type here...
Home Blog Page 12

Jeremy Kyle: Trash TV With A Dark Twist

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
Jeremy Kyle: Trash TV With A Dark Twist

Channel 4 has released a damning documentary about the rise and fall of the controversial tabloid talk show ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ after its cancellation in 2019.

‘Jeremy Kyle: Death on Daytime‘ aired on television in March 2022, which gave a behind-the-scenes look at the show’s production.

Its findings were that guests were manipulated and exploited for the public’s entertainment. Many of the show’s producers were too scared to speak out (for fear of losing their job) or did not see anything wrong with the show’s existence.

ITV canceled The Jeremy Kyle Show after 63-year-old Steve Dymond took his own life one week after failing a polygraph test on the show, despite pleading his innocence to his partner.

Jeremy Kyle portrayed himself as akin to a cult leader, treating many people disrespectfully and commanding his ‘kingdom’ with an iron fist whilst convincing those he worked with that his methods were perfectly ethical.

There was also an exploration into the show’s origin and why it was popular in the UK. ITV wanted a UK equivalent of ‘trash TV’ shows such as Maury and Jerry Springer in the US.

They decided to use real people instead of staged actors like their American counterparts did.

The majority of the people who appeared on the show were white and lower class, whereas the people controlling and producing the show were mainly white middle class.

The show, therefore, was accused of ushering in a new era of demonisation of demographics of certain people. The show turned the lower class’s issues into a public spectacle.

Jeremy Kyle is currently hosting his own show on Talk TV, covering topical news and current affairs. Kyle said  he ‘couldn’t be more thrilled to be back in front of the camera’.

Channel 5 reports on the fall of the Jeremy Kyle Show. Video credit: 5 News

Dodging responsibility

Along with Jerry Springer, the Jeremy Kyle Show represented the worst that society had to offer; exploiting the trauma, emotions and issues of a certain class of people for money, ratings and public entertainment. The dangerous aspect to this, however, is a fundamental difference between Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle; real life.

Jerry Springer was entertaining, but ultimately that’s all the show was: entertainment. Nobody took it seriously. It was crafted for a niche demographic who simply enjoys viewing unhinged dysfunction without guilt.

Not wanting to be undermined, the UK decided to go one step further and target a particular class of people – one that was easy to slander and ridicule and didn’t have any financial or social capital to stop it – the white lower classes.

Indeed, the white lower classes were like lambs to the slaughter when appearing on the Jeremy Kyle Show. Issues that were once deeply personal and sacrosanct to the individual were now defiled and desecrated for public spectacle. The middle-class producers were having a field day, carefully manipulating those individuals silly – and sometimes desperate – enough to appear on the show, in order to increase ratings.

Testament to their lack of genuine care was an ITV TV executive’s ambiguous answer to the accuracy rate of the polygraph test. When challenged on the approximate accuracy rate of the test, his answer was ‘not 100%’.

It is understandable, therefore, why many feel this was deliberate as such an ambiguous answer could be used to deflect criticism and responsibility from the producer and ITV.

BBC short documentary about the white working class. Video credit: BBC Three

The white lower class has nowhere to run

But, amidst all this manipulation and dysfunction, why the white working class? Why them in particular? What made them particularly vulnerable to the sadism of the middle class?


In short, they are white and poor, a deadly combination in the contemporary political climate.
Characteristics such as race, gender, sex, sexuality, religious beliefs, and disability are all protected by society, both legally and socially. However, class is a much more subtle aspect of a person’s life, making it harder to tell if this is discrimination. Collectively, society has decided that to be white in itself is to be privileged.

Many of the reasons equality laws came to be are to right past wrongs where ethnic minorities have experienced discrimination. This narrative, consequently, made it acceptable for shows such as The Jeremy Kyle Show to use white and poor people almost exclusively on the programme.

Heated argument between the ‘stars’ of Benefits Street and public figures.

The Channel 4 show Benefits Street is a good example of this, which caused huge controversy as it portrayed benefits claimants as essential scroungers.

The show showed some benefits claimants committing crimes, including a demonstration of how to shoplift, and portrays a situation in which people are so comfortable living on benefits that they are not incentivised to seek work.

Subsequent programmes, similar in nature, such as Channel 5’s ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!’ have contributed to this. The Jeremy Kyle Show, therefore, has arguably pioneered a demand for poverty porn.

No cards to play

In summary, the Jeremy Kyle Show is an example of classism and an unpopular form of racism. It encouraged society to demonise and look down upon the lower classes, whilst also challenging the narrative that to be white is to have an advantage.

With programmes like Jeremy Kyle fuelling society’s disdain for this demographic, combined with a lack of capital and social lobbies for assistance, the white lower classes simply have no cards to play.

There is bigotry that comes with low expectations of certain demographics.

Will This New Show Revive Piers Morgan’s Career?

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Will This New Show Revive Piers Morgan’s Career?

Piers Morgan is one of a kind in the broadcasting world. When you mix viral social media takes, a polarising personality, and someone always on the edge of controversy, you get something close to Piers Morgan. Every time his name trends on Twitter, you think, “oh no, what has he done now”, like a Jack Russell that has an addiction to scrapping with something or someone. But in recent months, Morgan has disappeared from our screens and has only been a figure on Twitter, until now.

Piers’ New Show

Teaser trailer of Piers Morgan’s interview with Donald Trump on Uncensored. Courtesy of Piers Morgan Uncensored

Uncensored is a live chat and debate show that the 57-year-old will be hosting on TalkTV, a new television station part of Rupert Murdoch’s News UK. Morgan has claimed that his show will “annoy all the right people,” with his first guest being the former United States President Donald Trump, which will probably do that. Dubbed “the most explosive interview of the year,” clips have emerged of Trump walking out of the interview, with it being claimed that the clip was “doctored”, according to the former president.

