type here...
Home Blog Page 15

Greta Thunberg Is Part of The Blah, Blah, Blah

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Greta Thunberg Is Part of The Blah, Blah, Blah

In August 2018, a young 15-year-old girl was standing outside the Swedish parliament holding up a sign stating “Skolstrejk för klimatet,” which translates to School Strike for Climate. All of this was to pressure the Swedish government to meet its carbon emissions target, which it wasn’t doing at the time. That 15-year-old girl standing outside of parliament was Greta Thunberg.    

Since this gesture, Greta has become heavily involved in the climate conversation by receiving many nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, applause from political figures and being named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019. Undoubtedly, she has been an inspiration for many and a prominent figurehead for the climate movement.

With COP26 coming to an end, there was optimism for the summit to be a turning point in the climate conversation. Yet, it wasn’t met with such hopes by the young girl.

She branded the summit as a “failure,” a “PR exercise”, and more “blah, blah, blah,” with her saying that “the real work continues outside these halls.” But as much as global leaders have been doing too much blah blah blah when it comes to the climate, is she also part of the blah blah blah?   

She may have inspired a new generation of activists and change-makers, but Greta Thunberg has become part of the noise she hoped to tackle when she first entered the climate ring.

The Swedish 15-year-old who's cutting class to fight the climate crisis | Climate science | The Guardian
Greta Thunberg outside the Swedish parliament in 2018 with her sign “Skolstrejk för klimatet,” which translates to School Strike for Climate. Photo credit: The Guardian.

Greta’s intangible plans

When it comes to Greta’s vision for the planet, she has four key ideas.

Christy Somos outlined these ideas in her CTV News article named “Greta Thunberg’s four simple steps to combat climate change.”

Her ideas of flying less or not at all, eating less meat or going vegan and voting for candidates that put climate change at the front of their campaigns sound good on paper.

Yet, when it comes down to the realities of the world and how likely these changes will be made, her plans become intangible, utopian and not that easy to implement.

Greta has made it very clear that she no longer uses air travel because it produces the most emissions compared to other types of travel. She famously attended a climate conference in the United States by boat to illustrate her desire not to impact the earth through travel. Nonetheless, as much as she may have the spare time to travel on a boat across the Atlantic Ocean, the everyday person doesn’t have that kind of time on their hands. Trying to fly less or not at all sounds realistic, but when you look at how our world is so interconnected and requires people to travel the world, the idea starts to lose its appeal. An easy fix to use less air travel would be to invest more into train links, especially for the United States, finding ways to make air travel less environmentally taxing or even to host global events online. But these suggestions haven’t come out of Greta’s mouth as she expects people not to fly at all, even if it is unrealistic.

Greta Thunberg spoke at the Youth4climate summit, where she mocked global leaders. Credit: BBC News.

Eating less meat is another of Greta’s lofty proposals for all of us to save the planet. Meat consumption has radically declined in the past decade, with the United Kingdom seeing a 17% decrease in this kind of consumption. But, despite such reduction, what holds people back is the price of going meatless. Edwin Bark, CEO of Plant & Bean, found that 65% of consumers don’t eat plant-based meats due to cost, meaning it is not that easy as it sounds to go meatless for those with financial constraints. More investment is needed in this area so that people can make such a change, but, once again, Greta is quiet about how this can be done. It is as if she magically expects people to change their habits, even if it means harming their wallets.

Lastly, the loftiest of Greta’s proposals is to vote for candidates who put climate change at the front of their campaigns. People can start to pressure government officials to take climate change seriously through the ballot box, and that we are seeing this over the last few years. But for their votes to actually count, there needs to be a change in the voting system. The first past the post system has allowed a two-party system to dominate the politics of the United Kingdom and other robust democracies worldwide that impose a similar system. That has meant parties that support taking action against climate change have been frozen out of parliament and unable to make such a change. Therefore, there has to be a change towards a proportional representation system so that voices for the protection of the climate can be heard over those that are damaging the environment.

However, where is Greta mentioning such an idea.  

Blah blah blah to action

As much as they sound genuine and achievable, Greta’s proposals start to become intangible and utopian the more you dig deeper. Greta has been put on a pedestal because of the energy she brings to this climate conversation and how outspoken she has been. Yet, if people stopped worshipping the young Swede and spent more time thinking about what she is actually saying and what she plans for the environment, you start to see that she isn’t that remarkable. 

We need someone who has practical steps to address climate change and actions everyone can make, and at the moment, Greta isn’t that person. All levels of society must become involved in this issue, from big business to the everyday person. 

Greta is the one isolating these levels of society rather than bringing them together with her climate ‘doomerism’. The climate conversation has become noise, and that Greta Thunberg is adding to the noise with her blah blah blah.

Is Obama’s Optimism at COP26 Well Founded?

Jalen Nash
-
0
Is Obama’s Optimism at COP26 Well Founded?

Last week, former President Barack Obama delivered a speech as part of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. In it, he calls for global cooperation, asking world leaders to think about the risks associated with climate change. He encourages them to lower emissions and push their governments and companies towards a “clean energy future”.

He spoke with urgency and criticized the nations, industries, and political parties that are slowing progress on that front.

Specifically calling out India, China, and Russia, he noted that “most nations have failed to be as ambitious as they need to be.” “The ratcheting up of ambition that we anticipated in Paris a few years ago has not universally been realized,” he continued.

Speaking directly to the younger generation, he said, “You’ve grown up watching many of the adults who are in positions to do something about it either act like the problem doesn’t exist or refuse to make the hard decisions necessary to address it… Folks in my generation have not done enough.”

While criticizing the deniers and obstructionists, he also expresses empathy for those who must still rely on fossil fuels or those who have more immediate concerns (ie. hunger, electricity, crisis) than a slowly warming globe. He mentioned the mother in rural India just looking to keep the lights on or the blue-collar worker who could never afford a Tesla. Both of these people, he said, are at risk of being ignored and left behind in the race to clean energy.

This is perhaps the most interesting insight in a speech that largely went as you would expect. The insight can be directly applied to current conversations around climate change in the United States. 

Alluding to this in his speech, Obama described America’s current conversation on climate change, saying, ”back in the US of course, some of our progress stalled when my successor decided to unilaterally pull out of the Paris climate agreement… I wasn’t too happy about that.”

