I don’t want to say what it means: Porcelain Eyes. It is something I see in a certain reality—This goodness tells me more about these realities than words ever could.
When it comes to music, Sidney SN should have been primarily about liquid drum and bass. In break beats, yes. However, liquid drum and bass is a melodic music, and it has quite a something in common with progressive house.
Sidney SN’s choice of music is also about values—the values found in music such as progressive house or house music.
Porcelain Eyes has different sections. And this progressive session is exclusively made up of tracks that I love… ❤️
I am probably not the only person who enjoys Halloween. Like many others, I embrace the spooky atmosphere of this time of year, which Europeans primarily associate with the United States, where Halloween has become a regular part of the annual autumn celebrations.
For me, American horror films are also an inseparable part of this season. I often watch these films from the 1990s, whose cinematography has a special appeal for me. After all, American film and television productions from the 1990s were part of my childhood and adolescence, much like Cartoon Network or MTV. Many American horror franchises that continue to produce new installments also have their roots in the 1990s, such as Scream.
I cannot help noticing certain elements of 1990s America also in the Netherlands, whether in architectural features, urban planning or fashion and personal appearance. In my opinion, however, the Netherlands has a way of adopting foreign cultural influences on its own terms and integrating into its society primarily those elements it considers beneficial. And American influence is far from the only example.
Dutch people also once colonised parts of America, so some symbols in the USA can have Dutch cultural origins as well.
Perhaps, like me, some people will be surprised to learn that Halloween did not actually originate in America. Its roots lie in Europe, specifically in ancient Celtic traditions that evolved over the centuries and became intertwined with Christian holidays. Only later did Halloween make its way to North America, where it acquired the form Europeans recognise from American films, television programmes and the widespread celebration of the holiday.
One of the most important historical predecessors of Halloween was the Celtic festival of Samhain, celebrated around the turn of October and November. Its traditions are associated primarily with Ireland and other areas inhabited by Celtic communities.
Samhain marked the transition between the harvest season and the darker part of the year. At a time when life depended much more heavily on non-industrialised agriculture and food supplies, the arrival of winter naturally carried great significance. It was not merely a change of season, but also a period of uncertainty, when people faced cold weather, a lack of daylight and other challenging conditions.
Over time, ideas about the supernatural world also became associated with this festival. According to traditional beliefs, the boundary between the world of the living and the dead could become blurred during this transitional period. Folk tales featured ghosts, supernatural beings and other mysterious forces.
It is precisely this association between autumn, darkness, death and the unknown that helps explain why ghosts, skeletons, witches and other spooky motifs appear in later forms of Halloween. It is important to add, however, that modern Halloween cannot be regarded as an unchanged continuation of a single ancient festival. Its character developed gradually, and the original Celtic customs are known only through limited historical sources.
Christianity also played a significant role in shaping modern Halloween.
The first of November is associated with All Saints’ Day, while the second of November is All Souls’ Day. The evening before All Saints’ Day was known in English as All Hallows’ Eve. It was from this expression that the name Halloween gradually developed…
Over the centuries, older folk traditions and Christian holidays influenced one another. Halloween therefore cannot simply be classified as either a pagan or a Christian holiday. It is the result of a long process of cultural development in which different ideas about death, remembrance of the deceased and the supernatural world became intertwined.
One of Halloween’s most recognisable symbols is the orange pumpkin carved with a face and illuminated by a candle inside. However, this tradition did not originally originate in the United States either.
In Ireland, people primarily used hollowed-out turnips and other root vegetables, carving spooky faces into them. This custom is also associated with the folk legend of Stingy Jack, who, according to the story, tricked the Devil and, after his death, was forced to wander the world carrying an ember inside a hollowed-out turnip that served as his lantern.
When Irish and Scottish immigrants brought their customs to North America, they also began using pumpkins. These were larger and easier to hollow out. Gradually, pumpkins became one of the most distinctive symbols of Halloween.
During the nineteenth century, large numbers of Irish immigrants arrived in North America, partly as a result of the catastrophic famine in Ireland. They brought their cultural traditions, folk tales and customs associated with autumn celebrations with them.
In their new environment, these traditions continued to evolve. Dressing up in costumes, visiting people’s homes and other social activities gradually became more widespread. During the twentieth century, Halloween in the United States increasingly developed into a mass celebration, featuring children’s trick-or-treating, house decorations, costume parties and the sale of themed sweets.