As people wait for this widely anticipated show hosted by the former Good Morning Britain host, we are now back into the cycle of hearing about Morgan on television after a brief silence. Twelve months after his stormy exit from GMB, it seemed that he was finished. It appeared he had lost his “un-cancellable” cloak, which had protected him for many years and that he had finally run out of the many lives he had. But with his new show Uncensored, will this revive his notorious, provocative, and infamous career, or will it do the opposite?

It is a question that has three possible paths. The first is that despite him saying that his show will be worth watching, it will not meet his oversaturated opinion. It may follow the same fate that his previous show, “Piers Morgan Live,” on CNN had faced: low ratings and ultimately being axed. If that doesn’t happen, then the second possibility is more likely. He will say something outlandish, be questioned for such a view, walk off and then quit his show on “his terms”, just like what happened with GMB. You then have the last possibility. If his show doesn’t meet his overly ambitious expectations or says something outlandish, it will continue to be aired due to high interest from people wanting to see Morgan red-faced in anger.

There is no clear answer to which path is more likely and what will end up being pure theory. The 57-year-old does have some control of what may or may not happen with his show, but looking at the clips of his interview with Trump, the broadcasting personality is still his polarising self.

He is using controversy as his fuel again, and he hasn’t changed in the last twelve months. At the same time, small viral clips don’t exactly tell the whole story, and as we see the long-form interviews, there might be a slight chance he has learnt a lesson from his previous mistakes. We might see his journalistic credentials if it still exists, or he provides an entirely different side that we may love or loath. Out of all the questions that Morgan will ask his guests, the question we want an answer to is the following: will Uncensored bring the best or worst out of the host? We will have that answer as the show develops.  

Is Banning Russia Today In The Uk The Start Of A Slippery Slope?

Keir Thompson
-
0
Is Banning Russia Today In The Uk The Start Of A Slippery Slope?

What Happened?

Russia has promised further crackdowns on British media outlets operating in the country, after UK media regulator Ofcom banned the Kremlin-backed television channel RT.

The Russian embassy in the UK said it was considering how to respond to the decision to remove RT’s broadcast licence: “The Russian side, therefore, reserves itself the right, as per normal international practice, to respond respectively with regard to the activity of British media in Russia.”

The BBC has been concerned that its operations in Russia could be severely curtailed as part of a tit-for-tat retribution move by the Russian state. The corporation has curtailed its Russian-language reporting from within the country but continues with English-language reporting led by Steve Rosenberg, its Russia editor.

RT vanished from British television screens two weeks ago as a result of EU sanctions but the UK media regulator’s decision makes it almost impossible for it to return to the country’s airwaves.

The decision does not stop RT, formerly known as Russia Today, publishing online output aimed at British audiences – which often reached larger audiences than the television channel – because Ofcom regulates only broadcast outlets.

RT has been removed from the airwaves in the UK and across the EU SOURCE: Getty Images

RT faced 29 investigations by Ofcom into specific breaches of British impartiality rules over its coverage of the war in Ukraine. The channel had portrayed the invasion as a peacekeeping mission to protect pro-Russia breakaway states.

But Ofcom said it instead made the unusually quick decision to revoke RT’s licence because of Russia’s introduction of laws that criminalised journalistic output that departed from the Russian state’s narrative, “, especially in relation to the invasion of Ukraine”.

“We consider that given these constraints it appears impossible for RT to comply with the due impartiality rules of our broadcasting code in the circumstances,” the regulator said.

The discussions these events prompt have two levels. The first level is about the situation: is this government intervention or is this a regulator trying to foster trust by offloading a propaganda machine? The second forces us to ask should the government have power over the regulator.

The first level is hard to prove, the government may have pressured. However, Russia Today has always maintained a level of plausible deniability. They fostered a Brexit following during the referendum as it furthered a Russian agenda. However, that was hard to call propaganda given the large amount of support found for Brexit. Now that Russian intentions are clearer, it is easier to prove. Ofcom tries to avoid taking channels off the air to protect freedom of expression. However, this was the point it seems Russia Today took it too far.

However, the second debate is more interesting. Should the government be able to say what we should and should not watch? Instinctually most would say no. In an era of social media and algorithms, it might be laughable that the government could choose what we see. But if the government can choose what we see, it damages our rights… Right? But in the United States, the land where freedom of expression beats out the love of guns, there is a wartime system that allows the government to seize control of communications. Zelensky did just this in Ukraine. It is to control information. In peacetime that is too much power, especially over time. However, in wartime, it is a necessity. The UK has a system too, and under the Broadcasting Act of 1980, the government still has the right to take control over radio and television in times of national emergency. Although, what qualifies is open to interpretation.

Russia Today is not the beginning of this government taking those steps, it would be far more immediate. But we are in an information war. It is something the world has not quite seen before and we should be prepared for more of the same.

I Guess It’s Her Black Life That Matters?

Shaun Flores
-
0
I Guess It’s Her Black Life That Matters?

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors has come under media storm once again for buying several million-dollar properties in California.

Cullors, 38, co-founded one of the biggest, and most world-renowned global protest movements in history.

In 2020, the Black Lives Matter foundation revealed it received more than $90 million in donations — in spite of an internal divide due to ongoing feuds about the lack of funding. As well as this, there were complaints about a lack of transparency regarding the gargantuan amount of money flowing into the hands of Black Lives Matter and people rightly wanted to know where their money was going.

Black Lives Matter-related causes received donations in 2020 were $10.6bn.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation disclosed its finances according to figures they released via an impact statement:

  • $8.4 million in expenses and $21.7 million committed to local chapters
  • the group ended 2020 with “an approximate balance of $60 million,”
  • This figure sits at £67m ($90m)

“We are no longer a small, scrappy movement. We are an institution,” they said.

