Over the last two years, there have been a rise in TV shows that have sought to glorify Satanism and demonic activity; by humanising and personifying the religious understanding and belief of what or rather who the devil is and stands for. Shows such as Lucifer, Supernatural, Chilling Adventures o Sabrina and Good Omens – all depict the devil (and also God in some cases) functioning in human capacities, as opposed to transcendentally spiritual.
In Supernatural, one of two demon-hunting brothers become inhabited by Satan himself, and God comes down in human form. In Lucifer also, again Satan is in human form and during his time one earth falls in love with a human girl. In Good Omens, the anti-christ is depicted as a normal kid, which opponents of the show say “destroys the barriers of horror that society still has for the devil”, as does the former shows mentioned. According to the Guardian, “More than 20,000 Christian have signed a petition which they say that Good Omens is “another step to make satanism appear normal, light and acceptable”, and “mocks God’s wisdom”.
Satanism without religion
The rise in the normalising of Satanism on TV is indisputably ironic given the increasing shift away from religion. Many are almost obsessively preoccupied with the idea of hell and evil whilst also denying it’s existence. It could be that the normalisation of hell and Satanism on TV is in fact a shift away from religion, in a somewhat mocking and ironic way – by diluting our spiritual understanding of the satanic and reducing it to a myth to be re-imagine and adapted into something relatable to viewers.
A hell will break loose
Last month, a young satanic-obsessed boy and his “voyeuristic” friend sexually assaulted and killed 14 year old, Ana Kriegel, in an abandoned house. The young girl suffered more than 60 different injuries. According to The Sun: “Blood-covered objects removed from the disused home included a 92cm-long wooden stick with a nail sticking out of both ends and a concrete block.”
If hell and Satanism continues to be normalised on TV and becomes mainstreamed in society, this will become a cause for concern for people both religious and non-religious members of society. We can expect to see Satanism taught in schools as a part of the Religious Studies syllabus, and even more disturbingly, young people openly advocating and practicing the satanic. In order to avoid this, tackling the normalisation of Satanism on TV should not be exclusive to the Christian community, but rather the responsibility of society as a whole in order avoid a hellish future.
The Toronto Raptors are Champions! All hail Emperor Leonard aka the Claw. The Toronto Raptors have managed to pull something off that was unthinkable at the start of the season. They have won their first ever NBA Championship with their first ever visit to the Finals. History was made. This was a win for the whole of Canada and a rebalancing of the power structure in the NBA. Beating the 2 time defending champions Golden State Warriors in the process with a 4-2 series win. To top it off they managed to claim the trophy right at the Warriors final home game at the Oracle Arena before their big stadium move and in the whole finals won every game at the Oracle!
Magician Masai
The trade that the 48 year old British born Masai Ujiri made for DeRozan to The San Antonio Spurs and for the Toronto Raptors to receive Kawhi Leonard a former Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP has not only paid of but its establishing Ujiri as a genius and a magician. Having previously won the executive of the year award in 2013 and now having a NBA Championship as an executive for the Toronto Raptors is an astonishing achievement for a man that only played 8 years as a basketball player himself. Originally being the GM he relinquished his role in 2014 and from there the Raptors consistently made the playoffs every year. Unfortunately the Raptors were always at the whim of Lebrons very own hands when he resided in the East losing every time they faced him. Now they have managed to secure their own Larry O’Brien trophy. Ofcourse his trade is a very high leverage one as they only managed to have Kawhi for a year but with a championship in their hands this will be a very compelling argument for him to stay. This scenario and what Ujiri envisioned couldn’t have been written more perfectly if you tried.
This is a franchise set up in 1995, it’s not one with heritage or history but that didnt matter this time against a potential dynasty in the Golden State Warriors. Kawhi Leonard has dragged the Toronto Raptors through the playoffs and especially hit rough patches when it came to the second round but since the conference finals the level of difficulty has ramped up but yet Leonard never buckled under pressure even when he hobbled into the final after suffering an injury against the Milwaukee Bucks winning that series 4-1.
The key to the Raptors win was their defence
This is by far the best defence the Warriors have faced in the Finals and it showed with their inability to have a high scoring output compared to past years, as well as facing several contested shots and without Kevin Durant being able to bail them out when the offense collapses it made it all the more difficult for them. The key moments were Game 3 and Game 5 with both Klay and Durant going out injured in these games swayed the favour heavily to Toronto as their cast was still relatively healthy.
Nick Nurse known for his stints in the BBL with the Birmingham Bullets, Manchester Giants and Brighton Bears received the head coaching job which raised some eyebrows especially after Masai Ujiri fired Dwayne Casey who was at the time named head coach of the year. After coach nurse failed to secure the win in Game 5 due to a costly bizarre time out at the end of the game killing his teams momentum, his tactical coaching was came into question especially being a Rookie Coach. However in Game 6 everything worked out for him at the final stretches of the 4th quarter. With this time having effective time-outs and players stepping up at high leverage moments. 33 year old Kyle Lowry also showed up in Game 6 with 26 points and 10 assists and although DeRozan was his best friend when they both played together, this is still a moment he will never forget and celebrate as he can now claim to be a NBA Champion. There we several doubts if he could perform at this level as his been known to not rise to the occasion so this was a crucial moment for him.
This is surely a bitter defeat for the Warriors who were heavily favourited to win but with injuries plaguing the organisation it feels like a rendition of the Warriors first win against the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2015 NBA Final when Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love were both injured making it easier for Steph Curry and Co to overcome Lebron James. The Warriors will have to recoup and prepare themselves again for next year but the level of difficulty has raised even greater with lack of squad depth and injuries plaguing against them as well.
Finals MVP
Kawhi Leonard deservedly received the Finals MVP trophy with his scoring averages being 28 points per game, 9 rebounds and 4 assists. Whilst other players stepped up throughout the series none have been as consistent as he has and this now makes him one of three players that have won a Finals MVP with different teams. This playoff performance and the stellar will to win is one of the greatest feats we’ve seen in NBA history.
Will Kawhi leave Toronto?