Recently, I have written an articles about France, which came about quite spontaneously—especially about beauty of Grand Est, and also about French culture of protests or situation in Marseille.
This time, next article is focuses on gender equality in France. According to the official Gender Equality Index 2025 published by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), France ranked second in the European Union, just behind Sweden. Denmark took third place.
I also find this topic interesting because some people claim that France is not doing as well, among others also due to the presence of people originating from countries outside the European Union. However, the results of the Gender Equality Index do not particularly support such a simplified views. Instead, the situation appears to have improved considerably over the past decade.
It is also interesting for me that some countries with a lower proportion of residents originating from outside the EU do not achieve scores as high in this index as countries where people from these regions are an established part of society.
Gender Equality Index
The Gender Equality Index is a tool developed by the European Institute for Gender Equality that compares European Union member states across six main domains: work, money, knowledge, time, power and decision-making, and health.
It is therefore not limited to women’s representation in politics or differences in pay. The index seeks to capture a broader picture of the social position of women and men, their economic opportunities, access to decision-making positions, and the conditions of everyday life.
The resulting scores make it possible to compare individual member states using a common methodology.
France in the European Comparison
France achieved a score of 73.4 points out of 100 in the Gender Equality Index 2025. Sweden, which ranked first, scored 73.7 points. The difference between the two countries is therefore just 0.3 points. Denmark, in third place, achieved 71.8 points. The European Union average was 63.4 points.
France’s score is ten points higher than the European average. This demonstrates that the country belongs to the group of member states achieving significantly above-average results in the overall assessment.
The long-term trend is also noteworthy. Since 2015, France’s score has increased from 64.1 to 73.4 points. Over this period, France therefore recorded an improvement of 9.3 points.
The Gender Equality Index 2025 thus offers another interesting perspective on contemporary France, this time through measurable results in the field of gender equality.
The Hague is much more than the political centre of the Netherlands. It is also a city shaped by international communities, diplomatic relations, migration and historical connections with different parts of the world.
From Chinatown, with its distinctive Chinese cultural influences, to Belgisch Park, with its international residential character, the city offers many different expressions of its international identity.
Schilderswijk and Transvaalkwartier stand out for their multicultural atmosphere, diverse communities and international shops and restaurants. In contrast, Statenkwartier is known for its diplomatic environment, embassies and international institutions. Archipelbuurt adds another historical dimension, with connections to the former Dutch East Indies and Indonesia.
Other neighbourhoods, such as Zeeheldenkwartier and Laakkwartier, reflect the diversity of everyday urban life, while Benoordenhout offers a more affluent residential environment with international residents and connections to the diplomatic community. Along the coast, Scheveningen represents another aspect of the city’s international character through its maritime history, tourism and connections to the North Sea.
The international identity of The Hague is also visible beyond its residential neighbourhoods. The International Zone reflects the city’s role in international relations, law and diplomacy, reinforcing its reputation as a global city.
What makes The Hague particularly interesting is that its international character is not limited to a single district or community. It can be experienced through everyday street life, architecture, food, history and international institutions.
The Hague is a city where Dutch identity meets influences from across the world, creating a distinctive international atmosphere.
Beyond its beaches and distinctive international character, The Hague is also highly regarded for its quality of life. Its strong performance in various city rankings further reinforces its appeal as a place to live, not merely as a seaside destination.
Because of Sidney SN’s idea of For A Better World and the support he received, I share a few words about an interest I once brought into my life.
Deinstitutionalisation of Social Services
I once became interested in the lives of people with intellectual disabilities and the ways in which they can be supported. I believe that some of these individuals may, in certain situations, be more likely to be misunderstood by those around them or to find themselves in conflict situations. Such situations may arise not only from the attitudes or approaches of those providing care, but also from a lack of understanding of their behaviour, needs and specific manifestations of intellectual disabilities or behavioural disorders.
It was through this interest that I was also introduced to the concept of deinstitutionalisation of social services.
In my view, deinstitutionalisation can be one of the best approaches to supporting people with disabilities.
What Does Deinstitutionalisation of Social Services Mean?
Deinstitutionalisation of social services can be seen as the process of shifting support for people with disabilities from large-scale or residential institutions to ordinary individual settings, where they can live as normal a life as possible.
In other words, deinstitutionalisation is also used to refer to the shift towards providing social services focused on supporting individuals to live in natural environment.
Even in Czechia, this idea has existed since 2007 as part of the Transformation of Social Services initiative by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. However, mainstream social services in the country do not generally put this idea into practice.In many cases, social services providers, their management or employers may not even understand what deinstitutionalisation means.