Black Lives Matter

It had been reported by the Daily Signal publication that the Black Lives Matter movement has had a host of corporate donors such as Tinder, Microsoft, Amazon, Gatorade, and 23andme.

Develop Communities or the property portfolio?

Cullors, one of the founders of the movement has been called a hypocrite for amassing a property portfolio, which is diametrically opposed to her beliefs as a self-described “trained Marxist.” In direct response to these questions, she said: “Not just a character assassination campaign, but a campaign to actually get me assassinated.” — She is describing here the persistent questions she has been asked in the media. Her ascent from local community organiser to an international activist was unparalleled.

To bring an anchor to this murky water BLMGNF (Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation) responded to criticism in November 2020, when ten chapters of the BLMGNF issued a public call for greater financial accountability.

According to the New York Post: ‘The organization replied to the criticism three months later by releasing, for the first time, some detailed information about its finances. BLMGNF said it had raised more than $90 million in 2020. It incurred $8.4 million in operating expenses, distributed $21.7 million in grants to more than 30 organizations, and retained some $60 million in its coffers.’

Where is the rest of the $60 million? We are in 2022.

An April 2021 article in the New York Post revealed Cullors purchased four homes for nearly $3 million. 

Patrisse Cullors purchased this home in the Topanga Canyon area of Los Angele for $1.4 million, Image credit: New York posthttps://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/

One of the houses purchased for 6 million is as follows:’ more than 6,500 square feet, more than half a dozen bedrooms and bathrooms, several fireplaces, a soundstage, a pool and bungalow, and parking for more than 20 cars, according to real-estate listings. The California property was purchased for nearly $6 million in cash in October 2020 with money that had been donated to BLMGNF.’

In 2021 BLMGNF, where Cullors was previously a director, after stepping down in May 2021 issued a statement stating that they had not paid for her house back in 2021.

It was claimed Cullors was paid $120,000 in total since 2013 when the organisation was founded, where she received compensation ‘for duties such as serving as a spokesperson and engaging in political education work.’ 

She has not been paid since 2019, the group said.  

Image credit: Twitter @Blklivesmatter

In an article from the guardian, Cullors spoke in detail about some of the criticism she has faced It seems the attacks are misdirected, she has become the person to attack simply because her finances have been traced, with no plausible link. Cullors has become the scapegoat.

A continuing confusion?

Black Lives Matter as a concept has had many organisations and charities working chapters that work under their namesake. These organisations and charities need a clearer distinction, as it continues to confuse individuals. There is no clear number that operates under the name of BLM. Organisations have been working under the banner of BLM, they need to be tracked and have their books checked.

Throughout the years ‘ there have been nonprofit and for-profit arms. The BLM Global Network Foundation is distinct from the dissolved BLM Global Network, which is distinct from the BLM Action Fund, BLM Grassroots, and the BLM Political Action Committee. Tides sponsored an effort called the BLM Global Network Project and replaced it with the BLM Support Fund. BuzzFeed News reported in 2020 that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations nearly donated $4 million to an entity called the Black Lives Matter Foundation before realizing it had no connection to the group started by Cullors.’

Interestingly BLM is a branch of the new liberal religion and politics that divides good people alongside politics you must not question anything, if you do you are cast astray to the depths of no longer being an ally. Being an ally means you question and not blindly support. In the circus it has created we are able to deal with facts, not personal agendas and not feelings.

Image credit: Frieze https://www.frieze.com/tags/patrisse-cullors

Interestingly I do recognise many other leaders are not so heavily scrutinised with the same vigour as Patrice Cullors. Why? combined with the Covid-19 epidemic, the world was forced to sit down and listen as the media flooded the world with black trauma and pain. As a result of starting uncomfortable conversations about race, racism and other societal inequalities, never bite the hand that feeds you, instead, the media bite those they gave time and attention to through false discrediting, denigration and demonisation.

The magnitude of BLM is one of the largest in global history and will be forever remembered. Yet her followers do not benefit nearly as much as she has. Cullors stated previously. “I’ve worked multiple jobs across many organisations my entire life,”. “I’m also a published author, writer, producer, professor, public speaker and performance artist…”. Her wealth is seemingly also evidence from her body of work over the years, not directly from donations to BLM.

“As a self-proclaimed Marxist Cullor’s wealth is questionable and hypocritical but admirable as it goes against the very fabric of her political beliefs. It requires a special kind of person to say one thing, but do another. Cullors benefited from the very capitalist system she wishes to dismantle and destroy.

Shaun Flores

Leaders are thrust into the public spotlight and undoubtedly those we revere also have the threat of being crucified. Putting trust into a movement with a lack of transparency is never a good idea. Leadership is one thing, but ethical leadership is another. Ethical leaders are ‘individuals behave according to a set of principles and values that are recognized by the majority as a sound basis for the common good. These include integrity, respect, trust, fairness, transparency, and honesty. I feel in many black movements such as BLM, we lack this and they must be held to account before handing over money to help black people, but what is worse is not knowing where that money is going. Is we supported ethical leadership, we would not have this issue. We have many unethical individuals in leadership positions who reflect the people in namesake, not in moral grounding. Cullors is not the leader we asked for, she was self-anointed and self-appointed, but she is the leader we have, and ultimately she should practice what she preaches.

Three Reasons People Are Obsessed With Steven Bartlett

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Three Reasons People Are Obsessed With Steven Bartlett

Steven Bartlett’s name has been plastered all over social media in the last couple of months, and he become a prominent figurehead within the business and podcasting world.

He is very much in the limelight, from being mentioned in the TV soap Coronation Street to receiving raving reviews for his Diary of a CEO live tour.   

But whilst being in this limelight, he has also received his fair share of reproach.  

With more articles being written about the 29-year-old entrepreneur, both supporting and condemning the individual, I want to explore three reasons why there might be an obsession with Steven Bartlett.

His roots

A reason that stands out to why there is such attention towards the entrepreneur starts with his upbringing. Son of a Nigerian mother and British father, Steven grew up in Plymouth within a predominately white area, and his family struggled financially. He was the only black kid in his school, faced racial abuse and was attacked due to his race. Steven often talks about how he struggled to fit in during his school years and how in a Sunday Times interview, he recalled trying to be “as white as possible.” The school system didn’t help him either, as he was expelled at 17 due to his lack of attendance. Despite going to university, he attended only one lecture and dropped out of the institution straight afterwards, with his parents disowning him because of that decision. Even if he didn’t do well in school, he still had talent, and as you explore further, you can tell he had an entrepreneurial spirit about him.  

“I was relaxing my hair so that it’s straight, trying to be as white as I possibly could at that age because I didn’t really understand what it was to be different.”

Steven Bartlett in an interview with Rosie Kinchen for The Times.

Steven’s early roots have had quite a significant impact on many people, especially those from a similar background to his. It’s the idea that even if you don’t exactly fit in within a structured system like education, it doesn’t mean you are a failure. Steven is an example that despite “failing” in one area of life, it doesn’t mean you will face the same fate in other areas of life. The beginning of Steven’s journey presents a typical underdog story that everyone loves and appreciates, which generates intrigue. His story is about going through immense challenges but coming out the other side to fame and achieving colossal success.

Rise to fame

From dropping out of university, his rise to fame is something out of Wolf of Wall Street, just without a star-studded actor. At 23, he became a millionaire through his social media market agency called Social Chain, which he built in his bedroom. He then left this company in 2020, worth £450 million and instead of resting on this success, he launched two other businesses called Thirdweb and Flight Story. Away from his business adventures, there was another element to his story that was growing, and that was his Diary of a CEO podcast, which he launched back in 2017.

Multi-millionaire Steve Bartlett describes how he built Social Chain, a social media marketing company, from scratch on Happy Hour.

Since that time, the podcast has become a number one hit challenging the likes of Joe Rogan’s podcast. It has guests that media outlets would dream about getting an interview with, like Matt Hancock, Mel Robbins and Jordon Peterson, and it is sponsored by big-name brands like Huel, Fiver and Myenergi. Diary of CEO has also expanded into a live show and is in the works of trying to create a clothing brand relating to the podcast. Not to mention his other achievement of writing a Sunday Times bestseller, many are trying to work out how he has achieved such success in a short period. This then creates the fascination we now see, and this includes the endless interviewers asking him questions about how he has done it. All of us are naturally curious about people and their lives, especially the lives of the successful. With Steven and what he has achieved in business and his podcast, that curiosity is at another level. But sometimes, this curiosity isn’t something as pleasant as what people may think. With any person who achieves success, people’s interest can soon turn into criticism, and there has been plenty of it with Steven.

He divide’s opinion

Steven wearing a “24 hours” top in reference to the saga involving Molly-Mae. Image credit: Plymouth Live

It was bound to happen that a person like Steve would receive criticism, especially the kind of person he represents. This criticism can be seen in the New Statesmen, whereby Sarah Manavis views him as “cocky and smarmy… more of a bluffer than a prodigy” and a hypocrite. As an entrepreneur worth £50 million, not everyone will like his ideas of meritocracy, being your boss and his motivational quotes on Instagram. His inspiring words, “you can do it if you work hard,” may be tone-deaf but could be seen as a deep philosophical thought. There is also this divide whereby people see his success as pure luck rather than preparation crossing opportunity, which is something that many successful people have had to endure. Plus, the way he speaks about his success creates intrigue about if he is being cocky or confident, something many of us find hard to distinguish. Then you have Steven’s non-filtered mind, as seen during the Molly-Mae controversy, which will rub people in all sorts of ways.

All in all, Steven displays marmite tenancies in how he presents himself. You have a columnist saying he is an overrated businessperson with an ego larger than the Eiffel tower versus another who is a former health secretary saying that he hosts “one of the most self-aware podcasts that I’ve listened to.” There is noise surrounding the entrepreneur, but what we don’t know is where this noise will head. That might be something that Steven Bartlett should worry about.    

         

Amnesty International Discusses ‘Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians’

Zohaib Sadiq
-
0
Amnesty International Discusses ‘Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians’

Amnesty International discusses landmark report on Israeli Apartheid following International Day of Elimination of Racial Discrimination

For The International Day of Elimination of Racial Discrimination, we sat down with Tom Guha, a campaigner from Amnesty International UK, to discuss Amnesty’s recent report “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel Sytems of Domination and Crime Against Humanity”.

This year’s theme focuses on VOICES FOR ACTION AGAINST RACISM, centred on strengthening meaningful and safe public participation in all areas of decision making, and reaffirming the importance of full respect for the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is observed annually, marked by the yearly anniversary of the killing of 69 people at a peaceful anti-apartheid demonstration in South Africa in 1960. A cornerstone development from this horrific event is the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Despite the convention’s increasingly close universal ratification, communities and societies still suffer from the injustices and stigma racism and discriminatory policies bring. 

Israel blasts Amnesty UK for 'antisemitic' report accusing it of apartheid | The Times of Israel
Rights group Amnesty stages a demonstration outside the UK headquarters of US travel company TripAdvisor in London on January 30, 2019. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)

What impact does Amnesty hope this report will have?

