Follow Sophia on Instagram
From Europe to America, from Asia to Africa: women's rights are under attack. We say it as daughters, mothers and sisters. Today, every single woman on this planet is fighting (or at least, she should) to defend the freedom of choice on abortion.
According to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO, the Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
In the USA, since 1973, the right to access the practice of abortion has been guaranteed by the Roe v. Wade case, that demonstrates how laws banning abortion were a violation of the right to privacy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who successfully fought against gender discrimination, put it simply: "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her wellbeing and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."
The right to abortion is one of the most deeply-felt political consensus points of contention in the United States, to the point that it is one of the topics always discussed in election campaigns. In the last 30 years, the right to abortion has been progressively eroded in practice and the fear is that the law, the last shield for women, will fall and have a ripple effect. In as many as 22 American States there are laws that in the absence of Roe v. Wade could abolish or make the right to abortion inaccessible.
If Roe v. Wade falls, abortion will be returned to the states for regulation, and it is likely that about half the states will immediately ban abortion. It is the judges who examine the law, that prohibits the termination of pregnancy after 15 weeks of gestation, and declare whether it is constitutional. If so, the consequences for women’s freedom will be severe - in the United States and beyond.
If Roe v. Wade falls, the outcome will change forever the integrity of access to abortion as a constitutional right.
The consequences, however, will not be just an American problem. If the Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade case, this would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians all around the world. The United States, in fact, is still considered a model to follow and an ally who should not be contradicted. Therefore changes to laws on this topic could put the right to abortion in question in many other countries.
On our continent, and in other parts of the world, the situation already isn't great. The right to abortion has already been questioned in several legislatures, as in the emblematic case of Poland. You may all remember the story of Izabela Sajbor, a young polish woman left to die because doctors, in compliance with the new anti-abortion law, preferred to wait for the natural death of the fetus rather than practice a life-saving abortion. The situation is not only critical in Poland, where de facto abortion has become illegal. But also in other parts of Europe, from Italy to Ireland, and even in our country, where women find it hard to have their rights recognized.
Pregnancy itself is an event with important connotations and consequences. It lasts 9 months of a life span and promises notable physical and psychological changes. If it occurs as a choice it is a determination of the self. If it happened because a person's right was denied, it then becomes an instance of pervasive physical and psychological violence, capable of leaving an aftermath of pain often neglected by health systems.
Abortion is never easy. Never. Anyone who chooses to do so experiences an extremely painful moment, even when it is the correct (and desired) decision. Nonetheless, no woman should be forbidden to decide. No woman should be forced to become pregnant and no woman should, under any circumstances, be put at risk. Never.
Credit photo: Gettyimages
Written by Miriam Tagini
Follow Miriam on Twitter and Instagram
]]>
An inevitable product of capitalism is inequality. The nature of capitalism is that goods are privately owned, meaning individuals have absolute right to their own private property and income. This creates a massive profit drive where individuals seek to build up their own capital, simultaneously dividing American society into “employers” and “employees.” Those who succeed in business ventures and have created their own capital also have an incentive to monopolize and expand their wealth at the expense of the ordinary worker. As a result, the working class faces the burden of reduced wages, higher costs, and other barriers to a decent quality of life. The wealthy continue to accumulate wealth, and class differences become a long term, cyclical harm. Those with the financial capability to access private property are able to monopolize goods and profit off the labor of low wage workers, propelling a small privileged population to the top. In the last year, America’s top 1% amassed 6.5 trillion dollars and now dominate a record 32% of the nation’s wealth. As capitalism furthers its creeping influence, socioeconomic differences deprive the proletariat of equal opportunities.
However, wealth is not the only thing privileged capitalists control. With wealth comes financial power, and with financial power comes political power. The financial might of megamillion enterprises causes them to generate excessive political influence as well. Wealthy individuals and corporations have been spending more money than ever before on political lobbying, bribing, and swaying legislation.
In 2019, the Fortune 100 companies spent a whopping $2 billion dollars on political lobbying and are able to push for policies that exclusively benefit the top few percentiles. Political lobbying succeeds when politicians and legislators buy into their incentives because they care about their profit, and when given the choice between morals and money, they will always choose the latter. Oftentimes, this looks like legislation such as wealth taxes being denied, even when it could provide impoverished communities with upward mobility to escape poverty. In the end, the rich get what they want at the expense of the average citizen.
Capitalism’s drastic inequalities are in tension with the basic purpose of democracy. While capitalism seeks to create profit-driven trade and place power in unequal private businesses, democracy is designed to reduce such inequalities and shape a society that benefits all people. The power to financial capital does not solely give wealthy Fortune 500s the chance to support campaigns. Rather, it provides them with overwhelming leverage to skew entire elections and economies in their favor. As the top few percent decide the political trajectory of America, it leaves a deficit of support in policies that pertain to the rest of the population.
Our democracy is dying, and people need to be aware of it. The inequalities generated by capitalism and political lobbying do not just exacerbate class divisions, but they fundamentally hinder a political system that benefits lower income workers.
Today, the once fine line between capitalism and democracy is growing increasingly blurry, and it is people like you and I that are caught in the crossfire. Is there truly a way for absolute private property and true democracy to co-exist? American history says clearly not, and as for the future, only time will tell.
Credit main image: llustration by Joey Guidone for Harvard Business Review
Written by Sophia Li
Follow Sophia on Instagram
In the two years since Boris Johnson’s premiership began, the British political landscape has endured many significant changes. Entering, the focus was on getting Brexit ‘done’, now it’s dealing with the implications of a global pandemic; while Brexit showed cracks in the governments competency, COVID-19 ripped it wide open. When Dominic Cumming decided to go rogue, he revealed that the government had essentially been clueless and deceitful throughout the early months of the COVID crisis. Matt Hancock was a repeat offender, with Cummings claiming that he should’ve been fired for “at least 15 to 20 things – including lying to everybody on multiple occasions”, a shocking allegation when a significant amount of these lies cost hundreds of lives. The PM too was called out for COVID related failures such as constantly delaying lockdowns, and missing key COVID-19 meetings but also for other scandals like Wallpapergate, in which Boris lied about where the money for his Downing Street refurbishment came from before recently (and discreetly) admitting it was donors.
These aren’t even half of the issues involving Johnson’s government, with Cumming himself being at the centre of a big one. This level of deception should have been enough to push multiple members out of the government but many, like Hancock, have been allowed to cling onto power until they can’t anymore.
However, these scandals cannot be viewed within a vacuum - they are a part of a much larger web of lies, hypocrisy and immunity that has been spun for years by the very politicians we are meant to trust. The Brexit era specifically was shaped by mistruths and smears, many being used as campaigning tools. Key campaign headlines like ‘£350 million to the NHS’ turned out to be false in the aftermath and the fact that there were calls for a second referendum due to the level of falsity present in the first says it all, really. Politicians felt extremely comfortable with misleading the British public to get them to vote their way and, in hindsight, this was not an isolated incident during a tense period of political debate.
Post-Brexit, it seems as though a politics of lies, scandals and lack of accountability has not only been created, but encouraged to thrive. Since Brexit, we have had the exposure of secret meetings, bullying, negligence, corruption and cronyism to scarce reaction. As Twitter’s resident political shade room @PoliticsForAll comes through with new scandals daily, and with reports of Priti Patel pushing to reform the Official Secrets Act so that journalists who report “unauthorised disclosures” (which is really code for reporting the governments wrongdoings) can be treated as spies and face up to 14 years in jail, it seems that they want to strengthen this culture as much as they can.
This is all extremely worrying and unfortunately backlash is lacking. Public outrage lasts for a few weeks, if there is any at all, and then dies down; it is troubling when a campaign video exposing Boris’ constant lying in Parliament can go viral, but still barely affect him. In fact, according to weekly YouGov voting intention polls, the Tories constantly remain far ahead of the opposition; the British public is bonded to the Tories, and Labour is currently not strong enough to break that. Keir Starmer seems fine to throw out a few digs from time to time without applying any real pressure, even declining to sign a parliamentary inquiry request into Johnson’s constant lying. If the opposition can't even properly oppose this, what chance do we have?
There are glimmers of hope - Tyrone Ming's public callout of Priti Patel’s backtracking regarding the England team, alongside Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s u-turn decision to self isolate after public backlash shows that there is room for public accountability. And with people like Labour MP Zarah Sultana and her constant, on-point scrutiny of the Conservatives in Parliament, it seems like there is some oppositional accountability too. But with this government, and their penchant for lying, we need to make sure to keep our foot on the gas in order to avoid further sinking into a nationwide ambivalent relationship with politicians' deceit. I know it's hard, but it's necessary. They’re our government - they answer to us.
Credit photos: GettyImages
Written by Keisha Asamoah
]]>In what I personally believe to be a way-too-optimistic approach, Boris Johnson stated: “The end really is in sight, and a wretched year will give way to a spring and a summer that will be very different and incomparably better than the picture we see around us today. We are setting out on what I hope and believe is a one-way journey to freedom.”
READ ALSO: Young Women Are Paying The Price For The Pandemic
Truth is PM Johnson also emphasised the importance of lockdown and the need to follow the rules. But scientists have warned that lifting restrictions could lead to a very-much-avoidable third wave, resulting in 100,000 more deaths. A document from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) highlighted the constant and continuous need for caution: “All scenarios show an epidemic resurgence which results in a substantial number of hospital admissions and deaths.” Obviously the scale and timing are “very uncertain” as they depend on many factors, but the more pessimistic predictions suggest between 102,000 and 176,000 more deaths form coronavirus.
However, Boris Johnson is ready to accept the risks: “There is no credible route to a zero Covid Britain or indeed a zero Covid world. And we cannot persist indefinitely with restrictions that debilitate our economy, our physical and mental well-being, and the life chances of our children.”
The platform Our World in Data has shown that no other country matches the UK’s per capita rate of deaths. Not the best record to set. The UK now has the highest cumulative death toll in Europe and is one of only five countries around the world which has surpassed 100,000 deaths, behind the US, Brazil, India and Mexico - all countries that have far higher populations.
That is why, many of us found ourselves wondering why the UK has reached such a tragic number of fatalities. There is no specific or clear reason that explains why the UK has lost so many lives to this pandemic. Experts have stated that the UK’s ageing and ethnically diverse population, as well as high obesity levels, could be contributing factors. However, many are pointing their fingers at the government, which in past months has been repeatedly accused of a number of decision-making failures.
So now the question is: can we trust Boris Johnson? He surely got everything wrong at the beginning, last spring, and struggled to lead the country to safety and avoid a second wave. Someone even questioned if his general failure to protect the UK from this virus was a choice or an inability to perform in his position.
READ ALSO: Herd Immunity: Is Boris Johnson Lifting UK Lockdown Restrictions Prematurely?
In its attempt to get out of the coronavirus pandemic as soon as possible, the UK has decided to make a bet: the country aims to vaccinate as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. To do so, it has chosen to administer only the first dose and so postponing the second for three months. As of today, almost 18 million people received the first dose of the vaccine, and only 642,000 people received the second one. Government experts explained the idea saying that in an emergency situation it is better to have more people with incomplete, but at least partial, protection than a few with full protection.
This was initially criticised by many and considered too risky, but now initial data seems to confirm that the bet is proving to be successful. According to an analysis published by the Telegraph, it appears that vaccines, even if administered in a single dose, be it from Pfizer or Astrazeneca, are capable of reducing transmission and infections from Covid-19: “This effect is obtained on all age groups, leading to a decrease in cases among 80-year-olds by 38 percent over seven days."
READ ALSO: The Great Magnifier: How Coronavirus Is Showing Inequalities Between Ethnic Groups
At the moment, thanks to this strategy, and an unprecedented organisational effort, which is obscuring many past mistakes, there may be hope. Some see the light at the end of the tunnel. But will this really be the end of the Covid-19 pandemic? I’m afraid we won't have an answer straight away. Only time will tell.