With Kawhis free agency ending soon he has a tough decision to make. Whether he decides to leave Toronto and Canada and opt for a more warmer comfortable lifestyle in LA at the Clippers awaits to be seen. Talks of him going to the Lakers might be off the table now that they’ve acquired Anthony Davis in a trade agreement with the New Orlean Pelicans. Either way if he does leave Toronto that leaves their team in a very dire state, although they did amazingly as a collective with Gasol, Ibaka, Siakem, Lowry and Van Fleet, Kawhi is the deciding factor for them. The Toronto fans will still be incredibly grateful for what Kawhi did and could have never imagined at the start of the season that this is what it would be.
Should Masai Ujiri get a book deal for a tell all with his reasoning behind the trade that saved it all?
On Friday afternoon, an 18 year old man was stabbed to death in Wandsworth, South London. Less than 20 minutes later, in Plumstead, South East London, a 19 year old man was shot dead. Subsequently, on Saturday morning, 3 men were victims of knife crime, two in Clapham and the other in Brixton. The police have made over 15 arrests following these attacks.
On the following Sunday (16th June), US President Donald Trump called out Mayor of London Sadiq Khan in a tweet, stating that Khan is a “national disgrace” who is “destroying the City of London”. Many, including former Labour Leader, Ed Miliband have called these comments out as being racist (which isn’t Trump’s first time, and most likely will not be his last).
According to BBC Home Affairs Correspondent, Dominic Casciani: “These deaths take the total number of homicides in London in 2019 to 56. Official data shows that this time last year there had been 82 deaths – and 2018 was ultimately the worst year on record in the city for a decade”.
However, taking a look at Trump’s home city of New York, New York Police Department (NYPD) statistics show its murder rate was twice as high per capita. In addition to this, the world is not ignorant to America’s prolific issue with police officers relentlessly killing unarmed black men, thus rendering Trump’s self-righteous and offensive comments towards Sadiq Khan indisputably hypocritical.
Surprisingly, whilst Tory rivals Sajid David, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab slammed the President for his comments, foreign secretary and Tory leadership hopeful, Jeremy Hunt supported them – despite them being deeply offensive – stating that he agreed “150%”, according to The Mirror.
Ironically, “the Tories slashing more than 20,000 police officers from Britain’s streets since 2010”.
It is embarrassing to see how far Trump has missed the mark. He has used the deaths of these young men to belittle the Mayor of London, who rightly chose not to respond to Trump’s remarks, rather than expressing sadness or remorse for the disturbing rise in knife crimes. In addition, the disharmony between the Tory leadership rivals in regards to Sadiq Khan’s leadership makes is worrying. What could the state of the UK become if the possible Prime Minster and the Mayor of London are in disagreement?
After Rafael Nadal won his 12th French Open title on Sunday, tennis fans can look forward to Wimbledon in three weeks time. All Nadal’s dominance at Roland Garros underlines however, is the challenges facing the Men’s Singles game over the coming years.
A day before Nadal’s triumph, the Australian Asheligh Barty was on her way to winning her first ever Women’s Singles Grand Slam title. More than that, she was doing so in her first appearances past the Quarter-finals stage at any Grand Slam tournament. She may not have realised it at the time, but in doing so she continued a growing precedent in women’s tennis. Over the last 10 Grand Slams, there have been nine different winners of the Women’s Singles competitions. Even more staggering is that Barty’s victory means that eight of these women were first-time winners. Women’s tennis is competitive, unpredictable and growing fast.
By contrast, the Men’s Singles have all been won by three men: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. A group that were once classed as the ‘big four’, have remained untouchable as a three in Andy Murray’s absence. As fans, we have been spoilt by one or all of these players’ excellence for almost two decades now. Their level of dominance is unprecedented, but it could all spell trouble for the sport in the coming years. With Murray already retiring (sort of) due to injury, Federer on the cusp of turning 38, and Nadal and Djokovic both 33 and 32 respectively, the age of the big four is coming to a close.
Where have the challengers been?
It seems strange to say that the era will soon be ending, because in reality this is something commentators have been saying for years already. Yet, in 2019 we still have a WTA top three ranking of a 32, 33 and 37-year-old. To put it into perspective, between 2003 and 2017, 52 of the 57 major titles were won by five players: the ‘big four’ and one other. With Stan Wawrinka winning three Grand Slams; the same as Andy Murray, he is the only player who has come anywhere close to the level of these fierce competitors.
Remembering Wawrinka’s occasional Grand Slam win (the last coming in 2015) it is easy to become complacent and still view him as a young upstart biting at the heels of the big four. Yet at 34, the big Swiss is also coming into the twilight of his career. Not for want of trying, but any chance to fully assert himself on the Grand Slam stage feels long gone. He’s not the only one either. Juan Martin Del Potro is turning 31; Kei Nishikori will be 30 in December; even Marin Cilic, who so often earlier in his career threatened to break into the big time will be turning 31 this year.
Hope for the future?
Perhaps it is a case that as the big three show, like a fine wine, male players are just getting better with age? The prevalence of powerful baseline rallies in the men’s game would certainly suit this theory, but there are glimpses of the future coming through. Take Dominic Thiem for example, at 25 he is now entering his peak and secured a well earned place in the final at Roland-Garros by beating Novak Djokovic. Yes, he wasn’t able to win the trophy, but coming up against Rafa on clay feels like a bit of a free pass for even the greatest players.
His five-set victory over Djokovic though felt like a real coming of age performance for the Austrian and one he will look to build on at Wimbledon. With the emergence of both Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev over the last year, there have been other positive noises for the future. With both players making the Semi- and Quarter-finals at the Australian open this year while still in their early 20s, a particular highlight. Yet in Paris, they followed this up with a joint exit at the last 16 stage. Tennis fans should be watching Wimbledon and Queens very closely indeed, but this cannot be left to be another false dawn.
Whatever happens over the next few years, men’s tennis still has a long way to come to match the exciting developments in the women’s game. Realistically only Tsitsipas and Zverev have any chance of shaking things up in the near future, but there is a whole host of talent coming through on the women’s courts. The aforementioned Barty is now at the head of this list, but the French Open unearthed 17-year-old American Amanda Anisimova. Beating reigning champion Simon Halep on her way to the last four, she will now make her first appearance at Wimbledon this summer. Could she repeat Boris Becker’s infamous win at the same age back in 1985? With the unpredictability of women’s tennis, you could certainly bet on worse.