Fundamentally, it was predictable that the report would attract controversy, but this is a really positive anti-racist campaign. Our end goal is the dismantling of Israeli Apartheid. Clearly a huge goal, and I’m not surprised in the slightest we’ve attracted a bit of controversy at the beginning. We (Amnesty) are committed to working on this campaign for a minimum of 10 years.

The first phase of the campaign is all about recognition, and once we’ve achieved widespread recognition that apartheid is actually being committed, then can we focus on concrete actions to dismantle the apartheid system. Central to the process over 3 stages is accountability, and we are right at the beginning of the recognition phase. In the immediate future, this means political activists, MPs across the political spectrum, and anyone influential in a political sense, becoming comfortable with using the word Apartheid to describe the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people. 

Regarding the criticism the report has faced, interestingly we’ve also attracted a lot of criticism from other organisations, namely asking why we’ve taken so long to reach this conclusion. Organisations such as Al-Haq (Palestinian Human Rights Group) and Israeli B’tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in The Occupied Territories) and Human Rights Watch have been using the language of Apartheid for quite some time. If anything, Amnesty is quite late to the game. Compared to other studies, our report does certainly go further. Other organisations have concluded that Apartheid is being committed only in the Occupied Territories, whereas Amnesty’s report concludes the Israeli state is committing the crime of Apartheid wherever it has control over Palestinian rights, including Gaza, the West Bank, and even the treatment of Palestinian refugees in Israel itself.

Can you talk a bit more about how Amnesty will be aiming to normalise the use of ‘Apartheid’ given the financial/lobbying/political resources the Israeli state is renowned for, particularly in Europe and America?

Central to this is convincing people that our research is credible, which I belive it is. I would encourage any skeptic to read the report and interrogate and engage with the evidence we have presented. Amnesty is a credible organisation, and this report is a result of 4 years on the ground research and legal analysis conducted by experts. 

The actual study and evidence gathering was conducted from 2017 to 2021, the reason being that Amnesty developed a legal framework on Apartheid in 2017, using international legal definitions (defined as “a crime against humanity committed when any inhumane acts are being committed within the context of a system that is designed to opress one racial group in order to benefit another”). The study itself involved a lot of field visits in Israel and the Occupied Territories itself, including with the organisations mentioned above (Al-Haq and B’tselem), interviews with Palestinians, and of course the necessary legal analysis into the laws, policies and practices that have been enacted by successive Israeli governments. Reading the study, a few things did stick out – water usage for example: 95% of people in the Gaza Strip, compared to 1% of Israelis, do not have access to clean and safe drinking water, alongside the use of live rounds by the Israeli Defense Force to disperse protests.

A major focus of the campaign is home demolitions, something we’ve campaigned on for a long time; policies that prohibit Palestinians from acquiring permits for the construction of property, meaning they have to build without permits and subsequently the homes are demolished by the Israeli state and replaced by Israeli settlements. Going back to what I said earlier, a good example of a concrete policy we want to achieve is the end of home demolitions and the provision of construction permits. A lot of this work includes working with Amnesty activists, ensuring that they feel comfortable talking about Israeli Apartheid in their communities, working with Parliamentarians, Members of Parliament, and ensuring the language is adopted by the mainstream, not just here in the UK, but internationally (this report was led by Amnesty International, not just Amnesty UK).

What is Amnesty’s view on Israel re-settling Ukrainian refugees in OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories)?

All countries, Israel included, must take measures to enable refugees safe and swift exit from Ukraine and offer protection without discrimination. However, states must not tackle human rights violations by committing other human rights violations. Israel’s policy of settling people in the occupied West Bank contravenes international law. 

Is Amnesty calling for any sanctions against Israel?

 Amnesty is calling on the UN Security Council to impose targeted sanctions such as travel bans and asset freezes against Israeli officials most implicated in the crime of apartheid – that means people with command responsibility. We are also calling for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. The embargo should cover the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, including transit and trans-shipment of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment, including the provision of training and other military and security assistance. It is also crucial that states institute and enforce a ban on products from Israeli settlements in their markets and regulate companies domiciled in their jurisdiction in a manner to prohibit companies’ operation in settlements or trade-in settlements goods.

 

Will Smith: Victim or Villian?

Shaun Flores
-
0
Will Smith: Victim or Villian?

Will Smith’s Oscar award was overshadowed by a moment of rage, where he slapped Chris Rock for making a joke about his wife Jada Pinkett Smith.

Chris Rock a well-known comedian said: “Jada, can’t wait for GI Jane 2,” Rock references her shaved hair, which is a result of the hair loss condition alopecia. Smith proceeded to walk onto the stage and hit Chris Rock before returning to his seat, where he then was shouting: “Keep my wife’s name out of your fucking mouth.”

Will Smith today took to Instagram to issue an apology, but let’s explore this topic deeper

When did violence become the answer?

A comedian’s job is to make people laugh, whether or not it’s at the expense of an individual or an event, they push the boundaries in society, they channel their pain often or their surroundings into laughable moments. If this is the answer to comedians when they make a joke you do not like, what societal standard are we setting up surrounding free speech?

Yes, freedom of speech does not come without freedom of consequences, but is a joke being made justified with a physical act of violence? We are descending down a slippery slope where we will relegate speech to the underground of society where things fester and create a darker issue we will have to address further in society.

According to figures by the National Alopecia Areata foundation “Approximately 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million worldwide have or will develop alopecia areata at some point in their lives.”, which is not life-threatening. Many will argue Chris Rock made the joke at the expense of a black woman, and he made a joke about her hair. A place that holds a deeply revered sentiment to most black women bringing us into an intra-racial tug of war.

However, have we forgotten Chris Rock is not anti-black, or anti-woman? He made a documentary in 2009 called Good Hair exploring the importance of hair in black culture. People have become quick to jump to conclusions, reductionist and slander politics in attempts to justify singular, binary views about black men. Chris Rock is by no means a saint, but by no means is he the devil he is being cast as. It’s clutching at thin straws, however, if you clutch enough straws you can pull something.