Written by Miriam Tagini
From the so-called "special relationship" between the United States and Great Britain, political cycles that have influenced the whole West and much of the world have blossomed. We have seen them making history with their coalitions: Thatcher-Reagan, neoliberalism; Clinton-Blair, the reformist "third way" of the left; Johnson-Trump, populism. Now the election of Joe Biden could spark a new season across the Atlantic.
Donald Trump’s defeat is wonderful for the world but trouble for Boris Johnson, who in more than one occasion has been identified as Trump’s European impersonator. According to the Guardian, continuing to pose as British Trump, after the real one has finally left the scene, would be counterproductive for Johnson: no one wants to have a loser as a model. What's worse for him, Johnson loses the partner who urged him to push the Brexit accelerator to the maximum, break free from the shackles of the European Union and embrace a casual business relationship with the US.
So now, there’s only one question everyone keeps asking themselves. Will Joe Biden's victory and his new US presidency have any consequences on Brexit? At the moment, it is difficult to give a decisive answer. However, what seems certain, in the opinion of many experts, is that the new tenant of the White House will not support British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as Donald Trump did, in his threats to leave the negotiating table without a deal.
For the UK, Brexit was already a problem, and the economic depression trigger by the Covid-19 pandemic has made it even more serious. But if you add the Biden presidency to this scenario, the cocktail can become explosive. During the presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate clearly warned: if Brexit threatens peace in Ireland, the country where Biden's family originated (and from which millions of immigrants have come to America), there will be no chance of a free trade pact with Great Britain. The most serious threat to Irish peace, reached in 1998 with the mediation of Washington D.C., would indeed be "no deal", which means the exit of Great Britain from the EU without any agreement. A hypothesis that is still possible, even a few weeks away from the obligatory end of the negotiations between the two parties, which must be concluded by the deadline already set for December 31st.
Some said that Johnson would have waited for the result of the US presidential election to decide whether to approve the concessions necessary for an agreement with Brussels. For the same reason, it is now said that Downing Street will be forced to authorise a compromise at any cost in order to reach an agreement with the EU. Brexit with no deal and Biden in the White House would make the UK feel very isolated in the world. Though, the doubt is whether even a Brexit deal will be enough to strengthen the "special relationship" between two countries "divided by the same language", and now also by two radically different leaders.
So what will happen to the negotiations for a post-Brexit bilateral trade agreement between the UK and the US? With Biden's victory, the negotiations between the two states will essentially have to start over. But that's not all. Should there be discord, Biden said he would also be willing to withdraw the possibility of a trade treaty with the UK.
The two politicians have never met in person, but in their hands is encased the future of their continents and their people.
Biden is expected to start a reconciliation with the European Union, probably with discounts or the cancellation of the protectionist tariffs of his predecessor. The return to the Paris agreements against climate change is already official. On the contrary, he specified that the trade pact with the UK is not among the priorities of his first 100 days in office. On the other side of the pond, with a pinch of cynicism and realpolitik, Johnson will try to establish good diplomatic relations immediately. Otherwise, as said by the former head of the Foreign Office and a succession of ex-ambassadors, the Prime Minister will face a catastrophe in terms of future relations with Washington D.C. if he pursues a no deal Brexit.
What we all hope, is that in the long term, negotiations between the UK and the US, with Biden at the helm of the latter, could instead take on less conflicting tones, thanks to the sharing of similar commercial interests between the United States and Europe.
Credit picture: GettyImages
Written by Miriam Tagini
]]>
After giving it some thought, I was left wondering two things. Firstly why would Miss Ocasio-Cortez insinuate that we would “disagree” with Joe Biden? And taking it further, did she use the term “agree” loosely for something far more concerning? The reason why I’m zeroing in on this small word is that, in my opinion, Miss Ocasio-Cortez is trying to frame her message in which she implores the audience to overlook whatever “disagreement” and personal issues voters might have with Biden. However, I will say Miss Ocasio-Cortez was correct when she said there’s no single answer for politicians nor presidents. But at the same rate, that doesn’t mean we should have to feel a sense of mistrust and suspicion about the person responsible for running an entire country. That sense of mistrust and suspicion is what thousands of young voters, including myself, have been paying great attention to.
The idea of replacing Trump with Biden sounds exciting on paper, yet ends up counterintuitive in fruition. To put it simply: you’d essentially be getting rid of one creepy, sexist, white man for another. Biden still has several allegations of inappropriate behavior towards young women and even one sexual assault allegation. None of these cases have been confirmed nor updated, but that infamous ‘shoulder squeeze’ viral video would definitely not support his case. Plenty of younger, left-leaning, democratic, and/or liberal voters are more likely to consider serious sexual harassment allegations as a dealbreaker in terms of support and endorsement.
When it comes to who these same young voters want to vote for, it’s such a shock no one wants to see Trump for the next four torturous years. Let’s pick back up the previous point of inappropriate behavior towards women. Trump has never been ambiguous about his beliefs on anything, let alone women. His “honesty” is the sole reason he has mass supporters in the first place (such “honesty” has not aged well...ahem the recent Woodward tapes). Keep in mind, this isn’t the first time Trump’s grotesque sexism has been the topic of conversation. Really, these conversations were the most amplified at the beginning of and during the 2016 presidential election where all hell broke loose.
When it was first announced that Trump was going to run for president, this seemed to be the year where everyone started making highly political content in a way I hadn’t ever paid attention to previously. There was a line drawn in the mud with a thin wooden stick: you were either pro-feminist and anti-Trump, or pro-conservative and anti-Clinton. It was when I started taking note of how mostly feminists were so excited to finally have the first female president of the United States. Which I too would’ve been excited for...had it been any other woman other than Hillary Clinton. I suddenly became more skeptical and untrusting. Something wasn't quite right about her.
Spoiler alert: it wasn’t because she was a woman!
Rather I was confused as to how exactly we knew she’d be able to handle certain issues and crises any better than Trump. For the most part, I got that she was less misogynist than Trump. That’s good, but that seemed to be about it. Another reason I couldn’t take Clinton seriously anymore was because of her endless and distracting campaign, desperately trying to sell to the young voters in hopes they “Pokemon-Go to the polls”. On top of that, thousands of high-caliber celebrities endorsed the hell out of Clinton in the spirit of feminism, equal rights, and good publicity. I honestly got the impression that everyone’s dying love for Clinton wouldn’t last long after several years in office. Hypocritically though after the internal back-and-forth, I still would’ve voted for Clinton anyway. Simply because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump. It’s fascinating. The differences between me and everyone else that voted only in opposition of Trump were that I couldn’t vote nor could I ignore the disingenuous vibes from Clinton.
Who would’ve thought many of us would end up here today, going through the same predicament only four years later? We could’ve only hoped for a much better candidate for the next election. But alas, it doesn’t seem to be the case. I can’t stand that those who aren’t singing the highest praises for Biden and/or Clinton and going as far as to criticize them are labeled Trump supporters. It truly doesn’t make sense. At the end of the day, I would’ve been a Clinton “supporter” and am going to “support” Biden simply by giving them a vote on my ballot. But I cannot support them to the fullest because I will not ignore serious sexual harassment allegations nor the terrible dabbing on Ellen.
Credit image: nbcnews.com
Written by Veronica Nicole
Follow Veronica on Twitter
]]>The sheer explosive coverage and participation it has attained has meant more solidarity against racism in our lifetimes than ever before. But on its flip side, we’ve also seen a whole lot more ignorance, malicious behaviour and backlash right out in the open. It’s become crucial for many of us - those already in the know with social justice and the themes spoken about; such as abolition, defunding and institutional oppression - to step up and have all the hard conversations with those around us. The sorts of conversation that teeter up into the surface just a half hour too long into a family dinner.
De-programming society’s messaging is hard enough, and not everything that led us to our own realisations will work on others. And moreover, it can be an emotionally fraying experience to argue about the validity of the struggle entire groups of people face.
It’s been repeated an awful lot lately, when observing such conversations between people I know and on the internet about how ‘racism isn’t about politics, it’s about being a good person’. I have an issue with that statement, because I don’t think racism is an individual issue of morality. Calling it that would be letting people off the hook, in fact.
It’s understandable why someone would make the argument. There are a lot of people out there who call themselves ‘apolitical’, who say that it doesn’t matter. As if it’s just a game of sports they have no interest in. But the way to placate or appease these people isn’t by keeping to their terms and preconceived notions - it isn’t by saying racism is apolitical and instead to do with someone’s decency as a person. Everyone thinks that they’re right; decent, even more so. It’s just not a good angle to come at, as satisfying as it may be.
We come to these arguments because racism is so real and alive for us, and ‘Politics’ is this strange far-away place, an amalgamation of old white men in suits surrounded by old white columns on old white marble floors. They talk in industry terms we don’t understand, they have an air of importance about them, they dine in country clubs and speak on podiums. And that’s most people’s understanding of it. It’s simply a place they have nothing to do with day to day.
A loose definition of politics, which is an area of study even beyond the politicians we know, is about groups of people and individuals: how and why resources and status is distributed among them. More or less, the distribution of things we need and want.
‘Politics’, capitalised, dressed in a suit, may sound like a dirty word to us; but political, lower case, something that affects all of us, is not. Legitimacy cannot be given to not caring for something that is so important to everyone’s lives. Unseen or seen, politics is everywhere, and is wrapped up not just in policies and laws, but whether your children get free lunches at school, or how likely you are to afford to send that child to university someday.
Racism, as one would expect, is something that skews that distribution of resources and status greatly, and is in turn, a political tool. As a political tool, it may be used at the individual level, but its purpose will always be institutional – where distribution occurs the most. For instance, racist bullying in the workplace is harsh enough, but it contributes to being locked out of promotions and staggers someone’s career for the foreseeable future. Unchecked and enabled racist abuse is an extension to systematic financial racial barriers.
It is only by demystifying politics as a system of attributing value, that racism can be tackled effectively – seen for what it truly is, and what it tries to do. By linking it into this wider system, not based on individual moral failings of many people simultaneously, people can truly understand that they’re part of it. When a person comes to understand this, there’s no being ‘apolitical’ without admitting they’re sticking their head into the sand and not taking control of their lives, or in fact politics works so well for their singular interests that they need do nothing whatsoever.
Our conversations now, and our conversations continuing this historic moment in time, will never be easy. Removing the great curtain over the world’s inner workings takes knowledge and persistence. If we wish to change those around us, at an individual level, we need to make sure they know what politics is before we deal with what is a learnt political tool.
We can’t put the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse. ‘Politics’, capitalised, must become ‘political’, lower case – something that moulds us whether or not we know it.
Written by Penelope Helbest
]]>Feminists have long battled the idea that women should be passive, quiet, and ‘modest’. We have advocated for the right to speak about what matters to us without fear of sexist censorship, harassment and violence. But we’ve still got a way to go. And COVID-19 certainly isn’t helping.
COVID-19 is a gendered pandemic. Although men are more likely to die from the virus, women are at the forefront of the care work essential to a functioning society. This is always the case, but during crises, the pressure on women - both political and economic - to fulfil the traditional gender role of mother/housewife increases.
Whether in Ireland or Iran, Sweden or South Africa, women bear responsibility for reproducing the ‘nation’: physically through childbearing, and socially through teaching its values to our children. We also maintain the family home, make food, and provide care for the unwell – all for low or no wages. The COVID-19 crisis has intensified the need for this work. With whole populations urged by governments to ‘stay home’, women do more reproductive labour than ever, from home-schooling to cooking meals to replace those once provided at schools and workplaces.
Because society’s continued functioning depends on women’s unpaid work, governments seek to further stigmatise women who threaten traditionalist family ideology, hoping to prevent us straying from our assigned role. Women using social media to disrupt or entertain, rather than to fulfil our feminine role of nurturing and care-taking, are perceived as dangerous, particularly if our content is perceived as sexually provocative.
Recent months have seen a spike in what British feminist writer Laurie Penny describes as ‘cybersexism’. Cases of 'revenge porn’, a form of online sexual abuse usually directed towards women by male perpetrators, have skyrocketed in Europe during lockdown, coinciding with a heavy spike in domestic violence reports. Forms of gendered violence such as ‘revenge porn’, rape, and domestic abuse are all united in their function of keeping women in our ‘place’. Sadly, we live in a world where women experiencing crimes at the hands of boyfriends and exes is so widespread that it no longer shocks us. But when that violence is meted out by bigger powers, like the state, it has the potential to send shockwaves through a society.
