type here...
Home Blog Page 52

Is Boris Johnson Preparing for a General Election?

Maisie Barker
-
0
Is Boris Johnson Preparing for a General Election?

As part of his new role as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson recently announced 20,000 new police roles and up to 10,000 new prison places. He also announced increased powers for police to stop and search individuals and announced a £100 million fund to prevent contraband such as mobile phones, drugs and weapons from being smuggled into prison. This was highlighted by the Conservative party as part of a tough new outlook on law and order but was criticised by some as manipulating figures.

In 2010, David Cameron became PM and Theresa May became Home Secretary. As part of their programme of austerity they cut 20,000 police officers bringing the total down to its present 123,171 (from 143,000). Police representatives at the time warned of the threat that cutting police numbers would have but these were ignored. Certainly crime routinely makes the news headlines but how much of a link is there between crime and police numbers? This year the Home Office recorded an increase of 19% in the overall number of violent crimes being reported – with a 17% increase in recorded sexual offences and a 14% increase in homicides. The ONS attributes this rise to improvements in reporting but these numbers will be a cause for concern for any ruling party.

It is impossible to ignore the impact that austerity cuts have had on crime figures, beyond just the front-line staff. Cuts have targeted employment opportunities, education, mental health care, and increased the inequality between rich and poor. We cannot ignore these factors in relation to crime. 

Boris Johnson is proposing to increase police numbers to 2010 numbers. The problem is that his party are the ones who reduced those numbers; who told the public that there was no other option but to cut all public services to the bones. If, as the New Statesman recently wrote, the UK is heading towards another recession then where is the money for these new police officers coming from?

10,000 new prison places

Similarly, the 10,000 new prison places don’t stand up to scrutiny. According to the government’s own statistics, prisons have been over-capacity since at least 2011 and the level of prison inmates is currently 8,700 above prison overcrowding limits. There is once again a discrepancy in what the government in promising and what it has actually been doing. 

If prisons are currently overcrowded then where are these extra places coming from? Increasing capacity by 10,000 places only just brings the prison population under the limits for overcrowding. What sounds like an impressive plan to bring crime under control, just undoes the Conservatives cuts in the first place. 

It seems like, for all the fanfare, these promises are merely an underhanded tactic to make the Conservative Party look more unified and in control than they actually are. Johnson is still promising to pull us out of the EU by October 31st despite all the warnings. The economic outlook isn’t great so the question is where will the money for these plans come from?

You can read about the impact of stop-and-search from other writers but it cannot be excluded from a conversation about crime. Johnson has promised increased powers for police to stop those they suspect of being involved in planning or carrying out a crime. The College of Policing reported in 2017 that there was limited evidence that these tactics deterred people from committing crimes; they also reported that it was more important to focus on education and poverty to prevent people from turning to crime. Stop-and-search predominantly impacts young black men – who in turn are more likely to come from deprived backgrounds. Stop-and-search turns citizens into suspects which in turn breaks down the relationship between police and the people they are supposed to be protecting. 

David Cameron in his ‘hug a hoodie’ campaign

The Conservatives have often tried to position themselves as the party of law and order (with a notable exception being David Cameron’s ‘hug a hoodie’ initiative) but these plans are just sticking plasters on a broken leg. If the Tories really wanted to cut down crime figures they can start by undoing the cuts that have caused huge issues in Britain. Education is the first start and the earliest opportunity to identify the children most at risk from becoming involved in crime, and when children are routinely coming into schools having not eaten and in dirty clothes it’s hard to understand why the focus isn’t on ensuring children aren’t living in poverty. As the number of sexual offences committed has gone up, the percentage of charges brought have decreased too. The Conservatives could increase the support for victims of sexual and domestic violence victims and their families – stopping the cycle of crime before it can take hold. 

Homelessness and drug or alcohol addictions are often reported as crimes as opposed to a public health issue. In my hometown of Manchester the scourge of spice (a kind of synthetic cannabinoid) has turned swathes of the city centre into a hells cape but the ambulance service and police are massively overwhelmed by the problem. Manchester has the highest number of deaths of homeless people in the country and the dangerous situation for homeless people has an impact on wider crime: shoplifting, violence, anti-social behaviour. The government could channel more money into combating homelessness and addiction as opposed to moving them from the streets to prison (where they are still at risk of using drugs). 

Put simply, I’m not convinced that prisons are the first place to start with reversing crime figures. Whilst increasing police numbers may allow officers to investigate more crime it needs to go hand in hand with a more comprehensive scheme to combat it. Crime does not exist in a vacuum: it arises from precarious living situations, from poverty, from desperation. It comes from forcing first-time offenders into a scheme that focuses more on punishment than on rehabilitation. If the Conservatives want to reduce crime, there are better places to start.

A Complete Guide of the Kashmir Crisis: History, Politics and Nationalism

Common Sense Contributors
-
0
A Complete Guide of the Kashmir Crisis: History, Politics and Nationalism

by Hajra Tahir

Amid the recent cries for war, cross-border division, imminent violence and conflict – the origins of the Kashmir crisis remain unclear.

A contentious region situated in the lower area of the Himalayas – Jammu and Kashmir’s geographical proximity to both Pakistan and India are amongst one of the many reasons for its long-term territorial ambiguity. Kashmir has for over four decades resisted interference from neighbouring nations and maintained a shaky sense of self-determination. As of the 6thof August 2019, however, the contravention of this autonomy by the Indian government resulted in world-wide uproar. Before delving further into the crux of the conflict, it is essential to grasp the colonial origins of the dispute in order to understand how Jammu and Kashmir became the controversial location it is today. 

Colonial History 

The Indian subcontinent was amongst the many areas annexed and exploited by the English during the early 1600s. Inspired by the lucrative ventures of Portuguese merchants who successfully established trading businesses in the region, the British East India Company was created by English merchants aiming to emulate this success. The firm was given a monopoly of all English trade in Asia through a royal charter issued by Queen Elizabeth I. Towards the end of 17th century however, India became the hub of the company’s business endeavours. After securing a patch of land in the southern region of Madras (now known as Chennai), the company increased the breadth of products up for trade as well as expanding the business throughout the country – consolidating their ownership of the region.

“…had a considerable place in life; men were prepared to die in search of them, and may did; no gift was more acceptable, and to be well supplied was a mark of status; wealth could be measured in spices” – Brian Gardiner, author of ‘The East India Company’ – talks of the the immense demand for products such as spices and cotton

Demise of the Mughal Empire 

This lengthy annexation came to an end as the Mughal empire, began to deteriorate. The empire provided the framework for British business endeavours and its eventual demise was due to the increasing prevalence of the Maratha Empire in the central west of India.

The contending empire consisted of a sub-sect of Hindu warriors, originating from the Western Deccan Peninsula. The dominance of this new kingdom meant that an alternate milieu began to gain traction in the subcontinent – Hindu revivalism became entrenched in Indian culture and expunged Sufism and the architectural legacy of the Mughals. It can be argued that nationalist sentiment in India became prevalent from this point onwards in history. The empire was symbolic of the waning power of the Muslim rulers, and in conjunction with the faltering influence of the East India Company, its mere presence inflamed patriotism and an ethnocentric undercurrent which persists in India today. 

The Taj Mahal – one of the most prominent remnants of the Mughal empire.

The Sikh empire also resisted doing business with the firm, further contributing to an increase in Indian national self-consciousness. These sentiments spiralled and eventually manifested themselves in the Great Indian Rebellion of 1850 which eventually lead to the complete destruction of the Mughal empire and the transfer of sovereignty, from the East India Company to the British Crown directly. 

The Raj

Extensive exploitation of Indian resources to fuel the industrial revolution; countless deadly famines; the failure of the Maratha empire to fill the political vacuum left by the Mughals and the use of British ‘divide and rule’ tactics to aid imperialist expansion, resulted in political anarchy in the subcontinent. The dire situation of the nation escalated as more resources were being siphoned to help the war effort. However, the various European defeats suffered by the British between 1940 and 1942 destroyed the foundations of the Imperial system and further exacerbated disarray in the continent. 

Post-Colonial History 

The full extent of Indian colonial history is difficult to condense into four succinct paragraphs, however, the implications of a two-century reign of brutality are even more intricate and difficult to unpick. One overarching social consequence of Britain’s legacy in India is the creation of religious discord within the country – a factor that is integral in causing the Kashmiri rift. 