U.S. former President Barack Obama delivers a speech during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), in Glasgow, Scotland, Britain, November 8, 2021. REUTERS/Phil Noble

With the US executive branch vocally against climate change policies from 2017-2021, much of the conversation was politicized during Trump’s administration. 

Remnants of this era resurfaced during negotiations to pass a recent $1.5 billion dollar infrastructure bill. While liberal Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren pushed for the slowdown of fossil fuels and rapid expansion of renewable energy, moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin insisted that industries like coal be protected. This led to weeks of infighting and scapegoating, painting liberals as a “threat to fossil fuels” and moderates as “climate obstructionists.”

These characterizations are unproductive, says Obama. He tells his listeners that global cooperation is essential if we are to mitigate the effects of a changing climate. Blame games like the one over the infrastructure bill cannot keep happening if we wish to be effective in saving the planet. 

Considering the gridlock over the issue in American politics, he encourages young people to “vote on the issue, as if your life depends on it… because it does.”

As the conference ended, headlines leaving the event included newer nations committing to lowering emissions goals (India), a pledge to share clean technology with developing nations, and the passing of the Glasgow Climate Pact, a deal meant to explicitly limit the use of coal. 

But will these pledges even make a difference?

Obama is optimistic that they will. 

“We need to celebrate these commitments, even as we demand the signatories of these commitments follow through,” he said to the room. 

“If we stay with it, we will get this done.”

Is There A Right Age To Learn Critical Race Theory?

CheVaughn Starling
-
0
Is There A Right Age To Learn Critical Race Theory?

Is “critical race theory” a way of understanding how American racism has shaped public policy, or a divisive discourse that pits people of colour against white people? Liberals and conservatives are in sharp disagreement.

The topic has exploded in the public arena this spring—especially in K-12, where numerous state legislatures are debating bills seeking to ban its use in the classroom.

In truth, the divides are not nearly as neat as they may seem. The events of the last decade have increased public awareness about things like housing segregation, the impacts of criminal justice policy in the 1990s, and the legacy of enslavement on Black Americans. But there is much less consensus on what the government’s role should be in right these past wrongs. Add children and schooling into the mix and the debate becomes especially volatile.

A key debate in upcoming races has been how much of a voice parents should have in their child’s school curriculum when it comes to subjects like sex education and critical race theory — the co-hosts and Condoleezza Rice discuss.

Just What Is Critical Race Theory Anyway?

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.

We should teach Critical Race Theory in primary schools

In essence, Schools should introduce Critical Race Theory to kids as young as primary school. CRT is essentially a way to teach history. It is another method and portal to educate people on the issues of race in American society. Introducing that concept to young kids does not corrupt the mind but could educate and mould them into well-rounded adults that understand social construct and plights in the world. It is essential to understand issues that may not affect them directly but indirectly through friends, family members, co-workers, classmates, etc. If one takes away the concept of CRT in schools, kids will lack an understanding of race and topics such as sexism and LGBTQ+.

CRT has sparked debate nationwide.

Although it is understandable for some parents of K-6th grade children to be concerned with the maturity of the content educational institutions teach their children daily, minority children often have those conversations at a young age. Most black and brown American children do not get the luxury of not having a conversation about race; it is their everyday world. Additionally, there are different levels in how educators can teach a subject. It would be counterproductive for a teacher to teach a high school curriculum to a 2nd-grade class. Not everything has to be a negative agenda or displayed negatively. Various training could show teachers how to implement CRT in their lessons without introducing mature content some children may not fully understand at that age.

If boys and girls can learn about Christopher Columbus and The Trail of Tears, then boys and girls can know that racism existed/exist well beyond the Civil Rights Movement. It is not fair to children growing up in today’s society to not learn about events of the past that affect events of the present. Suppressing history to soothe over the underlining truth of America is sad. It does nothing for the children of future generations and the reoccurring issues in present-day America. To truly heal and to change the future, one must understand the past.

Blow For Biden: 71% Say Nation Is On Wrong Track

CheVaughn Starling
-
0
Blow For Biden: 71% Say Nation Is On Wrong Track

The Facts

A majority of Americans now disapprove of President Joe Biden’s job performance, while half give him low marks for competence and uniting the country, according to results from the latest national NBC News poll.

What’s more, the survey finds that 7 in 10 adults, including almost half of Democrats, believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, as well as nearly 60 per cent who view Biden’s stewardship of the economy negatively just nine months into his presidency.

Why Has Biden's Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly? | FiveThirtyEight
Why Has Biden’s Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly? | FiveThirtyEight

“Democrats face a country whose opinion of President Biden has turned sharply to the negative since April,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.

“The promise of the Biden presidency — knowledge, competence and stability in tough times — have all been called into question,” Horwitt continued.

“What people voted for was stability and calm,” added fellow Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “And what they got was instability and chaos.”

President Joe Biden’s popularity has slumped after a slew of challenges at home and abroad in recent weeks.

71 percent say nation is on wrong track

Also in the NBC News poll, 71% of Americans say they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, up 8 points since August. That includes 93% of Republicans, 70 independents and even 48% of Democrats.

“When you see a wrong track of 71%, it is a flashing red light,” said McInturff, the GOP pollster. “These folks are telling us that this is not going well.” Asked about the country’s future, just 41% of respondents in the poll say America’s best years are ahead, while 53% say its best years are behind.

Despite that pessimism, however, the survey does show signs of optimism about the coronavirus and the economy. A majority of respondents — 56 per cent — believe the worst is past when it comes to the coronavirus, which is up 18 points from August when the delta variant was beginning to surge across the country.

And 30% of Americans say they’re getting ahead when it comes to their financial situation, while 45% say they’re staying where they are. That’s compared with 24% who say they’re slipping behind or falling backward.

Let’s take a deeper look at why this might be happening.

To put it plainly, President Joe Biden is not utilizing his advantages well and is also disregarding what Americans want. Biden came into this presidency fairly popular and at a considerable advantage (Democrats controlled the House, and the Senate was tied with his Vice President possibly deciding the vote). However, his presidency makes him look useless and ineffective. Sadly, Biden has done nothing remarkable during his first year, and Americans are unimpressed.

One of the major problems that plagued Biden was not taking full advantage of Congress. The Democrats held the majority in the House and an even split in the Senate. If ever there was a time to push forward an agenda, it should be now. Instead, Biden is wasting time trying to cater to Republican politicians who disagreed with him being in office while isolating Progressive Democrats who could push forward his agenda.