Russia and Egypt are recent examples of states that have arrested and detained female citizens for accusations of ‘immoral’ behaviour on social media. Their actions directly threaten the health of the accused women, putting them at risk of COVID-19 (in addition to the sexual violence and torture, commonly experienced by women in prisons).
27-year-old feminist artist Yulia Tsvetkova faces trial for charges of distributing ‘pornography’. She expects up to six years of prison. Why? Because she uses social media to share body-positive drawings celebrating female bodies and sexuality, and to support Russia’s persecuted LGBT community (which she was fined for on July 10th). Tsvetkova’s supposedly ‘pornographic’ cartoons include a naked, smiling woman with visible body hair posing comfortably, accompanied by the Russian caption: ‘Real women have hair on their bodies — and that's normal’.
Meanwhile, in Egypt, the Arab world’s largest country, authorities have arrested numerous female ‘TikTokers’ during the pandemic for ‘promoting debauchery’. The videos provoking these charges feature the women dancing to Arabic pop music, which conservatives compare to prostitution (a crime punishable with three years in jail). Though dressed modestly by Western standards, they are seen as profiting from immorality, threatening to corrupt Egypt’s Islamic moral order.
What about Western ‘democracies’ like the UK? Undoubtedly, there is relative freedom for women to express ourselves online without fear. Nonetheless, algorithmic bias on platforms like Instagram punishes women for non-violent self-marketing and expression, while allowing harmful behaviour from men (e.g. sexual harassment) to flourish.
The estimated 72,800 people who sell sex in the UK (mostly women), are particularly vulnerable to censorship over ‘inappropriate’ content. Many sex workers on Instagram are allegedly ‘shadowbanned’, meaning they can post content, but it won’t show up on their followers’ feeds. And because sex work exists in a legal grey area (having sex for money isn’t illegal, but brothel-keeping and curb crawling are), workers lack much in the way of recourse.
Social media censorship of sex workers has been particularly problematic during the COVID-19 crisis. For one, the pandemic’s economic fallout has led many women to sex work for the first time. The stakes are also higher for women reliant upon online self-promotion to get work: not only is physical contact with clients a risk that many cannot take, but mass unemployment means more sex workers are now the primary breadwinner in their families. Taking away women’s platforms puts their livelihoods at risk, and fears that authorities could discover what they ‘really do for a living’ deter many sex workers from claiming benefits. If left without incomes, the most vulnerable face destitution.
It is difficult not to read this catalogue of injustices and feel despair. But none are happening without pushback.
In Egypt, an online campaign was launched this month supporting women arrested for content offending patriarchal moral standards. The Memorial Human Rights Center have declared Yulia Tsvetkova a political prisoner, targeted for her role in Russian feminism. Solidarity demonstrations have occurred in Russia, where supporters held a ‘vulva ballet’, and internationally, for example at London’s Russian Embassy. A petition by LGBT organisation All Out demanding her charges dropped has attracted over 133,000 signatures.
Finally, the UK’s English Collective of Prostitutes (who have campaigned for decades for safer working conditions for women in prostitution), are lobbying for decriminalisation of sex work and for pandemic-specific accommodations for sex workers in crisis, such as emergency grants. Further afield, the sex workers and tech geeks at US organisation Hacking//Hustling are working to document and reduce anti-sex worker discrimination online. They have provided virtual trainings on digital literacy and harm reduction for online sex workers, available on their YouTube channel.
Going forward, it is impossible to predict COVID-19’s long-term effects on women’s freedom of expression. What can be said is that as long as women are relied upon for most domestic work, men will try to control our ‘public’ behaviour. If we stray too far from the ideal of the ‘mother’, we become its opposite in patriarchal logic: the ‘whore’. Men’s suppression and censorship of women’s speech will continue as long as societies devalue the work women do. In fact, we need a society where ‘women’s work’ no longer exists as a concept at all.
Written by Sarah Staniforth
Follow Sarah on Twitter
]]>For Boris Johnson, the intersection of obesity and coronavirus, is personal. “I was too fat”, he says in a video posted on Twitter, remembering his hospitalisation due to COVID-19, the hours when he feared death, and then the convalescence, which brought with it a new revelation - unfortunately not about the use of face masks - but about the average weight of the British population. So now the ‘buy one, get one free’ promotions on high calorie products will end, TV and online advertisements for food considered unhealthy (high in fat, sugar or salt) will be banned from 9pm onwards, calorie labels will be added on food and alcohol in restaurants, cafes and takeaways, and doctors will be encouraged to prescribe the use of bicycle to go to work and/or a morning run. A new app (soon to be available), managed by the NHS, will also offer a twelve-week diet to lose at least two and a half kilos.
Professor Parveen Kumar, chair of the British Medical Association, which represents doctors, said in a statement on Monday that the measures need to be “actioned as quickly as possible” and the strategy “could go a long way in kick-starting a health revolution for the nation.”
Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.
— Boris Johnson #StayAlert (@BorisJohnson) July 27, 2020
If we all do our bit, we can reduce our health risks and protect ourselves against coronavirus – as well as taking pressure off the NHS.
Our Better Health Strategy https://t.co/WdazXhuhRN pic.twitter.com/KZhW8p17FJ
Studies have found evidence linking obesity to a greater risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. Even though people with obesity frequently have other medical problems, the research identifies the condition itself as the most significant risk factor, after older age, for being hospitalized with COVID-19. Moreover, having a BMI of 40 or above increases the risk of death from coronavirus compared to those people with lower BMI.
It is terrifying to think that obesity levels in the UK have more than tripled in the last 30 years. On current estimates, 63% of adults in England are overweight or living with obesity as well as one in three school-age children (34%). Obesity is a pandemic itself, the biggest health crisis the country faces. At this rate, more than half of the population could be obese by 2050. The United Kingdom has been called "the fat man of Europe” - aka the fattest country in Europe - because here obesity grows faster than in all other developed states.
Why? This is the question all British experts would like to answer. For now it has been established that there has been no genetic mutation in British DNA, but obesity rates are linked to society, that has changed a lot in terms of "work, transport, production, and sale of food", according to the government report commissioned in 2017. There is also a correlation between poorer areas and obesity: in areas with lower-middle income, obesity is almost double compared to high income ones. That is why, as early as 2016, the sugar tax was introduced in an effort by the British government to find suitable policies to reduce childhood obesity.
This latest strategy in Boris Johnson’s fight against coronavirus, however, did not receive a warm welcome. First and foremost from the food and retail industry, to which the state turned its back. This new campaign is in fact in contrast with the Eat Out and Help Out Scheme, which incentives customers to eat in a restaurant or other eating establishments by giving them a discount which they can then claim back from the government. The paradox is quite clear: the government wants the British to eat out in order to increase consumption and bring life back to a very pandemic-tested economy, but at the same time would like them to eat less and better, to contain the rate of obesity and especially the healthcare costs associated with it.
Ultimately, we can’t help but wonder if this is the right time (and especially the right strategy) to fight a virus that has devastated the country and killed more than 45.000 people after a series of mishandled situations by the government itself.
Written by Miriam Tagini
]]>Consequently, a global ripple effect ignited many more acts of resistance, including the secret installation of A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020; a statue of a local black woman, Jen Reid, on the plinth previously occupied by Colston - but, unlike Colston’s statue, Jen was speedily removed by the council in under 25 hours. The iconic scene was fleeting, but what did it mean for black women and the BLM movement?
Having felt “summoned” by the statue, local creative producer, Euella Jackson, tactfully orchestrated a same-day photoshoot with a dozen other young black women (including myself.) Donning Black Panther-esque attire and game faces we posed in formation alongside Jen, each powerful shot being interjected with the sound of laughter. Euella describes her initial thought when seeing Jen: “In all honesty, it felt rare to see a black woman in a space like that. I wanted to capture the breadth, beauty and strength of black women as activists, protectors and works of art.”
Cast in black resin, the true-to-size sculpture encapsulated Jen’s elegant natural curls under a stylish beret with her fist held high in the black power salute – the symbolic blackness of the sculpture being a middle finger to glorified colonial figures everywhere. The familiarity of a modern black woman’s physical body portrayed through such an unfamiliar medium gave it a captivating quality and also called into question the ways in which we are (or aren’t, rather) valued and celebrated. The solution that Euella proposes is "taking up space" and, rather than waiting on the well overdue recognition from others, facilitating our own celebrations of self and our fellow sisters.
She went on to describe her experience in the wake of recent events as ‘traumatic to say the least’ - when witnessing your people being relentlessly slaughtered in the streets for simply existing, usually with no care for accountability (see: Breonna Taylor) it can feel like there is no respite for our community. That is why these micro-triumphs are so important as, however brief, they often resonate to therapeutic ends, providing a small dose of hope that many of us had been dearly craving.
I caught up with the sculpture subject, Jen Reid, who explained what the most powerful moment was for her: “It was seeing beautiful black girls standing in front of the statue. Seeing them brought a tear to my eye as I had said from the outset that I hope the statue would bring hope and power to young black girls when they see it and they epitomised that hope.” It is safe to say that this iconic moment fuelled some serious self-love and encouraged an upkeep of cause determination. Not only we can identify the heart-warming effects of sisterly solidarity, echoing the “power in unity” BLM slogan, we can also see how positive affirmation causes a chain reaction. Positivity breeds positivity, change breeds change. Picturing similar actions on a larger, more permanent scale, we can only imagine the potential for young black folk, especially in terms of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world.
The Jen Reid statue has undeniably sent messages of empowerment and potential change that have boosted the morale of BLM supporters and maintained momentum. In the end, the iconography of a slaveholder statue being torn down by the hands of BLM protesters, rolled into the harbour where his slave ships had once docked, to then be replaced by the statue of a local black woman with a black power stance, holds a poetic sweetness that will remain ingrained in our memories for a lifetime. In the words of local graphic designer Stacey Olika "The statue lasted 24 hours but history still remains”.
Written by Nosipho Ledwaba-Chapman - pictures by @rubywalkerphoto_
]]>Certain venues and businesses that have been prohibited since March will open their doors on the 4th July to the British public, with safety measures set in place. Inspired by the UK’s eager anticipation of its 4th of July “Independence Day”, I have been wondering if the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is easing restrictions to secretly build herd immunity.
The possibility of a second wave of COVID-19 was announced last Thursday by the BBC. This virus is expected to surge again in the winter season, and the only way in which this can happen, is if the public stop practising the strict lockdown restrictions that they have adopted since early March.
What does this mean in relation to the 4th of July opening of businesses? Following the announcement of a limited list businesses permitted to open their stores on that day, a concerning revision of the two meter rule has been implemented by Boris Johnson as a one meter plus rule. This reduction in space will mean closer interaction between individuals, increasing the likelihood of infection. The rate of infection can closely mirror one of which the country suffered during the early days of the outbreak.
Following Boris Johnson’s heroic defence for Chief Advisor Dominic Cummings personal dismissal of the safety protocol that he designed, we have to question whether Johnson is working for his country or in favour of his friends. We also need to question if his general failure to protect the UK from this virus was a choice or an inability to perform in his position. In the months of February and March, following his successful election, Boris Johnson was nowhere to be seen when the virus was quickly entering and spreading throughout the country. This created a delayed response to the virus resulting in a high rate of infection and death, with the third highest number of deaths recorded as of June 29th 2020, falling shortly behind the US and Brazil.
Could it be that he saw no urgency in protecting the country and avoiding a rise in the rate of infection and death?
During the early weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, the NHS struggled to manage the high demands for hospital beds, ventilators and PPE. The support from the UK government has been shameful and poor, a systemic flaw with very little help extended to our NHS services. The lack of dedication from the government to the NHS may be a strategy to increase the rate of infection, and ensure that the possibility of herd immunity can deal with the crisis better than our severely underfunded health care system. Contrarily, the NHS debt of £13.4bn was erased by Matt Hancock, despite the Department of Health and Social Care’s loan shark tendencies.