While the British were fighting in World War II, they struggled to simultaneously fund their occupation of India. 40% of India’s wealth was spent on maintaining the British army yet despite this, the British were getting incommensurate returns on this significant investment and suffered cardinal losses in battles such as Dunkirk and Singapore in 1942. It was becoming increasingly difficult for them to keep their standard 20,000 troops deployed in India, resulting in the need to alleviate this burden through increasing internal conflict within the population. This led to the resurgence of ‘divide and rule’ tactics.  

The gradual introduction of modern education systems, reserved jobs for certain castes in government institutions and the start of census operations, became the substructure upon which divide and rule tactics took flight. The aim of these policies introduced by the British was to fortify class differentials and westernise certain sects of society to make them sympathetic to the British cause. Over the years these differences in class, religion, social standing and education became ensconced within Indian society along with an increasing nationalist sentiment. Conflict between Muslims and Hindus were particularly violent and resulted in two main political parties forming to protect the interests of the respective groups: The All-India Muslim League headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Indian National Congress headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The surge in violence between the two groups in landmark massacres such as the Great Calcutta Killing, a four day blood-bath in which over 10,000 civilian lives were lost, became the catalyst for partition and the starting point in the Kashmiri crisis. 

This video summarises the partition of India to form the Muslim majority nation of Pakistan

Formation of Kashmir

After internal dissension threatened to overwhelm the weakening influence of the British, a consensus was reached that partition was necessary. The man responsible for the hasty reorganisation of the entire Indian sub-continent was the British lawyer Cyril Radcliffe who established the ‘Radcliffe line’ that eventually served as the formal geographical cut off point between Pakistan and India.

Some context on Cyril Radcliffe

Radcliffe had not been to India, nor anywhere else in Asia, yet was tasked with completing a 5-year expansion within 4 months. His lack of knowledge regarding Indian straits and geography supposedly made him an impartial figure who could devise the composition of each country without any interventional bias. However, this alleged neutrality was defunct and did not contribute towards improving the demarcation since the last Governor General, Lord Mountbatten and his wife Edwina shared a close relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru. By influencing the commission on behalf of his friend, Lord Mountbatten’s insufferable interference from the very onset disturbed the allocation of the princely states – including Kashmir. Due to its peripheral position in the subcontinent as well as Mountbatten’s preoccupation with administering the prosperous regions in line with his own social interests – the state was left alone with a 77% Muslim majority population ruled by a Hindu king. This led to a constant tug of war, causing somewhere between 20,000-100,000 Kashmiri deaths in the Jammu massacre of 1947, a mass migration of many Muslim Kashmiri’s into Pakistan and the first Indo-Pak war in 1948 – the agenda of which is still pertinent today. 

a timeline of Indo-Pak wars and battles over Kashmir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f4oakCl8mc
Pakistan’s Azad Kashmir v India’s Jammu and Kashmir – differences between the two. The video refers to ‘Tehsils’ which translates to administrative area

Rise of Nationalism in India

An increasing sense of urgency to resolve the Kashmiri crisis has set in due to the surge of populism in India caused by a new age of government, inflammatory incidents of violence and the creation of controversial cinema. The deteriorating sense of tolerance in the world’s largest democracy directly impacts the Muslim minority and has further exacerbated the religious divisions in the highly disputed region of Kashmir. 

Although the cultivation of nationalistic values is predominantly a product of colonial rule – as highlighted several times throughout this article – Narendra Modi’s government has amplified the frequency of religion-based violence. 

Property and vehicles are often destroyed in arson attacks aiming to debilitate the victim in the long term.

Statistics show that in the three years leading up to 2017 there has been a 28% increase in communal violence, pogroms and targeted attacks on Muslim businesses – particularly those involving cattle farming. The aggression has escalated in states with a majority supporting BJP (Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party) since Modi’s term started in 2013. This growing animosity towards Muslim minorities in particular has led to India being ranked fourth after Syria, Nigeria and Iraq as having the highest social hostilities involving religion – the figure for religiously aggravated crime peaking sharply since 2014. The growing racial tensions became highly publicised in 2015 when high profile Bollywood stars were being threatened by fundamentalists as a result of acting in the period drama ‘Bajirao Mastani’ – a Bollywood rendition of the events that unfolded between Peshwa Bajirao, the Hindu general of the Maratha Empire and his Muslim lover Mastani.

A protest group in India demonstrating against the public lynching of 24-year-old Tabrez Ansari – a young man viciously beaten and forced to chant religious slogans by fundamentalist locals, who conspired to kill the young Muslim for eating beef.

The frequency of unconscionable racial attacks seems to have negated the validity of Kashmir’s religious claim to autonomy on the basis of being India’s only Muslim majority ‘state’ and has strengthened a national desire for complete insurgency of the region. Some argue however, that the prevalence of reactionary fundamentalist activity heralds a darker future for the limbo ‘state’ that involves reshaping the demographic of its population through ethnic cleansing. 

Present Situation – What Actually Happened? 

Now that the we’ve thoroughly explored the historical, geographical and political context of the conflict, it’s time to focus on the legal changes that have renewed the global turmoil.

The key piece of legislation in question is article 370 of the Indian constitution. When Kashmir was intruded in 1947 post demarcation, by Pakistani tribesmen, the Hindu King (Hari Singh) appealed to Governor General Lord Mountbatten to provide military aid to quell the uprising. The letter through which he drafted his appeal also contained an instrument of accession to India that he himself signed. The document therefore allowed defence, external affairs and communications to be controlled by India whilst matters related to all the other sectors would be retained by the ruler under the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act 1939.

This resulted in a peculiar middle-ground state of autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir that differed from the complete accession of the other 565 native states. However this strange period of semi-control, (punctuated by frequent efforts to subdue civilians who protested the presence of Indian military in the region), recently came to an end as the Jammu and Kashmir Redistribution Bill was introduced in the upper house of Indian Parliament.  This Bill was implemented to reverse Kashmir’s autonomy. This is problematic because of the following. 

The BJP had been campaigning for a unified India before being elected with the following stipulations regarding reform as the forefront of their campaign: 

“…be done in a manner which assures liberty to all Indians through a range of other reforms detailed elsewhere, and allows good governance to be established everywhere in India. Only after the rule of law along with equal opportunity has been brought to all Indians, will we request a recall of the J&K Constituent Assembly (as required by Article 370(3) of the Constitution) to consider this amendment. Without the goodwill and consent of the people of J&K, such an amendment will violate the spirit of democracy and liberty”.

This was clearly not implemented nor considered by Modi and Indian parliament when re-constructing the redacted bill. As Kashmiri’s retaliated to being unfairly stripped of their freedoms by taking to the streets of Sringar in the largest demonstration since the lockdown of Indian administrated Kashmir, the government continued to suppress protestors using pellet guns and tear gas. The Government later denied any such suppression happened.  

Not only is this a clear subversion of democracy, there is an impending danger that the more players will intervene and further lives will be lost as China has publicly pledged to support Pakistan in their decision to approach the UN Security council in the wake of India’s decision to revoke article 370.

It is unlikely that the crisis of Kashmir will be resolved anytime soon. It draws many historical and political parallels with crises such as the Palestine-Israel debate and similarly shows no sign of being resolved. Many feel that the best solution available is to hold a referendum – yet the likelihood of such an outcome is rare due to the neighbouring nations of China, India and Pakistan’s vested interest in the hotly debated piece of land. 

Hajra Tahir is in the first year of her undergraduate Law with Politics degree at the University of Manchester. With an interest in international relations, literature and travelling she aims to hopefully supplement her future career as a city lawyer with pro-bono work and an involvement in civil and human rights.

An Issue of Issues – Meghan Markle’s British Vogue Debut

Benedicta Denteh
-
0
An Issue of Issues – Meghan Markle’s British Vogue Debut

It has been over a year now since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex joined in holy matrimony. The journey of their engagement and wedding day was met with affection from loved ones, graced with the faces of many celebrities and also the ever-present press who since then have not ceased to publicly profess their distaste for their new princess from across the sea. Whether for her dual heritage, visual appearance or status as a divorcee, there is no doubt that controversy follows her wherever she goes. Her guest editor slot for the latest British Vogue and how it represents her views has been no different.

The September issue, published last Friday under the title “Forces of Change” has been an ongoing project by Markle over several months. The issue champions fifteen women from all walks of life, endorsing many topics and issues at the forefront of society such as transgenderism, climate change and inclusivity in the fashion industry. The issue included people such as Jameela Jamil, an actress pushing for body acceptance, the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden, the first world leader in thirty years to give birth whilst in office and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian novelist and feminist.