Will Smith: victim or villain?

Let us not take away from the fact Will smith lost control, he made a calculated decision to walk up onto the stage and slap Chris Rock.

For the last couple of months, Will has been a laughing stock of the highest order, he has been dragged through the hedges of the social media jungle and every time been a comedy spectacle. From the red table talk where his wife Jada Pinkett Smith admitted to having an affair with singer August Alsina, it has been Will on the chopping block. The Oscars were the straw that broke the camel’s back

Time has shown us the very brutal and public emasculation of a well-loved hero, mocked religiously, through memes and arguably this is a moment in time we will all never forget. To add insult to injury his kids Willow Smith and Jaden Smith have openly said they “wished Tupac Shakur was their father.” Tupac Shakur was the prominent rapper and love interest of Jada. Listening to Will Smith’s autobiography entitled Will thus exposed his constant need to always prove himself, it garners a differing perspective. I believe the act was a statement of intention to prove he is a man, with the addition of losing control.

Will Smith was wrong for what he did, he could have taken Chris Rock aside and spoken privately to him. In a more mature manner, is using violence the typical toxic approach embedded in masculinity? perhaps it is, but men settle more of their issues through violence. The threat of violence is actually quite typically what keeps the boundaries intact. Where there is a will there is a way. Will needs his mental, emotional and spiritual health put at the forefront.

As we are evolving as a species, words do not have the same threat as violence does.

75% of Children Strip-Searched By Met Come From Ethnic Backgrounds

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
75% of Children Strip-Searched By Met Come From Ethnic Backgrounds

This week protesters in east London have been rallying in support of a schoolgirl. Child Q, as she is called in the official report into her case, was just 15 in December 2020 when her teachers accused her of smelling of cannabis. After they failed to find drugs on her, Metropolitan police officers were brought into the school to conduct a strip search

According to the report by City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership, Child Q – who was having her period at the time – was made to remove her clothing, underwear and a sanitary pad, spread her buttocks and cough. Her mother and aunt say the incident has traumatised her. They say she now self-harms and screams in her sleep, and that they no longer recognise the happy-go-lucky girl they used to know.

Figures revealed this week showed the real scale of the problem and the institutional element

The numbers are shocking

Of the 5,279 children searched in the past three years, 3,939 (75%) were from ethnically diverse backgrounds. A total of 16 of them were aged between 10 and 12 years old.

This data only covers children who were strip-searched after an arrest, including 2,000 for drug offences, meaning the real number of youths strip-searched in London will be even higher.

The figures wouldn’t include the case of Child Q, for instance, as she was never arrested.

The Met’s already under pressure over its use of the tactic after a damning report found racism was a factor in a black 15-year-old girl, “Child Q”, being strip-searched while on her period at her school in Hackney, without an appropriate adult in the room.

For context, recent ONS data found that nearly 60% of people in the capital are white, suggesting people who are from an ethnically diverse background are far more likely to be strip-searched.

“violated, disgusted”.

Temi Mwale, who runs the 4Front Youth Empowerment Organisation in Colindale, North London, said more than 60% of her members have been strip-searched more than once and believes the practise should be banned on children.

“What is apparent is the sheer significant impact that it has on children’s mental health. It is a deeply traumatising, degrading, humiliating experience that nobody should have to endure, let alone children,” she said.

Temi said the practice was nothing more than state-sanctioned child abuse, that disproportionately affects black children.

Black children are not given the same chance of childhood, protection, care and safety. Instead black children are only offered criminalisation, violence and harm,” she said

SOURCE: GUAP

“Jordan” is a 19-year-old who says 4Front has changed his life. He’s been strip-searched four times. Once, while he was just 17, he didn’t have an appropriate adult in the room with him.

He says he was caught with a small bag of cannabis on him (“fair play, they were doing their job”) before being arrested, and taken to the “strip search room” in the local police station.

During the search, in which he was told to remove all his clothes, a custody sergeant walked in and checked his age again. When he said he was 17 they realised they had to stop.

The whole thing clearly had a horrifying effect on him. He said: “They strip-searched me, as a 17-year-old with no appropriate adult present.

“I felt extremely uncomfortable – very degraded. I felt like dirt to be honest like they were just stepping all over me.

“It was a very nasty experience as a child having to show your genitalia to two grown men who you don’t know.”

Michael is another man who was strip-searched as a child. He’s now 19, and says he’s been strip-searched “more than 20” times. “It’s a part of life, like brushing your teeth,” he said.

The first time it happened, he was 16, and it made him feel “violated, disgusted”.

He believes strip searches should be banned on children and says the over-use of the practice is only harming relations between the police and communities in London.

In response, a spokesperson from the Met Police said: “We work closely with communities in London and understand that stop and search can have a significant and lasting impact on someone, especially an MTIP (More Thorough Search where Intimate Parts are exposed) and strip searches in custody.

Is COVID19 Officially Over?

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
Is COVID19 Officially Over?

With the UK government planning to lift nearly all coronavirus restrictions on Monday 28th March, it signals to the general public that the worst of the pandemic is behind us.

The government unveiled its ‘Living with Covid’ plan earlier this year, with the aim being to treat coronavirus as a common cold-like illness.

Although nearly half of Britons think that the government is lifting restrictions too quickly, many would be quick to disagree, as the UK economy is in a delicate situation but there is signs of slow but certain growth.

A spokesperson for prime minister Boris Johnson said, “at the moment, we don’t see anything nearing any of the sorts of pressures we saw at the peak of the pandemic, when such large proportions of the population weren’t vaccinated or boosted”.