Comedian Jo Brand has been called into question after she commented on radio encouraging people to throw battery acid at Nigel Farage.
Brand, who spoke at the Heresy talk show on Radio 4 as a guest on Tuesday, joked about throwing battery acid at “unpleasant characters” instead of milkshakes.
She said: ‘Well yes I would say that, but I think that’s because certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore and they’re very, very easy to hate. And I’m kind of thinking, ‘why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?. I’m not going to do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic, I honestly do, sorry.”
A BBC spokesperson said that the jokes on the show were “deliberately provocative and go against societal norms”, insisting they were “not intended to be taken seriously”.
Nigel Farage in a furious response said: “I am sick to death of overpaid, left wing, so-called comedians on the BBC who think their view is morally superior. Can you imagine the reaction if I had said the same thing as Jo Brand?”
Mr Farage hated by many, loved by a few, has a point, there is an uneven application of moral standards. Milkshakes have been used as the new political tool of dissent. Acid has far worse consequences. Does he pose such a serious threat that violence and acid is justified?
The reality is that access to acid is easily attainable from our detergents and to car batteries, and in local supermarkets. Acid can disfigure, dismember and ruin lives. In spite of someone’s political views, should we be joking about such virulent acts of physical violence?
According to stats from the London Metropolitan Police: “There were 104 acid attacks in the capital in the first five months of 2018, compared to 182 during that period in 2017, and 169 during that time in 2016, representing a 43 and 38 per cent drop.”
Censoring Comedy
In the generation of political correctness, comedy has come under threat. Comedy has become a place where sadistic, horrid and awful aspects of society become something we laugh about. It can be likened to that of a bitter sweet tonic to the ills we face in society.
However, when it comes to jokes there are limits. We are unable to joke about Islam or Judaism due to the historical and socio-political relevance. Some communities go far to protect against jokes about race, sex, gender and/or class. There are few comedians left who defend the right to make jokes around sensitive subjects.
When left wing comedians such as Jo Brand joke about social-political issues, they are not dealt with the same backlash as a right-wing comedian would receive.
It comes under the continuing ever-present issue of free speech and hate speech, Brand directly incited violence against Farage.
Sticks and stones may hurt, but when acid is in the equation it’s time we called an end to such acts on both sides of the political seesaw; left wing and right wing.
Danny Baker was fired from the BBC, why is Brand still in a job?
Piers Morgan exposed an uncomfortable double standard as the BBC defendsJo Brand. The case was not the same for Danny Baker who was fired for his tweet comparing the newborn of the royal baby to a monkey.
Earlier in May, Danny Baker lost his job after tweeting the above picture referring to the Royal baby to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as a monkey.
He maintained the position he did not mean anything racist by it and he forgot the baby had a mixed-race heritage.
To add fuel to the ever-increasing fire, Baker was also complacent in his firing. In a seemingly nonchalant attitude towards the issues presented.
Baker apologised for his actions: “Once again. Sincere apologies for the stupid unthinking gag pic earlier. Was supposed to be joke about Royals vs circus animals in posh clothes but interpreted as about monkeys & race, so rightly deleted. Royal watching, not my forte. Also guessing it was my turn in the barrel.”
It seems perhaps the BBC have become moral judges of what is deemed to be an offence worthy of firing someone for.
The literal, truthful answer is that the BBC believes any hint of racism, subconscious, implicit or otherwise, is viewed as unconscionable, but inciting violence against pro-Leave or right-leaning politicians will not. Racism just matters much more than proposed violence.
This demonstrates the privilege to call out certain matters as opposed to others. Or does this highlight the BBC’s political leaning?
In spite of what Farage believes is the best way to govern the country, his fan base or his rhetoric, no politicians unless they are directly racist, sexist, fascist, and other emerging “ist’s or isms” no one should have acid thrown at them.
Violence is never the answer
No one should have milkshake thrown at them. What happened to civil political discourse, the cornerstone and earmark of British democracy. If we resort to such despicable and deplorable acts what else will be championed in the wake of morally superior political positions?
Brand should not have made those comments. It reinforces an unequal distribution of a moral compass that extends to those on the left side of society.
The speech should be free as long as there is an equal application of a moral compass, not only extended to certain politics, specific individuals and viewpoints.
Just as Danny Baker was fired , we should see Jo Brand also fired from the BBC.
Harvey Weinstein seems to be in the headlines again, regarding his 19-month ongoing trial of him accused of his sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry. This time the questions are revolved around the “agreed” settlement of $44m to the parties involved within this investigation for Mr Weinstein’s misconduct.
Recently it was made apparent that by The Wall Street Journal and reporter Corrinne Ramey, highlighted the conditions of the settlement; and to which parties the money was going to. It was revealed that of the $44m settlement to be paid, $30m was to be paid to the victims which had accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct. Although many of alleged accusers to Weinstein have claimed that they haven’t agreed to this settlement such as Ashely Judd, who is adamant on pursuing the case with Weinstein to trial; as her lawsuit is independent of this settlement.
The other $14m, is raising speculation and controversy given that this is to be paid to the defence team for Weinstein’s case. What seems to be confusing regarding this settlement is that it’s s to be paid out of the insurance policies held by Weinstein Co. and Miramax (both founded by Weinstein). Therefore, it will mean that the settlement rather than be paid by Weinstein will be fully provided by the companies insurance policies, in other words this means that Weinstein will avoid full liability regarding this initial settlement
It’s even more controversial, due to the possibility that Weinstein may even profit from this payment of the settlement, via the insurance policies. As the $14m will be payable out of the settlement which is intended for Weinstein’s defence team, will be provided by the insurance policies of Weinstein Company, rather than Weinstein himself. This indicates that insurance policy will bail Weinstein out of paying for an agreed settlement which his defence team advocated for.