With reports of a travel booking surge late last week, when can we hold the government accountable in its delayed response of closing airports to reduce the rate of infection? Many countries like Ethiopia, Cuba and Angola have shown to implement early strategies of closing airports and enforcing quarantine measures for recent arrivals. The UK government ignored this highly effective method of closing or restricting travel during the early revelation of the virus in the UK. It appeared to be underperforming for a developed nation when compared to the strategies of comparatively underdeveloped countries.
There are exceptions: Leicester is to stay in lockdown, with 944 of cases reported in the last two week. The government has not made strict travel restrictions to and from Leicester, but Matt Hancock has mentioned that talks of a Leicester travel ban are on the table. This slow reaction to limiting and or banning travel is a sign that the government is repeating its initial mistake, one that led this country to lose many of its people. The lack of a travel ban in Leicester is exposing the remaining cities to another outbreak, of which the severity is unclear.
The British public is eagerly waiting for the opening of its favourite bars, pubs, cinemas and other recreational sites of business, but I think this is the perfect time to assess whether the government has been keeping us safe. Should we perceive July 4th as a day of freedom, a day created to save consumerism, or a day that further enforces the herd immunity strategy?
The government has publicly apologised for suggesting the herd immunity strategy, but there are many events and decisions that indicate that this strategy might be privately conducted.
Written by Bethel Haimanot
]]>In “the land of free”, you can succeed regardless of what class you were born into and where you are from. But in a country that is torn apart day after day and is collapsing from the inside, does it still make sense to talk about the American dream?
At a time when the country is confronting three overlapping crises - as stated in the New York Times - the coronavirus, an economic collapse and a reckoning with racism and injustice, the American dream has become pure theory and only a dream, indeed. George Floyd’s murder while in police custody left the world in a state of shock. Or rather, just a part of the world; the part that believes in social justice and demands a change in the current socio-political climate.
Police violence is structural in a country like the USA where there has been centuries of brutal repression. In fact, America boasts the most violent slavery system in history, which formed the basis of economic growth in the United States and England: from the indigenous people exploited to build settlements, to the black slaves used in plantations.
On the 25th of May, the 46-year-old man was killed by a white police officer who pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds even when he was pleading for his life. We all know what happened after: his death set off protests that spread across the country in the blink of an eye. American citizens have streamed in the streets shouting Black Lives Matter and demanding justice. The truth is that we have seen riots against racism and police brutality before, starting in the 60s with the civil rights movement. Why was this time different?
Beyond recent events, America was already facing a huge crisis, one of the biggest in its history. A sense of dissatisfaction was felt by the majority of its citizens. It all started with the current coronavirus pandemic that has been consuming the country with the worst COVID-19 outbreak on the planet, with over 2 million confirmed cases and - as of today - 117,527 victims. The US government refused to learn from other countries that were already fighting the virus and, in doing so, decided to dig its own graves.
Even worse, studies have shown how the risk of death by coronavirus among black people and some minority ethnic groups is significantly higher compared to those of white ethnicity - so much for those who said the pandemic would have been a great equaliser.
READ MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The Great Magnifier: How Coronavirus Is Showing Inequalities Between Ethnic Groups
The US didn’t make health a priority in response to this invisible enemy. A plan to address the coronavirus was missing from the government’s emergency response, that prioritising saving the economy, but without success. On the 14th of April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) declared a state of emergency for the world economy, as we entered the coronavirus recession, also known as the COVID-19 recession or the Great Lockdown. It is said that this will be the most severe global economic downturn since the Great Depression, and that it will be "far worse" than the Great Recession of 2009.
The dizzying growth of the American economy, which was the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s promises, officially ended with the closing of Broadway theaters and sports leagues, such as basketball, baseball, hockey; when New York shut down its doors, as did major cities across the country and all of California’s and Florida’s beaches, and airports stopped all flights in and out of the States. The country's total lockdown was a hurricane for the number one economy in the world. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate declined by 1.4 percentage points to 13.3 percent in May, and the number of unemployed persons fell by 2.1 million to 21 million. Even though some have been able to go back to their job, with the easing of restrictions, tens of millions are still out of work and the unemployment rate remains higher than in any previous postwar recession.
The desire for justice and equal rights for black people. Too many viral demonstrations of police killings. An invisible and deadly disease. An economic catastrophe. This is how America reached a breaking point. This is how the American dream has fallen apart.
Written by Miriam Tagini
Follow Miriam on Instagram and Twitter
This fight has not just began in the eyes of black people, this began from the day we were born into such an unjust and ugly system. What is taking place now is not a social media trend, it is a civil rights movement powered by our daily experiences, our pain, our oppression. It will not be "over" quickly and at times it is hard to recognise when change has been achieved when you feel like you've been fighting all of your life... So what has changed? Why should we keep fighting? The answer is, because standing up for ourselves is working, applying pressure is working and in just two short weeks we have sewn the seeds of a better future, just check out the below and see for yourself.
Worlds Largest protest
By refusing to stay silent, we have woken up the world and seen protests taking place simultaneously around the globe from London, all 51 states of America, Hong Kong, Paris, Canada, Berlin, Australia, Spain, Belgium, Italy and more.
We changed the law
We held big corporations accountable for performative allyship (and won!)
We said "It's not just George Floyd" and brought attention to other victims.
We made some much needed architectural changes to our cities. What was once considered defacing public property has become a heroic act of defiance with protestors taking it upon themselves to remove statues honouring racist individuals such as King Leopold II statue in Belgium, confederate statues and slave auction blocks around the US and the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol England.
We got 'Gone With The Wind' Gone!
HBO announced that they will be removing the film from their catalogue after screenwriter John Ridley said the film "glorifies the antebellum south" and perpetuated "painful stereotypes of people of colour". Although this is a triumph, the title went to Amazons number 1 best seller shortly after its removal was announced which begs the question how equality can be achieved when people have such an obsession with inequality?
These are just some of the things that we have helped happen with our chants, riots, tweets, reposts and conversations. We have donated millions to aid companies and charities that support the BLM movement and have educated millions who can no longer bury their heads in the sand. WE did that and we will continue our tireless efforts to be heard and to be treated as equals by our non black counterparts. It may be painful, but through the pain comes the hope that one day we will have a generation free from inequality and racism. Lets keep fighting.
Written by Leomie Anderson
]]>The oppressed have fought the prejudices and inequalities and have demanded freedom since it was taken from them, but today, in 2020, we still see racial injustice on a global scale, particularly affecting Black people and Black communities.The murder of George Floyd by a white police officer was only the latest example of ruthless racism. The perpetuation of anti-Black sentiments and the lack of equal rights and accountability on the part of the government and its racist institutions, provoked people’s reactions all over America and the descent into rioting was inevitable.
Racial oppression has different flavours but it’s all the same sauce. Racism can be overt, like the use of the n-word or physical violence towards people of colour (POCs). However, it is more likely to be covert, such as the denial of White privilege or the denial of a POC’s racial experience. The problem with covert racism is that it supports institutional racism and can wreak non-visible havoc in the lives of POCs.
Racism also affects various communities of colour in a different way and can also be present between these same communities. Sometimes the term POC, which is supposed to be a unifying, is nothing else than a façade.
Racism also goes beyond the Black and White binary. In China, where there is usually a revolting tolerance of anti-Black racism, Black people during COVID-19 pandemic have been victims of evictions, forced to undergo COVID-19 testing and have been forcibly quarantined in relation to a virus that not only started in China in the first place, but affects Black people in a significantly worse way than other everyone else.
READ MORE ABOUT THE TOPIC HERE:
The Great Magnifier: How Coronavirus Is Showing Inequalities Between Ethnic Groups
Moreover, in the Arabic language, the derogatory word ‘abeed’, which means slave, is still used to refer to Black people. Finally, last but not the least, Tou Thao, an Asian-American police officer, stood by Derek Chauvin when his knee lay on the neck of George Floyd, without remotely thinking of stopping the murder.
Protesters rioting in the streets of more than 200 American cities demand justice and accountability, demand rights and equality. In the context of anti-Black racism throughout history, Black people have always fought for rights. The cry remains universal and unchanging over time: freedom.
And freedom, like racism, has many flavours. It includes the eradication of racist institutions, the end of racial discrimination and equality before the law. Basically, the same model of freedom experienced by White people - without them even being aware of.
“The great revolution in the history of man, past, present and future, is the revolution of those determined to be free”, John F. Kennedy - 1961
The blatant disregard of Black lives during this pandemic was explicit when White people organised social outings after it was revealed that COVID-19 disproportionately affects minorities. This, combined with a background of the very delayed arrest of Ahmaud Arbery’s killer (which only took effect because of public outrage), the deplorable murder of Breonna Taylor (in her own home, asleep) and the disgusting display of privilege by Amy Cooper set the foundation for the protests that occurred in outrage to the murder of George Floyd.
The 8 minutes and 46 seconds of that Derek Chauvin’s knee dug into the neck of George Floyd as he pleaded for his life, his breath and his mother for an alleged counterfeit $20 bill was a violent attack on all Black people and those who believe in justice.
In history, protests by Black Americans began when African slaves committed suicide by jumping off slave ships during the Transatlantic passage. In more recent times, we have witnessed Colin Kaepernick’s ostracization from the NFL since he took a knee during a national anthem to protest police brutality. We have witnessed performative empathy on the part of leaders but with no follow through.
That is why the only logical action after the officers who murdered George Floyd were not immediately arrested, was to protest. Although rioting and looting are not a reflection of the protest itself, the violence that has been done to Black bodies needs to end by any means necessary and any means necessary can include violence.
Violence is an inherent part of revolutions. The French revolution, American independence, Ghanaian and Algerian independence to name a few. As the great Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. put it in his letter from Birmingham jail, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
The descent into riots has been provoked by the government’s unwillingness to see people as their own, fellow members of the human race. But now we demand freedom.
Credit cover image: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP via Getty Images
Written by Shara Marie-France
Follow Shara Marie on Instagram
]]>In the countries run by women, the COVID-19 pandemic has been handled much better. To verify this statement we just need to read the statistics showing data from around the world, which isn’t a complex operation considering the fact the only 17 out of 196 countries have a female leader. In early April, Germany's Angela Merkel had already done more tests than any other major nations in the world (as a percentage of the population), while in the Republic of Taiwan led by President Tsai Ing-wen the numbers of dead and infected people have always been very low, despite the proximity to China. Countries like Denmark, Noway and Finland have almost been untouched by the coronavirus, as well as Iceland and New Zealand. But why is that?
Is it a coincidence that more effective strategies have been adopted in countries led by a woman?Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, one of the major experts in leadership and gender-based inequalities, has investigated the topic, coming to the conclusion that no, this is not a coincidence. The success of these 7 States actually lies in the fact that they are run by women. So what has made the difference? They have been exercising their power in an alternative way, focusing on four key concepts: truth, decisiveness, technology and love.
It’s not my place to analyse here what Avivah Wittenberg-Cox has already put into words in this enthralling article. But let us use this space for serious reflection. While some denied the danger of coronavirus (like our Boris Johnson or Donald Trump) these women frankly told their citizens that COVID-19 is a serious problem. They did not wait for the number of infections and deaths to rise to take the necessary restrictive measures. They recognised that not everyone reads the press, so they invited influencers of any age to spread fact-based information on managing the pandemic. They used empathy and words of love to talk to their nations.
We are all aware that many factors contribute to determining successes and failures in the fight against coronavirus, but so far I think we can safely say that women appear to be doing a relatively good job. Not that male leaders are incapable, but the approach and the results are different. So all we are left to ask is: why is that?