The Concept of Deinstitutionalisation
“The purpose of social services should not be to create the best-functioning institution possible for the people who use them, but to enable them to live as fulfilling a life as possible beyond its boundaries.”
In my view, deinstitutionalisation is particularly important when it comes to supporting people with disabilities. This means gradually moving away from institutional care and residential facilities towards individualised support services. The aim is not simply to replace one type of facility with another—from large-scale or residential institutions to an ordinary house or flat (1)—but to provide services that enable people to enjoy a good quality of life and take advantage of the opportunities the wider world has to offer.
The goal should not be to concentrate people in one place where all their needs are met under one roof and where their lives are largely organised and controlled by the facility and its rules. This is institutionalisation in the way services are delivered. Deinstitutionalisation, by contrast, seeks to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in ordinary life, encourage their contact with the wider world and tailor support to each individual. A key principle of deinstitutionalisation is that the person should not have to adapt to the needs or the rules of the service, but the service should adapt to the person.
For example, in the case of an autistic person, this should mean adapting the environment, communication methods, sensory stimuli, daily routine, or the way support is provided, rather than automatically labelling the person as “problematic” because they do not adapt to environment of a services.
Ideally, support workers should have enough time to focus on each person, get to know their needs and help them navigate the world around them. They should also help people maintain their dignity and live as fulfilling a life as possible, making the most of the opportunities available to them.
It is equally important to promote independence wherever possible, enabling people to make decisions about their own lives to the greatest extent they can. This is not just about providing basic care and ensuring safety, but also about enabling freedom, preserving dignity and offering genuine choices.
An institutional service may meet some of a person’s needs, but if their daily life takes place primarily inside the facility or its grounds, they are also separated from the wider world and the opportunities it offers. Their daily routines, options and social contacts then depend largely on the rules and operation of the institution. They may also have fewer opportunities to build relationships with people outside the walls of a facility or to be better understood by society at large.
Many people are familiar with little beyond the institution in which they live. As a result, they may not have enough opportunities to discover different ways of life, build relationships outside the institution, develop their abilities or find out what they can achieve independently. What may appear to staff to be a well-organised care system can therefore represent a severely restricted world for the person receiving support.
In my view, the purpose of social services should not be to create the best-functioning institution possible for the people who use them, but to enable them to live as fulfilling a life as possible beyond its boundaries.
Naturally, this should involve providing each person with the level of support they need and respecting their individual abilities and circumstances.
This is what I see as the essence of deinstitutionalisation: not merely changing the location of care by moving it into an ordinary house or flat, but fundamentally changing the approach itself to supporting people with disabilities. The aim should be to create a model of support that places as few restrictions as possible on their ability to live a dignified and fulfilling life, without stigma.
Notes: (1) Equally important aspects of inclusion include ensuring that people are not labelled in any way that emphasizes their association with institutional care. There is no need to put name tags or other identification labels on clothing or personal belongings solely to help staff identify the people they support. Staff should know the people they support and address their individual needs naturally as part of everyday life, in much the same way as in an ordinary family environment. This helps prevent institutional practices and stigma.
The same principle also applies to the domestic environment itself. A home should feel like a real home, not an institution. This includes limiting unnecessary institutional features, such as noticeboards displaying instructions for staff, operational procedures or other administrative information in the shared living spaces.
This principle also applies to the transportation of service users. Vehicles used to transport them should not unnecessarily draw attention to the fact that their passengers receive social services or reinforce the stigma associated with institutional care.
Deinstitutionalisation also raises the question of institutional features that may persist even in an otherwise ordinarily furnished home environment. One example is the placement of fire extinguishers and other safety equipment, which may be determined by institutional procedures rather than by the character and layout of the home. Of course, these institutional features cannot always be removed, as safety requirements must be met. However, the key is to seek solutions that ensure the necessary level of safety while preserving the character of an ordinary home, rather than reintroducing the appearance and routines of an institution into the living environment.
Another important principle of inclusion is, for example, that when people go out into the community, no more than two people should accompany a single staff member at any one time. This helps prevent the formation of larger groups that could attract unwanted attention, place a burden on the wider community and reinforce the stigma associated with receiving social services. It also reduces the risk of stigmatisation during group transfers or visits to publicly accessible places and services. The aim is to enable service users to access these places naturally, as part of everyday life in society, without being unnecessarily singled out as a group of people receiving social services.
