Home Blog Page 24

Key Findings From Report Which Says The UK Is Not Institutionally Racist

A long-awaited report commissioned in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement has concluded, controversially, that there is no evidence of “institutional racism” in the UK.

While the study, led by Dr Tony Sewell, chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic disparities, found there was evidence that “overt” prejudice exists, it ruled that there was no proof that it was structural.

Here we summarise the key findings from the report, and its recommendations.

UK ‘not institutionally racist’

Perhaps one of the most striking conclusions the report makes is the claim that the UK is institutionally racist was not borne out by the evidence.

The commission said they had “argued for the use of the term ‘institutional racism’ to be applied only when deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level and not be used as a general catch-all phrase for any microaggression, witting or unwitting”.

Mr Sewell said that while there was anecdotal evidence of racism, he denied there was any proof that it was structural, saying there was data to show some ethnic minorities were doing well in the jobs market and in education.

Grenfell Tower memorial

Racism the direct cause of ‘very few’ ethnic disparities

“Put simply we no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities,” the commission says. It says racism is too often used as a “catch-all explanation” for disparities and impediments for people from minority groups.

Examples where ethnic minority communities “rightly felt let down”, such as the Grenfell fire or the Windrush scandal, sparked “genuine national grief”.

The commissioners suggest that inequalities such as the higher death rates from Covid-19 among some ethnic groups are explained by factors such as their occupation or housing rather than direct discrimination. “Outcomes such as these do not come about by design, and are certainly not deliberately targeted,” they say.

It urges a detailed examination of the cases of racial and ethnic disparities and criticises the use of the term BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) as “no longer helpful”

On Policing

The report’s authors said they undertook extensive examination of data to establish causes of key disparities in crime and policing, including commissioning new research.

It concluded that black people were disproportionately victims of violent crime and homicide. For every white victim of homicide aged 16 to 24 in the year 2018/19, there were 24 black victims, the report suggested.

Stop and search was described as a “critical tool for policing when used appropriately” but communities were said not to have been given enough information about why stop and search powers were being used in a specific area.

The report added that non-white police officers were experiencing racist abuse from the general public, and that racist assaults against those serving in the Metropolitan Police had almost doubled between the year ending November 2019 and November 2020.

How to become a police officer: Guide to joining the force as new national  campaigns starts | London Evening Standard | Evening Standard
Getty images

“No police services were fully ethnically representative of the population they serve although the commission has identified some who are, independently, making substantial progress towards achieving that goal and commends them accordingly,” the summary concluded.

Too much data in the UK only breaks down ethnic groups according to the “big five” of white, black, Asian, mixed and other, making it harder to see differences within ethnic minorities such as black African and black Caribbean communities, the report says.

Many of the poor outcomes were due to family breakdown, the report suggests. It also says huge geographical inequalities can be the underlying causes of racial disparities.

The commissioners say it was “a revelation how stuck some groups from the white majority are” and it decided its recommendations should be “designed to remove obstacles for everyone”

Praise for ‘immigrant optimism’

The report looks for explanations as to why some ethnic minority groups do better than others, and it finds one in some educational research which suggests an important factor is “immigrant optimism”.

In the education system, black African, Indian and Bangladeshi pupils perform better than white British ones, taking into account socio-economic status. Ethnic minority pupils also have higher aspirations at 14 than white students – with the exception of boys from black Caribbean backgrounds .

The research suggests that recent immigrants devote themselves more to education because they see education as a way out of poverty.

The commissioners say it may explain why pupils from black African backgrounds have better attainment in education than students with black Caribbean heritage, despite similar levels of neighbourhood deprivation, prejudice, and poverty.

Minorities who have been long-established in the UK, particularly if they have faced racial, social and economic disadvantage, may be the least optimistic about social mobility, the report says.

<p>Black Lives Matter protesters hold posters as they march through London’s Notting Hill in August 2020</p>
lack Lives Matter protesters hold posters as they march through London’s Notting Hill in August 2020
(AP)

‘Shame and pride’ in British history

The report claims that teachers from ethnic minorities have faced “pushback” from senior staff when they push for a broader curriculum, the commissioners say. It suggests opportunities for a more inclusive portrayal of British culture are being missed, even when colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds are proposing them.

But it says British history is not just one of “imperial imposition”, with a more “complex picture” of ideas travelling back and forth, cultures mixing and “positive relations”. “All this makes up the British story, our story, which has episodes of both shame and pride,” the report says.

It says to develop a sense of citizenship and to support integration, pupils should be exposed to the “rich variety of British culture” and the influences on it, from classical civilisation to modern immigration.

The commissioners note there have been calls to include topics such as the Commonwealth contribution to the World Wars, major race relations events such as the Bristol Bus Boycott in 1968 and Commonwealth writers such as Derek Walcott and Andrea Levy.

How has the report been received

Voices ranging from Labour’s David Lammy and Sir Keir Starmer to equality campaigners and university professors expressed their disappointment in the findings.

Mr Lammy said the report was an “insult to anybody and everybody across this country who experiences institutional racism”.

Labour leader Sir Keir said there had been “report after report” on the issue and called for a full race equality act.

Black studies professor Kehinde Andrews branded the review a “PR move to pretend the problem [of racism] doesn’t exist”.

What’s The Problem With Keir Starmer?

SIR Keir Starmer’s popularity with the public has nosedived into negative territory – handing Boris Johnson’s party a seven-point lead over Labour, according to a leading poll.

Britain’s hugely successful vaccine rollout has given the country its biggest surge in economic optimism since records began, according to an Ipsos MORI poll. Commissioned by the London Evening Standard, it found that for the first time since 2015 slightly more people think things will improve over the coming year than think they will get worse.

And it will be music to the ears of the Conservative Party who have put on three points since February to reach a high of 45 percent.

Sir Keir’s Labour party meanwhile have failed to make any headway and are still languishing at 38 percent.

On 15 March, 45% of YouGov survey respondents said Starmer was doing “badly”. Only 32% felt he was doing “well”.

Among Labour voters, dissatisfaction is growing: in December 2020, more than 50% of those asked felt that Starmer was doing “well”. That figure has dropped by 14 percentage points, while the sentiment that he is doing “badly” has risen by 16. In the same period, among all voters, Boris Johnson’s negative rating has dropped by eight points and his positive rating has improved by eight. Never mind, though: according to YouGov, at least Liberal Democrat voters – all 5% of them – still have faith in Starmer.

