Home Blog Page 68

2019 NBA All-Star Starters: How the fans, players and media voted

0

The 68th annual NBA All-Star Game is fast approaching – there’s a new star in the West, and some surprising observations across the board from this years voting.

The 2019 NBA All-Star starters have been announced this week with the Western Conference leading with LA Lakers’ LeBron James (captain), Golden State Warriors’ Steph Curry & Kevin Durant, Houston Rockets’ James Harden and OKC’s, Paul George. Some interesting observations can be made from the players votes, notably, Steph Curry edging out James Harden in the backcourt – Curry receiving 161 votes to Harden’s 153. Curry also received nearly a million more fan votes than Harden.

Luka Dončić was second highest overall in the fan vote with around four million votes in the Western Conference, however, he didn’t get a starting place due to low media and player votes. If Ben Simmons wasn’t able to get an All-Star spot last year with his rookie performance, Luka’s inclusion is questionable – even with his massive European fan base. If the fan vote was the final decider, though, the likes of Luka Dončić, and veteran’s Wade and D-Rose would have all possibly been starters. Derrick Rose has had a resurgence in his performances this season with the Timberwolves, but whether that’s deemed All-Star worthy is debatable.

Anthony Davis also missed out on a starting position as the media and players votes placed him third on the front-court starters, but the fan vote ultimately saw Paul George get the spot in the tiebreaker. Not all is lost, though, as Davis will surely be one of the first players picked by either captain due to the superstar ability we’ve seen from him night in night out since he’s come into the league.

Eastern and Western Conference starters revealed

For the Eastern Conference, we have Milwaukee Bucks, Giannis Antetokounmpo leading (captain), Boston Celtics Kyrie Irving, Toronto Raptors Kawhi Leonard, Philadelphia 76ers’ Joel Embiid and Charlotte Hornets very own star man Kemba Walker!

With LeBron leaving the Eastern Conference and heading westward, the next expected captain would have certainly been Kyrie Irving. However, Kyrie has been berated for not possessing the leadership quality he thought he had when he joined the Celtics, as his team still struggle to stake their claim as worthy championship contenders.

It seems amongst fans that Giannis is a more exciting prospect to watch, receiving nearly half a million more votes than Kyrie. Can we be too surprised, though, with his incredible athletic ability in relation to floor coverage, dunking, defending and ease of scoring? Giannis has been constantly building upon his previous years, and is somewhat now starting to shoot more confidently – his rise to stardom is well deserved.

Since the NBA All Star Game will be held in Charlotte this year, fans will be ecstatic that they’ll have their own representative in Kemba Walker. This will be sure to put to ease any trading rumours surrounding him, as Walker enters into free agency this summer.

Based on these starters alone it’s fair to say that the West is still as stacked as ever, having four of possibly the top five players, if not top ten, in the whole league.

The All-Star Game is shaping up pretty nicely with these team selections. Steph and LeBron on the same team, and defensive juggernauts in Leonard and Embiid on the other. Now we await the live televised team selections by each captain to see the final match up for the 68th NBA All-Star Game. The captains will draft 8 players each from the Starter Pool in the first round and then 14 players from the Reserves Pool in the second round. Positions or conference affiliations won’t matter with the picks that the captains make. This All-Star game is geared to be a thrilling one!

The 2019 All-Star Game will take place in the Spectrum Centre, Charlotte on the 17th February 2019, coverage on TNT from 7PM (ET).

Keep updated with TCS for more sports news.

The Red Menace

You’d imagine I’m going to be discussing the return of Darth Maul from Star Wars, and for the new threat that has sprung from relative anonymity, you’d be forgiven for thinking so. Except that I’m referring to the Red Dawn that has befallen Congress. 

The new representative of New York’s 14th district, at 29 years old, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the youngest women ever elected to the House. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Eighteenth months ago, she was working as a waitress, and beat her big spending – 15:1 – opponent in the race to the House of Representatives. NBC News reported Cortez earned support from 78 per cent of voters. 

Miss Cortez identifies problems in American society that need addressing, particularly the need to transition energy dependency, bankrupting medical fees, inequality and access to resources from inflated asset prices.

These are not particularly novel. It’s her panacea solutions by adding greater government intervention to address them at a time when debt is at precipitous levels that smacks of irresponsibility and naivety.

When politics is concerned, the well-intentioned often do more harm than good. Especially when they go in with the bull in the china shop attitude.

Don’t be fooled by her amicable and empathetic appeal – she is a danger to herself, her district and to America

When mainstream policies flop, and we enter periods of crisis as England did with the rise of right-wing nationalism leading to the rise of UKIP and thereafter Brexit. 

People look for scapegoats and fringe solutions. Cortez fills these voids.

It’s like the mob in The Dark Knight turning to The Joker when they were pressed with their backs against the wall and nowhere to turn.

As Alfred sagaciously admonished Bruce Wayne for pressing on the jugular, “And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand.”

Statism – Policies so good, they must be mandatory

Miss Cortez believes there is no problem a government programme can’t solve. Got healthcare issues? Medicare for all. 

Want college? Free tuition 

Global Warming? Try her “green-infrastructure” programme. 

Need a job? How does job guarantee become you? 

You may be wondering how she is intending on affording all these policies. Fear not! She has just the solution up her sleeve. 

Tax the rich – Squeeze them until the pips squeak!

A Green New Deal with measures such as 70% income taxes on the super-rich. 

It may only apply to those with more than $10 million a year in earnings, so most people would naturally be for it. Who needs that kind of money, right? 

Trouble is, many of these individuals already pay their share of taxes on their incomes, and this proposal would make New York’s high earners pay an effective rate of 85%. For those who are creating the companies and jobs that employee much of the country’s private sector employees, it rather smacks of biting the hand that feeds you. Not to mention this bracket of individuals already pays the lion’s share of the overall tax revenues.

It overlooks well established concepts of brain-drains, incentives to earn and work harder if you can keep more of your spoils, and the fact that much of the income and wealth is within companies that lobby the government for tax breaks and engage in clever accounting practices to boot.

This comes as rather puzzling from an economics student from the University of Boston.

As for the sober observers, an array of shaking head, disbelief or disdain, but many would rightly be concerned.