Moreover, the bills Congress proposed on Biden’s behalf have nothing to do with vital American issues. For example, the infrastructure bill that recently passed the Senate for 1.4 trillion dollars was not a priority for Americans. Only 27% of Americans placed infrastructure as one of their top priorities. In addition to the new infrastructure bill, Biden wants to combat climate change with the “Build Back Better” plan, another piece of legislation Democrats are trying to pass through Congress. The problem with this is 35% of voters have expressed this as an essential concern of theirs.

In short, Biden is worried about the wrong issues that genuinely concern Americans. It feels as though Biden is isolating the main groups that helped elect him into office by not touching on the core issues. They care about Student Loan Forgiveness programs, economic and job security, programs that can progress the community, and other social problems that Biden has yet to touch. Although Biden still has time to turn things in his favour, one thing is clear: a change needs to happen before he suffers the same fate as his predecessor.

Biden says he doesn’t care

It’s important to note that President Biden said that he was not concerned about his low approval rating while speaking at the G20 Summit in Rome on Sunday, hours after an NBC poll reported that only 42% of registered voters approve of his performance in office, one of the lowest ratings since his presidency began. He may right not to pay too much attention to these polls “The polls are going to go up and down and down. They were high early and then they went medium and then they went back up and now they’re low. Look at every other president, the same thing has happened,” Biden told reporters.

I looked into this and he is right in this assertion. 37.8% was former President Trump’s approval rating at this time during his presidency. President Obama’s was 51.9%. Like Biden, both presidents suffered steady declines from the time they took office to this point.

On this occasion, two key factors seem to be contributing to Biden’s approval ratings. One is his administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and two is his new environmental and social framework he hopes to pass. The federal vaccine mandate Biden signed in September has been largely effective, though controversial. Federal contractors like airlines and colleges have been met with some outcry from employees who refuse to get the highly-politicized vaccine.

Last Friday, attorney generals from 10 states sued the Biden administration over the mandates. Last Thursday the president announced a slimmed-down version of his social and environmental policy framework, a spending package that originally cost $3.5 trillion and included several progressive programs. After months of negotiations, the framework is now budgeted at $1.5 trillion. Initiatives like paid medical and family leave, and two years of tuition-free community college were cut from the framework. 

By all assessments, this appears to be a bump in the road and not the silver bullet some commentators are asserting

25,000 CO2 Footprints As Talking Heads gather At Climate Talks

Richard Bolton
-
0
25,000 CO2 Footprints As Talking Heads gather At Climate Talks

The World, or at least 25,000 of us, are descending on Glasgow in two weeks for COP-26 Climate Conference. An event whose success is being determined by attendance, or not, of powerful heads of state. Notably, China’s Xi Jinping will not be coming despite his nation owning the title of World’s Biggest Polluter. Russia and Saudi Arabia’s leaders have also voiced they may not be joining. Without the reinvigorated commitment of some of the world’s biggest economies, it is feared the talks will be yet another missed opportunity, amounting to little but more hot air, as the other participants are left wanting for these global authorities to lead the way.

Just as before, COP26 will lack impact because the targets aren’t legally-binding. Without enforcement, it will be an impassioned public sponsored jolly bringing a temporary boost to the local economy.

Polluters have deftly spread misinformation to shape public opinion toward fossil fuels, leading to widespread apathy and meaning that even now, denial exists. They shifted the blame to governments that understand pursuing unpopular or ‘radical’ issues would be political suicide.

Why isn’t China’s Premier attending?

For decades, China didn’t want to sacrifice its economic development for the environment. After all, the West developed and polluted as much as it liked; so why couldn’t they? Things changed, as water scarcity, desertification, smog and acid rain issues were nationally exposed by Chai Jing’s documentary ‘Under the Dome’, putting climate squarely on the agenda.

China's attendance at Cop26 in doubt, Alok Sharma says | The Independent

Setbacks have taken the form of competition with their rival, America, as the quest for global hegemony that had created deep-set tensions was exacerbated by Donald Trump. Joe Biden and John Kerry, his climate adviser, have been trying hard to patch the relationship since.

Why does it matter whether China comes?

We must work together or see our efforts negated by China’s impact. Their Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) alone will drive temperature increases of 2.7°C, significantly exceeding Paris 2015’s 1.5C maximum. We are decommissioning coal-fired plants while they finance and build hundreds globally in poorer nations, on-top of their 1,058 operational plants at home.

Xi knows we will see a 1-metre sea-level rise by 2100, leaving 43 million Chinese living on submerged land, and disastrous for the 6-billion who will have migrated from desertification to our coastal cities by then. The feedback loop of the current 1.25C Global warming has had a 3.5C heating on the Arctic region, risking disrupting global systems that we don’t really know which outcome we face.

Expedience or Guilt

The UK, Europe and USA are suffering natural gas shortages currently. When even the richest nations lack energy security so must revert to coal, it doesn’t bode well for the poorer nations’ contributions to sustainability. It may seem that centralised regimes like USSR and today, CCP, have little regard for the environment, with Western democracies having led the way. Australian PM, Scott Morrison, was reluctant to attend COP26 and have to make pledges that would harm his fossil-fuel dependent economy while China leads the way in nuclear energy – 17 are under construction.

25,000 attendees for a climate conference rather smack in the face of sending a good message to everyday folk trying their best to recycle, drive electricity and limit their environmental impact. Even the Queen and Prince William weighed in, demanding, ‘less talk, more doing’.

Regardless, the problem is Global and Glasgow will be a positive platform for voices to be heard, instead of muted screens across different time zones. Paris secured commitments from even China after the shared, lived experience of Climate Change (i.e. Pacific Islanders).

In the economic malaise, Coronavirus has left, many countries are yet to submit proposals, with less affluent nations needing yet more time to adapt. Global diplomacy is unhelpful for negotiations, with leaders committing last minute to attend these conferences to pressure other nations to concede more at their own expense.

The environmental impact of fossil fuels has been known 50 years since the 1972 Report of the Club of Rome and Shell and Exxon studies in the 1980s which were kept under wraps, where they just wanted to know if they needed to build oil rigs higher with rising sea levels.

The UK is pinning its hopes on renewable energy, electric vehicles and projects like Drax bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), but without the bigger players like China stepping up, just leading the way isn’t enough against the impact of an emerging imperial power.

