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?
Source: Tennis World USA
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?
The man to break the cyle? Source: FOX Sports Asia
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.
Anisimova is a rising star Source: Charlies Platiau/Reuters
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.
Left (Nigel Farage) Right (Jo Brand)
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?”
Fair point. If Farage had made a "joke"about throwing battery acid, there would be uproar. Jo Brand needs to apologise, at the very least. https://t.co/Xwv3Bsk3bF
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?
In 2012 Naomi Oni was attacked with sulphuric acid after being stalked through London by someone disguised in a niqab. In an online BBC 3 “Acid Attack: My Story”. Detailing the horrors of such an attack.
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?
Why did the BBC instantly sack Danny Baker for an offensive royal baby tweet but won’t sack Jo Brand for saying she’d like acid to be thrown at politicians?
He said: “Why did the BBC instantly sack Danny Baker for an offensive royal baby tweet, but won’t sack Jo Brand for saying she’d like acid to be thrown at politicians?”.
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.
Just got fired from @bbc5live. For the record – it was red sauce. Always.
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.”
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. pic.twitter.com/86cQGbAhDc
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
Ashley Judd’s case against Harvey Weinstein is ongoing and we intend to bring it to trial. She is not a party of any settlement.
Ashely Judd stating her non-involvement in the “agreed” proposed by Weinstein’s defence team.
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.
As Harvey Weinstein reaches $44m settlement over harassment lawsuits, lawyers say it sends a clear message that it’s ok to be a knob as long as you’re absolutely minted.
— Have I Got News For You (@haveigotnews) May 24, 2019
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.
Some of the many current concerns about what is still needed to be done with Grenfell Tower
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.
The remaining blaze of the Grenfell Tower fire, trying to be controlled by the fire services (Image PA)
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 London Fire Brigade in response to the Barking fires which occurred recently.
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.
2 years on from #GrenfellTower & the only thing thats changed is that Govt are cutting 15% from Firefighter budgets…We still have dozens of towers with the same cladding, no extra highrise ladders & cant deal with call volume – & no extra fire engines. https://t.co/gTFGUoE5e2
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.
Two years ago today was the worst preventable disaster seen in this country in modern times.
Justice still evades the 72 who were killed and many more who lost their homes.
Today we remember #GrenfellTower, stand in solidarity and say a tragedy like it must never happen again.
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.
An in depth exploration of Trump’s ‘America First’ policies and isolationism.
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’.
An in depth deconstruction of the financial loss incurred by stagnant tourism numbers in Los Angeles.
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.
another summary on the impact of earlier public statements issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry and its influence on tourism numbers.
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.’
me waiting for u to see the tweet so i can delete it bc now trump want to do background checks on social media to decide if people can get visas pic.twitter.com/d5NfdYFlQW
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?
Firefighters spraying water after the fire engulfed Grenfell Tower ( PA )
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.”
Final death toll: Just some of the victims who were killed in the Grenfell Tower blaze
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.
Cladding being removed from a high-rise after post-Grenfell testing (Image: PA)
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:
The bar graph posted on Reddit (Source: u/TrustLittleBrother)
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.
Leo and Camila (Source: Daily Mail)
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.
The Pussy Posse (Source: Esquire)
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).
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 10, 2019
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.”
— EveryLifeMatters Pro-life Northern Ireland (@RockofLifeNI) June 10, 2019
These figures are based on the Abortion Act 1967, declaring nine million lives have been lost to abortion.
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.
Jess Phillips MP another "feminist" who wants to decriminalise Abortion in #NorthernIreland which would lead to Gendercide. Speaks volumes ? What about the lives of the little females in the womb Jess, Do they not matter?#JeremyHunt#Not4NIhttps://t.co/x2lpXeLFwa
— EveryLifeMatters Pro-life Northern Ireland (@RockofLifeNI) June 10, 2019
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.
As we have been pulled from the @ShangrilaGlasto @GlastoFest line-up for promoting violence – if you have been sucked into the "publicity", give the video a watch for facts about the real violence in society inflicted by Tory policies….!! https://t.co/OW0L1RgQwE
— Shangri-La Glasto (@ShangrilaGlasto) June 2, 2019
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%.
Outrage as Killdren booked to perform song called "Kill Tory Scum" at #Glastonbury2019
Singing a song about killing politicians is more offensive than the estimated 130,000 people who have died in the last 9 years as a result of austerity.
Twitter User said: Singing a song about killing politicians is more offensive than the estimated 130,000 people who have died in the last 9 years as a result of austerity”.