Keir Starmer adjusts his tie
‘He can’t even inspire his own slogan.’ Keir Starmer. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

The picture doesn’t get rosier for Labour as a party. YouGov reports that 55% of respondents took a “negative view” of Labour, a 16-point drop in favourability since previous polling. Other surveys back this up: an Opinium/ObserverUK poll saw the Tories take a three-point lead among voters in January, despite 51% of respondents admitting they “disapproved” of the way the government had handled the Covid-19 pandemic. Even some in the shadow cabinet are said to be concerned.

Leave Starmer alone!

The debate over whether Sir Keir Starmer is good enough to lead the Labour party is never-ending, and to many, it is starting to become repetitive. But for some reason, no one likes to mention what Starmer had inherited as party leader. The former barrister inherited a party that had the worst election result since 1935, a culture of alleged anti-Semitism and to wrap it all up, becoming a leader during a global pandemic. Starmer has not been the most inspiring politician, and many compare him to stodgy porridge, but it has only been a year. There are times that a year feels like a day, which is why we should leave Starmer alone.

Being the opposition leader during an unprecedented time is incredibly challenging because you have to balance between not politicising a crisis and challenging the government on what they are doing. If Starmer gets tough on the government, he gets accused of political point-scoring, and if he does nothing, he gets called weak. Starmer is in a lose-lose situation, and you question how on earth does Starmer do good in these situations.  

That is why instead of calling for Starmer’s head, the Labour party and its supporters should give him more of a chance. Voters should try and sympathise and support the only person that has a genuine opportunity to get Labour back into no.10. Give Starmer another year, and if nothing changes, then go ahead and find a genuine electable candidate to replace him. Great things are never achieved overnight, and this party, out of all of the political parties in the country, should know this.

A manager taking a relegation side to the Premier League summit in one season is unrealistic, and that premise alone should be applied to Starmer and Labour.   

Is Keir Starmer really doing so badly? | YouGov

Even the most staunch conservative person would have a hard time not feeling for Kier Starmer in some way.

It seems to be almost an impossible job, with Starmer taking charge of the most fractured Labour Party in recent history, whilst trying to go politically toe-to-toe with a seemingly unstoppable Conservative Party.

This is a party that suffered its worst defeat since the mid-30s, in the midst of handling an alleged anti-Semitic environment and is desperately trying to get back in touch with its core members – the working class – who felt so betrayed that they felt it necessary to vote against Labour.

The situation is shambolic. If the Labour Party was a football team it would be Arsenal, and Kier Starmer would be Mikel Arteta. He has his work cut out for him.

However, a reason why Kier Starmer is failing to win people over may be due to his image and public persona.

He seems to be quite tame compared to previous Labour leaders. He’s a barrister by trade, and therefore may not be fully suited to the demands of a Labour leader, which includes maintaining positive voter perception.

Boris Johnson and Kier Starmer clash in Parliament. Video credit: The Telegraph

He isn’t assertive enough, even for an opposition party member. He does not seem to be able to have the courage to truly challenge Boris and the Conservatives, or at least not enough to make them think twice about decisions they make.

He seems timid and out of his depth, and it would be no surprise that Labour voters would have no confidence in him as a leader. However legitimate a point made be, image and public perception also play a role in an MP’s career.

Another important reason is that Labour is in the middle of a huge rebuilding process in winning back the trust of the working class.

This will most likely take decades to achieve as many perceive the modern Labour Party as elitist and metropolitan, unable to recognise and acknowledge the ‘real’ world for the working class outside the Islington bubble.

To some, Kier Starmer’s image represents a ‘soft’, repackaged version of Corbyn. A socialist and privately educated, he is everything the modern working class despise.

Until a ‘private’ person is out and a ‘public’ person is in, they will not hold a majority for a while. It’s partly a Starmer problem, but mainly a Labour problem.

Gun Violence: A Pandemic

So far in 2021, there have been over 121 mass shootings in the US. According to Standford University, a mass shooting is where three or more persons are shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time. Excluded from the 121 tally are shootings associated with organized crime, gangs or drug wars.

a map of people who have died in the US in 2021 so far due to gun violence: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day, being 11.9 per 100,000 in 2018. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

This month we saw two high profile mass shootings, in spas in Atlanta and in a supermarket in Colorado. Both horrific in nature and causing outcry from people across the world.

The question of gun control is one that often comes up whenever there is a mass public shooting and yet there is hardly any change.

“Every time there’s a tragic shooting in this country, the left uses it as a reason to grab a gun of a lawful gun owner,” said Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina. Ted Cruz, his Senate colleague from Texas, made a similar point in a Senate judiciary committee hearing a day after the Colorado shooting. “Every time there is a shooting we play this ridiculous theatre where this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would do nothing to stop these murders,” Cruz said.

We asked two journalists what they thought about gun control.

Access to Guns is a right afforded by the American Constitution.  

Nevertheless, there should be some control and regulations on who can have them and what should be allowed when owning a gun. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right and should not be taken away. People can use firearms to protect themselves and their property, which was why the Founders felt the need to include this Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, with the increase in shootings in local neighbourhoods, schools, concerts, religious settings, and more, there need to be some regulations for safety purposes.

Gun regulations do not mean the banning of all guns; it means more protection for citizens.

Mass shootings are increasing which turns one murder into numerous amounts of innocent people dying. With more restrictions, we can regulate who can own a gun and what access can be given to gun owners. While some shootings happen with illegally obtained guns, this restriction can be a step in the right direction to limit the number of firearms accessible to steal or use.

Moreover, banning or restricting the use of assault rifles can help decrease mass shootings. There is no reason for an individual to own an AK-47 for self-defence if their job does not require one. It seems to take the initial intent of what the Amendment was designed to do into something that causes more harm in the long-term. More importantly than this is ensuring that education about gun use and safety is given prior to gun ownership. Yes, there is a mandatory class that people must take to own a gun, but there needs to be more accountability. Gun owners need to truly understand their power when choosing this weapon because it is the literal difference between life and death.  

Which is more important, the right own a gun, or the right to live? Perhaps it is because I live in the UK and have never had the right to own a gun, or perhaps I dislike the way individualism has led to the acceptance and increase of people dying, either way the use of guns as a safety precaution makes me feel rather uneasy.