Recently it was made apparent that by The Wall Street Journal and reporter Corrinne Ramey, highlighted the conditions of the settlement; and to which parties the money was going to. It was revealed that of the $44m settlement to be paid, $30m was to be paid to the victims which had accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct. The other $14m, is raising speculation and controversy given that this is to be paid to the defence team for Weinstein’s case. What seems to be confusing regarding this settlement is that its to be paid out of the insurance policies held by Weinstein Co. and Miramax (both founded by Weinstein). Therefore, it will mean that the settlement rather than being paid by Harvey Weinstein himself will be compensated by the firm.
Looking at this further it raises questions on the sense of justice being given out, if this settlement is put forward. Would it be justifiable if the alleged sexual misconduct is swept aside by a payment, even more because it’s not agreed by the victims, but only by Weinstein’s defence team. Nonetheless going forward with Weinstein’s case will always have ongoing controversy.
Today sadly marks the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. Where on the 17th of June at 1am in a 24-storey block of flats in North Kensington, a fire broke out on the 4th floor. Causing the death of 72 residents, injuring over 70 and leaving 223 without a home to live. Many lives were affected by this tragic event by losing relatives, being haunted by the memories and still having no place to call home. The outcry of the victims and the community as whole, even after two years calls for justice.
Today definitely marks a day of remembrance for the people affected by the Grenfell Tower fire, not just in London but across the UK. But for the many victims of this tragedy, the need for accountability and justice is still being fought till this day. While a public inquiry is still ongoing, few answers have been provided to the families and the justice they deserve. Asking for the government and the council to do more for the people affected by this event, which has not been listened to. Even after two years, many of the victims who lost their homes still haven’t been placed in suitable accommodation and are still residing in hotels. Other questions also point to the general safety and upkeep of the block of flats.
Considering the vulnerable cladding which was used for the 24-storey flat, which proved to be deadly as it accelerated the growth of the fire when it occurred. Also the lack of sprinklers which could’ve been used to prevent the fire. The list could go on as to what the flat needed in order to protect the lives of the residents. As none of these measures were there it shows the lack of concern for the residents which lived there by the council and the tenant management organisation which oversaw the building of these council houses. Many of the families of those affected are still pondering over the lack of safety developments in the flat, two years after the fire.
It’s been pointed out that many existing and newly developed buildings have similar cladding to that used on Grenfell Tower. It’s been questioned whether this type of cladding should be banned on residential buildings, given how dangerous it is and pleas for it to be removed. Recently in Barking, East London where 20 flats were in a blaze which had similar cladding to the one used on the Grenfell Tower. Again pointing questions to the building organisations to take urgent action and for the government to do the same also.
The Government Response
The current governments response of the incident is questionable with a reported 15% reduction in the budget for fire services, which seems illogical given how greatly the emergency services were needed in evacuating residents and trying to combat the blaze. But with this action provided by the Tory government, it proves to be dangerous going further in the event that any fires occur across the UK.
Other politicians stand in solidarity with the tragic event which occurred two years ago such as MP David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn. Asking and pushing for a justice and answers to be delivered to the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Looking back at this heartbreaking event which claimed many lives and affected even more within the community. I hope that going forward that swift justice is given to the many lives which were drastically affected. And also the need for communities to be unified and not remaining silent in the face of injustice still being shown to this day. We as a nation must remember the 72 lives which were taken by this unfortunate event, by striving for accountability and answers for this tragic incident.
Since rising to power, Trump’s administration has been said to propagate a status-driven, incursive and generally mislead foreign policy.
From his vernacular, to ‘Lou Dobbs’ inspired trade war with China, to the most recent amendments to the visa policy – the United States is recoiling from its central position as a world power with multiple global connections and is adopting an increasingly isolationist position.
These new changes to the visa application will affect 15 million applicants, 900,000 of which are estimated to be applicants from the Indian subcontinent. The applicants will be required to hand over their usernames for a myriad of different social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube and Weibo to peruse 5 years’ worth of digital history, in order to comb out suspicious activity with the aim of protecting American civilians from potential terrorist threats. These measures will be implemented for visas of all kind, including tourist visas. The implications of the redacted policy are as follows.
Effects on Tourism
The United States’ tourism industry is predicted to absorb the bulk of the damage. In previous years having generated $1.6 trillion worth of income, the tourist industry can be considered an integral component of the US’ services exports. Accounting for 32% of revenue in this category. Since Trump’s inauguration however, the number of international visitors to the United States has dropped by 700,000 in the first quarter of 2017. The largest reductions in foreign travellers are from the Middle East and Africa. The radical Republican election manifesto can be thought to contribute towards this phenomenon, which has now been dubbed the ‘Trump Slump’.
However, the flat performance of inbound tourism can be attributed to much more than Trump’s somewhat tyrannical persona. China’s Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Culture and Tourism issued anotherformal warning on 4thJune 2019 about the dangers of travelling to the US. The Public service announcement warned of: “visa restrictions, prolonged review times, shortened time validity and a rising rate of visa rejections” as well as issuing statements such as the following – “Public Security in the United States is not good. Cases of shooting robbery and theft are frequent.”
Although, it can be easily deduced that such political statements have been issued deliberately to curb the profitability of tourism in the US, in light of strained China- US economic relations – the specific impact of the growing restraints on visa applicants has cultivated the animosity between the two superpowers. This is evidenced by the fact that Chinese tourism to the US has reached the lowest it has ever been in the last 15 years.
Conversely it can be seen that countries formerly renowned to possess a comparatively more fragile tourism sector, such as Pakistan are advancing their efforts to create a greater incentive for international travellers by extending American visas to 5 years; despite facing a recent curtailment of 5 years to 1 for US visas. This illustrates the US’ shrinking global influence and exhibits the retrospective nature of its foreign involvement and policies – as touched upon earlier.
Effectiveness
The second prong of discussion revolves around the extent to which these recent measures inhibit the likelihood of terrorist activity in the US. How effective the new visa policy is in deterring external threats is central to the discussion regarding its validity as a piece of legislation and the existence of furtive motives and agendas. Overall the measure can be seen to be somewhat ineffective.