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.
Russ (far left), Aith (middle), far right (Tion Wayne)
“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 Unknown Protester who stood in front of a column of tanks June 5TH 1989, the day after they had cleared Tiananmen Square
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.
Buoyant Chinese students protesting for more freedom, less corruption and democracy during the 6 week movement
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.
Medical Workers look on bodies of protesters from Tiananmen Square clashes
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 end is nigh, tanks and armoured vehicles enter Tiananmen Square
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.
Dual narratives: Chinese state circulated the young soldier beaten and burned to death instead of “Tank Man”
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.
Beijing residents surround army trucks to prevent them reaching the students in Tiananmen Square – the focal point for the resistance
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.
Government supporters try to drape Chairman Mao to protect him from further defacement
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.
The fleeing tank man, later detained and executed by state police
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.
The Goddess of Democracy in Tiananmen Square // Shelley Zang / The China Girls
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.
A lesbian couple have been attacked travelling home on the bus in London in the early hours of Thursday 30th May in West Hamstead. The two women, who had been heading home towards Camden, were both left hospitalised by four male attackers. They had been travelling on the top deck of the N31 bus, and there had been no other passengers aside from the couple and the group of men. Melania Geymonat and her girlfriend Chris were left covered in blood after refusing to kiss each other for the men’s entertainment.
Geymonat shared the details of the attack on her Facebook page, saying: “In an attempt to calm things down, I started making jokes. I thought this might make them go away. Chris even pretended she was sick, but they kept on harassing us, throwing us coins and becoming more enthusiastic about it.” This was a homophobic offence and was unprovoked by the couple. Geymonat, who is a flight attendant for Ryanair, described the assailants as “hooligans”. She has not been able to return to work since the attack, which occurred at 2:30am in the morning, and is still being treated for injuries sustained.
Geymonat, 28, who is
from Uruguay, recalled that three of the men spoke with British accents while
one spoke Spanish. She released this shocking picture on Facebook:
Melania and Chris on the night of the incident (Source: Melania Geymonat Facebook)
The air stewardess then went on to describe the attack further:
“The next thing I know is that
Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them. On an impulse, I went
over there only to find her face bleeding and three of them beating her up. The
next thing I know is I’m being punched. I got dizzy at the sight of my blood
and fell back. I don’t remember whether or not I lost consciousness. Suddenly
the bus had stopped, the police were there and I was bleeding all over. Our
stuff was stolen as well.”
Melania Geymonat ( Source: Daily Record)
June is the global Pride month, where members of
the LGBTQI+ community celebrate their identity in public events which aim to
include and educate. Pride in London will culminate this year on the 6th
July with this year’s parade. The event last year drew over 1 million partakers
and supporters. The attack calls into question how safe London really is for
gay people in public spaces. The LGBT charity Stonewall reports that “More
than a third of LGBT people (36 per cent) say they don’t feel comfortable walking
down the street while holding their partner’s hand”. These
findings are based on a YouGov poll of over 5000 LGBT people in Britain. Author
Stella Duffy tweeted suggesting that the attack signals why we still require
Pride in our seemingly modern and accepting Britain.
It's not fixed. It's NOT fine being gay. Yes, we need #Pride. We need Pride not appropriated by straight people coming to party. A Pride that is not about commercialism. Perhaps we need a Pride like the original Stonewall – a Pride where we fight back. https://t.co/UNsIYeX3ha
This attack is not only homophobic but misogynistic, showing
the endemic oversexualisation of lesbians in our society which prohibits gay
women from being able to pursue active, normal relationships in public. The
term ‘Lesbophobia’ has commonly been used to describe the phenomenon of Western’s
culture’s lack of acceptance when it comes to lesbian couples. Jane Czyzselska defined
the term in 2013, writing “Lesbophobia is homophobia with a side-order of
sexism. It’s homophobia directed particularly at lesbians. Underpinning it is
the belief that women should look and behave in specific ways – keep rules that
lesbians break simply by being.”
The attack signifies that six years later in 2019, we are no
closer to solving active discrimination against women simply for being in a relationship
with each other. Under a patriarchal society, relationships which not only forgo
heteronormative ideals, but exclude the necessity of a man to exist, are pushed
out unless forced to become sexualised for the pleasure of men.
Sadiq Khan has stated that “This was a disgusting, misogynistic
attack. Hate crimes against the LGBT+ community will not be tolerated in London”.
The BBC reports
that “Siwan Hayward, director of compliance, policing and
on-street services at Transport for London, described the assault as ‘sickening’
and ‘utterly unacceptable’, adding that ‘homophobic behaviour and abuse is a
hate crime and won’t be tolerated on our network’.” It is with hope that
the perpetrators of this disgusting hate crime can be found.
This was a disgusting, misogynistic attack. Hate crimes against the LGBT+ community will not be tolerated in London.
Nike has now placed plus size mannequins in their stores in an attempt to reflect the diversity in body types in modern society.
These plus-size mannequins have also appeared in other major retailers such as Debenhams.
Finally paving the way for inclusivity, and celebrating a more realistic and attainable body type, this representation allows young girls and women to feel more at home whilst shopping.
Plus size mannequins in Nike
Nike said in a press release:
“To celebrate the diversity and inclusivity of sport, the space will not just celebrate local elite and grassroots athletes through visual content, but also show Nike plus size and para-sport mannequins for the first time on a retail space.”
In a society deemed as “fatphobic”, one that promotes unrealistic body types, the plus size mannequins are aiming to bring about a change in how we view our world. The western world prioritises and exonerates ‘ultra-thinness’ as the ideal. We can now change from a skinny lens to a larger lense as we think more about the range of female body types.
In 2018 clothing brand Missguided also unveiled mannequins of different ethnicities as well as ones with stretch marks and vitiligo. Nike is not the first brand to use more realistic mannequins.
Plus size Model Ashley Graham has paved the way for other plus sized models
The Social Justice Struggle
As millennials are uncovering social justice issues, Nike has proven itself to be an ethical, moral and empathetic company. The plus-sized mannequins are now becoming a long admirable list proving Nike’s contribution and commitment to the betterment of society.
From Colin Kaepernick protesting the American flag, in relation to the black lives lost, to Raheem Sterling and his racist encounters on and off the football pitch and the female struggles.
Nike remains a leading figurehead in the call for equality, however, this proliferation of the struggle comes at a cost. The cost being monetary gain to the capitalist companies. If the struggles were not profitable these companies would not bring it to their shops.
Manchester City Footballer Raheem Sterling “Speaking up doesn’t always make life easier. But easy never changed anything.”
Issues surrounding body size have increasingly become higher in market value, and companies have latched onto what is currently making money.
The companies are bowing to consumer demands and social justice warriors who, at the swipe of their fingertips, are able to call out the illegitimacy of actions or lack there of, of these companies.
A Change in Tactic?
Once upon a time ago, companies did not speak outwardly about such issues, as it was not in their profit model. Now it has become a part of the profit model.
What has changed? The economic totem pole has swung in favour of those who call out social justice issues.
Monetizing social justice movements has proven to be an incredibly lucrative market. Even Caster Semenya has joined the new roster of athletes working with companies on socio-political hot topics.
The Resistance of body shapes has been consequently transformed into another predictable and banal consumable, producing hypercommodified, augmented meanings far divorced from the original dissent. Said meanings are projected onto products and transformed into a fashion.
Once transformed into fashion, the political strength and social movements illustrate how late capitalism has rendered it meaningless through the ever-present commodification.
It is through this that Bell Hooks, argues that commodification depoliticizes and strips the political integrity and meaning, making it no longer possible to serve as a catalyst for concrete political action, as typical consumers may ignore political messages, said messages are reduced to catchy self-help slogans. This serves to continue the addictive illusion of a resistance that is proposed successful, all while the hegemonic control continues unabated.
Bell Hooks, feminist thought leader, feminist icon and black activis
Companies that remain out of the realm of social justice issues perhaps are positive, as they remain true to the profit model. As opposed to companies who genuinely do not hold the truest sentiments of social justice movements.
Grass root movements such as the celebration of women’s differing body shapes must remain a grass root movement and not be swallowed up by the juggernaut machines who then (through the mainstream) control all narratives.
Business is business, perhaps businesses are moving into a more ethical and moral wave, let us see when the social justice issues no longer make a profit will they drop it as quickly as they picked it up?
A man setting himself on fire in the streets of Tunisia ignited the spark of rebellion against oppressive regimes. Since then, protests against repressive and exploitative governments across the Arab world have continued to pull the attention from across the globe. Time and time again we are learning that citizens of the Arab world are not passive victims but active agents of their own emancipation.
Sudan is no different.
Our screens over the past couple weeks have been flooded with news and information about the current situation of Sudan.
What Happened?
Omar Al-Bashir, the dictator of Sudan since 1989 was finally overthrown after many economic hardships particularly during the last few years. Since December, the government has made many cuts to bread and fuel, allegedly stopped people from withdrawing money from their accounts and have been hiking up the price of food and other goods. Bread, to name one commodity, is now three times the price it was last year.
Following closely to the stepping down of Al-Bashir, people rejoiced at what seemed to be the start of something new. Feelings of freedom from a repressive regime encouraged singing amongst the masses and brought life to art expressing feelings of relief. The citizens of Sudan since then have been creating manifestos on women’s rights, media freedom and most importantly justice on a social and political level for all.
Sudan’s President was overthrown by the military council which promised to, gradually in two to three years, transition from the dictatorial state to a democracy whilst a new leader was being elected, thereby letting the country slowly come under civilian rule. This would allow time to disentangle the old government and the political network.
Broken Promises
#SudanUprising#SudanMassacre The cynicism of al-Burhan’s offer to resume negotiations is breathtaking. It’s simply a PR stunt for purposes of seeming to respond to int’l calls for such. Such calls, without clear stipulations of civilian control of governance, are badly misguided pic.twitter.com/cWyzNmRwTL
However, after Bashir stepped down, then re-emerged the old politics of Sudan. It’s parties and personalities that were once oppressed under the dictatorship came back, wanting to be represented in the new nation.
Soon after these promises by the transitional government, the three-year agreement was scrapped and now new elections are due in 9 months. A former British ambassador suggests this election will pave way for old regime to be largely reintroduced as there hasn’t been enough time to properly introduce new ideologies into the government
This lead to
peaceful revolutionary protests commencing around the capital.
And everything WAS
peaceful. Until the 3rd of June.
My sister called me from sudan telling me that she’s been hearing gunshots all day in kafouri. Please be safe & please pray for my family, I have friends I can’t reach and idk if they’re okay and all I can do is pray so please just pray and keep raising awareness.#Sudan_Massacre
RSF militia
‘janaweed’ (the military security forces) violently began attacking and
shooting peaceful demonstrators outside their headquarters during the holy
month of Ramadan.
Amnesty International has also enclosed that they have
disturbing evidence and satellite imagery showing Sudanese government forces
including the RSF and allied militias committing war crimes and violating the
laws of International Human Rights. In the past two weeks the death toll has
risen to more than 100 people with 650+ injured and several reported rapes.
In the attempt to conceal many deaths more than 40 bodies
have been found in the Nile river and the government has admitted to at least
60 of the murders. In addition to this, 45 villages have already been partially
destroyed
It has been a horrifying massacre to witness. And nobody knows
when this will end.
Putting aside the physical violation and merciless genocides is the fact that the citizens have been let down once again. Revolutionaries have been traumatised and many of them are now hiding out in order to be out of the path of the wrath of corrupt officials. Individualistically minded, the military elite’s priorities will always lie with power and privilege and because of this there is a deep sense of alienation from rulers.
And what is left is betrayal and blood.
Moreover, the Sudanese ‘government’ is still attempting to block out the internet and censor the media so that we can’t figure out all of what is going on.
But we know. And we need to show them that we know
What are we doing?
As of now many nations are doing nothing. This is very upsetting considering that Sudan was the first and only country to allow Syrian refugees in without the need of paperwork and treated them as part of the society. We have not, as of yet, seen any Arab state provide much support, although on the 14th of this month, Arab leaders have been seeking a diplomatic solution to the political crisis.
The African Union understandably has suspended Sudan’s
membership with immediate effect but we still wait for them to intervene in
some way to help the innocent and help stop these atrocities.
However, in order to raise awareness, we have been painting the internet blue.
Why are people turning their profile pictures blue?
Across all social media feeds such as Twitter and Instagram
people have been turning their screens blue. This is in order to raise
awareness about the crisis in Sudan and to show that we are listening and that
we care.
We want the governments around the world to put as much energy into this as they did for “that empty building in France” (referral to the $1 billion governments raised for Notre Dame, which was damaged by fire a couple months back).
The blue is because Mohammed Hashim Mattar, a peaceful
revolutionary was gunned down by the military last week. His favourite colour
was indigo blue and ever since then it has become an emblem of pro-democracy.
There have also been many appeals to give money to the
cause. Giving money to UNICEF, or save the children, contact local congresses
and MPs. Signing petitions on Facebook campaign groups or change.org.
Change will not happen if we are not all active in this
cause. We have proven that when we come together we can pull the attention of
the world and inspire change
Because repression isn’t indefinite. And this isn’t the end of a revolution.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Bell-hooks-1988-BWPhoto-590029f75f9b581d5915e277.jpg)