British Vogue Cover “Forces of Change” edition (SOURCE: sputniknews)

In spite of the attempt to produce an issue which celebrates diversity and declares support of big issues, Markle has again found herself under the highly critical examination of social media and columnists for two main reasons, both which suggest that this issue taints her personal image.

  1.  Showcasing her woke-ness

Many critics such as Sally Jones and Piers Morgan have accused this issue as just publicising that Markle reckons herself as a defender and promoter of diverse women, Jones stating that “they (regarding the general public) think here’s a woman who’s a bit up herself.” and Morgan suggesting the issue represents “virtue-signaling”.

In doing so she presents herself as an enlightened figure who is aware of the biggest problems in contemporary society. In turn people have argued that instead of promoting her royal family and the country she has been newly adopted by, she is selfishly promoting herself by showcasing her personal opinions.

2. Too political for the Royal Family

Many columnists have commented on how Meghan Markle is stretching the boundaries as member of the royal family. Due to being a symbol of stability, the monarchy is meant to maintain a neutral position in many issues especially those involving politics. However, through her choice of women for the cover of Vogue, Markles’ opinions on many issues are evident and for that reason the publication has been deemed a “leftie issue” and therefore unsuitable for a royal to create due to it’s supposed leanings.

The Significance of Platforms

On the other hand, it is hard to convey how important it is to have these platforms exist. The perspective of the issue being too political for royal comment ignores the fact that most of the edition and her choice of women are about promoting human rights plus valuing and respecting people from all walks of life. Championing human rights and representational feminism being seen as ‘sacrificing the peace’ is only indicative of the conservative swing of the mainstream media.

Feminist and Writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (SOURCE: racked)

The magazine covers many important topics such as global warming and mental health challenges. Perhaps it is important that members of the royal family occasionally challenge viewpoints and are beginning to reject this ‘no-comment’ ground all the time. This could help promote the longevity of the royal family into the modern era, in a time where people are questioning why we still require this royal emblem for anything other than tourism and queen bobble head merchandise. Redefining the role to include and emphasise their humanity through communicating their viewpoints will tackle their our-of-touch perception.

Other royals have appeared showcasing their opinions in the media

Lets not forget the fact that Meghan Markle is far from the first royal to be outspoken in the media. Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge in February 2016 co-edited an issue in the Huffington Post UK on Children’s mental health. Princess Diana has posed for Vogue several times throughout the eighties whilst being outspoken on issues, such as championing the rights of those with AIDS. She was undoubtedly put under some scrutiny too, but she was very much the ‘people’s princess’. Even Prince Harry and Prince Charles have presented their thoughts on climate change and mental health.

Kate Middleton on the cover of vogue (SOURCE: Vogue)

Reporters and commentators have denied a racial influence on their negative views of the recent issue but may not understand the implicit nature of racially motivated comments and bias. It seems to be the only thing that makes Markle significantly different to her royal family members who have also presented their viewpoints for the world to see. Why is it more difficult to support vocal women when they look like Markle, especially when they speak from positions of influence? At once she is stuck being the voice of all women, and of none.

A lot of the criticism has had undertones of her being lucky to have slyly gotten into the royal family and not risking her position by keeping her mouth shut. These double standards play out in the fact that she is deemed to need to be more qualified than her royal peers, despite accomplishing much in the world on her own merit. Throughout history, women using their voices to speak up have been mischaracterised; as casting witchy spells, as only good for gossip or as “shrill”, a favourite to denigrate female politicians. But in a world where the marriage between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was unconventional, it is crucial now that she continues to attempt to stimulate change and awareness, just like she did prior to her royal status. Lets not let sexism taint our judgements.

Meghan Markle (Source: Inside Edition/Getty Images)

Controversy will never cease to follow the Duchess of Sussex on all fronts, over her heritage, her “outsider” status to the royal family or even what she wears. The insidious nature of some of the criticism speaks of an “other”, an enemy within the ranks. Surely no accident that this anxiety comes at a time of high political uncertainty. Could people be looking to the royal family to embody the “strong and stable” spirit, only to find a liberal dual heritage young woman in the palace?

We can hope that we reach a point in our lifetimes where people, especially those largely under the public eye, are judged on their merits, whether people believe in their opinions or not, instead of being judged by their background, race and history. It is absurd that Markle’s merits continue to be judged so harshly, despite now being part of one of the oldest monarchies in the world that conferred the divine kingship on men for their birthright and sex alone.

Keep challenging views and norms Meghan Markle. Never mind the status quo, you might just save the future of the royal family.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream: What Modern Theatre Should Be

Flora Barker
-
0
A Midsummer Night’s Dream: What Modern Theatre Should Be

Rating: 5/5 stars

The Bridge Theatre’s production of Shakespeare classic A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a hilarious evening of entertainment which keeps its audience enthralled through its interactive staging and refreshingly diverse cast.

The production is set in the round, with a seated audience surrounding the perimeter of the pit and those standing being in amongst the rising platforms where the action takes place. It is a truly immersive experience as actors jostle past theatregoers into position or the acrobatic group of fairies swing down above the audience’s heads. David Moorst artfully portrays Puck, balancing a magical charm with a menacing deviance, as he similarly swings from an aerial hoop, or bursts across the standing audience demanding they part ways for him, despairing humorously as he exclaims “Londoners!”.

David Moorst as the tattooed and sometimes sinister Puck
Source: London Evening Standard

Titania (played by Game of Thrones star Gwendoline Christie) and Oberon’s parts are swapped, meaning it is Oberon who falls in love with donkey-eared Bottom. This makes for laughter as the pair coo over each other in topless bathtub scenes sound tracked by Beyoncé’s “Love on Top”, soap bubbles tenuously covering certain areas. Hammed Animashaun as Bottom, and Oliver Chris as Oberon, have the audience in stitches with their perfectly accurate comedic timing. Felicity Motangu endearingly heads the rude mechanicals, whose final performance is carried out in Britain’s Got Talent style, the members gloriously kitted out in matching purple hoodies. The group’s determination to get a “portrait” of themselves (a selfie on an audience member’s smart phone) also evokes this modern connection which pleases the crowds, without becoming a cringe worthy farce of Shakespeare. Director Nicholas Hynter transforms the intimidating (and, dare it be said, boring) nature of Shakespeare into a genuinely enjoyable experience rather than a cultural chore, repeating the success of his formula after year’s hit production of Julius Caesar.

Hammed Animashaun hilariously plays Puck
Source: The Guardian

Amongst glitter, love potions and slick technical changes, the production still honours the sombre undertones that lead in to the play’s plot of a forced marriage. Doubling up as Hippolyta, Christie opens the play rising from the ground in glass box, immediately signalling her entrapment under ownership by Theseus. The four young Athenian lovers (Tessa Bonham-Jones, Isis Hainsworth, Paul Adeyefa, and Kit Young) who enter the forest are wonderfully played, all four actors managing to express the frustration of their societal marital and sexual constraints while maintaining the omnipresent hysterics of the production.

The immersive pit
Source: Broadway World

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a complexly themed Shakespeare play, but even if you do find yourself getting lost by the language, the strong semiotic symbolism of this production and awe-inspiring visuals means you will still enjoy the unique immersive experience. It is certainly worth securing a ticket before the end of the run on the 31st August – be sure to select ‘pit’ when booking for a standing ticket if you want to hold hands with strangers and unashamedly dance with the actors!

We NEED A Black Police Force To Solve Knife Crime

Shaun Flores
-
0
We NEED A Black Police Force To Solve Knife Crime

Prime Minister Boris Johnson vows to crack down on crime by extending Section 60, allowing for more stop and search powers for the police.

Under the new government’s plans announced on the 11th of August, an existing pilot project, which allows police to deploy stop-and-search powers in an area without the authorisation of a senior officer will be extended to cover an additional 8,000 officers in England and Wales.

Due to the enhanced power announced in March by the Home Office, the authorisation required for section 60 was given. This will allow police to search anyone in an area if they anticipate serious violence. Young black youth will suffer even more consequently in this new extension.

The New Prime Minister has also announced the creation of 10,000 more prison places at a cost of £2.5bn. Also 20,000 new police officers over the next three years.

How will the new laws affect the black community?

Image result for section 60 police black

In 2017-18, figures showed that black people were 9.5 times more likely to be searched by the police. Black people are no more criminal than other race so these statistics should raise alarm bells.