Exxon Mobil’s 1982 Report on CO2 impact on average global temperature – spot on 40 years later

We don’t have time for the majority to wake up. We aren’t going to deglobalize or degrowth our way to lower emissions without being faced with imminent catastrophe. Without getting bogged down in whether money as an abstract concept is a good social motivator for people behind desks that never see the real-world impact of this boundless greed; or whether degrowth by lower populations removes the youthful vibrancy crucial to innovation that will solve our challenges with creative solutions. Another human isn’t just another mouth to feed, but another set of hands and a brain to think. Our leaders would do well to invest their efforts in brilliant young minds that may just be our salvation.

Londoners Mixed Over Return Of The Night Tube

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Londoners Mixed Over Return Of The Night Tube

Since the London Mayor’s statement about the return of the Night Tube, Londoners have offered their thoughts and reactions to the service coming back.

In London Mayor’s Question Time this month, Sadiq Khan announced the return of the Night Tube, with Londoners having mixed feelings about the announcement.

The Night Tube service had been shut last year due to the Coronavirus pandemic. 

But due to a petition last month that had tens of thousands of signatures, Khan decided to reopen the service for two lines: the Victoria and Central lines.

Those across the capital are either in support, against or want more lines reinstated on the service. 

Femi Jayeola, who lives in East London and works in finance, said: “The Night Tube was really great when it first rolled out, and it enabled me to be out late at night and go home in a quick, cheap and safe manner.”

He continued and said: “it (the Night Tube) being reintroduced next month is wonderful news for myself and a lot of Londoners as it’ll give the city greater night-time transport options, a safer route home, and really bring back the pre-pandemic vibes which most people miss.”

Revellers look happy as the night tube approaches
More than 140,000 people signed a petition calling for the return of the Night Tube

But not everyone in the capital is that convinced by the return of the service.  

Some are worried that it is too soon for this service to come back, as across the capital, there are still many cases of Coronavirus. Morgan Gordon-Thompson, a student in Enfield, is reluctant about the night service returning.  

The student said: “I’m happy that the Night Tube is back on as it will allow London to slowly go back to the way things were, but I am still concerned with the number of cases we have of Covid and if we are really over this virus.”

Coronavirus hasn’t been the only issue that has affected the capital. Over the last few months, there have been two prominent murders of two women in the capital of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa. Campaigners have said that bringing back the Night Tube is the first step to secure a safe passage home for women on nights out.   

Chloe May, who lives in West London and is a fitness instructor, appreciates the service returning but feels two Night Tube lines isn’t enough. 

She said: “I appreciate the Night Tube is finally returning; however, two lines isn’t enough- ALL night tube lines should be reopened.” Chole continued and said: “With the many women being killed, taken away or mysteriously going missing in London today, the night tube won’t magically stop this from happening, but may save more life’s and allow everyone to get home safely and securely.

Chloe finished by saying: “Travelling home safely shouldn’t be a privilege… it is and should ALWAYS be a human right!”

Transport for London has given no time frame when other night tube lines will return but have said they are working to make sure they “can return as soon as possible.”

Insulate Britain To Pause campaign According To Open Letter To Boris Johnson

The Common Sense Network
-
0
Insulate Britain To Pause campaign According To Open Letter To Boris Johnson

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, the campaign group said it would “suspend its campaign of civil resistance until Monday 25th October”

Insulate Britain have said they will temporarily pause their campaign in light of recent comments by Boris Johnson.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, the campaign group said it would “suspend its campaign of civil resistance until Monday 25th October”.

They have asked that he uses the time to “signal” he believes what he says.

You can read the full letter below.

Dear Prime Minister,

“Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest of warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger. The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequence.” (Winston Churchill 1936)

Insulate Britain would like to take this opportunity to profoundly acknowledge the disruption caused over the past five weeks. We cannot imagine undertaking such acts in normal circumstances. But the dire reality of our situation has to be faced.

The facts are laid out by Sir David King, the former chief scientific advisor to the UK government, he said“We have to move quickly. What we do, I believe, in the next 3 to 4 years will determine the future of humanity”.

Protests at junction 31 of the M25
Essex Police removed the protesters and said all the affected roads had reopened by lunchtime Source: REUTERS

The collapse of the climate is happening around us. We face economic chaos and the breakdown of law and order in a matter of years. We will lose our incomes, pensions, and savings while passing on an appalling legacy to our children. They will be rightly furious. Around the world, thousands of millions of people will lose their lives through slaughter and starvation as crops fail and society collapses.

Ahead of COP26, Insulate Britain will suspend its campaign of civil resistance until Monday 25th October.In light of the speech you made (to the UN on the 22nd September) in which you recognised that “We are approaching that critical turning point – in less than two months – when we must show that we are capable of learning, and maturing, and finally taking responsibility for the destruction we are inflicting, not just upon our planet but ourselves”, we ask you to use this time to signal that you believe what you say.

We invite you to make a meaningful statement that we can trust, a statement that the country wants to hear: that your government will live up to its responsibilities to protect us, to defend law and order; that your government will take the lead needed to insulate and retrofit our homes; that it will ‘get on with the job’ so families can feed their children and keep their homes warm. We invite you to do the right thing, so we can be secure in the knowledge that our government did everything it could to protect and defend our country.

Yours sincerely,

Insulate Britain

“Levelling Up”: Agenda or Slogan?

Hamish Hallett
-
0
“Levelling Up”: Agenda or Slogan?

Boris Johnson delivered his speech at the annual Conservative party conference last week, where he outlined plans for Britain to build back better and level up the country

Plans to level up the country were part of the Conservative manifesto back in the 2019 general election and were one of the main themes within Johnson’s conference speech.

The prime minister pledged to reduce the inequality between places and regions within the United Kingdom and address the north and south divide.

He said that “levelling up works for the whole country, and is the right and responsible policy because it helps to take the pressure off parts of the overheating South East, while simultaneously offering hope and opportunity to those areas that have felt left behind.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_CYJaYhBo&t=507s
Boris Johnson’s full party conference speech. Credits: The Daily Telegraph

Johnson was adamant that he would have the guts to address and tackle problems that his predecessors ignored, like social care. He also mentioned the success of the vaccine rollout, where he suggested that because of the rollout, “the United Kingdom is the most open economy” and has had “the fastest growth in the G7.” The prime minister also attacked the Labour party by saying that “they dislike academic competition… decapitating the tall poppies and taxing the rich till the pips squeak.” He also called Keir Starmer “captain hindsight” and criticised cancel culture and those that were “rewriting history.” The prime minister ended the speech by saying how the United Kingdom has a unique spirit with praise towards the England football team, tennis star Emma Raducanu and the Olympic and Paralympics teams.