“We obviously will always have contingency plans, but the prime minister and others have talked about how the vaccination and our therapeutics mean we will not need to return to the lockdowns of the past that saw such significant measures be necessary.”

What are the changes?

  • People who test positive for coronavirus will no longer be legally required to self-isolate
  • Masks will no longer be legally required in public spaces
  • Lateral flow tests will now only be free to over-75s and over-12s with weakened immune systems
  • The NHS Covid Pass will no longer be recognised as a ‘Covid passport’ within the UK
  • Passengers flying in to England will no longer be required to complete a UK passenger locator forms or take any coronavirus tests, regardless of vaccination status
  • Quarantine hotels will also be scrapped
  • There are currently no red list restrictions in place for travel to England

Is this good news?

For those who recognise the importance of a stable economy, who wish to hug loved ones again, who wish to have as normal a life as possible and to never again experience such an abrasive and unapologetic curtailing of civil and individual liberties, this is excellent news.

Coronavirus will be with us for the long haul, but this should not mean that lives are paused and disrupted on a regular basis because of it. To many, the lifting of restrictions is a welcome gesture from our government that is long overdue.

Coronavirus has taught us a lot about ourselves and society at large. It has taught us that fundamentally, at our core, human beings need love and interaction with others, and that technology is no replacement for in-person social interaction.

We witnessed inhumane scenes during the height of the pandemic, where people were forced to communicate with – or say goodbye to – loved ones exclusively via electronic means.

A woman desperately tries to take her mother out of a care home before lockdown restrictions return.

It has also taught us about the importance of a stable economy, and how fundamental ideas such as free-market capitalism and innovation benefits society at large.

The UK economy has not taken such a beating since wartime Britain. Whilst big business was booming (though not as profitable), small businesses were on their knees. Record amounts of borrowing, combined with extended furlough schemes and loans and grants aimed at businesses, will have to be paid for somehow; tax or National Insurance increases, most likely.

On a political level, it demonstrated what could potentially happen when governments are granted absolute and unchecked power. If people are willing to give up their rights in a state of emergency, the government will keep creating emergencies in order to keep that power.

At one point, the government were actually considering whether or not to make Covid passes legal, meaning only those who were fully vaccinated would be able to enjoy all that society has to offer. The equality watchdog warned that this would, in effect, create a “two-tier society whereby only certain groups are able to fully enjoy their rights”.

Considering the fact that many people choose not to be vaccinated – whether due to personal choice, religious or philosophical beliefs, or a simple lack of trust in healthcare services (particularly amongst the Black community) – it would have led to rampant discrimination.

Maajid Nawaz of LBC calls out the ‘them vs us’ culture. Video credit: LBC

This was compounded by the frightening fact that many UK citizens – as do many when forced to confront their mortal state – actually supported curtailing of rights.

It was an unhealthy relationship with the state, not unlike communist regimes, where the collective British psyche developed a sense of Stockholm syndrome; as in the name of ‘safety’ there were those who were not only willing but practically begged for individual liberties to be taken away.

Exacerbated by the existence of the aforementioned unvaccinated, this could have had the potential to lead to a kind of ‘them vs us’ culture.

History shows that when in a crisis, a group of people is always made a scapegoat and labelled the ‘enemy of the people, which leads to – and often remarkably justifies – discrimination and, unfortunately in some cases, persecution.

We witnessed government corruption and hypocrisy, with Matt Hancock contradicting social distancing rules and the ‘Partygate’ scandal that rocked No. 10 to its core, further damaging Boris’ credibility as a prime minister and, more importantly, as a man.

Boris Johnson apologies for ‘failures of leadership’. Video credit: NBC News

So, is Covid ‘over’? That depends entirely on the context in which Covid ‘started’. Will Covid be gone for the time being? No. Will it be around for the foreseeable future? Yes. Will we have to learn to live with it? Yes. So, in that respect, Covid is not ‘over’; and never will be, as long as the virus exists.

However, other factors must be taken into account. The financial consequences of Covid will affect us for decades to come, the disruption to education will affect an entire generation of students and the curtailment of civil liberties gave us a little taste of what life would be like without democracy.

The immediate restrictions against Covid are ‘over’, and it’s safe to say that we are no longer in a ‘pandemic’. However, the effects of the crisis will affect us for years to come.

Covid isn’t ‘over’. It’s just begun.

Student Creates App To Help Young People Find Freelance Work

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Student Creates App To Help Young People Find Freelance Work

The world of work is changing. Students are increasingly looking for work that allows them to focus on University whilst being able to work in order to supplement their income. Common Sense Plus in market research spoke to a range of students who shared this problem in 2021. Enter Hakim Mohammed

Hakim Mohamed is set to introduce the HyreHub app to the market in the coming weeks, with hopes of helping his young peers to market themselves to employers, secure regular freelance work and bolster their skilled work portfolio. 

There are currently a number of platforms available for freelance professionals, but for students and young people competing in large talent pools with experienced professionals, it can be hard to stand out from the crowd and attract employers. 

This is something Hakim himself found difficult to manage during his studies, with many of his peers who were also seeking freelance work reporting similar challenges. 

Hakim, 23, originally from Essex, entered an app design competition at Coventry University while he was studying aerospace systems engineering and it was that which kickstarted his entrepreneurial journey. He has since teamed up with fellow young entrepreneurs Adam Oyekola and Dami Adebayo to develop the initiative. 

I sat down with Hakim the co-founder of Hyre Hub to find out more

What is Hyre Hub?

HyreHub is a business that improves the student experience by providing an opportunity to make income without using too much social/revision time. We do so by matching talented students who will be future leaders in their profession with businesses and individuals alike who need tasks done. We are conscious about the cost of living and know young people feel a good brunt of this; we want to help eradicate the ‘student struggle’ narrative.