Mass shootings is for the most part a phenomenon unique to the US. Even during the pandemic, gun violence didn’t stop. For some reason, we are unable to view gun deaths as an issue of public health. Because of this, countries like the US where guns are readily available, we have been unable to contain gun injuries and deaths and instead we have seen them increase substantially.

I do understand the issue that may arise upon making all guns illegal in the US particularly when it comes to over-policing black and brown people. I don’t think banning guns will or should be an overnight thing, I think it will take time. The important thing is to start now, start by stopping the production of guns, start by tighter restrictions on who can own them and then phase them out.

Every firearm related injury or death leaves in its wake a trail of destruction, mental health issues and causes fear and panic amongst citizens. It is our future that is in question here. We need to stop talking about gun rights or control and start talking about the banning of firearms to save public health.

Formula 1: The Return of Aston Martin

As this new season begins, we see the return of Aston Martin to the constructor’s Championships after a 60 year hiatus (could it get any longer).

As they rejoin the cohort, there’s just 1 question: Why does there appear to be so few British manufacturers.

For myself I was of the opinion that the only British manufacturers still prevalent in the sport today were McLaren.

But to my surprise Williams were still going, albeit finishing the previous season with 0 points. With the return of Aston Martin, will this mark the return of British constructors to the top of the sport, or is it just a moment in time?

British manufacturers and the Formula 1

The domestic shores have a rich history with the sport of Formula 1, with Silverstone being the circuit where the championships started back in 1950.

Additionally, over the cars on the starting grid that day, seven of the vehicles were representatives of teams that were based in the British Isles, times have changed and the European powerhouses in mainland Europe have made their presence felt.

The rise of Mercedes and Red Bull

The 21st century in all honesty has seen a few manufacturers pull clear on rotation for sustained periods of time, with a douse of anomalous campaigns.

Ferrari virtually dominated the noughties with six championships in that time. Red Bull then took on the mantle and pulled clear from 2010-2013.

Ever since, Mercedes upgraded and managed to attract the two best drivers at the time and arguably the best constructed vehicle since and the last seven winners have driven their vehicles.

But with the changes to rules and regulations for this upcoming season, could that all change?

What does this season have in store for us?

Well first and foremost, budget caps have been imposed, it could be a more open competition which could make the prospect of Lewis Hamilton retaining his title not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

With more standardised parts, it’s definitely putting an end to the arms race, with whoever has the money to spend on car parts to operate more superiorly on the track.

This is the sporting body’s way of levelling out the constructors championship and as such, making the driver’s championship that bit less about the car they’re seated in and more about their skills in the car.

Will Lewis Hamilton MBE retain the title, we will just have to wait and see…

Let’s wait and see…

Spotlight on anti-Asian rhetoric

Anti-Asian rhetoric is a long historical issue, and it has resurfaced over the past year since the Covid-19 outbreak.

This kind of rhetoric has been most notable in the United States, with many arguing that it started with Donald Trump labelling the current virus “the Chinese virus”.

Afterwards, anti-Asian hate crime increased by nearly 150% last year in all major cities.

Pew Research found that one in three Asian Americans reported being the target of slurs or racist jokes, and 39% said that people had acted uncomfortably around them.

With such a rise in Asian hate crimes, it is important to place the spotlight on this issue, especially with what has happened in Atlanta.

The Facts

A year on from the virus, anti-Asian rhetoric is still going on, most notably, by the recent killing of 8 people, in Atlanta by Robert Aaron Long on 16th March, six of which were Asian women.

Police officers have come out and said that the attack was not racially motivated, and this has been met with a lot of criticism.

Many believe that this attack is part of a broader trend of racism towards this community, with one-quarter of Asian Americans fearing their safety.

Atlanta Georgia Sherriff spokesperson Jay Baker has been removed from the case after he made comments claiming that Long was having “a really bad day” and alluded to the suspect’s sex addiction as the reason for the shooting, which sparked controversy.  

Since the attack, Joe Biden has urged Americans to speak up on this issue and has said that “our silence is complicity”.

Companies such as Nike, ESPN and HBO have also supported the Asian-American community, and there has been a rise in social media advocation on this issue.

Protests and vigils have been set up across the United States to pay respects for the lives lost in Atlanta, and campaigns against anti-Asian rhetoric have started.

During these protests, it was reported by the New York Police department that they had to respond to 5 attacks against Asian Americans, highlighting the growing persisting of this issue.

The pandemic has caused deaths and economic turmoil, But arguably even scarier, ignorance and hatred towards the Asian community because of who they are.

It all started with Trump’s words, and it has now transpired to the attack in Atlanta.   

But let’s not forget that anti-Asian rhetoric is nothing new, especially within the American context.

On 24th October 1871, 500 white and Hispanic rioters attacked the Los Angles Chinese community, with 17 Chinese men and boys being lynched.

In 1900, the bubonic plague hit San Francisco, and the first victim of this disease was a Chinese immigrant. After the first victim, it created, like we see today, attacks on the Chinese community both verbally and physically occured.

The United States government forced Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans into internment camps during world war two over suspicions that they were spying for the Japanese, yet no spying was ever found.

https://twitter.com/digitaIfaerie/status/1373132774110941186?s=20

We currently see anti-Asian rhetoric as we have in the past, but this time around, it is being amplified across social media. The calls to stop anti-Asian hate strikes a similar tone with what happened after George Floyd’s tragic death last year, such as the demands for allyship, brands condemning what was occurring and politicians speaking out on the issue.

The Asian community wants to be supported, wants to feel safe and wants all of this to stop more than ever.

There have been mountains of support towards this community in America and elsewhere, seen by mass protests, vigils and GoFundMes.

One of these pages is approaching $3million donations showing that there is kindness in this world despite the amount of hate we are seeing.  

Like last year, a marginalised community wants support, and it seems that everyone wants to be part of the solution rather than the problem.   

Justice for Blessing Olusegun: Is There A Double Standard?

The Facts

21-year-old Blessing Olusegun went missing in September 2020. Unfortunately, her body was discovered on a beach in East Sussex.

She was alone, with only a few personal belongings on her person at the time of discovery.

Sussex Police described her death as ‘unexplained’, and post-mortem exams suggest that she died via drowning.

However, the large gap of time between the last time she was seen alive and the discovery of her body remains a mystery.

Interest in her case has resurfaced after a similar incident happened in March 2021. Sarah Everard, who vanished on March 3rd, was the tragic victim of a murder.

Her body was found in Kent, and a serving police officer has been subsequently charged with her murder. A vigil was held for her in Clapham Common where an otherwise peaceful gathering turned violent.

Police were fiercely criticised for their handling of the situation, with many male officers being particularly heavy-handed against mainly female spectators.

The incident led to conversations about society’s attitudes towards women, with Green Party member Baroness Jones proposing a curfew of men after 6pm.

The differences between the reactions to their death have also sparked debate. Ms Olusegun was a business student, whilst Ms Everard was a marketing executive.

Both cases were absolutely tragic. It’s quite sad and unfortunate that both women were killed in such a manner. Each of them had their whole lives ahead of them, and to see their lives cut short is nothing short of an injustice.

It is no surprise that people are calling for justice for the two women and speaks volumes about aspects of modern society regarding the treatment of women, highlighted especially by the way the police (with mainly male officers) handled Everard’s vigil, attended mainly by women.

Labour leader Kier Starmer said Everard’s case must be a ‘watershed’ moment. Video credit: The Independent

The stark contrast of publicity and attention for the two cases can be attributed to different possible reasons. Both these cases had different circumstances and so it stands to reason the attention of their respective cases would differ.

Some speculate that it’s a class issue. When Blessing went missing, she was on a one-week placement as a live-in carer for elderly dementia patients. Everard, on the other hand, was a marketing executive.

Some would also argue it’s a race issue, and use this case as an example of ‘white privilege’ in action.

However, the reason why Everard’s case was solved quicker than Blessing’s is likely due to more urgent pressing from her family.

Everard’s boyfriend contacted the police the day after she went missing after sensing something was wrong. Having spoken to him on the way home, with CCTV footage, doorbell cameras and police dashcams tracking her every move, police were able to pinpoint her accurate location and retrace her steps fairly easily.

The Guardian reports that Everard’s family have not had her cause of death officially confirmed

They had a clear pattern to follow and found her body in a large builder’s bag in Hoad’s Wood, Kent.

It would stand to reason that the police would be able to ascertain her fate, due to the large amounts of evidence at their disposal.

Unfortunately, Blessing did not have such luck. Police concluded that her cause of death was ‘inconclusive’, and post-mortem exams say that she likely died by drowning.

There was no evidence of internal or external injury, and therefore could not be treated as suspicious.

Either way, both cases were absolutely tragic.

It is, unfortunately, not too outlandish to suspect that race or class did not have roles to play in the investigations of their respective deaths but the lack of nuance and reason, combined with an increasingly divisive political climate, does not help the situation.

To say colour did not play a part in how the UK police handled Blessing Olusegun and Sarah Everard’s investigation is a naïve statement. Too many times in society, we overlook the black woman. What happened with Blessing Olusegun is a tragedy, but what is even more of a tragedy is her death was treated more of an “oh by the way, this happened” than a serious crime. It is a shame that so many of our young black women are not afforded the same minimal concern as their white counterparts.

When police found Sarah’s body in the woods, it was not a question that police would investigate further. The community was outraged because of her death, and the police did not stop investigating until they found answers. Despite Blessing’s unusual death, the police concluded there was no foul play, and it was “unexplainable.” The problem with this is there was not an extra step in investigating Blessing’s death. No one knows for sure what exactly happened with her death. The police left it as she drowned, but will not ask the why and how questions, but asked several questions in Sarah’s case. It is a known fact that people of colour, especially black women, do not get the same media attention as white women when it comes to a missing person’s case.

Blessing deserved more than just a lacklustre investigation, especially when community members demanded certain local ordinances to be changed because of Sarah’s murder. Both of these women’s lives were tragically cut short, and it is devastating to hear about both of these cases because this was a human life. However, Blessing’s family and friends deserve the same answered questions that Sarah’s family and friends received. The police should have done more on Blessing’s behalf so she could get the investigation she deserves.

AstraZeneca Is A Sacrificed Pawn In EU’s Political Chess Game

This week, 17 European countries stopped AstraZeneca’s (AZ) vaccine rollout while waiting for the European Medical Agency (EMA) review by Thursday. Meanwhile, Pfizer warned the EU to back down from blocking vaccine trade with the UK since its main ingredients are shipped from Yorkshire. The WHO and EMA concluded “no increase in the overall risk of blood clots”. It would appear, then, that European states were colluding to supersede the primum non necere principle and replacing it with their own adulterated precautionary principle to deflect from their own failings in vaccine rollouts.

Delays cost lives, significantly more than a few blood clots from overactive immune responses. We cannot remove the risk entirely, we are fragile living, breathing organisms by nature; not some machine whose parts can be oiled and replaced.

Each year, 1 in 1000 people will get a clot. Of the 25 million Europeans who had the AZ jab, 25,000 would have been expected to get a blood clot anyway. The EMA had reviewed only 7 cases of blood clots in multiple blood vessels and 18 cases of CVST.

The Italian National Medical Agency (AIFA) said: “The decision to stop #AstraZeneca #covid19vaccine is political.”

This should make us question when independent medical bodies started following political orders. Italy has 166 people die of blood clots daily, why all the fuss for AZ? Mario Draghi called Angela Merkel before stopping the AZ vaccine. Every day, 400-500 people die because of covid-19 complications. Meanwhile, 80 shops, restaurants and services close forever. Who pays these costs?

AstraZeneca vaccine can slow transmission of COVID-19, Oxford study reveals  | News | DW | 03.02.2021

The EMA representative at the European Parliament said the AZ vaccine posed no risks. This is the same stance as the WHO and UK medical agency.

The reporting abroad also conveniently overlooks the millions of UK citizens vaccinated without any notable risks to public health.

Inevitably, there will be some who have bad contraindications to a vaccine.

The EU has lost a lot of credibility over its vaccine program failures and is trying to deflect attention to save face by spreading fake news that the UK vaccine is somehow more harmful to human life. It smacks of desperation and paranoia. It gives them plausible deniability for their own vaccine rollout failures. First, they lied about efficacy in over 65’s, U-turning after the WHO said they were wrong. They then accused AZ of giving preferential treatment to the UK and not fulfilling their contract. Now France is refusing to administer AZ to under-55s, despite “the WHO said there is no evidence the incidents are caused by the vaccine” and “among those reporting blood clots in Italy were those on heart medication of which clotting is a potential side-effect.”

Oxford’s Sir John Bell warned that changing advice undermined confidence in all vaccination programmes, stating “they are sitting on a massive stockpile of vaccines that they haven’t deployed yet while a wave of new variants is spreading. You couldn’t make it up.”

Italian doctor using AstraZeneca vaccine in Bologna, 19 Mar 21
Getty Images

Boris is clearing winning the Covid political war, with 89% domestic approval ratings for our vaccine programmes. If successful politics is about messaging and news management, or we have been lucky our adversaries are making unforced errors in the final set; seeing EU countries discredit AZ, not use the doses and threatening a block on vaccine exports to the UK and confiscation of manufacturing facilities in a demand for more of the very vaccine they tried to devalue; such bizarre contradictions put us squarely in a better negotiating position.

The UK didn’t have the supply issues, nor the “best efforts” clause. We just ordered our vaccines long before Europe, approved them earlier and had the same challenges last year. The UK actually benefitting from Brexit when it came to vaccines is too much affrontery for the EU to bear. This probably leaves Brexiteers wondering whether they should be amused at European nations not following the EMA’s guidance to continue with AZ or supporting each individual member state’s autonomy to decide what is in each of their best interests – as we did with voting to leave.

But as that telephone call between Europhiles Merkel and Draghi showed, European leaders are more proxy puppets for the European Project than representing their own countries. They should have learned from the March 2020 PPE hoarding by some member states to deprive others that their project falls short in times of crisis. This is war, but we seem to be confused who the enemy is.

Is the Backlash Against The Police Protest Bill Justified?

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has sparked controversy and outrage across the country, with some describing it as ‘authoritarian and Orwellian’.

The controversial legislation gives police and the government more powers to restrict and control protests in unprecedented ways, such as being able to control when protests begin and end, similar to marches and demonstrations.

Ministers say that existing public order legislation is outdated and no longer fit for managing and regulating contemporary protests and gatherings.

It comes after protests in the past few years have turned disruptive and violent. The law has come to prominence again after the police were fiercely criticised for their handling of a a vigil for murdered 33-year-old Sarah Everard, where four were arrested.

An example of a disruptive protest is climate change movement Extinction Rebellion (XR). In September 2020, XR protestors blocked the delivery of newspapers from three printing presses owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

However, critics say the law is ambiguous enough to be totally at the discretion of Priti Patel and the police. They argue that the Bill, which defines an unlawful protest as one that causes ‘too much annoyance’, would effectively end freedom of protest as we know it.

Barrister and author Chris Daw said, “This will be the biggest widening of police powers to impose restrictions on public protest that we’ve seen in our lifetimes.”

“The bill hands over the power of deciding whether a protest is justified or should be allowed — decisions we as citizens have had for generations — directly to the Home Secretary.”

“That’s an extremely chilling development. It’s completely contradictory to everything the liberty of the free citizen is about in Britain.”

The Bill is arguably the most authoritarian piece of legislation that has ever been passed in recent history of the United Kingdom. It has the potential to defy higher laws which give citizens the right to protest, and would change the way we protest for decades to come.

A particularly worrying aspect to this is the description of an unlawful protest as “annoying”. Citizens have the right to be annoying.

There is an distinct arrogance to this description, as “annoyance” is entirely subjective. What one person finds to be annoying, another may find vital or of the upmost importance.

Why should the government, the police or anybody get to decide what “annoyance” is and isn’t? Why should their bias for or against particular movements become mainstream?

Australian journalist Ben Avery is mobbed by BLM protestors. Video credit: The Telegraph

The right to protest is partly based upon the idea that nobody should be able to decide what can and can’t be said or protested against in the public arena. Once the government has that power, it can easily be weaponised against movements it doesn’t like.

This Bill will essentially give the state the power to decide what can and can’t be said publicly. This is no different from fascist and authoritarian regimes in the past, such as Hitler’s Nazi regime. The illusion of democracy will be shattered.

However, it is important to remember why the government felt such a need to pass this Bill in the first place. This is a direct response to disruptive actions that groups have taken in order to get their message across.

It’s clear that certain members of government don’t like certain movements anyway. Priti Patel has described the Black Lives Matter protests (and subsequent riots) as ‘dreadful’. An argument could be made that this Bill would give her the power to enforce that bias at an institutional level.

Despite this, there is no denying that direct action will have direct consequences. People have the right to protest, but they don’t have the right to disrupt others from their daily lives, cause civil unrest or commit criminal damage.

XR campaigners block a Murdoch-owned printing press. Video credit: Sky News

In 2019, XR protestors blocked a Murdoch-owned printing press from delivering newspapers. Some would argue this was a direct attack on freedom of the press (and speech, by extension.)

In 2020, Black Lives Matter protests turned violent in the capital. Police officers were assaulted, people were arrested and a statue of Winston Churchill was vandalised.

The Bill should still be opposed by everybody, as it is fundamentally anti-democratic. However, the unlawful nature of direct action by certain movements must be tackled somehow. The government could not just stand by and allow it to continue indefinitely.

Lawlessness cannot stand.

Is It Time We Abolish The Monarchy?

Earlier this month, in a sit down with Oprah, Megan Markle and Prince Harry spoke of their experience with the royals. Particular incidents were highlighted and subsequently questions arose as to whether now was the time that the Royal Family had lost its purpose.

Television personality Oprah was shocked to learn that people within the Royal Family were making comments about baby Archie’s skin colour

Amongst a number of other conversations, it was revealed that a member of the Royal Family had asked about the possible skin colour of Harry and Megan’s child (that we now know to be baby Archie). The microagressions faced by Megan Markle at the hands of the The Firm, and the mainstream media have brought forward conversations surrounding the Monarchy and its relevance in society today.

The current monarch and head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who ascended the throne in 1952. The monarch and their immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. The Queen is also the head of the British Armed Forces.

Is it time for all this to change?

The British Monarchy, by virtue of being one of the oldest and most financially influential institutions in the world, has the power to positively impact cultural and racial disunity in the UK.