I’d like to use Tomas Chamorro Premuzic’s words, published on Forbes, to answer this question. He is a business psychologist, Professor of Business Psychology at University College London (UCL) and Columbia University. He said: “We have known for many decades that there are consistent and significant gender differences in health-related behaviors, which overwhelmingly favor women. Compared to men, women are not just at lower risk of COVID-19, but the vast majority of health problems and illnesses, and their lower risk appetite, reckless impulsivity, and higher conscientiousness, explain why women everywhere tend to outlive men, and why they are generally better able to manage their health than men are.” So when it comes to handling a disease: “the traditional approach to facing illnesses (a stoic, seemingly tough or macho attitude conveying a sense of invincibility) is a particular liability in the face of pandemics, especially if you are in charge, and people look to you to for guidance on how to behave.”
So even if the data is for now insufficient to draw solid conclusions about women’s relative ability to guide their countries through a pandemic, there still seems to be a correlation between the gender of a political leader and the ability to handle a health crisis, including a pandemic.
Written by Miriam Tagini
Follow Miriam on Instagram & Twitter
The post The Scottish Parliament Fights Period Poverty With A New Bill appeared first on LAPP..
]]>A historic, life-changing moment.
The Bill, known as the Period Products (Free Provision) Bill, passed through the first stage of the Scottish parliament yesterday, 25th of February, with 112 votes in favour, none against, and one abstention.
According to the new legislation, tampons and sanitary pads will be freely available at designated public places – such as community centres, youth clubs and pharmacies.
The bill’s proposer Monica Lennon said in a statement: “It is a milestone moment for normalising menstruation in Scotland and sending out that real signal to people in this country about how seriously parliament takes gender equality.”
Fellow lawmaker Alison Johnstone added: “Why is it in 2020 that toilet paper is seen as a necessity but period products aren’t? Being financially penalised for a natural bodily function is not equitable or just.”
A recent study, commissioned by INTIMA and conducted by OnePol, revealed that the average woman spends £10.24 per month on menstrual products, for a total of up to £4,916 during an average reproductive lifetime (ages 12-52).
According to the survey conducted, 49 per cent of 2,000 women (aged 18–55) have faced a lack of access to sanitary products, menstrual hygiene education, toilets and hand washing facilities. Two-thirds (60 per cent) of respondents said they have had to budget in order to afford sanitary items. 79 per cent of women also said they have made sacrifices to be able to buy menstrual products.
But period poverty is not a new thing in the UK. It is a serious issue affecting women and girls who don’t have access to safe, hygienic sanitary products, and/or who are unable to manage their periods with dignity.
The goal of the new Bill is to make period products readily available to anyone who needs them, without restrictions. And this is a good start: the Bill has passed the first stage and it’s now facing the second one, where members of the Scottish government will put forward amendments and will discuss affordability.
Written by Miriam Tagini
Follow Miriam on Instagram & Twitter
The post The Scottish Parliament Fights Period Poverty With A New Bill appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Britain Doesn’t Want Integration, They Want Assimilation appeared first on LAPP..
]]>A bold statement, huh? This was the general response I got from my friends and family after explaining what my first LAPP article would be about. As a first generation immigrant in the UK, I understand the implicit rules surrounding the way we’re supposed to talk about life in this country; as those given the opportunity to be part of this great country, we are to be grateful regardless of the difficulties or injustices we face here. After all, if it’s so bad here, why don’t we go back to where we came from?
When you see the questioning of our rights to criticise the establishment we live in, it’s a stark reminder that privilege is reserved for those who are ‘British’- because to many (whether conscious or not) being British equates to whiteness. Regardless of whether we were born here or have immigrated, we are forever guests in a place that we see as home. This is nothing new or revolutionary and neither is the response thrown at our concerns, ‘Immigrant communities need to do more to integrate and adopt our values’.
Integration; seemingly the solve-all to relations between host countries and immigrants. According to the Collins Dictionary, integration is defined as ‘the act of amalgamating an ethnic or religious group within an existing community’. What exactly qualifies one as integrated? Speaking the host language and being involved within the local community seem to be common requirements. However, these requirements place all the responsibility on the immigrant. The host community isn’t willing to adapt to immigrants; to acknowledge our cultures so that they aren’t left behind at borders, to understand that our languages are of value and that the presence of an accent does not equal lesser intelligence.
We need to be aware of the language and imagery used when we discuss immigration. As we’ve seen in the case of America with Trump referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals, immigrants aren’t afforded individuality or an identity in the media. This situation isn’t unique to the US; our own national media in the UK is guilty of misrepresentation. A study carried out by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, ‘Bulgarians and Romanians in the National Press‘ found that words commonly used to describe Romanians centered around antisocial behaviour. If the narrative driven by mainstream media is preparing the general public to view immigrants through a critical and hostile lens, then true integration is near impossible; you can never be a part of something that doesn’t accept you.
So when I say Britain wants assimilation rather than integration, I’m talking about the hostility towards visible foreignness. I’m talking about the way having our ancestral flags in our homes is taken as a sign of ‘belonging elsewhere’, like being more is a reason to be made to feel less. I’m talking about how our white counterparts can claim their percentage of foreignness to feel ‘exotic’.
Real integration is acceptance. Undeniably, there is a responsibility to be able to effectively communicate and to positively impact the local communities where we immigrate too, but this isn’t exclusive to immigrants. To my fellow immigrants, we shouldn’t be afraid to live our truths and to tell our stories; we are enough as we are, accents and aso ebi included. Just because we’re not understood doesn’t mean we’re behind- they just haven’t caught up yet.
Written by Olamide Tolu-Ogunpolu
The post Britain Doesn’t Want Integration, They Want Assimilation appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Freedom of Speech vs Political Correctness appeared first on LAPP..
]]>There’s the good, the bad, and the ugly when discussing the freedom of speech vs political correctness debate. Today’s debate boils down to an “us vs them” mentality, with neither side able to view the other as having anything to say worthy of importance. The focus on political correctness in the media has created a shift in our discourse and the way we discuss current events, ultimately, we must ask – does political correctness impact free speech? Freedom of speech allows for you to express yourself freely, whilst political correctness avoids forms of expression that discriminates or excludes. The problem is political correctness has made discussing certain topics near impossible, clamping down of free speech so much so whilst doing little to decrease discriminatory attitudes. How is it 2020, and we’ve reached a point where we can’t debate issues intellectually without being offensive?
In today’s society, it seems you can’t say anything or have an opinion without fear of offending someone. Censorship isn’t coming just from institutions, the government, and media, but everywhere. A lot of people are too scared to speak up and say what they really think and feel, it’s much easier to comply with oppressive systems than be labelled uptight and too sensitive. In most forms of Western media, you’ll find that any opinion which falls outside of the dominant set of principles is silenced, meaning you’ll have to look elsewhere to be educated.
Framing freedom of speech and political correctness as opposing forces is dangerous, and often hinders society from having hard yet crucial conversations. A lot of individuals, younger generations in particular, are using their platforms to effect change and speak up in ways that weren’t possible a few years ago. As the world progresses, Millennials and Gen Z’ers are passionate about their politics and entirely unashamed about getting their message out. In the open society we claim to live in, don’t be afraid to voice your opinion. Just be aware, freedom of speech won’t protect you from the consequences of saying anything stupid.
Where do we go from here? Let’s take a step back and look at what’s happening. Being socially conscious and respectful of each other, and the struggles we face is more important now than ever before. It’s hard to know where the bar for political correctness lies, our failure to come together and unite has negatively impacted productive and varied debate. Do we still have the right to voice our opinions freely? Who decides what’s politically correct, and what’s not? Political correctness can expand and not cripple free speech – if we let it. We need to learn how to coexist peacefully, whilst retaining our right to free speech.
Written by J’Nae Phillips
Follow J’Nae on Twitter & Instagram
The post Freedom of Speech vs Political Correctness appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Brexit’s Impact On Women’s Rights: What Will Change? appeared first on LAPP..
]]>It’s been quite a long journey. Fours years of negotiation, three failed withdrawal plans and two general elections. Is this the time for Brexit to actually happen? The new president of the European Commission, Ursula von Der Leyen, has insisted that the time frame is unrealistic. Experts are also worried that hurried and frenetic negotiations will set up a scenario in which Britain either leaves with no deal in hand or ends up with a bare-bones deal, the shape of which no one quite knows.
Both options, however, are expected to drag down the whole economy and, according to some experts, may end up having a very negative impact on women.
The uncertainty of the situation makes it difficult to assess precisely what impact there will be on women. What type of Brexit will UK face? What kind of trade agreements will UK manage to reach with the EU? It’s all unknown.
However, what is beyond dispute is that trade agreements can have different effects on different groups of men and women based on economic status, caring responsibilities and power.
For example, the economic impact of no-deal Brexit will lead to a downward spiral for the UK economy. And it is in these situations, when money is tight, that women – particularly ethnic minority women – suffer the most. Why? Because women are overrepresented in specific sectors at risk of being impacted by an economic downturn.
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, director of the UK Women’s Budget Group, and co-author of the research Exploring the Economic Impact of Brexit on Women (March 2018) said to the New York Times: “Women and men are differently situated in the economy. Women are particularly vulnerable to changes in trading arrangements, whether it’s greater liberalization or more restrictions on trade, because it’s harder for women to take advantage of new opportunities and they’re more vulnerable to a negative impact.”
At the moment, a majority of working women across the country are in a part-time or with a temporary contract, and when the economy faces transactions those jobs tend to be the first to go. Moreover, Dr Stephenson’s study found that in the event of the UK economy taking a hard hit, job losses in the clothing and textiles areas (the one on trade with the EU) would be inevitable. This is a sector highly represented by women.
Also at stake, women rights all around. The EU protects rights such as equal pay, maternity leave and safe workplace. Many of the laws enforced in the country come from the European Union and its legislation.
As part of the Union, Britain has been compelled to implement those directives into its domestic law. But the question now is: what happens to this set of laws once Britain leaves the EU?
Previously, Theresa May included in her withdrawal agreement(s) the proposal to maintain those protections for women even after Brexit. But now, Boris Johnson never actually expressed his opinion on the issue. It seems very unlikely that the UK would turn its back to gender equality but, once again, the future is uncertain. But this is not the time to gamble with women’s rights.
Written by Miriam Tagini
Follow Miriam on Instagram & Twitter
The post Brexit’s Impact On Women’s Rights: What Will Change? appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post New Law in Brunei Targets Gay People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The work has now been left to celebrities like Ellen, Elton John, and straight allies like Geroge Clooney who have publicly called for a boycott of all the Sultan’s hotels and other properties. As brilliant as this show of solidarity is, it can’t just be left on celebrities to act. People’s lives are at stake, here, and the government are acting like holidays for the rich and arms trade are worth more.
The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan announced he’d be scrapping all the adverts for Brunei from London’s transport network. That’s great, but is this enough? Yes, it is something, but it doesn’t get to the root of the problem. The roots go far deeper than adverts for hotels most of us can’t afford to spend a night in, never mind be regular enough customers for a boycott to be effective.
Not long ago BBC’s Question Time hosted a debate centred around if it was ‘moral’ or not to teach kids about LGBT+ issues. Consider also that over the past few years, there’s been a surge in debates about whether it’s okay for a bakery to not sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples if the seller opposes same-sex marriage. It wasn’t long after states in the US were granted the right to not sell cakes to gay couples before estate agents started laying their claim to not sell houses to same-sex couples.
It’s easy to think that because these debates are so insane and ridiculous, that they’re inconsequential. Yet these debates act like a drip feeding into a wider pool of ignorance. And with the way cookies work on the internet, if you click on one anti-LGBT video, the next thing you know you’re down a Piers Morgan sized rabbit hole.
By allowing these debates so much air time, we’re validating the arguments whose undertones suggest that gay people maybe aren’t even human beings. Every time a homophobe is on GMB ‘debating’ against a gay person, we’re validating homophobia as if it’s an acceptable stance. It’s not hard to see the connection, here.
I’m not suggesting that we ban all homophobes from speaking, but they certainly shouldn’t be given an equal platform with the people who are victims of their violent and harmful rhetoric. Homophobia has consequences beyond the obvious, and we need to start recognising them before they reach Bruneian levels of brutality.