This is because of the very nature of the digital space – things are easily erased. Tweets can be deleted, posts can be un-liked, and if there is no one to hold you to account, files are not easily retrievable. In a world of complex cyber technology, encrypting messages and communicating through a secure connection is neither difficult, nor uncommon. What is more, it becomes increasingly likely that applicants, upon being made aware of these new measures, will become more vigilant when posting on social media – subverting the very purpose of the amendment to the procedure.
The very notion that terrorist threats and activity can be caught by analysing social media platforms, can be thought to be somewhat unpragmatic. This is further bolstered when considering the root of the most recent terrorist incidents in the United States.
39,773 people were killed in the US in 2018 as a result of gun violence. It can be deduced that such incidents constitute a major threat to the security of American civilians as oppose to external forms of terrorism and should thus be given precedence when addressing the safety of the state. Yet, this ‘foreigner focussed’ visa policy can be seen to undermine itself by diverting protectionist measures away from internal volatility present within the state and focussing on a more innocuous ‘threat.’
Freedom of Speech
The last of the threefold impact of Trump’s visa policy beckons the question of: how far the amendment to visa protocol infringes upon human rights and freedom of speech? Is it possible to incriminate yourself by posting a political opinion on social media? Has terrorism become synonymous with having controversial views that don’t conform with that of the state’s?
The direction in which Trump’s foreign policy is going, seems to imply as such. Having discussed the drawbacks and supposed advantages of the policy, it is difficult to identify how effective it will be in ensuring the security of the state and whether it is anything more than a method to legitimise fear mongering and curtail autonomy.
Hajra 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.
Two years ago, on 14th June 2017 just before 1 am, a fire started in the Grenfell Tower in North Kensington. The fire wasn’t declared extinguished until the 16th June where the official death toll had reached 72. Survivors claim that there are still more people unaccounted for. We all remember the terrible scenes that unfolded as firefighters tried to tackle the blaze.
We also had questions. How could this happen? Who was responsible? Can we prevent this from happening again?
As the days went on more information was released; including the fact that Grenfell was clad in a material that exacerbated the fire; that residents’ groups had raised concerns about the building’s safety prior to the fire but were unable to convince the management to look into them; and that other towers around the UK were clad in the same dangerous material.
The residents were angry, frustrated and scared. Now, two years later, they still have questions. There are some who have yet to be rehomed, the inquiry has dragged on with few answers and, worst of all, no-one has been brought to account. The action group, Grenfell United, listed five simple demands for the government: justice for those who lost their lives, ensuring safe homes for everyone, a change in culture towards those in social housing, improve the wellbeing of residents, to create a memorial for those who died.
None of these demands have been met.
Meanwhile, in cities across the UK, other tenants are locked in an ongoing legal battle over who is responsible for the dangerous cladding that was found on their residential buildings. In Manchester a number of towers were found to use aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding – the same material used on Grenfell Tower.
And worst of all, residents are being asked to foot the bill for the replacement works. I spoke to Fran, a representative from Manchester Cladiators – the residents group created to battle these bills. She described the horror of residents who discovered they had bought homes in a building which wasn’t safe.
“The government instructed the British Research Establishment (BRE) to test the cladding that was used on Grenfell,” she said. “They then found the same material had been used across the UK, including on our homes in Manchester.”
As if this discovery wasn’t bad enough, the building’s management company then called a meeting where they told residents that the freeholder would be taking them to a tribunal, to force them to pay for the cladding removal and replacement. The bills were huge – £10,000 per person – which the freeholder said fell within the remit of the tenant’s service charge.
Feeling like they were being used, the residents attended the tribunal – which was held on the first anniversary of the Grenfell Fire.
“We are in contact with Grenfell United and supporting each other. The tribunal was very stressful and emotional, because the media was full of scenes commemorating Grenfell. Meanwhile we were trying to make our building safe, said Fran.
The government’s reaction left residents frustrated and angry. Their local MPs would dismiss concerns and James Brokenshire (Secretary of State for Housing) delayed meeting with them for months. Eventually, they were able to persuade Manchester Council to set up a meeting between the groups and it was agreed that residents in some buildings would not have to pay for the necessary work. The developer was also instructed to pay any costs the residents had incurred to date – including legal fees.
But victory for some does not mean victory for all. Other buildings in Manchester are still battling against the bills. Skyline Central in Manchester’s Northern Quarter recently received an updated bill for £2.2million. Their building contains HPL (high pressure laminate) cladding, which is currently being investigated as having the potential to be as deadly as the Grenfell Fire.
Residents in Skyline Central are facing bills of approximately £25,000 each. Meanwhile, the social housing tenants who survived Grenfell are still being stuck in temporary accommodation. The government is digging its heels in and gambling with people’s lives.
Multimillion pound building and development companies with huge turnovers are skipping out on these bills and leaving residents to foot the extortionate bills. New housing is being built without a real picture of the scale of these building regulation failures. The government needs to crack down or to create a ring fenced fund for replacing cladding and dangerous building structures on both new and existing buildings.
Today, Grenfell United protested against the government’s lack of action in regards to survivors, building safety and housing regulation by projecting messages on buildings it says are dangerous. Buildings in Salford, Newcastle and London were displayed with messages highlighting the lack of sprinklers, dangerous cladding and fire doors that are unfit for purpose.
It seems that the development companies know that there is little government oversight. It was only through tireless campaigning and the intervention of Manchester City Council that residents in the Green Quarter achieved justice. Sadly for the residents of Grenfell, justice still seems a long way off.
Titanic, Romeo and Juliet, The Beach – these films all have one thing in common… Leonardo DiCaprio and his heart-warming smile, never-ending charm and swoon-worthy looks caught on camera. There is no denying that our Leo is a very attractive man, as well as an extremely talented actor with an impressive and impossibly long repertoire. He finally won an Oscar in 2016 (hooray!) which was, by general consensus, long overdue. What’s more, he is one of the few Hollywood stars that has actively and continuously campaigned for climate change action. By many measures, Leonardo DiCaprio is the perfect man.