As party conference season ends, it is time to reflect on if Johnson’s conference speech was a success or not.

Specifically, if his levelling up pledge is genuine or not.

Let’s turn to our journalists and see what they think of Johnson’s conference speech.

Actions speak louder than slogans!

Many were excited for Boris Johnson and what he would deliver at the Conservative party conference. Despite this excitement, the prime minister failed to give optimism to the country, and those listening in heard repeated slogans, contradicting statements, and a new language is formed. By the end of his speech, we were laughing at the prime minister rather than with him. This speech should confirm that Johnson is all talk with little to no walk.

A quick google search, and you will find that he is leading a government that is levelling down the country, not up. Cutting universal credit by £20 a week, increasing taxes on working people and not increasing wages is the opposite of building back better and levelling up the country. Johnson thinks throwing slogans like a boomerang and repeating them will convince the country that he is up for the job as the leader of this country, but actions speak louder than slogans. The reality is that without the help of Dominic Cummings, the corporate media and the first past the post system, Johnson would be nowhere near the levers of power.

And to top it all off, Johnson blames the European Union, the public and the private sector for the mess he has caused. So much for individual responsibility that he and his party claim to be all about, whilst being the total opposite. Once people realise that Johnson and this government is all talk and no walk, have no guts and are unconservative, they will all be sent to orbit where they belong. And with Starmer delivering a solid message and a clear vision that will save lives, it will be clear that the Labour party are the ones going to level up the country, not the Conservatives.

Boris Johnson has been talking about “levelling up” since at least the 2019 election, but critics say he hasn’t sufficiently explained what it is.

His first in-person Tory conference speech on Wednesday was a major chance for the prime minister to put meat on the bones of the slogan he’s now been using for years.

The idea is yet to cut through: polling by Opinium in August 2021 found that just 1 in 5 people are clear what “levelling up” actually means.

Many will agree that Boris speech was low on policy. In fact, business leaders and think tanks described his party conference speech as “economically illiterate” hours after he finished. Whilst there appears to be broad consensus on this, it is debatable whether this actually matters. Boris is the king of optics and the optics of the Conservative party conference compared to the Labours’ matters

Labours conference, was dry, serious and uptight. These adjectives are also pejoratives frequently levelled at Labour leader Kier Starmer. Even though Starmer sought to hammer home that his premiership would be about work and the decency of work, the most salient moments of his speech came when he was putting downs hecklers. That was the most exciting part. It’s hard not to leave that conference with the takeaway that despite Starmer’s attempt to put a full stop next to Jeremy Corbyn, much labour in-fighting remains.

Boris on the other hand was boisterous and funny. You would be forgiven for not remembering the backdrop to this speech. The fact that the universal credit uplift program was being cut; a change in policy that would affect more than 5.8 million people and According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). They explained that the cut would plunge half a million more people into poverty, including 200,000 children. Johnson was able to circumnavigate this reality by making people feel good. Something he is an expert in doing. He spoke about many regions of the UK finally getting attention, structural investment and made jokes about Michael Gove’s dancing. He was in full display as a showman. This is a many that now sits above British politics, seemingly able to do no wrong.

Do We Really Need Black History Month In The UK?

Nicola Miles
-
0
Do We Really Need Black History Month In The UK?

In Britain, October has been dedicated to commemorating Black history since 1987. The month helps broaden narratives about the contributions of black individuals in Western history. Generally, Black History Month has been celebrated by recognising the achievements of black Americans rather than Britons. Often the same names and stories are regurgitated each year, leading some to question the genuineness of the annual tradition.

Black History Month has played a part in creating narrow impressions of black progress, typically diminished into the disempowerment of black people in the West. Celebrating Black History Month has also been used as a token by schools and businesses when challenged about the inclusivity in their curriculums and work environment. This is why a growing number of critics have abandoned the tradition and have questioned its relevance in society today.

With teachers claiming black history as being “whitewashed” from the curriculum, Black History Month seems to still be more relevant than ever in Britain. For example, the curriculum still does not mention the thousands of soldiers from the Caribbean and West Africa who fought for this country in the World Wars. This month serves as a way to acknowledge and honour the contributions of black individuals that the curriculum has blotted out and ignored.

Most importantly, Black History Month raises the awareness that Black history is still understudied in the UK. This stimulates political discourse and in turn, increases the possibilities for funding and support into vital but currently under-researched projects on Black history. This process will make Black history more established and accessible to people in the long run.

In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need a Black History month, but unfortunately, we don’t live in one. History is distorted and the limelight is often only shed on those who privileged historians’ thought was important.

Black History Month is crucial as it offers the opportunity for history to be reclaimed by those who live it. Since there isn’t a legitimate way for Black people to learn and know their history, Black History Month cannot be abandoned yet. Though in the past it may have overrepresented a certain aspect of Black histories, today, Black History Month can be adapted to inspire people and institutions to seek to learn more about black accomplishments and not to just lament over black suffering.

Scots Nigerian rapper Bemz says he never experienced racism until he moved to Scotland and says he fears for the future treatment of his baby daughter. PIC: Andy Low.
Scots Nigerian rapper Bemz says he never experienced racism until he moved to Scotland and says he fears for the future treatment of his baby daughter. PIC: Andy Low.

Black History Month undoubtedly plays a huge role in highlighting racial prejudice throughout history. In that sense, the existence of Black History Month is essential in fostering an inclusive and self-aware nation.

However, when analysing how effectively Black History Month commemorates Black history and the achievements of key historical figures, we could argue that one month of the year is not enough to effectively draw attention to the racial struggle of the Black community in America and the UK. In order to generate real awareness, a far more long-term curriculum of information needs to be woven into British schools, colleges and universities.

Dedicating one month to this cause in some ways detracts from how vast Black history is in reality. Instead of using Black History Month to compensate for a ‘whitewashed’ historical curriculum, incorporating compulsory modules regarding key topics such as the ‘scramble for Africa’, ‘the slave trade’ and ‘Black history and English heritage’ would effectively plug these holes and solve the root of the issue.