Britain has a multi-cultural population which has over the years only become increasingly diverse. Social cohesion in the country is at an all-time low following political division and racial conflict. Though the Monarchy has no major role in running the country, it acts as an emblem of British national identity.

When compared to South Asian, Caribbean, and African cultures, (where the majority of ethnic Britons derive their roots), British culture and national identity are waning and weak. It becomes increasingly difficult for British Asians/Caribbeans/Africans to resonate with a national identity that is so deeply connected to Britain’s colonial past.

However, it makes more sense to reform the monarchy to reflect Britain’s current state of ethnic diversity than to abolish it altogether and deplete the feeble semblance of English culture that we have left.

Diana’s legacy is a case in point of how the monarchy has the power to really unite people of all races within the UK. Meghan Markle’s early involvement with the Robert Clark Upper School in Dagenham also showed the beginnings of a more relatable royal family. By getting involved in projects, charities and events that give ethnic Britons more of a voice and platform, the monarchy can consolidate the melting pot of identities that make up Britain.

Viral moment from Meghan’s visit to Robert Clark Upper School in Dagenham.

Seeing one of the most traditionally colonialist institutions in the world uplift those who struggle to embrace their British identity symbolises how racist attitudes in Britain are a relic of a time gone by. There is still hope for the British Monarchy if they carefully address Harry and Megan’s allegations and make a genuine commitment towards becoming more racially inclusive.  

Abolition may be far away but things must change

Since Harry and Meghan’s explosive interview with Oprah, the republican movement in the UK has enjoyed a substantial bump in support and interest. More pundits are asking questions about the Royal institution and its place in a modern democracy.

It’s also important to note that the Monarchy is still supported by a plethora of people across all age groups in Great Britain. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is among over 65 year old’s where the level of support is highest at 84 percent. Younger age groups are progressively more likely to oppose the monarchy, with 34 percent of 18-24 year old’s opting instead for an elected head of state. This is according to research site Staistia.

Abolition may be many decades away however what some have campaigned for, including the leader of the opposition, Kier Starmer, is that the monarch should have a greatly reduced role. This means over time politicians should gradually reduce the privileges and influence of the monarchy; reduce, and exert greater control over government expenditure on the monarchy.

The argument goes that, the monarchy in its current form is a stain on a modern liberal democracy which is meant to be built on fairness and in which all citizens are regarded as being of equal worth. This is at odds with a monarchy which symbolizes an anarchical social order based on hereditary status, wealth and privilege. Keir Starmer has said he would like to downsize the monarchy and this position is shared by many politicians today, although it’s unpopular to say publically. On the Labour policy forum page, one writer postulated the process could look something like this…

  • The Sovereign Grant should be based on an estimate of what Parliament considers to be the essential needs of the monarchy, rather than it being linked to the revenue surplus of the Crown Estate;
  • All other grants and forms of support for monarchy should be ended;
  • Revenues from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should be paid to the state rather than to the monarch and her heir;
  • The need for the retention of the Duchies and the Crown Estate as separate entities should be examined.

We may be far away from abolition, however, it seems an increasing number of people want change.

What the Klopp is going on at Liverpool?

Where do we begin? If it’s not post-match interviews turning into tirades, the build-up of injuries over the season, lack of summer recruitment or the demise of the Anfield fortress, this season has truly been unprecedented for Jurgen Klopp and Liverpool Football Club.

In the twenty-nine games so far, they have already lost as many games as in the previous three campaigns combined.

With the defending champions languishing in 6th place, no home wins in the league since mid December and just three players hitting double figures in all competitions, the international break looks to have come at the perfect time.

The season so far

So what the Klopp is going on? COVID has surely brought about some of the craziest moments in this new campaign.

From defeating Leeds, Chelsea and Arsenal in their opening three games, everyone thought Liverpool were going to retain the title.

The date October 4th will go down in Premier League history. After United were battered 6-1 at home, Eyes turned to the evening kick off at Villa Park between Aston Villa and Liverpool.

The trio of Ollie Watkins, Ross Barkley and Jack Grealish combined to absolutely pummel the Reds 7-2 to everyone’s surprise.

The international break came at the perfect time for Klopp and co. to forget that the game happened. Then came the Merseyside derby.

From the moment Virgil Van Dijk suffered that injury in the Merseyside derby, the trajectory of Liverpool’s title defence certainly went awry.

Their record signing and defensive rock was crocked by what was a horrendous tackle and not even a penalty was given.

What transpired between then and the end of the year was arguably unprecedented.

Joe Gomez, Joel Matip, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Jordan Henderson, Thiago, Mo Salah, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Alisson, Bobby Firmino and Fabinho have all suffered injuries or are still currently injured.

What has since transpired has been unreal, from nearly 20 different defensive partnerships, a winless streak at their former fortress, stretching over four months, you could not make this up.

Who’s to blame?

If you ask Jurgen Klopp, the answer appears to be everybody but him, if you don’t believe me, watch one of his tirades earlier this season where he tried to pin it on the broadcasters.

Is there a way out?
At this point in the season, the Reds have two focuses: do well in the Champions League, get into the top 4, sounds simple right? Not quite.

Having been drawn against 13-time champions Real Madrid, there’s already a massive stumbling block in Europe’s elite competition.

To make it worse, three of the previously mentioned four sides they opened the campaign against (Leeds, Arsenal and Aston Villa), all still await next month.

This is separate from their North-West rivals and a number of middling teams fending off the relegation dogfight involving sides between 11th and 18th to come.

Let’s see if all’s well that ends well by the time we reach the campaign’s denouement in 2 months’ time.

What you need to know about Ethiopia’s Latest Humanitarian Crisis

As the world grapples with the effects of the pandemic, the humanitarian crisis – brewing in Ethiopia’s northern region of Tigray – has almost gone unnoticed. According to the United Nations, some 2.3 million children have been cut off from humanitarian assistance and aid, a violation of international law. Here we unpack everything we know about the tragedy.

The Facts

While the pandemic continues to rage in some parts of the world, Ethiopia and neighbouring Eritrea have also had to contend with civil unrest.

Turmoil is not new to the region.

Ethiopia’s history is littered with similar events with conflicts mainly fuelled by ethnic divisions. The country’s central government has consistently been tangled in quelling unrest in its various provinces for years.

In this instance some reports are proving difficult to verify, given the alleged the restricted access to the Tigray region – especially for journalists as well as the United Nations. Making aid provision a difficult undertaking or broadcasting the full extent of the crisis, less feasible.

While the crisis rages on, the victims in this latest conflict are once again, mainly women and children.

Tigray is the northernmost region of Ethiopia, and the homeland of the Tigrayan, Irob and Kunama peoples. Since November 2020 Ethiopia’s national defence force has been at war with fighters from the Tigray Regional Government, led by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) – Ethiopia’s ousted ruling party and a listed terrorist group. The TPLF assisted by the Eritrean People Liberation Front (EPLF), led a successful rebellion against President Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991, and as part of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition, eventually ruled Africa’s second-most populous country for almost 30 years until 2018.

On 18 January 2021, the National Election Board of Ethiopia terminated the EPRDF’s registration, citing acts of violence and rebellion committed by the party’s leadership against the Federal government in 2020. Attempts at political and economic reforms by incumbent Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed – the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his landmark deal with Eritrea – have had varying degrees of success.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed | Reuters

However the threat of ethnic division is not going away any time soon. Moreover, according to Ethiopia’s 1994 constitution, states under the Ethiopian federalism umbrella have an equivocal right for self-determination and secession. Prior to the current war in Tigray, Ahmed’s administration suffered a coup attempt in 2020 in the Amhara region. It is thought that the removal of the ethnic federalist EPRDF in 2019 and its replacement with Ahmed’s Prosperity Party has exacerbated the possibility of ethnic war. 

The division of Ethiopia along ethnic lines is a looming possibility if the national leadership continues to prove unable to counter regional challenges. If ethnic conflict rages on, Tigray will likely be the first to attempt secession, as Eritrea did in 1993, and others will follow. 

The governments of both Ethiopia and neighbouring Eritrea have heavily restricted journalist and NGO access to Tigray. For this reason, many reports are unverified. However, the conflict has clearly erupted into large-scale violence, with a possibility of degenerating into as dire a situation as the 1984-5 famine which claimed the lives of 1 million Ethiopians.

According to the United Nations, some 2.3 million children have been cut off from humanitarian assistance and aid, a violation of international law. There have also been “deeply distressing reports of sexual and gender-based violence, extrajudicial killings, [and the] widespread destruction and looting of public and private property by all parties” according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. More than 136 cases of rape have also been reported in hospitals in December 2020 and January 2021, with indications that there are many more such unreported cases. 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken | POLITICO

In a statement before Congress last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned alleged acts of “ethnic cleansing” in the Tigray region, and called for the departure of troops. It is speculated that Ahmed has “invited” troops from neighbouring Eritrea for the expressed purpose of massacring the people of Tigray. As of December 2020, the UN estimated more than one million people have been internally displaced by the fighting. More than 50,000 people have fled to Sudan due to the conflict. Possible COVID-19 outbreaks have been feared as refugees fleeing the Tigray conflict have sheltered in crowded camps.

The violent dismemberment of the second-most populated nation in Africa is not yet a done deal, but the massacring and mistreatment of civilians on a large scale by both Ethiopian and Eritrean troops in Tigray is not only tragic itself, but sets the stage for further and ever more extreme ethnic conflict will have grave implications for Ethiopians and their neighbours. 

Boris Johnson insists easing of lockdown is on course despite vaccine supply shortage

The Prime Minister told a Downing Street press conference that delays in supply were inevitable but said the Oxford Astrazenica jab was safe and that he planned to get his first dose on Friday.

Boris Johnson has insisted the vaccination programme and the roadmap out of lockdown remain on track despite a shortfall in the expected supply of jabs.

A delay in deliveries from India and the need to retest a batch of 1.7 million doses is behind the issues with vaccine supply in April.


The problem with a shipment from the Serum Institute of India (SII) has been blamed by the body’s chief on the country’s government, although Mr Johnson said Narendra Modi’s administration has not stopped any exports.

Mr Johnson said: “We have always said that in a vaccination programme of this pace and this scale, some interruptions in supply are inevitable.

“It is true that in the short term we are receiving fewer vaccines than we had planned for a week ago, that is because of a delay in a shipment from the Serum Institute – who are doing a herculean job in producing vaccines in such large quantities – and because of a batch that we currently have in the UK that needs to be retested as part of our rigorous safety programme.

“As a result, we will receive slightly fewer vaccines in April than in March but that is still more than we received in February and the supply we do have will still enable us to hit the targets we have set.”

The over-50s and the clinically vulnerable will still be offered a first dose by April 15, and second doses will be available to around 12 million people in April.

Every adult will be offered a first dose by the end of July, as planned, he said.

“Our progress along the road to freedom continues unchecked, we remain on track to reclaim the things we love, to see our families and friends again, to return to our local pubs, our gyms and sports facilities and, of course, our shops,” he said.

SII chief executive Adar Poonawalla told The Telegraph the delay to a shipment of millions of doses was “solely dependent on India and it has nothing to do with the SII”.

“It is to do with the Indian government allowing more doses to the UK,” he said.

But Mr Johnson told a Downing Street press conference “the Indian government has not stopped any export” but “there is a delay… as there is very frequently in vaccine rollout programmes”.

Matt Hancock Doubles down on NHS Wages And Insists 1% Offer Is A Pay Rise

The proposed 1% pay increase for NHS workers in England has caused quite a storm, a few days after Rishi Sunak announced the budget. An independent panel is now considering the pay rise and that the proposal would cover most hospital staff. After the committee makes their pay recommendations on the proposal, ministers will decide if the proposal passes in parliament. If the 1% pay rise does get passed in parliament, it will go against the government’s 2.1% pay rise promise for NHS workers that it made last year.   

In response to this proposal, a demonstration against the pay rise occurred over the weekend in Manchester. Despite rules banning large gatherings of people, due to the current pandemic, 40 people turned up to the protest, and a 61-year-old woman was fined £10,000 for organising the protest. A nurse’s union has set up a £35 million fund to help those wanting to strike over the proposal, and Unite, another union for the NHS, is thinking about proposing a strike ballot to its members. The Royal College of Nursing has also come out and says that its members should be getting a 12.5% increase in pay.   

Despite uproar by the sector and the Labour party, government ministers have defended this proposal. Ministers such as Matt Hancock suggested that the proposal is along the affordability lines and reflects the “difficult financial circumstances the country is in”. Boris Johnson has also come out and defended the proposal citing the same reasons as his health secretary. Health minister Nadine Dorries was also quoted in saying that she was “pleasantly surprised” by the 1 per cent rise and has defended the proposal on BBC Breakfast.

However, there are several voices of disagreement. Those who are against the proposal believe it is insulting to those in the industry. One of the outspoken voices against the proposal was Patricia Marquis, a representative of The Royal College of Nursing. She warned on Times radio that staff members could leave this sector because of this pay rise proposal. Sir Keir Starmer has also criticised the government over the proposal by tweeting “that you can’t rebuild a country by cutting nurses’ pay”. In the same tweet, the Labour leader shared the Daily Mirror’s front page, which had the headline “Insult to Our Heroes”, referencing the pay rise proposal.

There are many perspectives on this proposal, both in support and against it.

Does the Government not care?

NHS workers over this pandemic have received tremendous support from everyone in this nation. Recently, this government was provided with the opportunity to give these fine people a just reward for putting their lives at risk for the greater good. This opportunity was to provide a fair pay rise to these workers, and in doing so, this government would have gained some praise. It would be a no brainer for any political strategist or politician to give NHS workers a modest rise.  

But somehow, this government screwed up this opportunity like a football team losing a match four-three when they were three-nil up. Not only has this government gone against its promise a year ago, but their decision could now result in strike action and more people leaving this industry during a global pandemic. The consequences of this decision are enormous. Yet again, like with the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and the A-level saga, this was avoidable. According to a poll for the observer, 72% of the public believe the pay deal should be more generous. It clearly shows that people have more sense than those they elect as parliament members.

Dominic Cummings will see a £40,000 per year pay rise, and while this occurs, NHS staff will put blood, sweat and tears to keep someone alive with little moral and little consideration by the government. The government will say that 1% was what they could afford while spending 2.6 million pounds on fitting out a new briefing room in Downing Street and wasting billions on private companies’ contracts. It seems this “pay rise” is not about affordability; it is about something else.  

Maybe (shock horror) this government does not care about NHS workers, only their friends of private companies and their fellow parliamentary colleagues.    

Op-ed: The Scottish Hate Crime Bill needs to be repealed urgently

Scotland has passed a controversial Bill that many people believe to be a direct threat to free speech. MSPs have backed the Bill, which passed by 82 votes in March 2021.

The legislation seems to combine existing free speech laws and extend protections for groups deemed to be ‘marginalised’ whilst creating a new offence of ‘stirring up hatred’.

The Bill covers all current protected characteristics – including religion, gender, race and sexual orientation – except sex, to protect transgender identity.

There has been a significant backlash to this, from groups from all walks of life. Religious groups, journalists, writers and even police have raised concerns about the impact it could have on freedom of expression.

The Scottish Government reiterated that ‘stirring up hatred’ would only be considered an offence if it was intentional.

This Bill needs to be repealed urgently. The existing laws that Scotland had already provided a satisfactory response to alleged ‘hate speech’ but this law could have dangerous, chilling effects on the future of freedom of speech in Scotland.

One of the more particularly troubling aspects of this bill is the fact that it extends to the home. The previous law had a “dwelling defence” clause, meaning that you could not be prosecuted for alleged hate speech in the privacy of your own home. This new Bill scraps that.

This is a worrying sign. Why should anybody – especially the government – get to decide what can and can’t be said in the privacy of your own home? Is the government the gatekeeper of morality, deciding what can and can’t be said?

Removing protections of the home environment means there is no safe haven for free expression. If I were to say something to somebody in my own home, that the legislation deems at ‘stirring up hatred’, I could be reported and arrested. A line has been clearly crossed. It’s simply too much power for the government to have.

The Christian Institute discussed the Bill. Video credit: The Christian Institute

Scottish Conservative justice spokesman Liam Kerr said there was “inherent ambiguity” in the language of the legislation, and he is correct. Ambiguity can easily lead to weaponisation.

Another issue that should be addressed is the lack of protection for the characteristic of sex. In a society of self-identification where sex and gender are apparently entirely subjective, malleable and flexible to suit a person’s worldview, the lack of protection for the sex characteristic is a clear indication of the impact transgender ideology and lobbying is having on the Scottish government.

The LGBT community already finds itself in the midst of an ideological civil war, particularly between lesbians and transgender women, where sex and gender are thrown in question.

If a woman (who was born a woman) does not feel comfortable sharing a space where vulnerability is paramount (such as a changing room) with a transgender woman, would she be committing a hate crime? Could she prosecuted for expressing her views on sex?

According to a report by the BBC, 0.5% of adults in Scotland identify as transgender. Why then, should biological sex be relegated to a simple emotion at the expense of the other 99.5%?

Logic dictates that biology determines sex, but the Hate Crime Bill has other ideas. Biological sex – and the social norms and attitudes thereof – have been sacrificed for intolerant ideological bigotry. This is not only about social settings, but academic freedom also.

MP for South of Scotland Michelle Ballantyne voices her disapproval of the Bill.

If somebody were to release a study which scrutinises or challenges transgender identity or ideology, it would be as simple as using the Bill’s ambiguous nature to prove that a person was ‘stirring up hatred’, and to remove the study from the academic arena.

The nature of this is similar to fascist and dictatorial regimes in history. Hitler’s Nazi regime had a strict ban of pro-Jewish and anti-Regime literature, and many people faced fines, exiles or even death for dissent. Books were burned publicly, and literature having a pro-democratic or pacifist nature were targeted for destruction.

This Bill is simply a ‘soft’ version of this. The Scottish Government has no business calling itself democratic when a person can be prosecuted from what they say in the privacy of their own home.

It is state-controlled media and speech through the back door, under the guise of ‘preventing hatred’. It is, effectively, a secular blasphemy law.

Scottish comedian Leo Kearse expresses his views on the Hate Crime Bill. Video credit: Leo Kearse

The ultimate conclusion of this Bill is segregation. It is a power-hungry, intolerant and bigoted piece of legislation that will have wider consequences that some willingly choose to ignore for the sake of pandering to minority groups. It is the most authoritarian Bill Scotland has ever seen. The nation chooses not to fight against this at their peril.

This Bill seeks to protect minorities, but in doing so has sacrificed and betrayed the majority.