It is no surprise that the worldwide heartthrob has had a string of beautiful girlfriends, many of whom boast model credentials. Take Gisele Bundchen, for example. A superstar in equal measure to Leo, the pair embarked on well-documented youth fuelled romance. After it ended, Leo grew older and his succeeding girlfriends, well, didn’t. This graph, released on Reddit, tells it all:
Undertaking the opposite policy to all good drinking establishments, 44 year old DiCaprio operates on a ‘no entry’ (into a relationship) policy for anyone who looks over the age of 25. As the renowned actor grows older, his girlfriends stay the same age.
This was evidenced at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.
DiCaprio attends the event every year, sporting a black baseball cap and questionable
facial hair. He was pictured snapping photos of current girlfriend Camila
Morrone, who is 21. The Daily Mail quipped
that Dicaprio proved he was the “ultimate Instagram boyfriend” as Morrone
posed in a delightful polka dot dress. While their relationship is common
knowledge, DiCaprio and Morrone do not attend any public press events together
nor do they discuss their relationships in public. This has been the case for
all of DiCaprio’s previous girlfriends as well.
Nancy Jo Sales describes DiCaprio’s ‘Pussy Posse’, writing “the group’s core members constitute a frat house of young men” who attend the hottest clubs and parties wing-manning DiCaprio. Allie Jones writes that “when he’s single, Leo goes to Cannes to meet new models. When he’s in a relationship, he brings whichever model he is dating, and also meets new models”. DiCaprio’s penchant for young women cannot be dismissed as coincidence, but rather purposeful trophy hunting. While it is wrong to criticise relationships simply for the existence of an age gap, can deliberately seeking out models over twenty years one’s junior be seen as acceptable behaviour? Combined with the supposed girlfriend ban on discussing a relationship with Leo, it all seems to come across a little creepy.
DiCaprio is not the first superstar to take advantage of his Hollywood status to pursue younger women. Tyga and Kylie Jenner became associated with each other when Kylie was just 16. Musician Moby has recently come under fire after suggesting that he dated Natalie Portman while she was at university in New York. Portman told Harper’s Bazaar that “I was surprised to hear that he characterised the very short time that I knew him as dating because my recollection is a much older man being creepy with me when I just had graduated high school.” Despite the #metoo movement, Moby initially refuted Portman’s recollection, before admitting how flawed his argument was over Instagram:
It is patronising to suggest that the models DiCaprio dates are unaware of his age, status and relationship history. Yes, they are all under 25, but they are also all consenting adults with successful careers in their own rights. However, it is surprising that there has not been a more public backlash towards Leo’s love-life tendencies. He has faced nowhere near the amount of criticism that Madonna, Britney Spears or Mariah Carey received for dating younger men.
While women are smack-handed the predatory term ‘cougar’, Leo’s secretive relationships reserved for models go uncommented on, illustrating the ongoing disparity in society’s attitudes to men and women’s sex lives. DiCaprio’s behaviour might not be categorically unethical, but it is certainly questionable in the precedent it sets for what traits should be valued in a partner. Perhaps Leo deserves more flack, (and that is coming from a girl who once changed her surname on Facebook to DiCaprio).
Conservative Party Leader hopeful, Jeremy Hunt, wants to reduce abortion time from 24 weeks to 12 weeks.
Hunt has spoken openly (on a podcast this Sunday) about wanting for the legal limit for women to choose to have an abortion to go from 24 weeks to 12 weeks.
This comes at a time where the Alabama Abortion Laws caused worldwide outrage. It comes where women feel their bodies are being controlled more than ever.
He said he will not change the law if he became Prime Minister. “No government I lead will ever seek to change the law on abortion.”
The former Health Secretary from 2012 to 2018 has since been branded a misogynist. He has also been highlighted for his hypocrisy by Labour MP Jess Phillips:
“Did this one say he was a feminist, it’s hard to keep up with those on drugs and who pretends to care about women. Jeremy Hunt how about we base this on evidence and science and keep what you think is best based on no experience out of this.”
Interestingly, there are small sections of the internet that agree with Hunt’s views calling abortions “Infanticide and Gendercide.”
Northern Ireland allows abortion in cases of physical or mental health risks. Poland currently permits terminations when the life of the foetus is under threat, when there is a grave threat to the health of the mother, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. In Malta and Andorra, abortions are prohibited in all circumstances, whereas in Cyprus women can have an abortion up to 28 weeks into a pregnancy.
Interestingly nearly every EU country has 12-week limits on abortion, so what is Hunt saying that’s different?
This abortion conversation in the wake of the Alabama Abortion Law is exacerbating the divide between political parties and genders. The world is becoming more and more segmented by political tribes.
Reproductive freedom is still on the agenda after Alabama and Northern Ireland (where abortion is still illegal).
Hunt stood true to his word, irrespective of those who agree with him or disagree, he is entitled to an opinion. An opinion is an opinion, unless it becomes law then it becomes a matter of understandable concern.
Hunt is a man and has no idea what it is like for a woman to have an abortion, does this mean he should have no say on the matter? Like most men, he is being ushered into a veil of silence.
Should everyone have the right to air their opinions? With such contentious debates surrounding abortion it will bring about a lot of anger. In a world where women are continually being policed, and white men are continued to be regarded as the enemy. Perhaps its time we let women decide what to do with their bodies.
The punk band ‘Killdren’ who have been calling for violence against the Conservative Party have been pulled from Glastonbury Music Festival.
In the below music video “Kill Tory Scum (before they kill you)”, they call out the murder of the Conservative members of parliament and those who adhere to conservative values.
A message at the end of the song’s video makes it clear, however, that Killdren “do not condone the killing of MPs or voters”.
Killdren have complained saying they are being victimised and mischaracterized by “the right-wing press”. Arguing that a conservative government has hurt significant portions of society; in particular those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.
Under the Tory government, nearly 4 million people have had to use food banks due to the austerity measures. MP’s were allowed a 10% pay rise, whilst the NHS wages were capped at 1%.
Alongside the wage cap, the Grenfell fire which caused 72 deaths has caused people to feel anger towards the government. The lack of responsibility or charges in the investigation has lead to a culture of distrust. However, calling for violence does nothing to alleviate the pain caused by one party. Violence to one cannot bring back those lost, or hurt in a politics of revenge.
Music is a powerful medium and Killdren are using an important medium to reiterate the killing of “Tory Scum”. So why is music and its effects continually denied?
Musics Effects On The Brain
Music has a peculiar and particular effect on humans, causing us to dance, and nod our heads. The brain is a creature of volume and repetition and it is easy to influence the human brain. Hence why it is easier to listen to music which is a subtle form of programming, helping to shape your reality, whilst also leaking into the conscious and subconscious mind.
Music can take us to happy, sad, and angry places. It can inspire, demotivate, motivate and encourage particular motives or experiences based on our understanding of the lyrics.
Music triggers human reward systems in the human brain. Whilst not everyone experiences intense emotional responses to music it affects all humans in a myriad of ways.
It can really inspire and incentivise humans to perform actions in accordance with what they listen to. Therefore in accordance with the music by Killdren, if I am vehemently opposed to The Conservative Party, a song telling me to “Kill Tory Scum”, it will release more dopamine, furthering my continuing hate for the Tories. Rewarding me for listening to music calling for violence against the party.
If you are what you eat, then are you not what you consume through your ears?
Consuming music that encourages violence, murder, highlights the sinister side of humans. We should not encourage it.
Murder is not okay, not on any side of the political spectrum, white, black, male or female.
Music Can and Does Incite Violence
There’s only one category of music that comes to mind when we talk of violence upon other human bodies: drill music.
Drill music, a black category of music that has been defended as being an ethnic art form, openly calls for violence against other young males.
“Everyday I give thanks for the blessing, but I repent for numerous cheffings. If you saw the way that I kweffed him, man I weren’t shocked that his bredrin left him.”
In Tion Wayne’s verse he openly spoke of asking for forgiveness for stabbing other young men, and how his friend left him after he stabbed another young man.
LONDON’S knife epidemic is out of control with more than 27 deaths since the start of 2019. Drill music plays a heavy part in knife crime. As the genre speaks of gang wars, murder, robbery and many other deplorable acts.
Violence is violence and its a disease we must rid ourselves in a supposed civilized society. Killdren alongside the drill genre should be no-platformed, calling for violence is actually oppressive and it has no place in a democratic world.
Whilst Conservatives have hurt many people through their policies, we cannot become evil to fight the very evil we are opposed to.
Women Empowerment platforms are thriving, meet the woman behind one of them to find out why.
In a time where feminism is widely accepted, more women are coming together and building each other through this powerful movement which represents choice, freedom and simply, humanity.
I spoke to a woman, a mother and an entrepreneur who set up a female empowerment movement on platform on Instagram to encourage other women to set up businesses and stray away from societal expectations.
Nompumelelo Mahlangu, 36, from Leeds began this venture less than a year ago, after facing challenges in her personal life and unfulfilling career.
In 2015, her mother also received an MBE from the Queen for her services to children, in the UK around the world which she took as a sign it was not too late to change career.
Nompumelelo said: “When you see your mum thriving and setting these goals, it makes you realise you have to step up.”
Despite having a job as a Project Manager within the public sector, which she was content with at the time, Nompu created the International Women’s Empowerment Forumas a project to work in part time but it has gradually turned into her full-time job.
I asked her, what made you want to start an empowerment forum:
“I think it’s important for women to have somewhere to go and feel like they can relate with other women. Men, from a young age, are pushed to have businesses, and to take risks whereas women are usually limited, they get told they should be mothers, wives and that becomes their whole life, but a lot of women don’t want to be just that anymore, they want more, I wanted more so I made something for like-minded women.
“Don’t get me wrong we have some men who work with us and they’re so supportive.”
How did people around you take this idea:
“When I first thought of the idea, my former partner laughed at me and thought it was silly little project. I won’t lie and say this didn’t affect me because it did, I felt powerless and it came to a point where I just said to myself just do it – that’s how my platform was born.”
What have you learnt from your new business venture:
“I’ve been able to make such amazing connections and friendships with people through the platform. I will be hosting my first big event in July with Naima Mora from America’s Next Top Model, this has so far been the biggest and scariest moment in my career because I’ve proven everyone who doubted me wrong.
“It also made me realise these a lot of things that happen behind the scenes when you run a business, you need an amazing support system behind you at all times but you have to remember to take a break and take care of yourself.”
What advice would you give your 25 year old self:
“Go for it, whatever you keep putting off, just go for it. There are a lot of options available and you don’t have to make everyone happy, they’ll come around and if they don’t that’s fine.
Try different things, life doesn’t stop in your twenties grab life with both hands and don’t be scared!”
To find out more about IWEF visit: https://www.instagram.com/iwef_forum/
A fog of collective amnesia has enveloped China for 30 years
since the events of June 4TH 1989. Tiananmen Square symbolises the existence
of some 1.4 Billion Chinese citizens today as they live under bureaucratic
authoritarianism.
In the aftermath of the brutal suppression of student
protesters, Chinese authorities stifled free expression, extending its
oversight of civilians with various tactics to censor, arrest, detain and
imprison anyone who spoke about “June Fourth”.
It remains the most taboo and politically sensitive topic in
China, much like the Tibetan question or Xinjiang, largely because it questioned
so overtly the authority and legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
It’s so off-limits that even parents who lost their sons and daughters in 1989
can expect to be jailed for bringing it up.
When people think of Tiananmen Square in the West, they tend
to envisage “tank man” halting the procession of tanks into the main square and
an illegitimate regime that persecutes its own people. For Chinese, alternative
narratives have been carefully cultivated to present “political turbulence”
with images of a soldier being killed and burnt by protesters.
The Chinese government has tried its utmost to erase the
memory from contemporary history. It has become a non-event for most young
Chinese. But is it this simple?
Ahead of the 30th anniversary, international news outlets tried to tease out this censorship by approaching Chinese pedestrians with iconic photos of the protests. BBC, Deutsche Welle and others sent reporters to “test” the level of censorship.
Some ran away, some denied recognition and others did not know
what they were being shown. The mainstream media then asserted China had “erased
history”. The reality is far more complicated. In China, understanding is
shaped by fear, opaqueness and collective wisdom. Failure to recognise the
image does not necessarily mean none were aware of what happened.
Good quality journalism makes effort to contextualise questions
and create safe spaces for people to speak. These reporters knew they wouldn’t
get an answer, and their framing was structured to intentionally highlight
that. This practice is not about Tiananmen, but conscious stylistic choice to
frame ignorance.
ChinaFile became sceptical about the success of the censorship, creating an open call for personal accounts of “how you learned about Tiananmen.” They had many young Chinese tell them about their experience of cognitive dissonance and how collective memory whispered itself into awareness, despite a deafening silence.
While everything that should be said about Tiananmen already
has, it may never be heard by the people who need to hear it most – namely, those
living under CCP rule. The CCP has not been able to wipe the memories of
millions, contrary to how western news outlets reported.
Chinese official narratives ignore the fact that every major
Chinese city had protests, with more than a million calling for democratic
reform, an end to government corruption and a better-functioning economy. This
lasted for 6-weeks as part of a unified pro-democracy movement worldwide.
In its counter-narrative of “political turbulence”, the official
Party line was a crackdown for a single-day-event known only as “June Fourth”. There
was no “tank man” photo. In its stead, state media displayed the soldier who was
killed and burned by “rioters”.
The Chinese Spring
Before June Fourth, people were free to read, discuss ideas
and interact with foreigners. Robert Daly, former US diplomat to China, said it
was a “highly idealistic period as Chinese people got to follow the rest of the
world and recover from the Maoist period.”
Post 1989 Crackdown
The Chinese government persecuted and suppressed anyone who
stood in their way after June Fourth, entrenching their authority through an
uneasy status quo of economic prosperity mired by fear.
1994 saw the CCP role out “Patriotic Education”, culling collective memory, painting China a historically aggrieved nation still under siege from external foes, and the Party its heroic saviour and rightful guardian. A true Orwellian nightmare had begun, unbeknownst to its unsuspecting citizens, “patriotic education” was the Party’s solution to its crisis of legitimacy after the Mao-era disasters and the bloodshed of 1989.
University of Denver’s Zhao’s commentary on the patriotic education campaign, declared it a “very successful social and political engineering” that has repositioned the government as the defender of the Chinese nation. “In fact, nationalism is stronger than communism for the Chinese working class. It’s stronger than capitalism for the bankers. It’s so powerful a force in the 21st Century.” The anti-Japanese marches in 2012 in 80 cities throughout China are testimony of the CCP’s success to wipe a clean slate of their misgivings, by directing anger out of China, rather than within.
China today has all media under state control. There have been no
real elections for 70 years. It is not in the interests of the communist party
to reveal the truth. We should be under no illusions how close the protesters
were to compromising Mao’s legacy. The nationwide support the movement garnered
shook the CCP to its core. Moderate leaders like Zho Ziyang were ousted and
intimidating the protesters by sending in the army and tanks was ineffective
because the protesters offered the soldiers food, water and flowers. They tried
to reason with them and in reciprocation, the soldiers were sympathetic to the
protesters.
When all else failed, the CCP had to send in soldiers from faraway
bases to “clear” the protesters. The protesters were, by and large, unarmed.
The students wanted the government to tackle rampant corruption and deliver
more political freedom. While western media presents the death toll to be in
the thousands, the Chinese government said it was in the hundreds. The truth
often is somewhere in between. Many more were persecuted, imprisoned and executed
later. Lee Pen and Deng Xiaoping were ruthless. Human life did not have much intrinsic
value in Chinese society after Chairman Mao’s leadership.
In the aftermath, the blackout of media coverage in China and the
disappearance of many protestors led to an unspoken and uneasy truce. Political
and social rights were to remain diminished in exchange for economic growth to
preserve the Chinese way of life against outside interests.
The CCP declared democratic elections and campaigning to be
inefficient Western constructs that divert resources from developing the
economy to bureaucracy. Their existence relies on this basic premise of
developing the economy and share the success so people won’t ask for political
reform. So far so good.
Cultural memory not wiped, but a people living in fear
Some Chinese were able to circumvent the Great Firewall with VPNs, others via private family stories or friends explaining why Weibo posts need “manual review”.
The government has scripted language about June Fourth, censored mentions in media and textbooks. It should not have been surprising that those Chinese pedestrians were worried they would face retribution after appearing on international TV. After all, Xiao Bin was sentenced to 10 years in a labour camp for telling ABC News, thousands had died June Fourth.
Regardless of the excuses made by western media that the
pedestrians they interviewed would not be persecuted, how would we ever know? China
is increasingly tightening its grip on all aspects of society. Regardless of pedestrian
comment or silence, to appear in a foreign media interview about June Fourth
may set them up for surveillance or harassment.
The biased reporting shows what was already presumed: censorship
and surveillance are effective tools for authoritarian leaders, leading to
eye-capturing headlines for their western audiences.
New generations of Chinese writers who ventured abroad have opened up on events like Xinjiang, Tibet, and June Fourth in a second language, bridging the gap between the different perspectives. Many are eager to move beyond simplistic and repetitive descriptions of Chinese authoritarianism.
They challenge the world to look deeper, ask uncomfortable
questions and move forward.
The CCP’s Party-centric metaphysical view of reality: reality does
not exist except in the collective and immortal mind of the Party such that mutability
of the past leads to control of the present, could come straight from 1984.
What appears on the surface to be blind acceptance is actually
rule by fear and coercion.
From the moment that first bullet was fired 30 years ago, the Chinese
Communist Party’s regime’s legitimacy was compromised. Nothing can change that.
Deploying violence to supplant dialogue, justifying the deaths of innocent
civilians as collateral; no matter how expansive and encompassing the
propaganda machine and infiltration, the people of China should take refuge in
the knowledge that this too shall pass.
As Tolstoy noted, it takes only a single act of courage from one free thinking individual to create a ripple that becomes a tidal wave. The message of liberty carries universal appeal, and we should stand together against government attempts at oppression no matter where they happen to be. As the million civilians of Hong Kong are out in the streets protesting new Chinese extradition laws being pushed through, the world should not turn a blind eye to these small states, but stand resolute against tyranny and oppression in all its manifestations.