Further, many argue that much like Pride Month Black History Month is not necessarily taken seriously due to how it has been commercialised and utilised by retailers and organisations to attract customers and build themselves a diverse image. Making Black history a permanent fixture in British education would add more weight to Black political discourse and whilst preventing businesses from capitalising off of this. In many ways, this could be more effective than Black History Month itself.

Would You Follow Keir Starmer’s Leadership?

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Would You Follow Keir Starmer’s Leadership?

Keir Starmer delivered his first-ever in-person speech as Labour leader at the annual party conference in Brighton last week. During his 90-minute address to members and non-members of the party, he mentioned various ideas, personal experiences and a few jokes.

At the start of his speech, Starmer thanked his shadow cabinet and the voters voting for the party whilst also welcoming back members that had left the party like Louis Ellman. And to ease the nerves a little more, he mentioned Arsenal’s win against Tottenham, which received a few laughs and a few groans. After sending his thank you’s to those who supported the party, Starmer was critical of how Boris Johnson has handled the current fuel crisis. 

Keir Starmer’s conference speech in Brighton 2021. Courtesy of the Labour Party’s Youtube channel

The Labour leader quoted the prime minister’s words at the United Nations, where he said that “someone else will clean up the mess we make.” In response to this, Starmer made a rallying call that the prime minister “either get a grip or get out of the way and let us clear up this mess,” which received a big round of applause. He continued and suggested that the United Kingdom was facing a “big moment” regarding the current fuel crisis and wanted to offer a path where Labour “addresses the chronic problems revealed by Covid, with the kindness and the togetherness that got us through.”

The speech from the Labour leader wasn’t all political, as he touched on a few personal experiences like his mum having Still’s disease and reflecting on his time as a barrister. But, it wasn’t all plain sailing for the leader of the party.

Starmer was heckled a few times during his speech, showcasing how not everyone is supportive of the current leadership. He responded to these heckles by saying that “at this time on a Wednesday, it’s normally the Tories that are heckling me, it doesn’t bother me then, and it doesn’t bother me now. After his speech, many people were divided over if Starmer’s speech was a roaring success or not. Owen Jones was quick to suggest that Starmer was dishonest, and that the party has no future under his leadership in a recent opinion piece for the Guardian. Meanwhile, Stephen Kinnock felt that Starmer’s speech had been a real turning point for the party.  

The question is, what do our journalists at Common Sense think of Starmer’s conference speech?

Was it a roaring success, or did it fall flat?

Keir Starmer’s conference speech is Labour’s portfolio, and people should get behind it!

All eyes were on Keir Starmer and how he would deliver his plan of action to followers and non-followers of the Labour Party. Not everyone agrees with the former barrister and what he is doing, but Starmer did a decent job conducting himself throughout the conference and is clear on where he wants to take the party. He is now showing strength, integrity, and party leadership, which his predecessor lacked in all three categories.

During his speech, Starmer made a few jokes, was vulnerable about his mum, and finally showed that he wasn’t this dry robot. But Starmer did something even more crucial- show that he stood for something and wasn’t a person that sat on the fence. This includes having a plan to fight climate change, providing ways to address the social care crisis, and how he would restore the party’s worker ethos. Whatever you want to say about Starmer and how he acts, you cannot say that he is not standing for anything. He is now focusing on the bread-and-butter issues that Labour has forgotten about over the last few years, like crime, health and the economy.   

As the dust settles in Brighton, this is the time for Starmer to play his cards right, keep up this momentum from the conference and use his speech as Labour’s portfolio for the public. Starmer might not be the ideal leader for everyone, but he has a plan of action that any voter would get behind, despite what the far left, the Corbynistas and the Guardian columnists are saying. Divided parties never win elections, and that is why people should stop jeering, stop writing ranty opinion pieces in the Guardian, and pull their boots straps and support Starmer. His speech should be met with roaring applause rather than awkward silence.

One would be forgiven for thinking that Starmer’s conference speech were full of empty words. It’s undeniable – and oddly refreshing – that he seems to have realised the issues regarding Labour’s increasing irrelevance in the political arena, and wants to renew the Labour Party for a 21st century Britain.

However, it did not always come across that way. It’s undeniable that the Labour Party is in the midst of a civil war to regain its identity, with Starmer seeming to be the light at the end of the tunnel. This fight in and of itself is enough of a challenge for the party, let alone trying to fight for power and political relevance. It still has the accusations of anti-Semitism to tend to and the purge of ‘Corbynistas’ is well underway.

It seems Labour is a party in denial. Even his pledge to ‘Make Brexit Work’ implies a sense of reluctance to accept the democratic result. It’s as if he – and Labour by extension – considers Brexit to be nothing more than a nuisance; a relegation from one of the most historic events in British history to a thorn in Labour’s side in their quest to regain power.

Yes, it is also a question of power. Starmer himself said that ‘winning the next election is more important than unity’. But how can a party that is so divided go toe-to-toe with the Conservatives? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

It cannot be denied that Starmer stands for something, but it seems as if it’s too little, too late for the Labour Party. The core issues that people are concerned about – immigration, crime and policing and the economy – are being acknowledged, but it will take a very, very long time to regain the trust that has been lost from its base.

If Starmer is the right man to take Labour forward – and that’s a very big if – he has a long way to go before he has any chance at the keys to No.10.

Missing People Of Colour And The Lack Of Media Attention

CheVaughn Starling
-
0
Missing People Of Colour And The Lack Of Media Attention

On September 19th, 2021, FBI agents and police officers found the remains of missing Gabby Petito in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. After her parents reported her missing on August 25th, she was found dead. Now, her parents are looking for answers on who murdered their daughter. Shortly after Gabby’s parents filed a missing person to the police, national media covered her disappearance/death. What happened to Gabby was horrible and is a family’s worse nightmare. While Gabby’s story is a tragedy and no one should overlook her story, people of colour do not get the same coverage and attention when they go missing. Black and brown Americans deserve the same level of attention as their white counterparts when they go missing.

The harsh statistics

In the United States, thousands of people go reported missing every year, but not every case gets widespread media attention. In 2020, the National Crime Information Center reported over 500,000 missing person cases. According to the Black and Missing Foundation, the coverage of white and minority victims are disproportionate. Nearly 40% of missing persons are from minority groups, with black Americans making the majority. Yet, black Americans make up only 13% of the total population. The amount of missing black and brown males and females is alarming and should be given the same attention as white males and females.