For those who call it “crazy”, “delusional” or state “it will never pass”, only need look to the pages of history to see how quickly order can descend into chaos. Crazy schemes have an uncanny old way of becoming le cri du jour.

When existing laws of the land oversee bankruptcy and chaos, people turn to more absurd ideas. 

The first New Deal passed when Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered a campaign for change in 1932’s elections. A reshuffling of the deck carries metaphor of resetting the playing field for your average Joe to get back on their feet after the Great Depression. An  enticing proposal for the desperation imbued in American at the time.

He pulled the aces out in set in motion a series of costly programmes. 

While Cortez’ programmes may seem loopy today in the shining bastion of the free world, when the next crisis hits, people will suddenly perk up and take notice. 

Financial disaster will see discredited Republicans replaced by radical Democrats elected to office throughout the states. 

It won’t matter that economists point out the dangers of 70% marginal rates on the rich will backfire spectacularly. Producing less income, not more for everybody. 

The masses won’t care as they turn out in their droves, eager to punish the rich, not just exploit them. 

The masses will want simple quick-fire solutions. Where Donald Trump promised the American people easily digestible, punchy slogans from his political speech writers in ‘drain the swamp’, ‘MAGA’ ‘crooked Hillary or little Marco’; Cortez has her versions of socialist rhetoric to hand too. 

From what I’ve seen Miss Cortez was a competent bartender. 

Too bad, America’s lost a capable waitress and gained another delusional, incompetent, and menacing member of Congress. 

What the other side says

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a powerful, driven woman as a figurehead to drive female representation in politics and push back the crony corporatism that wraps its ugly head around the annals of power. The disdain endemic in the incumbent political realm has outraged and dispirited in equal measure millions of Americans. ACO represents a glimmer of hope for these people. For those who said she edged in her wins fail to suitably credit her. It is not just her mixed-race, working-class background or the trials and tribulations she has had to overcome along the way.

The steamroller victories on her journey into Congress have inspired many, endorsing her as a role model for accomplishing that which thought impossible.

And she breaths a new breath of life into those disenfranchised, those forgotten, those who suffer from underinsurance, underbanked or overlooked in favour of outsourcing. The dark underbelly of the American dream that fails so many.  

Are unsympathetic doctors to blame for low smear test turnout?

0

With the number of cervical screening tests (or ‘smear tests’) being carried out reaching a twenty-year low in the UK, a lot is being done to break down the barriers patients face to access the essential service. But are we falling short when it comes to supporting victims of sexual assault and rape?

This week saw Chloe Delevingne, co-founder of the Gynaecological Cancer Fund, had a smear test live on BBC show ‘Victoria Derbyshire’ to combat the fears that many people have concerning smear tests. Prime Minister Theresa May also spoke candidly about the importance of smear tests on BBC’s Prime Minister’s Questions this week, and whilst both women are likely to have encouraged thousands of women to book their smear tests, there are still many other barriers to overcome. Perhaps the most important is the barrier that sexual assault and rape victims face in accessing reproductive healthcare.

Chloe Delevingne having a smear test, BBC ‘Victoria Derbyshire’

Despite every eligible person (except trans men, who have to opt in to the service) between the ages of 25-49 being invited to a test every three years (and every five years for those older than 49), 1 in 4 skip their screenings. The UK’s leading cervical cancer researchers, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, revealed ground breaking research on non-attenders this week. The reports show that 75% of those eligible who do not attend their smear tests do so because it makes them feel vulnerable, with 67% claiming that the lack of control they experience during a smear test is enough to stop them from attending.

In the UK, where 1 in 5 women have been sexually assaulted past the age of 16, these statistics begin to make a bit more sense. Vulnerability and lack of control, whilst not indicating sexual assault themselves, can be just a couple of the long-term mental effects that sexual assault or rape can have on an individual. Smear tests, which are invasive but essential vaginal procedures in which a speculum is inserted in the vagina and cells are collected to determine if there are any cancerous or pre-cancerous cells present, can produce a triggering effect to the patient, causing panic, fear and trauma.

Photo courtesy of Louis Reed, Unsplash

These tests can be lifesaving, and there is no question that they should be carried out. But if this is the case, then medical professionals carrying out these tests need to be prepared to combat these feelings and take every step to comfort the patient. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

“I booked a double appointment for my smear test, so that I could discuss my past sexual trauma with my doctor.” Sophie*, a 44-year-old mother of two told me during a telephone conversation.

“The first thing she said when she sat me down and looked over my notes was ‘it’s been ten years since your last test, glad you could finally fit us into your busy schedule’. I broke into tears right there and then. She simply gave me a tissue, told me to relax as it ‘isn’t that scary’, and pulled the curtain around me so that I could get undressed. I was frozen, numb, and so angry that I didn’t even get a chance to discuss my trauma. It took me five minutes to get my trousers off.”

Most practices recommend having a chaperone for support when attending a smear test, and will often provide chaperones of the same sex whenever requested. Currently, it is not clear how much training in dealing with sexual assault survivors that those carrying out smear tests must undertake, a fact that can be unnerving to those still dealing with the trauma of this type of assault.

“I sobbed into my hands as she placed my legs into the stirrups. When she told me that the speculum was about to go in, I went into a full panic and started thrashing around.” Sophie explains. “It was awful, and I feel so embarrassed thinking about it… but the situation was so horrible and brought back so many traumatic moments in my life. I couldn’t help it.”

“She became a lot more compassionate after that, and we booked another appointment for me to come back. I didn’t attend that appointment, and now I’m even more terrified of going back.”

Sophie’s story is not an isolated case, as a quick search on line will find hundreds of similar tales in a plethora of different forums, but it is also not true for everyone. For every negative story, there are five positive stories of supportive and helpful medical professionals.

But until every person carrying out a smear test is well informed about the difficulties that sexual assault victims experience during the procedure, then it is very possible that the statistics will never improve.

*names have been changed to protect Sophie’s identity

Rape Crisis Helpline: 0808 802 9999 (12-2:30 and 7-9:30) rapecrisis.org.uk

Cervical cancer prevention week campaign, by Jo’s Trust UK

Kamala Harris announces she is running for President in 2020: What do we know?

0

On Martin Luther King Junior Day, Kamala Harris announced she’ll be running against Donald Trump in the 2020 US Presidential election. Aside from her announcement making history, is she America’s saving grace?

Kamala Harris, Californian Democratic Senator, announced that she would be running for the 2020 presidential election, essentially making history by being the first African-American woman to enter the race for the presidential seat at the White House; cleverly making this announcement on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Who is Kamala Harris?

 Kamala Harris has been serving as the junior US Senator for California since 2017. Between 2004 and 2010, she served as District Attorney of San Francisco, then between 2011 and 2017, she served as the 32nd Attorney General in California. Harris, who is currently the only black woman in Senate, conjured popularity throughout her peers for her rigid interrogation of Trump nominees, including Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and Jeff Sessions, former Attorney General. “She’s also known as being a tough critic of President Trump’s immigration policies and has pushed for policies to protect immigrants from deportation”. Currently being the only black female with a seat in the upper chamber.

According to Politico, a recent poll showed that 53% of voters had never previously heard of Kamala Harris, yet she proposes compelling solutions to issues facing the Democratic Party. Harris’ positions are often anti-extremist. She enjoys the chance to discuss how her “civil rights activist” family were shocked when she chose become a prosecutor. As opposed to attempt to resist America’s affection for law and government. Harris is attempting to reshape that intuition, turning from ‘tough on crime” to “smart on crime”, the title of her 2009 book. The Guardian however, reports Harris as a leader “whose success inspires young women of colour”, which brings rise to the first criticism of her nomination: society is excited because she is black.

Many people hold the view that Harris will be the next Barack Obama – whether that’s even a good things a whole other discussion. Holly Thomas at CNN reports: “There are similarities between Harris and Obama, to be sure. Both are Democrats, both have a background in law, both have a mixed-race background. There is an obvious convenience to the comparison. It neatly captures the public imagination at a time when Harris is yet to be world famous, but is charismatic, on the rise and prepared to challenge President Donald Trump, while Obama’s name continues to conjure a nostalgic, anti-Trump emotion.” Thomas calls for people to look beyond the “superficial”  for advocating Kamala and identify with the differences between Obama and Harris as political beings. Taking the prison system for example: though Obama was against mass incarceration, he did not prioritise prison reform, to Harris, it is of the greatest concern.

In addition, a few Democrats are sceptical of Harris due to her previous record as a prosecutor. After Democrats grasped “tough on crime” strategies that inflated jail populations, progressive activists are pushing to make the criminal equity framework “less punitive and racist”. Though she argues that her “views align with the new progressive movement”, according to Vox.com, her record in California, where she was a prosecutor, district attorney, and state attorney general before representing the state in the US Senate, is likely to come in for harsh scrutiny and debate in the coming months. Harris argues that she’s “fought to reverse incarceration, scale back the war on drugs, and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system.”  


Either way, it’s too soon to make a concrete decision on whether Harris is America’s saving grace or whether she’ll dig a deeper hole for  and already socio-politically sensitive country. 

6/10 The Cost of Artistry | Jamal Gerald

In a time where crime in our capital is at an all-time high, the narrative we often see in the mainstream media is that people of colour, (particularly black men) are using violence to channel their pain.

This is only part of the story. There is a growing group of BAME men and women, using their experiences to inform their art. 

In our 10 part feature, we meet some of these artists. These artists are swimming against the tide, creating a lane for themselves.  They talk to us about the Cost of Artistry.

6/10 meet Jamal Gerald

When did you discover you had a “talent”?

I competed in my first poetry slam when I was 13. It was Voices of New Generation which was run by Leeds Young Authors. It’s a poetry slam festival for teams. I used to take part in things just to be in the centre of attention, but then I realised that it was something I was quite good at. So, I kept on doing it.

What have you had to sacrifice to nurture your talent?

Hmmm. I personally don’t feel like I’ve had to sacrifice anything. Because I always wanted to nurture my talent. I’m not really good at many other things, trust me, the amount of jobs I’ve applied for and nothing. One thing I might have had to sacrifice is not always having money in my account. Ha! Coming to terms with the reality that working in the arts isn’t really sustainable financially. But, I’m still happy to do what I love.

Who inspires your artistry?

Prince
Danez Smith
Tim Miller
Freddie Mercury
Selina Thompson
Kendrick Lamar
Scottee
Zodwa Nyoni

What is the biggest misconception people have about poets?

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that poets are cry babies.

In an age where digital echo chambers are growing wider, what role do you think poetry can play in this?

Poetry could continue to be used as a tool to convey any type of message. It’ll be nice to continue see and hear poetry elsewhere, besides the page and the stage.

Some poets claim that a poem is like a living creature: once it’s out there is not much you can do to ‘correct’ or ‘improve’ it, while others edit meticulously, not leaving much from the original, draft form. What is your take on it?

I think with a lot of work, you could always edit it whenever you want to. No matter if it’s out there or not. I think even if a work of mine is out in the world, either published or on film, and I wanted to change it, I could, especially since it’s my work.
I don’t think work should automatically be done just because it’s been published or filmed. That’s boring and limiting to me.

How do you define success?

Being happy with where you’re at. I find it hard to label myself as ‘successful’. Even though, I’ve done quite a bit. I just feel the need to constantly outdo myself and to do more. But, I’m trying to celebrate the things that I’ve accomplished. And once you can get to that point, I feel that’s where you could define it as success.

Do you ever regret sharing your work publicly? Do you trust the reader in a world of instant gratification and instant communication?

No, I don’t regret it. People respond to my work however they want to. If they love it, great! If they hate it, great!

Jamal’s new show ‘Idol’ is premiering at Transform Festival in Leeds in Spring 2019. The dates of the festival are 26th April – 4th May.

www.jamalgerald.com

That 70s Excuse – Football’s Apathy in the Face of Racial Adversity

Kalidou Koulibaly’s failed appeal against his controversial red card is just the latest in a recent series of footballing brushes with racism.

There was a moment during the 2018 World Cup where England seemed different. It wasn’t the unusually extended heat wave the nation was experiencing, nor the team’s great performances at the tournament. No, this specifically was a difference in feeling towards the England team. A feeling, that for 2 weeks, everyone seemed to put all their differences and political discord aside in a unified show of support for the national side not seen since the 90s. Football commentators were (rightly) keen to point out how this young and diverse team were the perfect representation of modern Britain. Their success was seen as a triumph of multiculturalism in uncertain political times – even the tabloids put the knives normally aimed at Raheem Sterling away for once. Racism in English football was no more.

Fast forward to December and the picture looked far less rosy. All within a month of one another, a Tottenham supporter threw a banana skin at Arsenal’s Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Raheem Sterling was racially abused at Stamford Bridge and a further set of Chelsea fans were suspected of performing anti-Semitic chants during a Europa League game. UEFA have now charged these Chelsea fans, but the Italian Football Federation (IFF) were not so generous last week, when they confirmed the rejection of Napoli’s appeal against Koulibaly’s red card that he received for protesting against racist abuse in their 1-0 defeat to Inter Milan on 26 December. The vast majority of the football world has been quick to condemn all of these actions and, in particular, come out in support of Sterling, who has faced his own personal battles against systemic racism for years. One common thread between almost all these responses, however, is a refusal to confront racism’s place in football; English football in particular. The events were dismissed with assertions that they were ‘like something from the 1970s,’ that had ‘no place in the modern game;’ nothing more than isolated incidents which had been left behind by all, both in football and wider society.

This misses the point entirely. While we may no longer be readily accustomed to witnessing this kind of abuse every week, it doesn’t mean that these views have disappeared entirely. Football matches exist in a microcosm, where behaviour that would not be tolerated anywhere else is not only accepted, but actively encouraged. Yes, all fans know that racist abuse will result in a lifetime ban and likely conviction, but when tens of thousands of people are all screaming in unified rage week in week out, some masks inevitably drop and their prejudices manage to slip out. It is no coincidence that there are still no openly gay footballers in the English Football League. Football may be a facilitator for some of these views, but the problems go far deeper.

In an interview with the BBC, Ben Holman, of the anti-racism charity, Show Racism the Red Card, had this to say:

“Racism isn’t a problem intrinsic to football. These fans are at a football match for two hours a week, but for the other 166 are members of society, taking the bus, going to work.”

Source: BBC Sport

This hits every nail on the head. Pundits and journalists cannot expect these incidents to vanish from football, until systemic racism and casual prejudice are addressed in the wider British conversation. A conversation where almost 50% of the FTSE 100 still have no non-white board members; a culture in which black citizens are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts; and a footballing dialogue where Paul Pogba and Raheem Sterling are treated by their own, media-specified standards. While admittedly taking place overseas, Koulibaly’s failed appeal represents the apex of this issue. It clearly demonstrates an official view of total apathy and sets the precedent that a few ‘bad apples’ are nothing for any governing body to be concerned about in a wider context. Napoli’s passionate club statement on the matter reaffirms this point.

The banana skin throwing Tottenham fan and anti-Semitic Chelsea supporters won’t behave like that in all walks of life, but they might engage in casually prejudice ‘banter’ after the game. I’m sure certain pundits would refute any suggestion that they could possibly be racist, and yet they’ll continue to belittle Pogba regarding how he decides to live his life as a young, black footballer. Many simply don’t take these things seriously and until that passive culture changes, football will continue to be undermined. If the World Cup really was a triumph of multiculturalism, then the months since have been damning indictment of how far modern society still needs to come.

Social Media’s Positive Impact on Youth Violence and Gang Culture: A Dismissed Apparatus for Improvement

As violent crime in the capital continues to rise, authorities struggle to find substantive solutions to these tensions. Is social media paving the way for positive influence and transformation within society?  

In the midst of an age where youth violence and gang culture is supposedly said to be becoming digitised, social media is often portrayed as a tool for glamourising and romanticising gang culture and success through illegitimate means. However,  it is also this perception that dismisses its potential to act as a tool of empowerment and advancement for those vulnerable to gangs and violent crime.

Not only did 2018 see a devastating number of stabbings and gun related deaths and injuries, a toll reaching 153 in London (Met Police Statistics), but it also saw the government fruitlessly try and pin the blame on social media. As violent crime continued to spiral, the government made moves towards censoring and further criminalising drill music on Youtube and other social media sites. However, a countering trend, especially within London, has been the creation of YouTube short films meant to portray the struggles of living within the midst of areas susceptible to gang activity and violence; The most notable of which, “Shiro’s story” and “Amani” both star Joivan Wade, a Lewisham born actor who used Youtube as an apparatus to propel himself into the film industry. This conceptualises social media within a new light – is it the demonised entity that it is described to be? Or can social media sites, such as YouTube, positively impact the rise in violent crime? 

AMANI | Short Film (2019) – Based On A True Story

I interviewed ‘D’, a young woman from Birmingham, who grew up surrounded by violent crime and gang culture, to seek and express the opinion of those on the frontline of the crisis – those that are often neglected in policy making. Much of the legislation created in the attempt to stop the rise of violent crime and gang culture, for example the criminalisation of drill music, has been by those in power who have never experienced it first hand. If we want to gain a productive insight for shaping future policy, we must focus on the grassroots. For privacy reasons, names have been changed to keep identities anonymous. 

When asked about the role of social media, D expressed “cynicism”, especially due to the use of media platforms to spread illegitimate activity even more ferociously than before. For example, Snapchat and Facebook have had several instances where they could actively, and rightly, be accused of inciting trouble, as seen through the sale of acid prior to Notting Hill Carnival in 2017 on snapchat. During the 2011 Riots, Facebook and BBM was censored by the government due to its pivotal role in aiding the riots to spread. We see a new manifestation of violence as a result of the rise of technology – violence now is much more difficult to regulate. Regulation often means violation of data policy, causing a paradox of moral hierarchy between privacy or prevention of violence. However, we must remember that this isn’t just monopolised to crime, with the global tech revolution that occurred in the last three decades, it has caused a widespread compression of time and space, making beliefs in general easier to spread, not just negative notions such as violence.

Regardless of these negative effects, D was quick to recognise the potential for a positive impact outweighing the dangers of social media. Social media platforms provide opportunities that extend past those that are offered by formal institutions and thus often override the formal biases that face many that are vulnerable to gang culture and violent crime. Institutionalised racism and classism is easier overcome within the realm of the internet, especially with the rising popularity of crowd funding sites, such as “Gofundme” providing an alternative to traditional financial structures. These positives further extend to social aspects of gang culture, with D arguing:  “Although everyone watches YouTube for entertainment, short films such as “Shiro’s Story” makes teenagers realise how far people can really go to obtain and sustain their status. It allows viewers to analyse the gang culture and lifestyle from an exterior perspective whilst relating to producers coming form similar [socio-economic] backgrounds to them”. There is thus an opportunity to relate to those behind the film. Social media in general is a platform which allows people to identify the goals and successes they want to achieve, and in the process also identify role models that people may to aspire to be.

With such under representation of ethnic minorities in industries such as law, finance and medicine coinciding with the over representation of them within the criminal justice system, it is easy for young ethnic minority kids, already statistically more at risk of gang recruitment in comparison to their white counterparts, to get caught up in a self fulfilling prophecy. This further is reinforced by stereotypes held in other formal societal institutions. Yet, social media provides a window to see those such as John Boyega, Joivan Wade, and Stormzy as positive role models that found success through pursuing legitimate means, with the latter of which providing a joint scholarship programme for Cambridge University. Stormzy, at his book launch in the Barbican in 2018, in fact urged youths “Don’t think because you come from a certain community that studying at one of the highest education institutions in the world isn’t possible.” The role of social media platforms such as YouTube in assisting Stormzy’s widespread success is un-ignorable, and thus cannot be dismissed in playing a role to social initiatives widening prospectives and opportunities for those coming from deprived communities. 

What my interview with D essentially suggested was that whilst social media is still used as a tool to instigate drama, we cannot eradicate it as a positive apparatus in slowly implementing change. Instagram, for example, has created a platform in which organisations such as 4mation campaign were able to materialise to connect to youths nationally. Social media is not only a platform for the advancement of youths that have limited access to formal institutions that drive success, but it is a platform which is used to unite. We cannot rely on policy change within the government to implement change when those that are most affected are those that have the most strained relationship with governmental powers. Social media allows change from the bottom up, a strategy that looks to be the most realistic in stopping youth violence and gang crime. 

The Re-Emergence of Coercive Conversion: The Right to (No) Religious Freedom

Following the year anniversary of the death of Ji-In Gu, the conversation surrounding coercive conversion taking place in South Korea has brought a new wave of outrage to the human rights violations of the Christian Council of Korea (CCK). Gu was murdered by her parents after protesting against the ‘cult like’ methods of the CCK in 2018, whilst the conversion programmes continue with little legal opposition. 

Coercive conversion is by no means a new problem, nor only confined to Korea. According to the Office of Social Justice, nearly five million Syrians have fled religious persecution from ISIS, whilst the muslims of Myanmar have been stripped of all citizen rights and forced into camps for not adhering to Buddhism as the majority religion. However, Korea is an anomaly due to its status as a highly respected democratic and constitutional state. Yet despite this, Korean authorities continue to dismiss it as an issue consistent with family matters, rather than matters appropriate for governmental action.

Coercive conversion, according to the End Coercive Conversion organisation, means to force someone to change their original religion to another against their will, with techniques including kidnapping and assault. Within Korea, this is encouraged by the CCK, a protestant organisation adopting cult-like ways of gaining members. With a $10,000 ‘thankful offering’ to cover the expenses of the conversion, and the targeting of whole families, the CCK can claim that it is all a voluntary process instigated by the families themselves and thus avoid legal prosecution.

The dark reality of the situation contrasts unimaginably to this perception. “Conversion education agreements” are written by force whilst those they are converting are kept in confinement. This conversion education is an essentially a process of radicalisation which had ended in the death of both Ji-In Gu, as well as the death of another woman in 2007, who’s ex husband murdered her with a hammer after she refused to convert. It encourages families to abduct other relatives so to confine them within their facilities until conversion is complete. Gu was abducted for 44 days in 2016 before escaping and lobbying for an end to coercive conversion directly through appealing to the Korean president using a widely signed petition. Yet her efforts were fruitless with her second abduction occurring in December 2017, causing her death in January 2018 through suffocation carried out by her parents.

Many human rights organisations and advocates have vowed for Gu’s legacy to be fulfilled, with marches taking place to mark the one year anniversary of her death globally, including in South Africa, America, the UK and 12 other countries around the world.  Yet, South Korea has still not taken any steps to ensure the end to this blatant violation of the “right to religious freedom” within their constitution. It is on the shoulders of the international community to recognise its social responsibility to pressure policy change and uphold universally valued human rights. 

The Elitist Irony of Banksy

Last week, a Banksy mural on the side of a South Wales garage was sold to art dealer for a ‘six figure sum’. The new owner John Brandler added to his collection of pre-existing Banksy pieces. The artwork itself displays a child appearing to enjoy a snow shower, however from a wider angle, it becomes apparent that the snow is in fact, ash blowing over from a bin fire. This piece may be interpreted as a critique of the current environmental state, and the risk of disillusionment this poses upon future generations.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Since his first emergence into the art world in the late 1990s, Banksy has a pattern of producing work with a social commentary. He has risen from rags to riches; walls of alleyways to the homes of millionaire art-collectors. However, in his 2006 book Cut It Out, he states:

The people who truly deface our neighbourhoods are the companies that scrawl giant slogans across buildings and buses trying to make us feel inadequate unless we buy their stuff”.

Now, I don’t deny that Banksy has a valid point within this extract. We can not step outside our homes without being bombarded by the side effects of living in a commercialist world. My issue is with what Banksy has now become. More specifically; his hypocrisy, which has become increasingly apparent in recent years. In Summer 2015, Banksy opened the doors to his ‘Bemusement Park’ titled Dismaland. This was a temporary project organised by himself, described as a ‘sinister twist on Disneyland’. It displayed a collection of various artists, including a giant pinwheel. Which has recently been given a £50,000 government grant to be transported to Somerset. Though I appreciate a giant pinwheel may be seen as a local artefact, £50,000 could have been better placed in practical arts programs, or local community services.

The people who run our cities don’t understand graffiti because they think nothing has the right to exist unless it makes a profit….” This statement has become almost satirical. Banksy has created a personality whom despises capitalism, yet he capitalised from Dismaland, he capitalises from his art. In fact, his net worth is estimated to be £38 million. His art is praised for being relatable, accessible and empowering often from a socialist perspective. However, we cannot deny his new position of privilege, and his integration into the exact elitist world he was previously fighting against. It’s interesting to consider the original context of Banksy; a movement of rebellion. Which is now barricaded and policed 24/7 in public places, and available exclusively within high-brow institutions, for a small fee of $1.37 million.  

Even his attempts to dismantle the establishment have ended ironically. In October 2017, as the gavel dropped for the Girl With Balloon, so did the painting… through an in-built shredder. As a result, it’s value increased dramatically and it became a global viral sensation. As a publicity stunt, this was huge. As a socialist statement, not so much.

Which poses the question, is Banksy a Sell Out? Has the radical anarchist he once was, become muted by the glitter and gold of being a multimillionaire?

Sorry Julie Bindel, binning makeup doesn’t make you a feminist

0

Wearing make up has always been one of the most radical things a woman can do.

In an article penned for the Independent this week, journalist Julie Bindel claimed that women getting rid of their make up is a ‘far more radical’ statement than burning your bra. To that I ask, what is more radical than not doing what you’re told?

The article in question, written by Julie Bindel

Makeup has existed almost as long as modern-day humans have. Egyptians used red ochre to colour their lips, ancient Greeks dusted powder over their cheeks and Romans used fruits as skin dyes.

And as long as women have been wearing it, they have been criticized.

By reducing make up to ‘slap’, Bindel vastly underestimates the exact power of makeup for so many women across the world, and across the millennia. The confidence, control and power that so many people gain from it cannot be ignored. For her, there may be power in going without it, but for many women make up has a different name; ‘war paint’.

If Bindel was truly a transformative feminist, she would have read about how the suffragettes fought against sexist depictions of prostitutes by wearing and reclaiming the famous ‘whorish’ red lipstick during their protests. Or about how a few short decades later, the arrival of large quantities of the same red lipstick to the liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp became the first step to returning humanity and hope to the starved, abused Jewish women who had had everything stripped from them by Nazi soldiers. That tiny slither of femininity and body autonomy made a huge difference.

Liberated women at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, 1945 (By No 5 Army Film & Photographic Unit)

Makeup has been a feminist weapon for decades. Whether women have been choosing to wear it, or to not wear it, it’s the choice that has always been debated and fought over. A call for women to throw theirs away isn’t revolutionary, it’s incredibly anti-feminist.

Whilst we disagree on some things, some parts of Julie Bindel’s article are true. The pressure on women to look perfect, to be constantly working on their appearance and to buy more and more products to do so is a worsening issue in the 21st Century. According to Statista, the market value of the beauty industry in the UK has increased by over €2000 million since 2013 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/491298/beauty-and-personal-care-united-kingdom-uk-market-value/). Making women feel insignificant is a very profitable business. But attacking women for exercising their right to free expression is not a good way to target this.

Women wear makeup for a wide range of different reasons. To feel confident, to feel powerful, to feel beautiful. To feel as though you own your body in a world that often likes to remind you that you do not. Makeup has always been deeply ingrained in human culture, and probably always will be. Any feminism that tells women what to do is not really feminism at all. So, wear as much or as little makeup as you want; either way, the fact that you have a choice is what is important.

5/10 The Cost of Artistry | Maz Hedgehog

In a time where crime in our capital is at an all-time high, the narrative we often see in the mainstream media is that people of colour, are using violence to channel their pain. This is only part of the story. There is a growing group of BAME men and women, using their experiences to inform their art. 

In our 10 part feature, we meet some of these artists. These artists are swimming against the tide, creating a lane for themselves.  They talk to us about the Cost of Artistry.

5/10 meet Maz Hedgehog

With this feature we want to give our readers, an insight into those whose work we greatly admire, the opportunity to have a serious discussion about poetry/rap – free from the usual angling of “page vs stage” or “new young star brings poetry out of the dusty library”.

We caught up with Maz Hedgehog and spoke to her about her journey as a poet and her relationship with the world of poetry.

When did you discover you had a “talent”?

I’ve been writing for as long as I knew what poetry was. I guess I discovered I had talent when I started performing in 2012/13 and my work got such a warm reception.

What have you had to sacrifice to nurture your talent?

I’ve sacrificed a lot of sleep getting to and from poetry nights; public transport is really unreliable. Otherwise? I really don’t feel like I’ve sacrificed anything. I’m doing what I love!

Who inspires your artistry?

My family; I grew up reading poems with my siblings and hearing my parents tell me stories. I’m inspired by mythology as a way of parsing culture and telling stories. But I’m mostly inspired by fantasy fiction. I mine fantasy novels and fairy tales for poem ideas all the time.

What is the biggest misconception people have about poets?

That we’re all pretentious. Poets can be a really friendly and down to earth bunch, especially in the spoken word scene. I hope even more newcomers dip their toes in and figure out what a thoroughly welcoming broad church we are.

In an age where digital echo chambers are growing wider, what role do you think poetry can play in this?

Poetry can slip in politics when you’re not looking. The stories poets choose to tell and how we choose to tell them says a lot about our social and political outlook. When you read poetry (or fiction, or even creative nonfiction) you’re invited to humanise and come to understand people you may not come in contact with otherwise. That’s a powerful thing.

Has a poem ever humbled or frightened you? What was it? When did it happen and what did you do afterwards?

So many times! Where She Is Opened, Where She Is Closed by Donika Kelly has haunted me ever since I read it. What The Dead Know By Heart by Donte Collins is a masterclass in emotional force. Mary Magdelene by (Amy) Kinsman is where I’d like my poetry to be in a few years. For each of these, I’ve turned them over in my head a hundred times and tried to figure out what has made them stick with me so firmly. I don’t try to imitate as such, just learn. I’m trying to make my writing make me feel the way theirs does.

Some poets claim that a poem is like a living creature: once it’s out there is not much you can do to ‘correct’ or ‘improve’ it, while others edit meticulously, not leaving much from the original, draft form. What is your take on it?

My writing process is like a journey to find my poem. I often start out having no idea where its going to end, so it’s almost like an adventure. But it means I have to edit a hundred times before it ends up in a form I’m happy with. So I guess it’s a mixture of the two? My poem is a living thing, it just takes me a few tries to find it and bring it out into the light.

How do you define success?

My idea of success is to be able to walk into a room of amazing poets I admire and know down to my toes that I deserve to be there. I hope I get there soon.

Follow Maz on twitter @MazHedgehog

Do you ever regret sharing your work publicly? Do you trust the reader in a world of instant gratification and instant communication?

No. There are some poems I performed years ago that I hate now, but each moment of sharing and vulnerability has helped me grow into the poet I am now I trust my readers because they choose to trust me. Of course I worry that they’ll misinterpret it, but that’s a risk every artist who’s ever lived has taken. I don’t think instant communication changes that very much, other than enabling me to reach wider audiences than I would otherwise. And for me, that’s pretty amazing.

The cover of Maz Hedgehog’s new collection Vivat Regina

Maz Hedgehog’s new collection Vivat Regina is out February 28th. You can pre-order it here: https://www.waterstones.com/book/vivat-regina/maz-hedgehog//9781907133862

Support Maz on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/MazHedgehog

Zimbabwe compared to North Korea as Internet is Shut Down for citizens by the Government

by Tanya Mwamuka

Tuesday 15th started as a normal day for me. I woke up early anticipating my looming exam at 9 am. The exam went well, and my first thought was to jump on WhatsApp to share the news to my aunty. I messaged her “Hi tete exam yafamba mushe” translating loosely to “Hi aunty the exam went well”- No reply. A day went by and nothing. Strange I thought she usually replies within the hour. The same was for my two cousins who I contacted. It seemed like my family was on radio silence.

A few days prior, my dad had told me there was a bit of unrest in Zimbabwe due to protesting. President Mnangagwa had announced a monumental change in fuel price on Sunday giving a rise of 150%. This makes cost of gasoline and diesel the most expensive in the world (GlobalPetrolPrices.com). Citizens would be expected pay up to $13 and of course the Zimbabwean people were not happy. People had taken to the streets of Harare and Bulawayo chanting and burning tires in the street. Whilst this was worrying nothing could have prepared me for the events to come.


Protesters gather near a burning tire during a demonstration over the hike in fuel prices in Harare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday January 15th 2019.

The Consequences of the Fuel Price Strike

It was only upon checking social media I knew something was very wrong. Scattered images, videos and tweets told concerning news: “The Zimbabwe government had ordered a shutdown of internet access”. Police and Army troops were deployed to quell the unrest using tactics of force and brutality, against many innocent bystanders and the partial internet block was the perfect way for ZANU-PF to try and hide their use of intimidation. Starting between 14th and 15th of January, the whole country was on radio silence with few managing to evade the block on social media by using VPN’s.



President Emmerson who is currently on an international trip, bidding for investment, has been called to return home to resolve the issue. Intermittent return of connection was seen on Wednesday 16th January in what seemed to be the end of all the chaos. But it has now been revealed this was solely for the purpose of wiring money to the chartered plane company, Mnangagwa was using for the next leg of his Journey to Belarus.


Image credit: Prof. Steve Hanke

By the evening of Thursday 17th January, a complete internet shutdown was put in place; this time affecting emails and hindering the use VPN’S. Econet, the country’s biggest provider, sent an apologetic text message on Friday:


Text message sent by Econet to their customers: Image Credit Charlton Hwende

‘Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights’ stated that they treated at least 68 cases of gunshot wounds and 100 plus other cases of assaults with sharp objects, booted feet, batons, etc. It is estimated that between 3-8 people were killed.

Zimbabwe’s History of State Sponsored Violence

Since its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe has experienced low intensity conflict, marked with few but significant escalations in state sponsored violence. The Zimbabwe African National UnionPatriotic Front (ZANU-PF) formally lead by Robert Mugabe, has been renowned for its use of ruthless tactics to gain monopoly of state control. Notable moments of protest and violence include the Gukurahundi between 1983-87. Approximately 20,000 Zimbabweans of the Ndebele ethnic group were killed and tortured as a measure of settling unrest in Matebeleland. More recently outbreak in violence was seen amidst the elections which put Mnangagwa in power. After the “soft coup” in 2017 (commended by its lack of violence) saw the peaceful removal of Mugabe from the presidency, hopes for Zimbabwe’s recovery, were quickly overshadowed by the blood split after the election held 8 months later. Protests took to the street – declaring that elections were rigged and were met with violence from deployed military personnel. It was reported three people were killed as soldiers fired live ammunition, tear gas, and water cannons.


Thousands of opposition party supporters march in the streets of Harare, Zimbabwe, on July 11 2019.

What’s Next?

Econest are said to be submitting a High Court application – against the directive to terminate social media accessibility. The Zimbabwe chapter of Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) also announced it would be approaching courts to unblock social media. Currently, human rights activist Evan Mawarire, has been arrested for treason and could be sentenced 20 years after calling for a stay in protest on Thursday or by the government’s claim of “inciting civil unrest”. With so many empty promises given to Zimbabweans, it’s hard to imagine court appeals by the mobile company will hold much power in a system riddled with corruption. After 2017’s removal of Mugabe, Zimbabweans imagined a future of economic growth and change but the recent blood shed seen in the past year highlights that Zimbabwe is most certainly not open for business.

Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to pursue a career in public and global health. She is a lover of fashion, travelling and has a keen interest in racial- social issues. She enjoys learning languages, being fluent in two and is currently adding Spanish  to her resume. 

U.S. vs China: A trade war that the world cannot afford to lose

Kay Ajibade

As discussions deepen from the U.S. and China’s ongoing trade war, the reality for the rest of the world is fate akin to cannon fodder. Should this cold war continue?

In July last year President Trump followed through on months of threats to impose extensive tariffs on China, for its alleged unfair trade practices. So far, the US have placed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products and has threatened tariffs on $267 billion more. China, for its part, has set tariffs on $110 billion worth of US goods, and is considering qualitative measures that would significantly affect US business in China.

Last March, when Trump initially finalised his tariffs, world markets went into a slump. Most importantly tech industries, as they were amongst the worst affected in the immediate aftermath of the “Facebook data scandal”. Market’s appeared to recover later in the month as evidence of behind the scenes negotiations emerged. However, the ongoing uncertainty as to a potential resolution places the global economy in a precarious position.

Together, both countries account for 39.8% of global GDP and with neither Trump nor Chinese President Xi Jinping willing to back down, tensions could erupt into a full-blown cold war. An escalation in the trade war could take a heavy toll on global growth by 2021, creating price pressures that could force interventionist measures to prevent a potential recession.

If you’re wondering why China’s sanctions don’t match Trump’s, there’s an easy explanation; Beijing is running out of American products to target. The U.S. imported $375 billion more products from China than the Chinese bought from the U.S. last year – because of this, Trump has a lot more to punish. 

However, while this may mean that China’s leverage on trade is limited, it doesn’t mean that Trump can easily win this confrontation. This is because China has many other ways to retaliate, such as dumping its considerable holdings of U.S. debt or obstructing U.S. efforts in negotiating a nuclear deal with North Korea.

Another option for China is to escalate the confrontation by using its substantial economic leverage outside of trade. China could retaliate by reducing its purchases of American Treasuries or by selling some of the $1.18 trillion in its possession. Overall, China owns almost a fifth of the U.S. national debt currently held by foreign countries.

Though it would probably be less apocalyptic than is sometimes assumed, a Chinese policy of reducing its holdings would substantially drive up the cost of many of the goods that Americans buy every day. The problem with this approach for China is that it would also strengthen the yuan, making products more expensive to import from China. 

The reality is that if the trade war between the U.S. and China intensifies, it can lead to a recession. It will cause consumers in the U.S. to cut back on purchases of the now more expensive domestically produced goods. The U.S. producers of those goods will expand their workforces and purchases of raw materials, but other U.S. producers will find less demand for their products from foreign buyers as well as U.S. consumers who are now poorer due to the imposition of tariffs. Those producers will lay off workers and buy fewer raw materials. The adjustment to this new pattern of demand will not be instantaneous and will be painful and costly to the workers thrown out of work, the cannon fodder of the trade.

Kay Ajibade is a graduate of the University of Leicester with a honours degree in Law. He is a chartered accountant, with a keen interest in sports, economics and politics. As an unseasoned journalist, Kay is keen to cover modern day developments at the forefront of global business.

Is a second referendum now the best option for all parties?

Theresa May announced her Brexit ‘Plan B’ to parliament, but little progress has been made since last week’s votes.

Theresa May today addressed parliament in the wake of Tuesday’s record breaking Brexit Vote defeat, and the subsequent vote of no confidence victory by 19 votes; 325 to 306. With the option of a general election definitely off the table (for now), May spoke about her work on a ‘Plan B’, which began last week after her promise to reach out to the leaders of all opposition parties.

May reiterated her pledge to honour 2016’s referendum result, but the calls for a second vote are growing louder and will not go away anytime soon. Something which seemed unthinkable 18 months ago, is now looking more likely by the dayFormer UKIP leader Nigel Farage said:


“I think and I fear that we are headed on a path towards delay and probably, yes, a second vote”

Source: Sky News

The ‘People’s Vote’ has been associated almost exclusively with remain so far, but could another vote actually be the best outcome for leave supporters as well?

Eliminating ‘No Brexit at all’

During The Prime Minister’s Questions in November, Theresa May warned that the UK risk a ‘no Brexit at all’ if her deal was not backed shortly after the Withdrawal Agreement was released. It was said that if MPs did not back the deal, this could be the end result. With the deal now dead in the water, this risk has come to the forefront, along with the threat of a no deal Brexit. If no progress is made in talks between opposition parties and the EU, the government will be left with the choice of no deal, another vote, or to revoke Article 50 all together. Leavers have naturally been very resistant to the idea of a second vote, but there is certainly no guarantee any referendum would be a landslide for Remain.

A ComRes poll, carried out on the day the Withdrawal Agreement was rejected, still had ‘Leave’ polling at 40% and ‘Don’t know/Undecided’ at 16% when participants were asked how they would vote in a second referendum. A YouGov poll the following day dropped slightly, to 38 and 14% respectively. Considering the last few months’ events, these findings are still remarkably close and underline that potential Brexiteers could agree with a second referendum. Many Leave voters and supporting MPs want to avoid a no deal Brexit, and a second result for Leave would provide them with this security, along with a clear mandate to finally push through the Brexit that they want. Yes, there is of course the risk of a Remain result, but is that a risk worth taking?

What happens if the UK vote to Remain?

One of the biggest criticisms of holding a second referendum, is the uncertainty that would follow a Remain victory. It is a question that continues to be asked, but no one seems to have the answer to. Politics is simply not built for a rock-paper-scissors, ‘best of three’ style approach, but this is what may have to happen. The question is when would any third vote be? Straight away, or after another three years of infighting and political discord? Some remainers may argue that the second referendum result should be final, but giving one vote more weight than the first would prove misguided and extremely dangerous. This could result in millions of people refusing to vote again and widen already huge societal divisions.

A second referendum would certainly be to the benefit of remainers, but there is still the possibility that ‘Remain’ may not even be on the ballot paper. Various ballot option combinations have been suggested, ranging from no deal; to May’s deal; remain; or a ballot featuring two questions, to decide what type of Brexit voters want. One potential option that is gathering pace is a Norway Plus style deal, which may become more popular in the wake of Yvette Cooper’s cross-party bill that could force Theresa May to compromise once more. Much like May’s deal however, any Norway style agreement threatens to disappoint Leave and Remain voters alike.

In truth all available options at this point risk not satisfying huge swathes of voters. With today’s ‘Plan B’ drawing criticism for sounding suspiciously like ‘Plan A’, something has to give to break the impasse. If the cross-party bill and discussions succeed in removing the chance of leaving with no deal on 29 March, then hard Brexiteers will be forced to compromise even further. It’s risky, unchartered and unpopular, but a second referendum could prove finite; and that’s why it might be the only answer for everyone going forward.