Despite how many steps forward we’ve made over the past few decades, Brunei’s ruling feels like a colossal step backwards for the LGBT+ community worldwide. Amongst political divides and “friendly” debates, We keep talking about protecting innocent children from gay people, as if by virtue of gay people existing they’re already guilty of something. As if being gay is a moral stain on humanity. We keep acting like it’s gay people our children need shielding from, and not homophobic, violent rhetoric, that strives to see human beings persecuted for no reason.
The problem is, even I’m guilty of sometimes believing their message. On my weaker days, I think maybe they’re right after all since so many people seem to agree. So many people – millions in fact – seem to genuinely believe that gay people shouldn’t exist. And then I remind myself how insane that is. Being anywhere on the sexuality spectrum from 100% gay to 100% straight is perfectly fine and morally neutral.
It’s absurd to me that even now in the 21st century, I sometimes have to remind myself that my existence and my community’s existence is not a problem. It’s malignant beliefs predicated on an irrational fear that are the problem. And whilst the Sultan of Brunei might use Islam as a scapegoat for his beliefs, we all know that it’s all just smoke and mirrors. There’s a huge difference between culture and faith and homophobia is a cultural problem.
It’s difficult to comprehend how the LGBT+ community in Brunei must be feeling right now. A gay Bruneian man told the Guardian, “The implementation [of the new laws] gives a lot of conservative people who are very homophobic a lot of power. It is more dangerous for people like me to go out now.” Another said, “It’s not the Brunei I know … The future isn’t bright, but it isn’t bleak either. We just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
You can’t kill an idea or stone it out of existence. Gay people exist and that’s that. You can’t just make being gay illegal. Gay people will and always have existed. The gay people of Brunei will simply be forced further underground than they were before. We have a moral obligation to bear witness to these happenings; if not only so we can learn from them and equip ourselves appropriately so we can work for the collective good. Despite the forces around the world trying to stop such a beautiful community from existing, we have to remind ourselves that love still wins.
Written by Rochelle Asquith
The post New Law in Brunei Targets Gay People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Brexit: Millions Turn Out to Put It To the People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>To be honest, she is not in a great position. Her last vote of confidence only succeeded by sheer dumb luck. And she rates so low in the polls, it is surprising she is still in power. Any other Prime Minister would have surely been kicked out by now, right? A significant factor in this whole mess is that it is highly possible Theresa May was only made the leader of the conservative party precisely because she is a woman.
David Cameron, when he resigned, probably knew that the Conservative party was only going to sink in the public’s perception. So, the rest of the party followed suit and let a woman take the fall. This has so much more impact especially considering the fact that the Conservative party’s last female leader still reigns as one of the most hated Prime Ministers in Britain’s history. This is something that occurs a lot; if a company knows it is about to go under, it will hire a woman to take the majority of the flack. And, of course, to maintain the status quo that stops diversity from affecting any real change.
So whatever she does, it is history in the making. And millions hope she serves another referendum instead of ploughing on down a road that will only lead to more disparity between Leave and Remain voters. This week particularly seems to have seen many in both the UK and the USA realise that what was predicted in 2016 – complete and utter chaos – has actually happened. They predicted a bewildering mess and they were right. And so it seems that the Conservative party knew exactly the mess we would be in now, and let the frontwoman take the fall for it. Though, no one wants to absolve her of any responsibility. She has got her hands dirty, too, and she is just as complicit as anyone else. No one asked her to take power, she is the one who stooped so low as to pick it up.
Yet as always, these kinds of marches allow the public to come up with ingenious designs for placards. One protester just had a croissant stuck on a stick. Another used Queer Eye’s Jonathan Van Ness’s famous phrase “struggs to func” (struggling to function) to describe the government. Yellow stars on blue flags were raised high, as many said “I’m never gonna give EU up” in full 80s Rick Astley fashion. From “Fromage, not Farage” to “I’ve seen smarter cabinets in IKEA,” the disappointed British public let their opinions be known. Who is to say if May will listen to the public or not? History says she would be a fool not to. Yet given the past few years of absolute buffoonery from everyone behind the scenes, no one knows. At least we still have croissants on sticks.
Written by Rochelle Asquith
The post Brexit: Millions Turn Out to Put It To the People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Britain is Responsible for Shamima Begum and Her Son appeared first on LAPP..
]]>After this news broke, people began to refer back to the decision made by the UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid to revoke Begum’s British citizenship. Begum’s son, Jarrah is one of many children who have died fleeing from fighting in ISIS’ last remaining Syrian foothold. According to the International Rescue Committee, nearly 100 children have died en route or shortly after arriving at al-Hawl due to malnutrition and health care.
A British government spokesperson told CNN that “the death of any child is tragic and deeply distressing for the family.” The spokesperson also added that the UK Foreign Office has repeatedly urged people not to travel to Syria since 2011.
“The government will continue to do whatever we can to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and traveling to dangerous conflict zones.”
With Begum’s newborn son’s death, Britain finds itself once again at an ethical and political crossroads. Could this have been prevented? Not familiar with Shamima Begum’s story? Allow us to inform you.
Shamima Begum was one of three schoolgirls to leave London at the age of 15 and travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State group in 2015. The Times’ Anthony Lloyd interviewed Begum in a Syrian refugee camp; by then aged 19 and heavily pregnant with her third child. She described her marriage to a Daesh fighter, brushing off air raids of “bombs every now and again.” With similar coolness, she said witnessing the head of an executed captive in a street bin “didn’t faze [her] at all.” Begum’s husband has since been captured, and all three of her children have died from malnutrition or illness.
The British public outcry was huge, with many chilled by her mundane description and lack of remorse. She claimed ignorance of some of IS’ worst atrocities. Begum also expressed a degree of regret at the death of innocent women and children in the Manchester Arena bombings in 2017. She nonetheless equated this to the killing of Syrian women and children in coalition air strikes. In following interviews, Begum was more apologetic and expressed her hope for sympathy, claiming she was tricked and did not fully understand the step she was taking as she was “newly practising” and had not formed her own interpretation of Islam.
A few days after her initial interview, Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped Begum of her British citizenship: this is where the real issues truly set in. Not only does this decision throw up complex legal questions, it shows worrying disregard for citizenship as an entity. It demonstrates a lack of responsibility for an individual who was radicalised as a minor within Britain’s own capital.
It is only legally possible to strip an individual of their British nationality if they are eligible for citizenship elsewhere -a person cannot be left stateless. Begum’s mother is Bangladeshi, so Javid’s decision presumably rests on the assumption that Shamima could obtain Bangladeshi citizenship. However, Bangladesh’s foreign minister has said there is “no question” of allowing her into the country.” Under Bangladesh’s laws, if a UK national like Ms Begum is born to a Bangladeshi parent, they automatically become a Bangladeshi citizen, thus giving dual nationality. Nationality and citizenship of Bangladesh lapse once an individual turns 21 unless they proactively attempt to retain it. Shamima Begum is still 19, so this so-called “blood line” law may protect her from statelessness. It is understood that her family are set to challenge the Home Office.
This exposes the fundamental problems: firstly, a two-tier citizenship system and secondly, a dangerous precedent. If your parents were born in the UK and this is the sole citizenship you hold, the Home Office cannot revoke this without rendering you stateless and contravening international law. However, for a British child of an immigrant or dual nationality-holder, this removal of citizenship is feasible. Citizenship is not something which should be a question of degrees or a sliding scale of “how British” an individual can be: it is an absolute.
Needless to say, Begum has engaged in abhorrent activity, and Javid has a responsibility to protect the country from potential threats. However, citizenship is a two-way responsibility. An individual has rights and responsibilities that come with their citizenship while the state has the duty to care for its citizens. Once citizenship becomes something to be thrown around for political capital, this jeopardises an important concept which facilitates justice for all – ostensibly one of Britain’s core values. Citizenship enables rights, it is not a right in itself.
Shamima Begum is not the first citizen involved with Islamic State to attempt to return to the UK, yet the scale and tone of the backlash has been unprecedented. It is important to acknowledge her own agency, and the lack of complete remorse she still seems to feel. However, Begum was radicalised and groomed on home soil as a child, yet there seems to be no acknowledgement of Britain’s responsibility for this failing? We have to question how a fifteen-year-old girl from London can arrive at a point where she felt traveling to Syria to join a terrorist group was the right thing to do with her life, to turning her back on her home and family. At the very least, there has been a failure to protect a child from extremism.
The more cynical among us may consider that Sajid Javid has taken an opportunity to assert a strong anti-terrorist stance in a high-profile case to win favour with the right-wing electorate that the Tory party increasingly seems to court. On a utilitarian level, he would be correct to see this as an opportunity for the so-called “global Britain” to assert its new post-Brexit identity on the world stage.
However, setting a dangerous precedent by skating on thin legal ice, further endangering a young mother who was radicalised within UK borders and failing to recognise the state’s duty to its own citizen is the polar opposite of the type of country Britain should be. The United Kingdom should be based on justice and the rule of law, not “trial by media” and political opportunism. Shamima Begum and her son are Britain’s responsibility, whether the public likes it or not.
Written by Ellen Pickett
Credit featured photo: The Express
The post Britain is Responsible for Shamima Begum and Her Son appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Terrorist Attacks in New Zealand appeared first on LAPP..
]]>49 people were shot and killed at their place of worship on Friday March 15 – during Friday prayer. A terrorist attack on two mosques in central Christchurch, New Zealand. 41 people were found dead in the Al Noor Mosque and seven at Linwood Mosque, one victim died at Christchurch hospital. 48 people were announced injured by the chief executive of the Canterbury District Health Department. They are all suffering from gunshot wounds and have varied from critical to minor condition. Children were also affected. These statistics only apply to those admitted to the Christchurch Hospital. There are other people suffering from injuries in other hospitals.
Three men and one woman have been detained on behalf of this attack.
The people that were taken into custody have been said to not be on any security watch lists. One has been identified as Australian by the Australian Prime Minister. Committing crimes in a country you are not from is not the move!
Social media could have potentially prevented these attacks but due to the diligence performed by the owners of social media platforms, it was not. Hours before the attack was demonstrated, an 87-page manifesto was released on both Twitter and 8Chan. This manifesto was filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim ideas. Twitter responded on their Twitter Safety account and issued that they are working in “close coordination with New Zealand law enforcement to help in their investigation.”
A live video made from a Facebook account was made as the attack was going on. Facebook also issued a response saying that they tried to remove all content after the New Zealand Police Department alerted them about the attack. the 17 minute video was shared on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram just over an hour of its release. The original account the video came from was immediately taken down, but the damage had been done. To those who had time on their hands to edit the video and white nationalist manifesto, so the system couldn’t track it, you should be ashamed of yourself. Spreading such gruesome videos and xenophobic ideologies should have serious repercussions.
Social media platforms need to take accountability for their lack of policing and make active efforts to improve what is spread and released on their platforms. This is not the first time an attack has gone viral and they did not shut it down. Why did the police department have to let Facebook know what is happening on their platform? It is hard to go against the sheer essence of social media, which is making things go viral quickly, but there needs to be some accountability taken and this needs to become top priority.
The prime minister of New Zealand has called this an “unprecedented act of violence,” and this hate-filled act of xenophobia should ring alarms to every nation. New Zealand is not a country where extreme hate crimes have subsided in. Radical views and narratives are spreading, and if no serious consequences for terrorist attacks occur, then this could potentially keep happening.
We feel deeply for the families of the victims and those who witnessed attacks occur in their place of refuge. If you would like to help those who have been affected, there is a crowdfunding campaign going around.
*Update March 16, 2019:
– The death toll has increased to 50 along with 50 injured.
– The suspect has been identified as 28-year-old, Australian, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, and he has been charged with murder.
– Authorities found an 87-page manifesto of Tarrant’s filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim messages.