Missing People of Color that Lacked Media Attention

Since Gabby Petito’s disappearance and death, many other missing persons of colour have emerged in the spotlight. Jelani Day, a 25-year-old grad student at Illinois State University, disappeared on August 25th in Bloomington, Illinois. His mother had reported him missing and notified officials with little follow-up from news and police. Unfortunately, on September 23rd, Bloomington Police found Day’s body near LaSalle County, Illinois. His case is still pending further investigation. Daniel Robinson, a 24-year-old geologist, went missing on June 23rd. His last whereabouts were at a well-site in a remote part of the Arizona desert. There have been no leads on his case, and it is still open.

Desheena Kylebody was found on Sam Tillery Road, Tennessee.

Desheena Kyle, a 27-year-old Knoxville, Tennessee resident, was reported missing on June 28th. On September 30th, Knoxville Police stated they found the body of Kyle. Officials have ruled Kyle’s cause of death a homicide and are still pending investigation. After seeing Gabby Petito’s coverage, these cases did not gain media coverage until their families complained about the lack of media coverage.

Why It Matters

All of these families deserve answers for their loved one’s disappearance and deaths. While we can blame police enforcement for not making it a priority to find these people, we can place significant blame on the media and news outlets for not covering the disappearance of missing black and brown persons. The family members of these groups deserve the same answers as white people who go missing. These cases involving people of colour are not taken seriously and should be

A missing person case is tragic to hear, no matter the gender or colour of their skin. They are human and loved by someone. These disparities show separation and a lack of awareness with society. Cases like Gabby’s are tragic, and the media should spotlight them, but so should the stories of Jelani, Daniel, Desheena, and countless others.

Fuel & Food Shortages: The Realities of Brexit?

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Fuel & Food Shortages: The Realities of Brexit?
  • The United Kingdom is in a fuel and food shortage, as the country lacks heavy good vehicle (HGV) drivers.
  • News and political commentators suggest various factors as to why there is this shortage in fuel and food.
  • The United Kingdom leaving the European Union (EU) is being suggested to be the leading cause of these shortages. 
  • But, some believe it is not as simple as this, with reports that the pandemic and the global labour shortage are playing a significant role in the scarcity.  

The facts  

Since last week, there have been mass queues outside petrol stations across the United Kingdom for several hours due to a shortage of HGV drivers.

This has caused petrol stations to have a lower than usual amount of petrol, and it is not the first time that the United Kingdom has experienced shortages of some kind.

In recent months, there has been less food on supermarket shelves, less beer in some pubs and even talk of fewer turkeys for Christmas this year.

In addition to the freedom of movement, the UK choosing to leave the single market – that means that the UK decided to rebuild, for the very first time, non-tariff barriers between the EU and the UK. It is a direct and mechanical consequence of Brexit.”

Michel Barnier commenting on the fuel and food shortages. Source: The Independent

Despite evidence that this shortage is happening because of the lack of HGV drivers, there is debate around why there is a lack of drivers in the first place. The EU’s former chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, says that petrol pumps running dry in the United Kingdom are a “direct consequence” of Brexit. Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves noted this past week that Brexit is “obviously a contributory factor” to the lack of HGV drivers.

The opposition led by Sir Keir Starmer has been critical of how the government is dealing with these shortages and has been vocal about this during their conference this week in Brighton. Despite agreement that Brexit is somewhat involved in the current shortages, not everyone thinks it is as simple as Brexit being the leading and only cause. Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, suggests that the pandemic is why there is a lack of HGV drivers, with Maajid Nawaz, a radio host for LBC, also pointing this out.

Content warning: violent scenes. On Demand News reporting on fights breaking out in petrol stations due to the lack of fuel.

In response to these shortages, the army has been called in to help ease the pressure from petrol stations. According to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the department will draw on reserve fleets of 80 tankers that the government keeps for emergencies. There are also offers of temporary visas to 5,000 foreign lorry drivers in the run-up to Christmas, and the process of receiving an HGV driver licence is being sped up. Yet, critics argue that the government has been too slow in calling the army in and feel that the temporary visas to foreign lorry drivers are “insufficient.”

With so much noise and perspectives around why we see such shortages in the United Kingdom, let’s turn to our journalists at Common Sense and see what they think of the current scenes.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CUVBdPro90o/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Thank you, Brexit

How have we gotten to the position that people are now bringing water bottles to fill up petrol for their vehicles? It is a desperate situation to be in and to see across our news headlines, with commentators pointing towards the pandemic, a global labour shortage, and the Insulate Britain protests for the cause of these scenes. But, to ignore Brexit as the foundation of why we are seeing what we are witnessing is outright fraudulent, even if government ministers, corporate media and the Brexit brigade don’t want to admit this. France’s European Affairs Minister, Clément Beaune, is correct in saying that “the intellectual fraud that was Brexit” is being exposed.

The Brexiters went on about taking back control of our borders, the infamous £350 million that was going to the NHS and for Britain to become stronger. But what they forgot to mention is that when you leave an institution that you rely so heavily on for decades for the sake of British patriotism, you will receive consequences like what we are witnessing. It doesn’t take a person with a political degree to realise what a terrible decision leaving the EU has been, especially as there has been no plan in place to deal with the consequences of leaving this institution.  

And not to be all “I told you so”, but this was bound to happen, and thanks to Brexit, the United Kingdom lacks people in many sectors, has more paperwork to do, and is asking for help.

Where has the taking control part gone and was promised years ago?

But instead of bickering about our decision, we must deal with what is in front of us: these shortages.  

Let’s say thank you to those who voted for Brexit grudgingly and deal with this issue one way or another.

People are blaming Britain’s fuel crisis on a few different factors. One of the most notable voices is that of the EU’s former chief negotiator Michel Barnier who said Britain’s mounting fuel crisis which has seen pumps run dry is a “direct consequence” of Brexit. 

Mr Barnier, who is running for the French presidency, said the drastic shortage of lorry drivers and ongoing supply chain problems were down to the UK’s decision to quit the EU.

“Part of the answer is linked, effectively, to the consequences of the Brexit because the UK chose to end the freedom of movement [of people],” he said.

“And there is a clear link to the truck drivers,” Mr Barnier added.