The black community has heavily protested and been in uproars in regards to stop and search, as young black males are typically viewed automatically as a suspect based on the colour of their skin. Discrimination is entrenched in the police force after the MacPherson report released on On 24 February 1999, accused the Metropolitan Police Service of institutional racism. The MET has not been the same ever since.

Image result for section 60 police black
MET POLICE Commissioner Cressida Dick

On 12th July MET Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said the MET Police force was no longer racist, and the term given by the Macpherson Report was ‘toxic’, ‘outdated’ and ‘unhelpful’ as the Police force had been ‘utterly transformed’. Critics have declared this to be untrue as in 2017/2018, there were 23 deaths in police custody and 5 were black highlighting the stereotyping and handling of black suspects in police custody.

The stop and search will remain an issue in the black community, what other alternative do we have to prevent issues such as knife crime and drugs which have ravaged the black community. Maybe its time we created our own police force.

A Possible alternative outside all alternatives

The current conversation surrounding knife crime, stop and search is one limited to poor socioeconomics, the crumbling household, declining youth centres and underdiagnosed PTSD. The black community have enough purchasing power, to pool economic resources to create something similar to the ‘Shomrim’, Hebrew for “Custodians” or “Guardians”.

The ‘Shomrim’ is a Jewish neighbourhood watch group which patrols the streets of North East London. Their aims to reduce crime, and protect the Jewish population in Stamford Hill, Hackney.

Shomrim Jewish Neighbourhood watch group with former Met Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe

In the North East London area, which is around 2 square miles, situated are more than 50 synagogues, dozens of Orthodox schools alongside various Kosher, bakers, supermarkets, and butches.

Due to the Second World War, refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and Holocaust survivors found refuge in Britain which created a mass concentration of the Jewish population. The rise of the Jewish Population created a rise in anti-Semitic attacks. Coupled with late noughties police cuts, the economic crisis, and crimes escalating, the sense of safety in the Orthodox Jewish community was one of insecurity.

The Shomrim was founded in 2008, by President Rabbi Herschel Gluck.  In 2016 the Shomrim facilitated 146 arrests, 22 which were for anti-Semitic offences.

Founder of Shomrim President Rabbi Herschel Gluck

The US Black community previously created a system similar to this in the days of the black panthers, where they protected the community against police brutality and structural oppression. They used guns to protect themselves highlighting the severity of the brutality. The Black Panthers policed the US police, held them accountable and responsible. They would follow the police around, jumping out of their cars with guns drawn if the police made a stop. They would observe the police and make sure that no brutality occurred, the police lived in fear and were aware they had to perform their job in a legal and appropriate fashion.

Black Panther Founders Huey Newton (left) & Bobby Brown (right)

Various pictures and videos circulate the internet, and we need a community force that will ensure the safety of the children, the community in general against threats within and outside the community. I believe it could be a solution that needs deeper exploration. A Black British community watch similar to that of the Jewish ‘Shomrim’ could be a tangible solution, built and sustained in the community. It will hold the destructive internal fractions in our community to task. It will also create a sense of solidarity. A narrative in which can be autonomously created, monitored and dictated.

Boris has made a right old Boris mess of it

The police force has an immense racial mountain to climb up. Community relations with the police continue to disintegrate into a shallow pool of nothingness. Us and them mentality has filled the void instead of a harmonious relationship to help prevent crime.

Stop and search does not help young black men, it reinforces the idea simply that the police are stereotyping and victimising them. In many cases, it leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where the youth will carry weapons to protect themselves against others.

Boris should invest more money to prevent these youths from having to be stopped and searched. Austerity destroyed youth clubs and built new prisons instead. More police officers as well on the streets do not correlate to less crime either. Boris in his out of touch sentiment has extended Section 60 which in turn will further harm black youth.

Let’s Talk About: The Death Penalty

Fleur Boya
-
1
Let’s Talk About: The Death Penalty

Last month, US Attorney General William Barr instructed the Bureau of Prisons to schedule the execution of five inmates. This move represents a dramatic reversal in most recent federal use of capital punishment, which is being federally reinstated in the US after 16 years.

“The Department of Justice has sought the death penalty against the worst criminals, including five murderers, each of whom was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full and fair proceeding,” William Barr said in a statement. Currently, thirty US states allow capital punishment, however in four of them, governors have issued a temporary ban on the death penalty. Twenty states have totally abolished capital punishment, with New Hampshire become the latest US state to do so in May 2019.

An Eye For An Eye?

Though widely unpopular, there are number of reasons as to why supporters of the death penalty believe agree with its federal reinstatement. Barr said: “We owe it to the victims and their families to carry forwards the sentences imposed by our justice system.” This argument could be seemingly depicted emotionally fuelled than rational, though justice is and should be served appropriately, the eye-for-an-eye argument could be regarded as oversimplistic and of course, should be treated on a case-by-case basis. 

Jeffrey Dahmer during his trial in

Jeffrey Dahmer was an American serial killer and sex offender who committed the rape, murder, and dismemberment of 17 men and boys from 1978 to 1991. He was also a cannibal, and due to the horrific nature of his crimes – the families of his victims argued that he was deserving of the death penalty, though he was only sentenced to life imprisonment. Dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate in 1994. Former Ohio Representative, James Traficant, said Dahmer “should have been sentenced to death by a jury, not by a bunch of thugs in a prison”.

However, if asked why Dahmer should have been sentenced to death, it’s likely Traficant would have given a response relating to the retribution owed to victim’s families, essentially the justice argument. Though our emotional and moral compass is an appropriate guide to justice, when it comes to the death penalty, rationality has to take the wheel.

A Hopeful Deterrent?

Colleen Long, journalist for Japan Today, stated: “President Donald Trump is calling for a new death penalty legislation as answer to hate crimes and mass killings” in the hopes of deterring potential mass shooters and murderers. However, death penalty psychologists say killers that are often motivated by a particular ideology are highly unlikely to be deterred by punishment in general, let alone the death penalty.

“In fact, in the case of terrorism, it might be worse than that because you have the very real possibility of creating martyrs” stated Gary LaFree, head of Criminology at the University of Maryland. Earlier this year, in April, John William King was executed in Texas for the murder of James Byrd Jr. in a racist attack. In 1998, he and two other acquaintances tied Byrd Jr. to the back of a pick up truck and dragged his body for three miles along as asphalt road, before dumping the remains of his body in front of a church. In 2015, white supremacist Dylann Roof was sentenced to death for killing nine people during a church service in South Carolina.

White supremacist, Dylann Storm Roof, stands burning the American Flag.

“Look at Dylann Roof”, said Miriam Gohara, a Yale University law professor who studies the death penalty. “He has been sentenced to death, and that clearly did not dissuade people.” Evidently, this proves that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent for mass shootings, and may even encourage people who are prepared to die for their radical causes.

Opponents argue that the death penalty is a violation of the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which states that US citizens are free from “cruel and unusual punishment”. In a tweet, Kamala Harris states that the death penalty is “immoral and deeply flawed”. Whether states decided to impose or to ban the death penalty, its important to assess whether their decision will serve well-deserved justice and whether this decision is more emotionally fuelled than rational. 

“Uncomfortable” and “Problematic” – GMB’s Interview with Curtis Pritchard is an Eye-Opener

Afoma Andrea
-
0
“Uncomfortable” and “Problematic” – GMB’s Interview with Curtis Pritchard is an Eye-Opener

The ITV breakfast show, Good Morning Britain, has been slammed by viewers for its hosts problematic questioning of Curtis Pritchard’s sexuality.

Since leaving the villa, the Love Island star’s sexuality has made headlines after revealing that he would be open to a relationship with a man, adding that ‘love is blind’. During his appearance on Good Morning Britain, Curtis was forced to address these comments with hosts Adil and Kate.

Despite his insistence on not wanting to put a label on himself, both presenters tag-teamed in pressuring Curtis to clarify his sexuality with Adil even alluding to Curtis becoming a role model for bisexual men.

Though quite uncomfortable to watch, the Good Morning Britain interview is an excellent example of the narrow view that society still holds on male sexuality.

Good Morning Britain viewers were left “cringing” and uncomfortable on Thursday 8 August, when the show’s presenters started ‘interrogating’ Love Island star Curtis Pritchard about this sexuality.

Whilst sexually fluid women do face a similar experience of intense scrutiny over their sexuality, generally sexual exploration among women is becoming more accepted by society. In contrast, a stigma is attached to men who do not label themselves as monosexual (gay or straight). Repeatedly finding their identity being dismissed by both the heterosexual and LGBTQ+ community, men like Curtis are accused of either being sexually confused or just plain greedy.

The very fact that his partner, Maura Higgins has been asked to comment on his sexuality is dangerous. This type of questioning plays into the assumption that (i) women do not find men who are sexually attracted men attractive and (ii) Curtis himself must be ‘faking his attraction’ to her.

Maura Higgins and Curtis Pritchard have been gushing for each other over social media (Image: @maurahiggins/Instagram)

We do not live in a liberal society that is accepting of everyone’s sexual orientation and gender identity thus a bit of sensitivity should be included when discussing a person’s sexual orientation. Curtis should not feel pressured to have to throw a label on his sexuality nor have to become a role model for bisexual men and lastly it is none of our business!

The Future of Football? Johnson and Bristol City Take the Law into Their Own Hands

Fergus Macphee
-
0
The Future of Football? Johnson and Bristol City Take the Law into Their Own Hands
In an extraordinary move, Bristol City’s manager Lee Johnson spoke to all Championship clubs this week, letting them know that his team would not be putting the ball out of play for injuries. So what does this change mean and is it a good idea?

Anyone who has been to watch their football team play will know the feeling. Your team are on the attack and are looking dangerous, only for an opposition player to fall over in ‘agony’, and your team feel obliged to stop play to let that player receive treatment. Yet in doing so, said player’s injury has miraculously healed within seconds. It doesn’t take much to see that this grey area of the game – one which is meant as a sporting gesture of goodwill – is an ample opportunity for gamesmanship and time-wasting.

Some of Neymar’s infamous tactics could be a thing of the past in the Championship
Source: EPA

But this may not be the case for Bristol City this season. In a bid to cut out these tactics, their manager Lee Johnson has instructed all 23 other Championship teams that the Robins’ new official policy is to play on. During their opening match with Leeds United on Sunday, this led to a disagreement between the opposing benches. With reference to the tactical element, Johnson explained that it was about giving responsibility back to the referee.

“We just decided as a club that we’re going to make a rule for the 46 games that we’re going to let the referee manage the game…. If the referee sees a head injury he will stop the game but if it’s not a head injury he will play on”

Source: BBC Sport

But will it work?

The knee-jerk reaction to Johnson’s pledge is that this is just double-standards and he won’t let the same happen to his own team. It was certainly the social media response, but this is not what Johnson has promised. He claims that he is fully prepared to deal with any consequences facing his own team and has even trained his players to play with 10 men. This, therefore, poses an interesting question as to the potential benefits and exactly what Bristol City games might look like this season.

Leeds got the better of Bristol City on Sunday despite the incident
Source: Sky Sports

With Johnson being so upfront this early in the season, in a perfect world at least, players might actually take note and not feign injury. While this could sound naive, in reality, no opposition player will want to be responsible for potentially letting their team down, already knowing full well Bristol City’s intentions. The Leeds game was, of course, an exception, but Johnson’s statement should also prevent any more farcical situations like those seen in the play-off semi-final between Aston Villa and Leeds last season.

The incredible scenes between Leeds and Villa

What are the drawbacks?

One immediate concern is in gauging the level of injury and whether a player is seriously hurt. As Johnson makes clear, this is ultimately the responsibility of the referee and refs in the UK are well trained to stop the game for head injuries. Concerns over concussion are paramount in this day and age, so the footballing procedure has improved dramatically in this sense. When it is a broken leg, however; or a ruptured ACL; or a dislocated shoulder, this becomes much less clear. Arguably it could just be too risky to leave these potentially serious injuries up to the referee’s discretion.

Conversely, leaving the decision entirely in the hands of the referee could have an adverse effect from what Johnson is hoping. Every Championship match official will now know that they are responsible in these games and could, therefore, overcompensate, by calling a halt to the game after every injury instead, in a bid to ensure safety. No referee would want to feel culpable for a player’s career being ended. All this leads to is an extremely stop-start style of football, which ultimately pleases no one and defeats the point of the exercise.

The future?

In truth, it is difficult to speculate over what this decision will mean until later on in the season. There is a very real possibility that, for whatever reason, it is a total disaster and Bristol City scrap the policy before the season is out. On the other hand, you only need just a handful of other teams to follow suit and you’re looking at potentially changing the way the game is played indefinitely. The current policy is one which has aggravated fans, players and managers for years, yet no solution has ever been found. Are we on the cusp of one here?

An Idiots Guide: Investing

Richard Bolton
-
0
An Idiots Guide: Investing

Some believe the stock market lies the key to riches. Others, the currency markets. Some just prefer sports betting or casinos. For the baby boomer generation, a rising stock market, the golden standard of pensions and housing boom in the UK has led to their demographic hitting the jackpot. For their children, many of whom are the millennial generation, they have not been so lucky. 

Baby boomers bought when the property market was comparatively very affordable against annual salaries. They were able to afford deposits and pay them off over 25 to 40 years. If you have no mortgage, then there is no reason to move. Many have gone on to buy a second home to move into or a holiday home and ended up not selling their original property because they didn’t have to, becoming accidental landlords in the process.

Many retired and didn’t move out. This reduces the supply of houses for sale, causing more buyers to chase after fewer properties, and hence, prices rose. Rising prices were also influenced by waves of Middle Eastern petrodollars, Russian oligarchs, corrupt despotic dictators and regimes throughout the world, Chinese, Malaysians, Indians and London reinventing itself as a World City with a large financial hub ‘The City’.

This rise in real estate in the 1980s 1990s and early 2000s has not been maintained.  Deposits are harder to save for based on the rise in earnings, and rent erodes that which can be saved by potential younger homeowners. Generous pension arrangements have been scrapped. We have had the Great Recession and the Dot Com bust. So where lies the answer to financial security?

Business Insider/Andy Kiersz

Millennials entering the inflated property market also suffered from slow to negative growth in property values. While rents continued to rise, straining capacity to save for a deposit, the stock market may have the answer for this lost generation of childless, pet owners living with their parents in their 30s.

What is achievable?

For most individuals, reality falls short of expectations.

Speaking with some friends, they believed mutual funds could earn a steady 14 per cent over the long term. They thought this would be adequate to generate some serious dough through compounding.

If you want to get rich, starting with minimal capital, you need more along the lines of double this annually. This would generally require direct investment in stocks.

Young investors seem to crave and almost demand the elusive cliché of overnight success.

Mutual funds are good enough to help attain financial goals and given enough time will make you financially independent. For shorter-term ambitions, without the necessary funds, mutual funds are unlikely to achieve those results.

Be under no illusions, you are very optimistic if you think you can earn 30 per cent from the same stock market that your mutual fund manager only achieves 14 per cent on.

Real estate or stock market: Which is the better investment?
 Joe Raedle/Getty Images

What is the difference?

Stocks are just single companies, while mutual funds hold several investments anywhere up to hundreds of stocks being part of a single fund.

Stocks share in one company’s profits. The best way to invest via these is to build your own portfolio by selecting specific companies. Fees paid will be commissions on the trades when you buy and sell.

Mutual funds can be passive Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track benchmarks, index funds or active mutual funds managed by a professional. Passive funds simply buy and sell holdings based on what is in the underlying index, like the FTSE 100 – the UK’s largest 100 companies by market cap. These are best for quick, easy diversification to gain access to many stocks through a single transaction. Fees come as annual expense ratios. These may be sales loads, short-term redemption fees and/or transaction fees. ETFs trade like stocks, with trade commissions when bought or sold.

PROS MUTUAL FUNDS

  • Easy to diversify because every single fund owns small pieces of numerous investments
  • Personal management of funds is available through actively managed funds
  • Investors can avoid bearing the trade costs
  • It is less time-intensive and more convenient for the investor
  • Low ongoing fees

CONS MUTUAL FUNDS

  • Yearly expense ratio
  • Many funds have minimum investment sizes, e.g. £1000 or up.
  • Mutual funds can trade only once each day
  • Less tax-efficient than stocks

Stocks can be treated as “Bed and ISA”. This is a double transaction to shelter non-ISA investments from capital gains tax and further tax on dividends. It is done by selling or “bedding” investments which the profits are taxable. The proceeds can then buy them back immediately within the tax-efficient wrapper of the ISA. Shares cannot be moved “in-specie” (as holdings), they must be sold, and cash transferred before they can be repurchased. Profit generated in step one is still subject to capital gains tax and cash balance transferred is deducted from your annual ISA allowance (£20,000 UK adults).

PROS STOCKS

  • They can be highly liquid in nature
  • They do not contain any ongoing or annual fees.
  • Stocks are ownership, so investors can influence management and company direction.
  • Stocks can be very tax-efficient, with the investor controlling capital gains returns.

CONS STOCKS

  • Stocks typically carry more risk than mutual funds.
  • Have to hold many individual stocks in different sectors, phases and size to adequately diversify.
  • Time-intensive, as investors must research and follow each individual stock in their portfolio.
  • Being an investor, you will have to pay a commission each time you buy and sell.
  • Some individual shares require stamp duty to be paid and other levies like Panel of Takeovers and Mergers (PTM).
  • When selling and rebuying shares to realise a tax gain within annual allowances, there is a risk of a price movement while you’re out of the market. Therefore, a difference in sell and buy price between the open and close of the trade. This can result in buying back fewer shares than you originally held. By using the ‘bed and ISA’ process, this risk is capped at between either £30 or £50 spread per line of stock by most brokers.

As a retail investor, it is very difficult to pick multi-bagger stocks as there are various factors influencing the stock price. Macroeconomic, technical and fundamental are just three facets of this.

Investment bankers or mutual fund managers’ roles are to keep track of these factors and handpick the right stock for the fund.

Diversification in a mutual fund investing in a pool of stock reduces the risk. If ABC Ltd goes bankrupt, there would be other stocks with stellar returns to compensate and offset the loss.

Another consideration for the retail investor is irrationality. Put simply, your average retail investor will be unwilling to buy a stock bought at £100 that rises to £200 at the £200 level. Buying it would reduce their percentage gain.

Should the same stock fall to £50. The unrealised loss is -50 per cent. It may have the potential to achieve £300 in the future, but again, fear and lack of courage to take the risk of buying the stock at £50.

Mutual fund investments have options to regularly invest at intervals. In a fund that rises over the long term, this benefits from pound-cost averaging. This is where purchases are made in the troughs and at the peaks throughout the volatility cycle in the share price. This smooths out the average purchase price over time

Mutual fund managers are experts who deal with millions and billions of assets under management. Unless you’re willing and able to dedicate 2-3 hours a day toward research and stock analysis, it may prove best to let them take the headache of investing your money.

However, if you have enough knowledge, can ride the tumultuous ups and downs and have done adequate due diligence and analysis, you can also invest in quality stocks.

The reality remains, if you want to be really successful, you have to become really good at what you do.

Your best chance of making a ton of money is via your own profession and not by saving and investing.

People who have become multi-millionaires or billionaires by investing are people who made investing their profession and devoted their lives to it.

You can potentially make 30-40 per cent from the stock markets but for that you have to become exceptional at picking stocks – in the top 1 per cent of all stock pickers and better than the best Mutual Fund managers – and for that you need to make it your life’s pursuit, essentially making that your primary occupation.

Or you could stick to what you are already good at and like doing and continuously become better at it.

That’s where the biggest opportunity for getting rich lies for all of us – in our own work.

Work up that company, look for shifting jobs, go do that course or attend that networking event or join a promising start-up early. These will help you level up in your career. Invest in yourself so the markets can preserve your capital, letting it grow with low risk to outpace the prevailing rate of inflation.

Not the be all end all

Being successful isn’t necessarily the hardest thing in the world. It takes equal parts of luck and hard work. But, adding value to something is a lot harder.

Albert Einstein’s quote is a good reminder for those finding themselves blinded by the hunt for success. There’s nothing wrong with success, but it is easy to lose sight of who you are when you’re successful. As Thomas Paine reflected: character is easier kept than recovered. If you keep a watchful eye on your own values, you’ll end up both successful and a good person, which is both a noble and fulfilling pursuit.

 

Trade With EU After Brexit: ‘Uphill Battle’

Timi Awoniyi
-
0
Trade With EU After Brexit: ‘Uphill Battle’

It is no secret that President Donald Trump thinks the UK and the US will enter into a ‘phenomenal’ trade deal. Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, believes that whenever Brexit eventually happens, the US will be ready ‘pen in hand’ to sign a trade deal at the earliest possible time.

Brexiteers will also be keen to make any deal work, as the US-UK trade deal was a key promise made to the public during the campaigning for the 2016 referendum. Promises of a prosperous and mutually beneficial trade deal between the two nations were put forth by the Leave campaign, alongside the promise that the UK will be free from the rules and regulations of the EU.

(Image: GETTY)

What Trump and Brexiteers have not factored is opposition to the trade deal due to one of the most controversial aspects of the Brexit thus far – the Irish backstop. The backstop is a contingency plan which ensures that there is no ‘hard border’ between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is commonly believed that if there is a hard border between the two countries, we will see unrest in the two countries and a return to ‘the troubles’.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the house, has recently told Irish Parliament that “if the Brexit deal undermines the [Good Friday Agreement], there will be no chance of a US -UK agreement.” This isn’t a new sentiment, Pelosi has gone on record on several occasions to make clear that any Brexit which threatens peace in Ireland/Northern Ireland will result in the House of Representatives moving to block the trade agreement. What this means is that if Boris Johnson, current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, continues with his plans to head towards a no-deal Brexit (which almost guarantees a hard border), the UK may be left without a trade deal with the EU and the US.

Pelosi’s sentiment is likely to be shared with many American politicians. The Irish diaspora has a heavy influence in the United States (according to the US Census Bureau, 10.1% of the American population is Irish or of Irish descent) and at least five American Presidents were of Irish descent (including John F Kennedy and Barack Obama). So it makes sense that Irish interests will be considered and protected in US relations with the UK.

Brendan Boyle, a democrat in the house of representatives, also referred to a quick trade agreement between the US and UK as a ‘fantasy’, making it clear that the trade committee is focused on the US-China and the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal and will not ‘drop everything’ for a ‘market of 60 million people.’

It seems that regardless of whether the United Kingdom leaves the EU with or without a deal that considers the Irish border, it faces an uphill battle to quickly come to an agreement on a US-UK trade deal.

Does Trump have blood on his hands?

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Does Trump have blood on his hands?

On the 3rd of August 2019, America woke up to a tragedy. A mass shooting occurred at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, in the early morning of that Saturday where a lone gunman killed 22 people and injured 24 others. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a possible hate crime. The Justice Department is also “seriously considering” billing it as a federal hate crime and bringing federal firearm charges, which carry a possible death penalty, US Attorney John Bash said in a news conference.

EL PASO, TEXAS – AUGUST 06: Yamileth Lopez sits while holding a photo of her deceased friend Javier Amir Rodriguez at a makeshift memorial for victims outside Walmart, near the scene of a mass shooting which left at least 22 people dead, on August 6, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Patrick Wood Crusius, age 21, was arrested shortly after the shooting began and was charged with capital murder. Police believe that the suspect published a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto on social media immediately before the attack. The post cites inspiration from the Christchurch mosque shootings and refers to white genocide conspiracy theories.

With 22 fatalities, this was the third-deadliest mass shooting in Texas history and the seventh-deadliest in modern U.S. history. At the time of the shooting, it was the deadliest mass shooting in the United States in 2019 and the deadliest in the United States since the Sutherland Springs Church shooting in November 2017.

First Take

Mass shootings have become commonplace in America, like the stars in their flag, mass shootings have become an all too permanent feature of Morden American Imagery. It has become an archetypical feature of what foreign observers think of when they consider America.

El Paso has become heartbreaking weekend of unspeakable tragedy and yet, one that feels disturbingly all too familiar. It has become impossible to deny that there is an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings in America. El Paso serves as a sobering reminder of this. The shooting was an act of White supremacist domestic terrorism specifically targeting Hispanics. The spread of violent white supremacy has been fuelled by racist vitriol and careless or perhaps carefully crafted rhetoric from the President. This, combined with a lackadaisical approach to gun legislation, a bloated and lethargic Congress more concerned with pontificating than the death of the people they are elected to protect and an all-powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), has lead America to where it currently is as a country. 

How Bad is the problem?

As of Sunday 4th of August 2019, America has had 251 mass shootings in just 216 days. This is alarming and reveals clearly that there is an obvious correlation between the number of firearms in American society and the number of gun-related deaths in the country. According to the Vox, “America has 4.4% of the world’s population but almost half of its civilians-owned guns.” For a country with such a small proportion of the world’s population, America is head and shoulders in front of every other nation in the world. It’s interesting to note that there have been more than 2,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. 

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been more than 2,000 mass shootings.


This alarming number comes from the Gun Violence Archive, which hosts a database that has tracked mass shootings since 2013. However, since some shootings go unreported, the database is likely missing some, as well as the details of some of the events.

The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of “mass shooting”: It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter). Even under this broad definition, it’s worth noting that mass shootings make up less than 2 per cent portion of America’s firearm deaths, which totalled nearly 40,000 in 2017 alone.

Among ‘developed’ nations, America is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms.

America odd relationship with guns

It is often said that America is a democracy built on guns and whisky. America’s “founding fathers” led an armed population against the British monarchy and won. It is understandable that they saw the way the country was founded as an example of how it should be organized. They were fighters who wanted the ability to keep fighting to preserve their independence. Thus bearing arms became a cornerstone for Americans across the political aisle.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this into the 1776 draft of the Virginia Constitution, the first such document of a state declaring their independence:


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

This seems pretty cut and dry until you consider that the second and third drafts of the same document added “within his own lands or tenements” to the sentence. It seems Jefferson seriously considered that there should be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership. It makes sense to own a gun for self-defence on your own property, but a different set of issues comes up when this gun is taken into public spaces.

Another oft-used quote by Jefferson used by gun rights advocates is: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Here Jefferson states the basic principle behind rising up against the monarchy – while it’s harder to control and keep stable, a democratic society is preferable to being enslaved, though peacefully. And, as we all know, guns are an excellent instrument for disrupting peace.

However, these historic cases considered, America ought to note one thing; whilst guns are certainly useful in overthrowing monarchs, is individual gun ownership the best way to oppose monarchs or hypothetical tyrants?

It is indeed important to consider where America has come from, however, gun advocates ought to invest as much energy in the future of America as they have invested in remembering the past. To become a developed democracy, America must do just that, become developed, change and evolve. 

Trumps Rhetoric

In 1955 Till, a 14-year-old black boy from Chicago, was kidnapped, tortured, shot and then tossed into the Tallahatchie River attached to a 75-pound weight, for supposedly flirting with a white woman in Money, Mississippi. Till’s mother refused to accept her son’s murder. Amazingly more than 50,000 people showed up for his funeral in Chicago, and his death became a linchpin for the modern civil rights movement, inspiring the likes of Rosa Parks.

Months after Till’s murder, two brothers stood accused of the crime in what came to be known as the “wolf whistle” killing trial. Defense attorney John Whitten argued that no murder had taken place — that somehow, unnamed racial agitators had arranged for a dead body to be passed off as Till’s. Whitten told the all-white jury that he was “sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men” in the face of “pressure” from “rabble rousers.” After 67 minutes of deliberation, the jurors proved Whitten right, exonerating the brothers.

The Body Of Emmett Till 

The confidence that Whitten had in his jury is parallel to the confidence Donald Trump has in his so-called base and the trust they have in him. His supporters understand the importance of defending Anglo-Saxon supremacy against all threats (real or imagined). Trump has played to this base with numerous wolf whistles and outright racist statements.

Donald Trump has a decades-long track record of racism that includes everything from calling for the execution of innocent teenagers to breaking fair housing law. Most recently he told native-born women of colour who are often aligned with Rep. Ilhan Omar, a political adversary of his, to go back to their counties.

He has demonised undocumented immigrants as criminals and rapists, called migrants seeking asylum an invasion and called countries in Africa “shithole countries”. His statements are often humorous and laughable, however, they have a dangerous undertone and do real damage. As President, many Americans, rightly on wrongly look to him for moral leadership. They look for moral leadership in a President that has shown himself to be morally bankrupt several times. His racist vitriol and rhetoric adds to a toxic environment and continues to embolden white supremacists who no longer have to hide their ideologies but are now welcome on the mainstream. He exacerbates the adoption of dangerous views by setting the example he does in high office.

Smokescreen Smokescreen Smokescreen  

Some Republicans have resorted to their usual tactics of trying to blur the lines on the debate of Gun control. Senator John Cornyn had this to say on twitter,

This is a clear attempt to muddy the waters and is shameful. American politicians continue to pretend as if the mass shooting epidemic is an unsolvable problem, largely because they are beholden to powerful lobbies like gun manufacturers and the NRA. This is a major reason why when these political actors take the lectern, either on television or in speeches, they tick through the normal scapegoats like social media, video games and mental health. Whilst these do play a part in the issue, the willingness to ignore gun control is shameful. 

Besides, most developed countries have video games.  Japan, for instance, has one of the largest and thriving gaming industries and cultures in the world and has very few gun death. In fact, nowhere compares to the USA, therefore the issue cannot be one blamed on ‘violent video games’. 

“It’s not the right time to talk about gun control”

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. This is an attempt to weaponise grief and is the most deplorable political tool.

If this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will just about never be the right time to discuss gun control, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has around one mass shooting a day. If lawmakers are forced to wait for a time when there isn’t a mass shooting to talk about gun control, they could find themselves waiting for a very long time. This is a moment that demands moral clarity from the President and urgency in action from political leaders.

Another European Union story: We’re Tired

Fleur Boya
-
0
Another European Union story: We’re Tired

Two months ago, the European Council bypassed the proposed candidates the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) had put forward before the European elections. As a result of this German politician, Ursula von der Leyen was nominated as the new head of the Commission. 

According to a poll by German broadcaster ARD, 56% said they did not condone the appointment of the Ursula von der Leyen. The Independent reports that “another recent poll in Der Spiegel magazine found that she was the second most unpopular cabinet minister in Germany”. As a result of this, the European Union’s democratic nature has come under scrutiny. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, “said the decision by leaders to reject all the candidates for European Commission president was ‘not the Europe I imagined’. Jean-Claude Juncker, who Von der Leye is appointed to replace, said that the process “was not very transparent”. 

To many people, the EU is an impersonal and impenetrable bureaucracy that affects the lives of citizens without many opportunities for input by those citizens. However, according to the Guardian, “unlike the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation, only democracies can join the European Union. In theory, EU member states that slide back on democratic standards can be sanctioned, although this is easier said than done.” 

Saying that a state or institution is undemocratic almost immediately implies a negative judgement, However, when a state or institution is underpinned by democracy it is seen as something positive. Having been created in 1979, The European Parliament was given the power to approve or reject EU legislation, for the purpose of making the European Union more democratic, but what it really needs, as an institution is accountability and transparency.

Today, journalists, remainers and brexiteers and politically apathetic citizens all share one thing in common – we’re all tired of hearing about the EU and Brexit on every screen we possess. During this time, the democratic integrity of the European Union is the last thing on people’s minds – more relevantly, the British public just want to know what in the world is going on. The UK has been in limbo for a long time with regards to its relationship with the European Union. An entire Prime Minister has come and gone and the only thing we’re aware of is how much still needs to be done and what we’re yet to achieve.

This is not to knock the idea that the European Union does need to be more democratic. The most effective, quick routed way to do this is to ensure that at least most people appointed in the European Council are directly elected by the relevant electorate. Having a ‘general election’ for the head of the European Commission would ultimately compel European Parties to be more transparent about what goes on within the Union. Brexiteer Kate Hoey claimed “the European Union has pushed Remainers into agreeing with Brexit because of the selection process to pick the new leader of the European Commission”. Speaking to Labour Leave, Ms Hoey said: “It’s interesting that very little has been tweeted by the Remain campaign, by the People’s Vote campaign about all of this”.

We’re tired of Brexit news. We appreciate any effort to strengthen institutional democracy, but what we need is a desperate increase in transparency and accountability. Any efforts to strengthen democracy without transparency will lead to increased political participation by an electorate with zero understanding. 

Labour may NEVER win an election again.

Maisie Barker
-
0
Labour may NEVER win an election again.

What does the future hold for Labour? That’s a question that has been raging for many years and which has come under the spotlight most recently with the departure of New Labour giant Alastair Campbell.

Souce: BBC News

The long-standing member, most known as Downing Street’s Director of Communications under Tony Blair, was recently expelled for voting Liberal Democrat in the European Parliamentary elections.

Now the question concerning Labour’s future is a difficult question to answer. Post-Blair and Brown, the Labour Party was in disarray as previously stalwart voters turned their backs on the party in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Labour were thrashed in the 2010 general election – which resulted in a coalition government – then lost once again in 2015.

Enter Corbyn, who won by a landslide victory supported by an organised and dedicated youth movement (Momentum).

What should have been a renewed time for Labour has instead resulted in difficult elections, lost MPs and in-fighting. In 2017, despite losing to the Conservatives, Labour gained 30 seats – the first time is had gained seats since 1997. But it still lost.