Written by Tolu Martins
Credit featured photo: ABC/ Mark Baker/Associated Press
The post Terrorist Attacks in New Zealand appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Shamima Begum: Memes, ISIS anda Shooting Range appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Yesterday, another story about Begum emerged. A shooting range in The Wirral has been using targets pasted with her face for the range’s customers to use. A spokesperson from the shooting range told the Guardian, “The targets provide some fantastic reactions and conversations and allow people to have some lighthearted fun and bring out the inner child in us all.” Frankly, I wouldn’t ever want to know anyone whose inner child is brought out by shooting a picture of a teenage girl’s face. Apparently, at the range, you can shoot images of Donald Trump and Margaret Thatcher as well. I despise both of these politicians, but no part of me has ever wanted to shoot them in the face. It’s disturbing, to say the very least.
Encouraging, or even allowing people to shoot pictures of others is inciting violence, and this could have worrying consequences for Muslim women. Islamophobic and racist violence has risen exponentially in recent years thanks to far-right groups being validated by the press. Even Liam Neeson isn’t immune to the apparent seduction of scapegoating an entire race because of the actions of a few.
These things never happen in a vacuum. Begum’s treatment speaks to the wider treatment of Muslim women, especially in the media. Sajid Javid’s revoking her citizenship and the media at large have encouraged the public to see Begum as demonstrative of something else; a Briton who was never truly British, undeserving of being tried under British law. She’s the monster who we can all point a finger at. If we were living a few hundred years ago, she’d have had her head placed on a spike and hung on London Bridge. We’ve scapegoated a vulnerable young woman just because we can. And we’ve placed the blame of an entire terrorist organisation on her head, and on her newborn baby.
Such behaviour to me seems very reactionary, and indicative of suppressed beliefs. It’s people exercising on feelings of helplessness and anger, something that rarely ends well. Because ISIS have been beheading their way across Europe (metaphorically and literally) for years now, it’s no wonder people feel helpless. They want to do something. To avenge the kids who died in Manchester, in Paris, and everywhere else. Yet shooting the image of a 19-year-old girl, regardless of what she’s done, isn’t helping anyone.
We must reckon with the impact of what we’ve done. Especially when we decide to exile and vilify someone like this. We can pretend all we want it’s about our objection to ISIS, but it isn’t. It’s more about feeling powerless and wanting desperately to feel powerful by throwing someone else underneath us. If you want to produce a terrorist, raise them in a society that does not care about them. Then they will believe they have no need to care about society. That’s what has happened to Begum and the other two girls who went with her, and to every other person who’s left Britain for Syria. My worry is, that by revoking Begum of her citizenship and treating her in such a violent way, we’re simply reinforcing the messages that she’s been indoctrinated with; that no one cares, she’s not and never was worthy.
Furthermore, despite the suffering she must’ve endured over the past four years, including miscarriages and witnessing beheadings, the news doesn’t see her as a victim. Apparently in her BBC appearances, she was apathetic. However I just saw a numb, shellshocked teenager who had no clue what was getting into. Trauma does that to you. And to be honest, who’s to say that if she begged and sobbed on TV she’d be shown any compassion? How much pain would she have had to show before we believed her? It might be my cynicism talking, but I don’t think there’s anything she could’ve done.
Since Begum’s public appeal for forgiveness, she has become the butt of a national joke. And to me, it seems like it’s just because we don’t know how to have a nuanced conversation about abuse, grooming and extremism. Memes emerged in even the most liberal parts of the internet, her face being used as the epitome of arrogance. So not only are people shooting her in the face, they’re laughing in it, too. Saffron Roberts, writer for The Broad, says, “We, watching this unfold from our comfortable sofas, should not be laughing at the fact that a child is now going to be raised without a home.”
For the rest of Shamima Begum’s life, she’ll remember the day she was turned away by her home. Her family will, too. She and her family will remember her traumas being played for laughs, dragged out across the whole of the media. They’ll all remember the deep lack of compassion displayed by a government duty-bound to protect its citizens, including the ones that make terrible choices.
Maybe, because of the internet and the rate at which we can amplify our opinions, we need to start thinking before we make such knee jerk reactions. If Sajid Javid hadn’t made his decision based on a rash public opinion, he could’ve changed Begum and her son’s lives. Because let’s not forget she has a son who’ll now grow up in a refugee camp alongside all the other kids who have also been turned away from their homes. The UK’s desperate power plays against the vulnerable are inhumane. Our “inner child” shouldn’t be brought out by this. Never mind by getting to shoot the image of it in the face.
Written by Rochelle Asquith
Credit featured photo: The Express
The post Shamima Begum: Memes, ISIS anda Shooting Range appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Kamala Harris: For The People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Harris served as the district attorney of San Francisco from 2004-2010, then served as attorney general of California from 2011-2017. Sen. Harris sits under the Democratic party. She is one of eight confirmed government officials who will be running for the executive branch in the coming year.
Kamala Harris declared presidency on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday and on the anniversary of Shirley Chisholm’s attempt to run for presidency. Chisholm’s was a New York congressman who was the first black woman to try and run for presidency 47 years ago.
Many people are very excited for Kamala Harris and have already given her their votes. Elections are not till next year, but I think it is important to know the policies of candidates. In addition to what they have done so far in their careers. We at LAPP encourage everyone to do their research before reaching a verdict.
Harris has achieved many things in her life serving as a District Attorney and now being seated in the Senate representing the State of California. She won a $25 billion settlement for California homeowners who were affected by the foreclosure crisis. Asked pivotal questions at the Supreme Court case against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which she sided with victim, Professor Christine Blasey Ford. In addition, she was the first black woman to be elected district attorney of San Francisco. At the position, Harris created a program for first-time drug offenders to gain a high-school diploma. This gave them a chance to possibly get jobs after they left prison.
With all the good Harris has done, she doesn’t have full support of her party. Her past as a district attorney is not the greatest. Law professor, Laura Bazelon said, “If Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.” She has falling under probing time and time again because of her rather harsh verdicts when it came to crime.
In 2010, she was highly criticized for her role in the tampering of evidence in a case. A police laboratory technician intentionally sabotaged a piece of evidence. Harris withheld information about this. The technician handled 600 cases that were dismissed. Senator Kamala also helped orchestrate a state legislation that punished low-income families whose children were found to be habitually taunt in school. This crisis only affected low-income people of colour.
Harris also ruled against the death penalty and previously laughed at the thought of marijuana being used for medical reasons – she has now changed her mind on both issues. Another alarming issue is Harris does not support police body cameras and voted against the bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving police officers.
In the time of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and as a black woman, this is very worrying. Activist, Phelicia Jones who previously supported Harris said, “How many people need to die before she steps in?” During her time as a DA, there was also a historic increase in prison population. Harris was often urged to embrace criminal reforms, but she either opposed or remained silent.
No one is perfect and people make mistakes. People have their own personal beliefs and values in which we must respect. Kamala Harris running for president is a superhero move for all the little black girls who have once dream of being president but felt like they could not. Nonetheless, we at LAPP do urge you to know exactly who you are voting for and why you are voting for them.
Written by Tolu Martin
The post Kamala Harris: For The People appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Supreme Court Backs Transgender Military Ban appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Despite the trans population of the military being a mere 15,000 of the overall 801,200 population, the reason for this ban (other than the blindingly obvious prejudice), according to some, is that trans people are a burden on the military. This concept is founded on pretty much no research. Facts and figures can not support the idea that trans people are burdensome. It is simply cost-effective to give people the medical care they need when they need it rather than letting the problems snowball. However, according to Trump, not giving people access to the medical care they deserve is a smart idea.
Most people’s feelings around militaries are immensely complicated due to the inherently horrific nature of war. Especially when we factor in that the education system only has a budget of $68 billion. That’s less than 10% of the military’s $686 billion budget. However, this is not just about war and the ethics behind it. It is about trans people being banned from a bastion of U.S. society. A country’s military is a point of judgement, and in the U.S., the military seems to pride itself on allowing any U.S. citizen to fight and/or die for their country.
It is easy to see Trump as the sole enemy since he is the face of it all. However, if you look behind the comb-over and the fake tan, you will see most of the government propped up with his supporters. This emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a long-held anti-trans prejudice is simply unacceptable. Transgender Americans exist in every part of society, and banning them from the military will not stop them from existing in the military. They simply would not be able to live as they choose: happy, free and out.
This ban is utterly disgraceful. A decision that is steeped in discrimination from the roots upwards. It is an overly conservative government flexing its muscles in an inexcusable manner. We all took a sigh of relief when a judge blocked the ban back in 2017, but somehow, Trump and his cronies found a way to worm it back in.
Hopefully, it will not be long before this ban (and entire administration) is hurled into the trash heap of history where it belongs. Until then, we will keep raising our voices.
Written by Rochelle Asquith
The post Supreme Court Backs Transgender Military Ban appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Being Black in Britain: The Civil Rights Movement They Never Taught You In School appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Please do not be under the illusion as many so often are that there was no conscious effort in Britain to manifest or build a black civil rights movement in the 20th century. Many assume that because there was not a black civil rights or power movement attached to Britain as there was in the United States that racism did not pervade all levels of society as it did in America. This was certainly not the case. Racism in Britain was underpinned against a different backdrop altogether. Whilst it was certainly as complex as it was in America, racism in Britain entailed nuances that have given way to the illusion that the black civil rights struggle in Britain did not exist.
Let’s take it back, not as far back as colonialism- we all aware of the slave trade- no matter how they want to dress it up in school (that’s another piece for another time- yes colonial amnesia exists heavily in Britain). Following the Second World War, with a depleted workforce, Britain still a colonial power invited workers from the Caribbean to help rejuvenate post-war Britain. With workers came their families, and as immigration began to rise, so did racial discrimination and violence. It echoed the racism in America, however it took place on a smaller scale. As Dr Bikhu Parekh a Labour member of the House of Lords noted, “English racism was calm, arrogant, secure in its self-righteousness and self-confidence.” White, predominantly working-class Teddy Boys spurred on by far-right organisations such as Osawald Mosely’s Union Movement and the White Defence League led the charge of racial animosity in a bid to “Keep Britain White”. It is no surprise then that the racial tension culminated in the 1958 Notting Hill Riots. Following the assault of a Swedish woman, Maibritt Morrison married at the time to a Jamaican man Raymond Morrison by a gang of young white people. From the riots came an increased tension between the Metropolitan police and the Caribbean community who recognised the police failings to take their reports seriously, thereby exposing to many a racial dynamic of this powerful British institution. What also emerged more positively from the Notting Hill Riots and is still celebrated today in January 1959 was the precursor of the Notting Hill Carnival by Claudia Jones a “Caribbean Carnival.”
Along with community figures Claudia Jones came those such as Paul Stephenson, who a decade later fought against discrimination that not only occurred in his home Bristol but was widespread across British cities. Direct racism in the form of “Coloured bars” that halted the employment of ‘coloured’ people and affected housing led to the systemic discrimination of people of colour in Britain. Paul Stephenson was a youth worker and a member of the West Indian Development council who led a successful boycott against the Bristol Omnibus Company. The previously nationalised company despite a labour shortage denied prospective black employees work; with the Transport and General Worker’s Union at the time stating “if one black man steps on the platform as a conductor, every wheel will stop.” The four-month long boycott was a success and the company overturned the colour bar. The infamous boycott drew national attention to racial discrimination and was an influential force on the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1965. Although the act was extended in 1968 and amended by the Race Relations Amendment Act in 2000, it codified in law a marked shift in British attitudes towards race, requiring equal treatment and access to employment, private and public services regardless of race.
Those are just two key events amongst many that made up the Black British civil rights movement. Others included the trial of “The Mangrove Nine,” where Frank Crichlow a community activist and others were arrested for ‘riot and affray’ after protesting police harassment in 1970. After their acquittal, as Crichlow said “put on trial the attitudes of the police, the Home Office, of everyone towards the black community.” Another notable series of events were the street disturbances in 1981 that stormed major cities in England-Brixton, Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool due to police tensions between communities of colour. Thus, the Scarman report was drawn up leading to a new code for police behaviour as set in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As well as the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints Authority in 1985.