“In addition to the freedom of movement, the UK choosing to leave the single market – that means that the UK decided to rebuild, for the very first time, non-tariff barriers between the EU and the UK. It is a direct and mechanical consequence of Brexit.”

Whilst it is naive to think the issue of a 400% increase in consumer demand for fuel over a weekend can solely be based on Brexit, it is also naive to argue that ‘freedom of movement’ which was a key pillar during our membership of the European Union wouldn’t cause problems when it was gone.

Some may reject the Brexit effect and instead point to chronic under investment in the Lorry driving industry over the years, the dire working conditions, the lack of attraction, the fact that drivers sometimes don’t see family for weeks.

Whilst these realities may have contributed to the crisis, its hard to ignore the fact that these factors have always been present however we didn’t have the crisis we have now. The only major change over the last three years is of course the B factor. The word Brexiteers are eager to forget and move away from. What has always been pattently clear is that as the fog of lockdown lifted, Britain would slowly begin to come to terms with what it really did at the Brexit ballot box. 

Why Aren’t There More Black Tennis Players?

Jalen Nash
-
0
Why Aren’t There More Black Tennis Players?

Black men make up 74 per cent of players in the Nation Basketball Association and 69 per cent of players in the National Football League. Yet, they only make up 7% in Major League Baseball and less than 2% of the players in the National Hockey League. This disparity is also clear in the sport of tennis but why? Why are there such few black tennis players

The modern game of tennis traces back to a medieval game called jeu de paume, which began in 12th century France. Widely adopted by the nobility and aristocracy of the time, it slowly spread to the rest of Europe. Its popularity rose and waned throughout the proceeding centuries, but in 1877 a major milestone happened. In an effort to raise money, the England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club hosted the first Wimbledon championship. What started as a gathering of about 200 people is today a globally renowned event, attracting millions of viewers and billions in annual revenue. 

Today, tennis is played in the Olympics and is considered one of the five most popular sports worldwide. Yet, when compared to sports like soccer (or football), on global and national levels the diversity is lacking. 

Tennis is dominated by white athletes. This is especially true in the United States. 

So why aren’t there more Black tennis players? The reason is likely twofold.

Black people are not as exposed to tennis

Exposure is a key ingredient for the success of any sport. Sports like football, basketball, baseball, and soccer have a massive amount of exposure and penetration. This means many people know about them.

The sports are played in high schools, the equipment is sold in your nearest convenience store. Entire media networks are dedicated to coverage and their athletes are revered across generations.

The availability of these sports provides pathways and opportunities. Children dreaming of being the next Lebron James can go to a nearby basketball court. They can practice their skills and join a team early. If they hone their skills, they can make it on the high school team and if they dominate there, maybe they get a free ride to college. These pathways are available in some sports, but harder to find in others. 

The child looking to play soccer can find a ball and a field, but where does he go to play tennis… who does she play with? Without exposure, not enough black young people pick up a tennis racquet.

Black Tennis History

Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Naomi Osaka… 

These athletes are well known in popular culture, names renowned for their competitiveness, their champions mindset, and distinctive style. But have you heard of Althea Gibson or Arthur Ashe? 

The history of African-American tennis leagues dates back nearly a century. Unfortunately, the media often paints our new black stars as trailblazers, without mentioning those whose shoulders they stand on. 

In 1956 Gibson became the first African-American to win a Grand Slam title. In 1968, Ashe became the first Black man to win the US Open. These accomplishments are over 50 years old! 

While Black tennis stars have always had to contend with discrimination and racism in a predominantly white sport, the history of Black tennis is robust. 

Without knowing that history, however, few people grow up with tennis stars as heroes. Many Black children growing up thinking tennis is not for them because they don’t see themselves represented. 

With more exposure and teaching of the history of the sport, tennis can regain the popularity it once had globally.

The Effects Of The USA Gymnastics Abuse Scandal

Hajra Tahir
-
0
The Effects Of The USA Gymnastics Abuse Scandal

United States Olympic gymnast Simone Biles blasted USA Gymnastics and the FBI for standing by while team doctor Larry Nassar assaulted her and hundreds of other athletes in the largest sexual abuse case in the history of American sports.

“We have been failed and we deserve answers,” Biles said in blunt and tearful testimony at a US Senate public hearing on Wednesday where she appeared with three other athletes, Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols.

Olympic gymnast Simone Biles testifies during a Senate hearing about the FBI's mishandling of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse investigation [Saul Loeb/Pool via Reuters]
Olympic gymnast Simone Biles testifies during a Senate hearing about the FBI’s mishandling of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse investigation [Saul Loeb/Pool via Reuters]

The FBI’s negligence when dealing with sexual assault claims against Larry Nasar will have two main effects.

Firstly, it significantly damages their reputation

US Gymnast McKayla Maroney said that FBI agents dismissed her complaints and went as far as falsifying them in the interest of protecting a well-respected and established Olympic doctor. Fellow gymnast Aly Raisman raised similar concerns to the senate panel stating that “the agent diminished the significance of [her] abuse.” These damning allegations greatly stain the FBI’s reputation and call into question the organisation’s integrity. Turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of minors is arguably more than just neglect on the part of the FBI, it’s indicative of how women who are victims of sexual assault are not taken seriously in general. To have one of the most powerful national security organisations in the world write off such heinous criminal activity undoubtedly jeopardises the safety of women in America. If the FBI failed the most respected and celebrated athletes in the world, how can the organisation claim to provide regular women with the security they deserve?

Secondly, we need to consider what this means for the Olympic team and athletes in general.

American Olympic gymnasts are expected to represent the USA to the best of their ability. This responsibility includes training at facilities provided by USA gymnastics including the Karolyi Ranch – the conditions of which were described to be “disgusting” by various Olympic gymnasts including Aly Raisman. In return, USA gymnastics and the US Olympic Committee have a responsibility to nurture and care for their athletes. US gymnastics’ failure to safeguard the individuals placed under their care has some serious implications when it comes to continuing the USA’s dominance in the sport of gymnastics. The relationship between current athletes and the committee is riddled with mistrust. If athletes are not afforded the necessary protection needed to keep them safe and cultivate their talent and conditioning, significant problems lie ahead for those looking to compete and win at the Olympic level.

“You had one job” – Simone Biles emotional response to USA Gymnastics negligence and what this means for her career.
1...141516...91Page 15 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

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

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv