out there. We need to hear about these anecdotes within the Criminal Justice Service, within the community, within the local media, and within the national media. These stories must not be overlooked when devising new structures for service delivery.

An old Romany saying is that, ‘Stories have wings. They fly from mountain-top to mountain-top.’ It’s you and I that give them flight.

Respect | Relationship

The shooting dead of Mark Duggan by police in Tottenham, while attempting to carry out an arrest, has drawn a cry for justice by some and has been the catalyst for mindless violence for others.

Forty-eight hours after the incident, 300 people gathered for a peaceful demonstration outside the Tottenham police station, after marching from Broadwater Farm estate. They were asking for justice for Mr. Duggan and his family, prompted by the perception that questions were seemingly not being answered by the authorities.

The peaceful demonstration turned violent. The ensuing night of riots also left people homeless, vehicles as charred wrecks, buildings gutted by fire and shops looted.

It took place in a part of London where resentment by some against the police had been building following the incident of which the circumstances may not be fully understood until an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation is completed.

Was the cry for justice hijacked by those with a much more malevolent intent and what do we mean when we call for 'justice'?

Justice is the name given to the universal law or power which safeguards and maintains the natural rights of the individual against exploitation, abuse and disrespect.

Justice tells us to respect the individual’s rights and freedoms: when we are only concerned with our own rights and do not respect the others’ rights to personal expression and happiness, it is simply a matter of time before we also lose our own rights. Justice is naturally maintained when rights are balanced with responsibilities. Of course, both parties – here the police as well as protesters - have rights as well as responsibilities!

As we saw in Tottenham, violence destroys the sanctity of justice. Such justice with underlying motives of revenge, hatred or greed is a contradiction in terms. Sometimes uprisings against oppression escalate into unmitigated violence when the oppressed stand up against the oppressor but misuse their position and camouflage revenge by falsely calling it justice.

Man-made justice is destructive and preferential. True, natural justice, inherent as a principle of life, maintains peace and order. No one human being has the right to take justice into his own hands. Indeed, to join in or to be indifferent to whatever kind of violence is imposed on others robs us of our own dignity and rights.

True justice can only be maintained when everyone respects each other and cares for the rights and well-being of the individual and the collective. This is why the creation and maintenance of community is imperative. At the individual as well as the collective level, this requires attention, tolerance and acceptance, as well as acknowledgement of diversity, stepping outside of our personal mental box, and offering the hand of cooperation.

Justice is universal and absolute in its application. Perhaps now is the time to offer her our fullest support.

Respect | Justice

Why is it that, with some people, we can let down our guard and feel totally comfortable and yet with others the steel walls just won’t crack!  With some we can eat from the same plate and sip from the same drink, and others we keep at an arm’s length. Research has shown, that North Americans need, on average, three feet of space between them when conversing and yet South Americans (or those from warmer climates) require only a few inches of personal space.

What defines our comfort level for physical proximity to others is, actually, what is known as emotional proximity. For example, falling in love is an act of letting down our guard, allowing the other person to enter our mind and heart and then, perhaps, our whole life. Becoming angry with someone is an example of forces that put me ‘on my guard’, rejecting the other, and driving each other apart.

Our emotional proximity is often determined by how willing we are to listen to and understand the other person and how open we are to care for and share with others.  For example, stepping into a room filled with ten people can feel overwhelming if you don’t know them but if all were friends or relatives, then even ten would cause no consternation.

When engaging with someone you don’t know for the first time, whether as a public speaker from a platform or as a probation officer with an offender, there is, inevitably, a distance between the two parties. For many of us, it is times like this, when we are feeling vulnerable or unsure of how we will be accepted, that we protect ourselves by not engaging, maybe by staying away or by being quiet.

However, the first ‘step’ towards each other needs to create positive emotions; a breaking of the ice. It is this that will begin to engender trust within the other person and in what they have to say. When one feels safe, accepted, respected or loved, one need not put up any fences. As this grows, it will encourage the other person to come closer and so to enhance emotional proximity.

This is beautifully demonstrated in the film ‘Dangerous Minds’, a story about a teacher learning to work with the class of kids who were deemed to be ‘social misfits.’ Her first experience of the class resulted in her walking out. It was only when a colleague advised her to find a way to engage with them that she was able to begin overcome the barriers. Great film!

For myself, perhaps it’s time to reflect, to recognise where I have constructed walls and that the walls that I’ve built around me only serve to isolate, not protect me.  Letting go of them can open me up to a whole new world of possibilities. As Susan Jeffers says, “Feel the fear and do it anyway!”

Respect | Positive Psychology

What a remarkable period in history we are presently witnessing in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The people of one arab country after another taking to the streets to overthrow their rulers in an attempt to usher in democracy. Seeing footage of the mass protests, passions are high and courage is very much to the forefront. After decades of emotional suppression, there is a powerful wave of honest and open expression directed at the country's leaders and their supporters.

Watching these scenes unfold during the last two months, I was reminded of some powerful insights that were shared in one of the workshops conducted during the Spirituality and Justice seminars. The insights were in relation to how confrontation between two parties is actually a rare occasion for honest expression of thoughts and feelings. The focus for that conversation was relationships between prisoners and staff.

Imprisonment constitutes a severing of human relationships. Behind high walls, gates and fences, the prisoner is physically cut off from society at large. Contained within the institution, the prisoner is isolated from his personal social network of family, friends and neighbours.

In such a context, it comes as no surprise that both prison staff and the prisoners often find it difficult to communicate with openness and mutual respect. How can staff and prisoners relate to each other as persons of equal worth when everywhere there are signals of rank and status which distinguish them?

Is it any wonder that staff and prisoners find themselves in opposition, which may result in confrontation. The conventional view sees confrontation as, at best, a breakdown in communication and, at worst a threat to security. But confrontation also offers an opportunity for communication for along with an outburst of hostility, it provides an eruption of honesty. Confrontation is a rare and precious chance to communicate directly with the person - the real person, not the prisoner/role.

During such times, there is a need to be in control of ones emotions for only then can the outburst can be perceived for what it is: a breakthrough and not a blockage. However negative the interaction, however brief the time available to us, however pressing the external demands upon us, if we operate with awareness of ourselves and concern for others then we can, with them, transform the confrontation into a positive interaction, expressing value and regard for both the other person and ourselves.

For example, imagine at one end of a corridor, a prisoner is pacing, shouting obscenities. At the other end stands a member of staff, first cajoling and then commanding. Their raised voices attract the attention of other prisoners and staff who watch warily, sizing up the situation, wondering whether to intervene. What started as an angry exchange between individuals has become a contest of power between representatives of enemy camps, fuelled by the presence of an audience.

Their language will be different but, in fact, both are looking for the same outcome: "Respect me!" United by a common fear of losing face it is hard to see a way out. In fact, what is needed is not a ‘way out’ but a ‘way through.’ It is only possible for the prisoner and staff member to extricate themselves from this conflict by engaging with and taking notice of each other. At this point, they are ignoring each other, each conscious only of their own needs and feelings and oblivious to those of the other person.

When we feel unable to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes, it is often because we are wearing a matching pair. If we seek to bring about movement, then it is always far easier to take a small step yourself than to compel another to walk. Importantly, if your first step is sideways rather than forward, then so much the better as communication alters dramatically when we shift from ‘face-to-face’ to ‘alongside’. By doing this, we are moving from the demand, “Respect me!” to the acknowledgement, “I respect you” and this entails no loss of self-respect. In valuing others, we do not diminish ourselves.

A willingness to communicate, no matter what the other person says or does, can transform a ‘no win’ interaction into one offering mutual gain, where there is no need for bargaining: ‘I’ll respect you if you respect me’ is a hostage to fortune, dependent on the other person’s response. By contrast, ‘I respect you and I also respect myself’ is an exercise of power, lying wholly within your own sphere. There is nothing the other person can do to weaken this standpoint. Offering respect to an ‘opponent’ confers strength upon yourself.

If the staff member addresses the prisoner’s need to be respected, then it is much more likely that the prisoner will feel able to reciprocate. However, while consumed by their perceived ‘need,’ neither will have the capacity to offer recognition to the other. The goal is mutual respect and so, to reap co­operation, we must sow communication, even in the fields of confrontation. In such a way, the contested ground will, in time, come to be perceived for what it is: shared ground.

And for Libya and Col. Gadaffi? Can this apply?

Well, Lord Malloch-Brown, the former Foreign Office Minister, is of the opinion that the conflict is approaching a position of stalemate. He opinions that the only way forward is for the warring parties sit down around the table and seek political solution. For this to happen, some level of respect is vital. So maybe, just maybe, the contested ground will, in time, come to be percieved for what it is: shared ground!

Emotions | Communication | Respect

(and its Antithesis: the Burning of the Koran)

For many of us, respect is one of those subjects that is relatively easy to talk about but somewhat less easy to put into practice.  Sometimes the discrepancy between my premeditated intentions and my actual behaviour is quite small and on other occasions somewhat larger!

Of course, discrepancies are there for us all, however, for some, who have a somewhat higher profile, it becomes a focus of local, national and even international attention. Into this category must come the actions of the American pastor Terry Jones who threatened to burn copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010. How was such a disrespectful and inflammatory action going to promote peace and harmony in the United States, never mind the wider world?

Well, six months on, the answer is there for all to see.  On 20 March, under the supervision of Pastor Jones, US Pastor Wayne Sapp set light to a copy of the Koran at a church in Florida. Angered by the actions, demonstrations in Northern Pakistan have left 20 people dead, including 7 UN workers, 87 people injured and cars set on fire. A large and angry crowd surged through the streets of Kandahar, chanting "They have insulted our Koran" and "Death to America".

Despite clear evidence that these actions led to the murders and widespread violence in the Middle East, pastor Jones remains unrepentant and, indeed, has vowed to step up his provocative campaign against Islam!!

Arrogance? Foolishness? Bloody-mindedness? Self-centred?

Putting aside any comment on the pastors actions, this does raise the question, how are we to protest when we strongly disagree with someone yet maintaining respect for them as an individual?  It must, in part, encompass the language we use and the methods we employ.

A verbal or a personal attack on an individual with the aim to harm or hurt can never be acceptable: actions stemming from anger are rarely, if ever, going to calm a situation. However, a challenge to their ideas or beliefs, where I maintain respect for the other and use non-inflammatory language, is quite appropriate - after all, is this not the basis of dialogue and discussion.

{dialogue: to explore areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them {even if the resolution is to ‘agree to disagree’); discussion: consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions.}

Of course, the degree to which I have control over my emotions during the exchange is the measure of my ability to maintain respect!

However, I believe there is also something much deeper than our language and our manner - I believe what lies at the heart of respect, in times of disagreement, is our intention.

A Prison Governor friend tells me that, with new staff, in a situation where a prisoner has broken the rules and the officer intends to put him/her on report, he will always impress upon them to first ask themselves, ‘what is my motivation for putting this person on report?’ Is it to bring benefit to the prisoner or might it be for ‘my own benefit?’ implying that it could be connected to ego’

If my words (or actions) are to diminish or bruise the other or to glorify or promote myself at the expense of another, then surely I need to refrain from comment. If my intent is truly for a nobler motive of offering a different way of looking at things, then fine. Within this, perhaps two key words are ‘offering’ and its oft-present side-kick, ‘expectation.’ My contribution to the discussion is just that – an offering, without the expectation that the other person should change and share my own beliefs.

This attitude would also suggest that I too would be open to hear and consider what the other person has to say to me. There is, after all, an expression that ‘God gave me two ears and only one mouth!’

Here lies the challenge: to respect the individual, to respect difference and diversity while holding opposing beliefs.

Respect | Intention | Attitude

The more one reads about whether prisoners should have the right to vote, the more it reveals about attitudes within society towards those who find themselves behind bars. Of course, there are those who are using the situation to make a statement about the relationship between the British government and the European Court of Human Rights. However, when you read reports, for example, that the Prime Minister was “absolutely horrified” and ‘the thought of it made him physically ill,’ or others who ‘saw absolutely no reason why prisoners should be given the vote,’ it speaks volumes!

We don’t seem to realise that, for the most part, crimes are committed because the perpetrator either doesn’t have respect for another person or for their property. However, the root of respect for another has to be to have respect for oneself. Self-respect must come first. If I, too, don’t show respect to a prisoner, how can that person come to know what respect is for themselves? While I’m sure this is not a popular attitude, to deny it is to suggest that Ghandi also had it wrong when he said, “be the change you wish to see.”

If, as a society, we are to show that we have moved on from the 19th and 20th centuries, then in the context of prisoners being able to vote, let’s have the conversation from the perspective of a rehabilitation platform and not a punishment platform. (To suggest that prisoners are apolitical and are unlikely to use their vote anyway is a smoke-screen. Exactly the same applies to a significant section of society who are not in prison.)

Yes, it is quite natural that we may be ‘absolutely horrified’ by the actions that someone carried out but we should be clear that it is the actions that we are denigrating and not the person. This is what stands at the very heart of rehabilitation, the separation of the person from the action. When I am unable to do that, then my attitude towards the crime becomes my attitude towards the person – perhaps to all those who share the same common factor, that of imprisonment.

However, in the last two decades, attitudes have shifted radically. Today, imprisonment is much more synonymous with rehabilitation; schemes, treatment, and training are offered (or in some cases imposed) which are designed to encourage behavioural change, thinking patterns, awareness and attitudes. Prisons are increasingly a ‘holding station’ – albeit relatively long term in many cases - in which numerous agencies have the opportunity to work with offenders to address their offending behaviours or the circumstances that provoked such behaviours. Prisons, therefore, present an opportunity to help integrate people back into society in a manner that is aligned to societal values and norms.

While the aims of imprisonment may be broadly the same today as they were in 1870 - the year sentenced prisoners were originally denied the right to take part in ballots under the Forfeiture Act - what is certainly different is the intention behind the act of incarceration. In the late 18th and 19th century – the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act, 1983 – imprisonment was deemed to be punishment. It was a time when the attitude of ‘hang them and flog them’ was almost the only attitude expressed: a time when it was considered to be appropriate to ‘give prisoners a hard time’ physically, mentally and emotionally. The attitude was that they had transgressed the laws of society and deserved to be treated thus.

Rehabilitation | Attitude | Respect

Week in and week out we hear football managers making the claim that such and such a goal shouldn’t have been allowed as a player was offside. However, this has taken on a new and very public slant in recent weeks.

Two well-known male television presenters, apparently believing their microphones had been switched off, were recorded making disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee, related to women’s apparent lack of understanding of the offside rule. A headline that followed read “Commentators in Sexist Rant.” Another commentator suggested that, “Comments belong in the dark ages. Sexism is as bad as racism.”

What has this to do with offender management? Perhaps nothing currently; you tell me.

Standards of Behaviour - Acceptable or Not?

Exactly a decade ago, the Spirituality in Prison Group hosted a residential seminar, Breaking the Cycle, for people who worked within offender management. The seminar looked at the different cycles we find ourselves locked into. The example cited in the flier suggested that a person showing disrespect for another will receive the same in return, so creating a cycle of disrespect … unless one person decides to break that cycle.

During a panel discussion, a serving prison governor spoke with great honesty about her own experiences within the Service. She talked of the sexist attitudes and systematic bullying she had experienced in three different prisons from her peers, her managers, and by the prison officers. Her contribution opened a floodgate of feelings and comment that revealed the magnitude of bullying experienced, at all levels by many of the people present.

Someone spoke of ‘accepted standards of behaviour by staff that are so wrong.’ Another drew attention to the fact that ‘prison staff are trained to treat prisoners in a humane and respectful way because that’s how we want them to behave in society. However, there is a need to treat all staff with decency and dignity, too.’ It was suggested that ‘bullying is endemic and that most people involved are not aware that they are doing it – it has become part of the culture.’

So, if it still exists, what do we need to do to break the cycle? Is it about revisiting core values of the Service, namely decency and dignity?

Decency and Dignity

Dignity is a state that emanates from one’s core being whilst decency relates to the quality of our interactions with others. Therefore, my dignity is not dependent on anything external but on my own inner state of awareness. This is why, any time we become disconnected from our inner world, we loose contact with our values and therefore with our dignity.

Fluctuation of that inner sense of worth, value and dignity can, and does, easily occur. It may be that we become drawn away from our dignity by becoming caught up in someone else either through becoming impressed by them or by coming into conflict with them. The word ‘integrity,’ therefore, is important here. Integrity is that state where there is no discrepancy within me, where thoughts, feelings and emotions are working together with the silent voice of conscience.

When one’s focus is on the external, the voice of conscience tends to become veiled. For most of us it is something we need to connect with more frequently, to give ourselves the time to listen or to create the space and the stillness to ‘hear.’ In that state of division where there isn’t integrity, a small thing can happen and the reaction can be enormous. We become reactive towards a situation or person. How often have you heard the cautionary words, ‘Engage brain before opening mouth,’ perhaps more politely expressed as ‘think before you speak!’

We see that when one gives attention to carrying out good and positive actions in their life, their interactions with others will be influenced by this. When I have dignity, I am in a position to positively influence those around me for the result of dignity is respect and truth. However, I can only begin to treat others with decency when I have developed dignity for myself.

Respect and Truth

The power of truth is such that I don’t make the mistake of causing sorrow to another or of taking sorrow from someone else. One value that is particularly important in maintaining such a relationship is tolerance. When I have tolerance then those around me can be at ease, they don’t have to pay special attention in what they do such that I don’t become upset or affected. When I have tolerance, I am prepared to accept another person for who they are or what they represent.

With tolerance, if someone makes a mistake then, when I come to deal with the situation, as well as the practical aspect of ‘laying down the law’ there will be respect for that person.  When the law is applied with respect then there will be some realisation and that mistake will not be repeated. In this way the person who made the mistake will not lose their honour or their dignity. With this approach, there is no place for criticism, dislike, competition, favouritism or prejudice. It shouldn’t be that you wag your finger at someone, ask ‘Why did you do that?’ or ask for an apology. They themselves will have the thought that they should apologise.

So, what do I need to do to develop this level of dignity?

It is necessary to create time to explore my inner world, to strengthen that voice of conscience, and to know and understand my inner values and give practical acknowledgment to those values. I need to understand causes, reactions, and upheavals in my mind, be able to move it from a negative track to a positive track, and to be in tune with my own conscience. This enables me to know truly who I am and build that level of dignity …. and for this, I need to give myself time for reflection, for silence.

As I develop this inner strength, a state of alignment and integrity follows, and dignity returns to my life again. This enables trust to develop both within my self and with others.

Values | Decency and Dignity | Respect