The Black British Civil Rights movement, although small, was incredibly influential and rich with lessons we can learn from today. Understanding occurrences like the events that led to the Notting Hill Riots in 1958 and the street disturbances of 1981 would have left us better equipped for the riots that occurred in 2010 following the police shooting of Mark Duggan. Being made aware of the campaigns that led to the changes in attitudes, and the introduction of new British legislation decades ago is of key importance to the constant calls for further changes to level the playing field for black people in Britain today. Campaigners and events should be celebrated and recognised across the country. Paul Stephenson’s name should be as recognisable as Marin Luther King Jr’s. Even though the British fight for equality was fought on a smaller scale in comparison to America’s it certainly did not mean it did not happen nor was it of any importance.
It is easy to recognise there is a pattern in the historical curriculum not to dwell on the mistakes and roles Britain played in history. Not only should there be a demand for a revision of British Black history but a revision in the delivery and teaching or lack of it in our schools. Black British history is vital, it should be taught to a greater extent in our schools, mistakes should be learnt from.
Written by Jasmine Botchey
Follow Jasmine on Twitter and Instagram
The post Being Black in Britain: The Civil Rights Movement They Never Taught You In School appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Why are we still ok with white victimization? appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Back to Munroe, and backlash received was the worst time of her life, which speaks volumes about society. The type of slurs and insults that followed Munroe’s comment were highly aggressive, violent, racist, transphobic, homophobic, including threats of rape and death. All completely disproportionate to the action itself.
Munroe spoke on the topic within her creative group Pxssy Palace on Radar radio. She reiterated “calling someone a racist is not a slur, calling out racist behaviour is not a slur, calling someone the ‘N’ word is a slur.” So why was there such anger and rage towards Munroe Bergdorf?
Munroe informed us that once people realised she was biracial, the media attention reduced. It was still a hotline bling but there was a definite drop in attention… Could it be, that only white people feel they have reserved the right to call out racism?
On the 4th September, just 4 days after Munroe was thrown under the bus, Hetty Douglas from Nottingham blasted into the spotlight. Hetty, whilst waiting in McDonalds spotted two workmen, she took their picture and shared it online with the caption “They look like they got 1 GCSE”. Her comment, with its bias and stereotype used to judge and insult the workmen, went viral.
Her degrading comment was a clear example of classism. Further certified after twitter detectives found her Instagram displaying her latest art pieces, “You’re peng but your English is shit.” Hetty Douglas became the poster child for gentrification. The world came together in protecting the harmless victims who unknowingly became targets of her abuse.
Rather unsurprisingly and in less than 48 hours, Hetty Douglas and her snobbery had The Independent hailing her a “victim”. In a knee-jerk manner publications followed The Independent’s new victimised approach, comparing the defence taking place online to a “lynching mob”. Hetty Douglas was protected and forgiven in less than a couple of days, a product of a process which compared to the treatment of Munroe, can be called white victimization.
Despite Munroe merely stating a current racial issue within society, in comparison to Hetty’s ill-mannered comments, Munroe was forced to endure a further 8 days of interviews across news outlets. Instead of bringing up a discussion on “society’s Infrastructure,” Munroe was thrown to the lions. Time was spent wasted on the syntax of her comment. It was a bid to bully Munroe into apologise and retract. The clear disparity of the media’s driven perspective was very telling.
Similarly, in the face of @piersmorgan (known for his aggressive and arguably ignorant approach to journalism), complaining that HE feels targeted as a white man having had the racist structure he sits on called out, Munroe stood her ground (without PR training) in a classy and articulate manner. Whilst being talked at, she maintained poise. Celebrities such as these, encourage the widespread racial illiteracy she is being attacked with. Not only is it frightening to see but also proves Munroe Bergdorf’s point. It gives us a clear view of what white supremacy looks like without the chanting of ‘white power’, KKK gang, their torches, guns, swastikas and the confederate flag.
Thankfully, restoring my faith in humanity, Clara Amfo, the radio 1 DJ & Model cast in the same campaign as Munroe wrote “If she’s not ‘worth it’ anymore, I guess I’m not either” on an Instagram post in solidarity with Munroe. The show of individual show of support created #IStandWithMunroe. We may not be media power houses like Tabloids but we all have a voice. This is the kind of unity the world craves.
Munroe Bergdorf is now the face of a new beauty campaign for Illamasqua, and announced this on her Instagram with the caption “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything”. Munroe’s strength has been impeccable, I urge you all to show her the upmost love, send positive messages and encouragement. Munroe needs to know she is far more loved than she can ever be hated. She was subject to constant abuse online, even going as far as death threats, and L’Oréal did not issue an apology. The clear message sent by L’Oréal, “calling someone racist is actually worse than being one.”
L’Oréal used Munroe’s image to perpetuate diversity. How long will we allow brands to abuse black and brown bodies for financial gain whilst disregarding who or what they represent? For how long will we let white people play the victims whilst tearing down PoC for expressing themselves? My message to young black girls, go where you are truly loved. Create your own opportunities, the possibilities are endless, YOUR capabilities are endless.
Written by Mulan Itoje
The post Why are we still ok with white victimization? appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post 2018 Midterm Elections: The Saga Continues appeared first on LAPP..
]]>Voter turnout has increased dramatically, such as in Houston’s Harris County, which had over three times as many votes than it did in 2014, causing its first Election Day to amount to 63,000 votes. However, with this increase in voting, there has also been an increase in the amount of tactics employed to stop people from voting. The pressing need to tackle voter suppression and election interference has become apparent. Concerns of domestic (allegedly from Republicans) and foreign (Russia and China) threats against the United States from the 2016 presidential election continue to rise. The political divide between the principle political parties continues to widen, and both parties are on edge about which will dominate this set of elections.
Recognizing the power in numbers, the Republican Party is cheating their way through, using every possible tactic to stop minorities (which historically favor Democratic candidates) from voting. There are conflicts with voter identification across the country. The state of Indiana purged 460,000 voters from its voter roll in the name of “updates and maintenance.” Georgia is freezing 50,000 newly registered Black voters. North Dakota is blocking thousands of Native Americans’ registration with their requirement to have a physical home address in order to register, and Florida’s voter registration site went down two days before the deadline (and was never fixed). Republicans are cheating to win; using emotive language to scare people and making people choose sides to create voter bias.
The new policies continue to affect minorities, who are historically known for having their right to vote suppressed. Land-owning white men received the right to vote with the founding of our country in 1776. However, black men couldn’t vote until the 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870), and women until the 19th Amendment (1919). The Republican party is finding any possible loophole to delay left-leaning voters from casting their vote. Some are going as far as rejecting them from voting. Indiana removed 481,235 registered voters from the list of eligible voters for not previously voting (and being deemed “inactive”)[5] and were rejected when showing up at polls. According to CNN, “More than 53,000 voter registrations have been put on hold” because they have failed to clear the state’s “exact match,” and nearly seven-in-ten of those voters are African Americans. There are, however, fights to repeal these actions.
In the case of the disenfranchisement of Native American in North Dakota, SCOTUS ruled that all registered voters must provide a street address. This created conflict for certain tribes who lived on reservations with PO box mailing addresses. Activists in North Dakota needed to raise $100,000 for potential voters to be able to reregister with new addresses. Fortunately, before the fundraiser had even reached the halfway mark, Grammy Award winner John Legend contributed the remaining balance, enabling registered Native Americans to vote.
In 2016, an estimated 15 million members of the population did not vote because of transportation issues, but this year Uber and Lyft are offering discounts on trips to polling stations. Practitioners who believe in equality and fairness are working exceptionally hard to make it easier for people to vote.
Here is a list of solutions to problems many people may experience:
Don’t let them steal your vote. Your vote is your voice and they cannot silence you! Read the ballot carefully, because there are important issues being discussed. Social Security, LGBTQ rights, healthcare, gun safety reforms, environmental issues and finance reform are just some. You can vote early in 37 states, so if you live in one of them, take advantage! It’s going to be a crazy election and with all the excitement and adrenaline of these upcoming midterms, I urge you to breathe and read through the ballots thoroughly before deciding. Every vote counts so go out and VOTE!
Written by Tolu Sarah Martins
The post 2018 Midterm Elections: The Saga Continues appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The post Trump, Welcome To Your Tape… Again appeared first on LAPP..
]]>The ex-Trump bestie was publicly fired and escorted out of the White House and was on an island by herself. Omarosa has been kicked out of the black community alongside the Clueless star Stacey “I tried to run for Senate but I’m real life clueless” Dash. After being fired there wasn’t much news around Omarosa until she started her book tour and being the topic of discussion, President Trump had some things to tweet. He said Omarosa was unqualified for her White House position but he proceeded to hire her as a government advisor because she said nice things about him. Y’alls President acts like a five year old. Nonetheless, Omarosa said she had tapes of the President using the n-word and the tapes were brought to light during the 2016 campaign.
Omarosa claims the producers of The Apprentice have a tape of President Trump using the n-word on Celebrity Apprentice. Whilst everyone in the White House denied the claims and said Omarosa is using this ‘fictional’ information to promote her book, fellow Apprentice star Penn Jillette said the tapes do indeed exist. The comic and magician said in an interview with Vulture, “He [Trump] would say racially insensitive things that made me uncomfortable.” Whilst it was somewhat courageous for Jillette to speak out, not speaking out when you felt “uncomfortable” and checking a person only enables their behaviour. Staying mute is just as bad. Even after this statement, POTUS still denies the claims.
In various tweets on August 13th, Trump said Omarosa was indeed delusional and fabricated all the allegations. He addressed Omarosa as “Whacky Omarosa” and whilst defending himself referred to Omarosa as a dog. Whilst many defended the president – including American political consultant,Frank Luntz – a new tape surfaced and had a lot of people backtracking.
CBSNews obtained a new tape from Omarosa that defends her claims. A conversation between Omarosa, Lynne Patton, Katrina Pierson (News Personal) and campaign communications director Jason Miller was held during the 2016 Presidential campaign. A discussion between all parties was orchestrated because there was a potentially harmful recording of the president using the n-word and they wanted to know how they could get in front of it, if it was ever shared with the public. During the time Donald Trump asked Lynne Patton for assistance in how to handle the situation and both her and Omarosa said “…it depends on what scenario you are talking about.” Both these women are black and were defending this man for some coin. By all means get your check but Omarosa don’t bring out your moral compass now because you got played. Like Michael Eric Dyson so beautifully said, “Just because you get crumbs from Massa’s table doesn’t mean you ain’t on no plantation!”
Pierson was interviewed on FOXNews Monday night where she denied the existence of the tape that she was involved in. Then later backtracked in tweets when the tape came out on CBS. She wasn’t the only person who got caught in the crossfire because of these tapes. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked whether she could guarantee that there were no tapes of the president, she said she couldn’t. How reassuring for the American people. Sarah Sanders then flipped the situation by saying the president cares about Black people and he had created twice as many jobs for African Americans than Obama in his eight years in office. I’m not sure if you keep up with Sanders but she’s known for giving out false information, and this is one of those times. Even if the statistics were true that is all the president has done for Black people; where is this power to the people energy when black people get shot down by police, young women go missing and are sold as sex traffickers, or when missing black people are found dead with no organs? It doesn’t take a tape of POTUS saying the n-word to prove he doesn’t care about minorities. Right now, for the first time in 50 years, there are no black senior staff in the White House. This isn’t a coincidence, this is another way Trump displays his racism and xenophobia.
I personally believe these tapes whether found or not hold no weight. There are tapes of Trump saying he grabs women by the pussy, calling Mexicans rapists, an alleged tape of him having sex with Russian prostitutes and maybe one of him urinating on them. So what is a tape of him saying the n-word really going to do? Omarosa, I wish you all the best with your book tour and I hope you keep your head up during this arbitration against you from the Trump campaign but I really don’t care for you. You didn’t have the black communities interest at heart when you were in a place of power so all this boo boo kitty tears isn’t going to guarantee open arms for you sis and that’s facts! Will the tapes ever come out of hiding? Will the tapes make a difference? Will Trump get impeached? Will Omarosa gain some friends? Find out on the next episode of DragonBallZ.
Written by Tolu Martins
The post Trump, Welcome To Your Tape… Again appeared first on LAPP..
]]>