(Image: GETTY)

Things got worse during the European elections with many Labour voters switching to Greens or Lib Dems, leaving Labour with a loss of 10 seats. Meanwhile Labour was fighting against accusations of institutional anti-Semitism.

Corbyn’s detractors will point to these losses as evidence that he is dead weight, whilst his supporters see him as representing a radical shift to the left, with some losses necessary to split from the Labour of the Blair years.

Campbell himself accused Corbyn of ‘unleashing a hard left, sectarian, nasty politics’ on the public. Whether you believe this or not seems to depend on a number of factors: age, political leanings,

Young Labour voters tend to view Corbyn favourably; arguably this is down to their experience of Labour being dominated by the Iraq War, and a decade of Conservative-led austerity. Young people have borne the brunt of many austerity measures – reliance on rental properties without the legal support when things go wrong, the brief removal of housing benefit eligibility for under-25s, zero hours contracts and insecure working conditions. They face a future without the financial security of previous generations. Young people were also more likely to vote Remain in the Brexit referendum and are now finding that their ability to study and work abroad has been trashed, even as British emigrants enjoy retirement in Spain.

A more left-wing political party therefore appealed to the youth movement. They utilised social media, became more politically active, even made memes about Corbyn. Whilst this fervour may have alienated more traditional Labour voters, it certainly motivated the youth more than previous political campaigns (i.e. Ed Miliband’s failure to eat a bacon sandwich).

For older groups, the expulsion of figureheads like Campbell will sound alarm bells. Blair’s Labour symbolised a more neoliberal position that often seemed to move away from its traditional working class roots. Corbyn is anti-war, campaigned against apartheid, is pro-nationalisation of public services, previously a trade union representative. He should appeal to huge swathes of Labour members but his leadership has been marred by the aforementioned losses in elections.

And that’s really the crux. Labour has failed to win a majority in an election since 2005 and they lost seats in the European elections as voters moved towards other left-wing parties. If Corbyn is the saviour of the Labour party then why are we not seeing the results necessary to win? We have ended up with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, voted in only by Conservative party members.

There may be no way to reconcile these facts. The more radical side of Labour will most likely continue to support Corbyn and will hope to see some positive electoral results from it. Meanwhile, more centre-left members will want to be rid of someone they see as a millstone preventing them from success. It seems like an impossible quagmire to navigate and it will only get more difficult.

The expulsion of Campbell is emblematic of this dissonance in the Labour Party. For some, Campbell is a reminder of supposedly better times – when Labour were in power and seemed unstoppable. For others he is a symbol of the worst of Blair’s reign: ‘sexed-up dossiers’, the Hutton Inquiry, the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK.

As someone born in 1992, Labour came into power when I was 5 years old. New Labour, with its shiny media-savvy image, defined politics during our early years. We’ve also lived with austerity for a large proportion of our lives. Young people are desperate for a radical change that listens to our concerns about the environment, capitalism and the changing political landscape of the UK. Many of us will look at people like Alastair Campbell as a relic, a shameful past we’d rather forget. But the simple fact is that Labour cannot do anything to improve our lives unless they win a general election. The next one will be in 2022; Boris plans to take us from the EU this October,  whether there is a deal or not.

A lot can happen in a few years. Labour faces the constant threat that it will lose more seats and, eventually, more supporters to parties like the Greens and SNP. It desperately needs to figure out a way to move on from its current stagnation – whether that is through mediation or a radical and permanent break from supporters of New Labour. It is a difficult task and the question remains whether Corbyn is up to the job.

Trump tells ethnic minority women “go home” – maybe its time we all did.

Shaun Flores
-
0
Trump tells ethnic minority women “go home” – maybe its time we all did.

President of the United States Donald Trump in a Twitter rant on the 14th of July, told four congresswomen from minority backgrounds to “Go Home.”

In a string of tweets he directed at the four congresswomen who challenged his immigration policies, he had this to say,

President Trump’s comments were directed at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib. Otherwise known as the “Squad.”

Image result for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.
(Far left )Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (Far right )Rashida Tlaib

Trumps latest comments were deemed racist and fascist with even Former British prime Minister Theresa May at the time speaking out calling his words “completely unacceptable.”

This has continued to spark fury as the President’s use of twitter, continues to be a war in itself.

GO BACK HOME

“Go Back Home!” are words that have been heard generationally by people of colour in the US. In this particular case, home for all four congresswomen is in the US; they are citizens. During Trump’s premiership, ‘The United States’ has become something an oxymoron. America, as a society could not be any more politically divided. Being united couldn’t be further from the truth.

American society is arguably raised and nourished in xenophobia and racism. Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States lasted up until 1965 and still and lingering effect today. The slaughtering of millions of Native Americans and the lynching of several African American slaves during the brutal period of chattel slavery also leave a stain on America. The Black, Latino, Mexican and Muslim population have been the brunt of these social diseases for far too long.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…”

The ‘darker lands’ such as Africa continue to be hurt by neo-colonialism, the last stage of imperialism as stated by pan African leader Kwame Nkrumah in 1965.

In the book “Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialism” by Kwame Nkrumah 1965 he explains how neo-colonialism disadvantages Africa. As an example,

“The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.”

Neo-Colonialism controls the economic resources of the ‘third world countries’. Countries are controlled from the outside by monetary and economic means where the countries are unable to serve their own people. Adding to this issue there are corrupt leaders advancing their own agendas. Combined it adds to a cauldron of “totally broken and crime-infested places.”

That’s why they are unable to fix these “crime-infested places”. With a continued Western involvement advancing backhanded democracy across the world, these places may forever remain places infested with crime. Countries need to stand on their own two feet, and have their “corrupt and inept leaders” dethroned.

Typically those who challenge the president or openly voice their dissent are subject to the ‘You Hate America’ trope best characterised in the below picture.

Image

Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism could best define Trump’s current behaviours against those who challenge him his management of the USA.

Image result for umberto eco
Umberto Eco OMRI.
An Italian novelist, literary critic, philosopher, semiotician, and university professor.

“Disagreement Is Treason” – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

Obsession with a Plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. This relates to the fear of Muslims.

Nancy Pelosi has since spoken out saying “When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to “Make America Great Again” has always been about making America white again.

Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.”

I reject @realDonald Trump’s xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation. Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values. Stop the raids – #FamiliesBelongTogether!”

How can Trump be right?

A lot of the governments are failed and are inept. In the words of former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2016, some countries like Nigeria are “fantastically corrupt”. However, for a number of reasons, Mostly problems have been exacerbated by Western influence but these powers have denied their involvement. The countries are left reaping the consequences of such disastrous neoliberal agendas under neo-colonialism. They have fought to remain afloat, but many are still bathing with the poison chalice they have been handed. Brain drains, economic drains and political corruption are just a few to name. Many ethnic minorities have had to find new homes and forge new identities in foreign lands.

Trump wants loyalty. Americans first above everything else and the creation of a deeper entrenched nation-state. Slightly opposing and surrounding ideologies will not be accepted until America is put first above anything else. A homogenous America that does not prioritise anywhere else.

This is a primal human instinct at best, as the saying goes “Put your house in order, before attempting to fix another.” Trump wants to water his garden first before sharing his water with others. How do we draw a line between nationalism, xenophobia and racism? To some, it seems clear, but to nationalists, it’s a very thin line.

Image result for america first

Many of those naturalised in the US and other former colonising nations live somewhat comfortable lives. They have evaded stagnant economies, poor health infrastructures and more. Well, its the least they could do, everyone deserves the right to good access to health, education, and jobs. Through their own comfort, they do still have a right to challenge the President where they see fit, without being branded as people who ‘hate America’.

By no uncertain means am I a Trump supporter, but indeed I see where Trump is coming from. To understand means to not necessarily agree either. He believes to those America has extended the hands of help they should be grateful. He feels the ‘squad’ are biting the hand that fed them democracy, freedom and education. He was wrong for telling them to go home, he highlighted his bigotry and attacked the wrong people in an outlandish, irrational, reductive and irresponsible anti-intellectual response.

They are not biting the hand of America instead they are challenging how America is run. Trump, if you want them to go back then they perhaps will go down the road to their state or simply continue to challenge you until you see the fascist error of your ways. His outward statements have landed in the so-called ‘immigrants’ back garden, which is in the United States of America.

1...515253...92Page 52 of 92

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

Our mission is to make democracy healthier by creating spaces for people who disagree to have fruitful dialogue.

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

Echo Break LTD (16487116) is the trading name for The Common Sense Network, registered in England & Wales. © Copyright