Why did you start Hyre Hub?

The realisation that working a part-time job whilst studying does not make sense. At the end of the day, you work around the business’s needs and wants. Even though you can opt in and out of days, you don’t have full control of your time. This is where we thought freelancing as a student makes the most sense however, we saw how saturated current platforms are with experienced and long-time users making it hard for a younger person/ student to breakthrough.

So, making a freelancing platform where the only sellers are students is the solution to both these problems. It also builds a relationship with students and the surrounding community, which we feel is very important.

Hyre Hub co-founders,

What does the app actually do?

The app allows businesses and individuals to post tasks they need doing on a live marketplace for students to apply to and do. All whilst allowing students to post their given services so businesses and induvial can hire them based on the service they provide.

How was building this app during a lockdown?

Building the app during lockdown wasn’t as hard as we thought as we were lucky enough to acquire funding during that period. As we were indoors a lot it allowed us to truly focus on the app and what we want to bring to the market due to the time we had. Funnily enough, I feel like the lockdown made it easier to build the app especially at the stage we were at during lockdown.

Do you think Lockdown has created the atmosphere for this kind of app?

Hundred per cent, especially where so many people were let off work, particularly students, but bills and things still need to be paid for, showing there is no security working a part-time job. Whereas as a freelancer no one can lay you off and because more people are at home starting businesses, the need for freelance services is at an all-time high, from marketing all the way to designing.

Freelancer: Source: Brooke Cagle

What do you aim to achieve with this app?

Ultimately the goal is to empower more students to start freelancing if they haven’t started already and those that have, we want to give them a platform that is easy and friendly to use allowing them to monetise their talents so they can take be in control of their time all whilst creating an ecosystem through connecting business and the community to these talented students across multiple freelancing disciplines.

It was a pleasure to sit down and speak to Hakim from Hyre Hub. You can find out more about the project HERE

Russia Launching Own Version of Instagram

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Russia Launching Own Version of Instagram

Russian entrepreneur Alexander Zobov has announced that he is launching a homegrown version of Instagram following parent company Meta’s banning in the country over the Ukraine Invasion

The Russian alternative will be called Rossgram and its launch is scheduled for March 28. The app will be available for Android and IOS users.

“Right now you have the opportunity to become the first users with special privileges. First, access will be open to top bloggers and partners. Regular users will be able to access in April 2022,” says the company’s website.

Rossgram is expected to have all the same functions as Instagram, including photo and video publications, communicating through an in-built messenger, and leaving comments under other people’s posts.

The social media platform will, apparently, offer additional tools of monetization for bloggers through paid content, fundraising, and referral programs.

Karina Nigay, fashion blogger: ‘I’m in a state of resentment and nowhere near a state of acceptance.’ Photograph: Christian Vierig/Getty Images

The company said initial access will be open to “sponsors and investors” and regular users will be able to access the platform from April. 

Alexander Zobov is described on the website as a specialist in digital marketing and the creator of barter network “Web commune”. Rossgram’s second co-founder, Kirill Filimonov, is described as an entrepreneur and the CEO of a tourism company, “The Russian Italy”.   

© rossgram.ru

The initiative has received mixed reviews so far, with some commentators praising the startup, while others have criticized the company for its Russia-centric name, saying that Rossgram has no chances of expanding to the foreign markets.

Russian regulator Roskomnadzor announced its decision to block Meta’s Facebook and Instagram in the territory of the Russian Federation after the General Prosecutor’s office accused the American company of extremism for allowing calls for violence against Russian soldiers on Meta’s platforms.

Meta said the decision was made to protect the right to free speech as “an expression of self-defense in reaction to a military invasion of their country.” The company called it a temporary decision taken in extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances. It clarified the policy this week to say calls for violence were not allowed to be made against “Russians in general.”

Russia launched its military offensive against Ukraine on February 24, with Western countries instantly imposing a raft of unprecedented sanctions and Western companies pulling out of the country in droves.

The Kremlin know they need to win the digital war

As well as the troops we have seen on the ground in Ukraine, there is also a digital war raging as Russia attempts to take control of the narrative around the invasion of Ukraine.

An investigation by VICE News uncovered a coordinated campaign to pay Russian TikTok influencers to post videos pushing pro-Kremlin narratives about the war in Ukraine.

Numerous campaigns have been coordinated in a secret Telegram channel that directs these influencers on what to say, where to capture videos, what hashtags to use, and when exactly to post the video.

These campaigns were launched at the beginning of the invasion and have involved a number of the highest-profile influencers on TikTok, some of whom have over a million followers.

A growing number of millennials and Genz Russians are getting their information online and not from Russian controlled media. It’s increasingly difficult to influence what these young people think with such wide media consumption. This ban of Instagram and the launch on Rossgram is a move in the direction of more autocracy and centralised control.

Jussie Smollett Is Acting Like A Victim… Again

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Jussie Smollett Is Acting Like A Victim… Again

Last week, United States actor Jussie Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in prison after being found guilty of lying to the police about being a victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime.

The 150 days is part of a total of 30 months on probation, and the actor must repay $120,106 to the Chicago Police to cover their investigation costs.

In January 2019, the former star of the show Empire hired two acquaintances who were brothers named Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo. Smollett paid $3,500 to the two men and staged an assault against him in Chicago. According to the actor, the two men were Donald Trump supporters and were all masked up. When the incident occurred, it had caused widespread concern through a country that still experiences racial and sexual discrimination. The actor had at the time received support from those in political and cultural arenas, but after finding out that this incident had been staged, this support has turned into criticism. Chicago Judge James Linn said that Smollett had craved attention and had a streak that was “profoundly arrogant and selfish and narcissistic.”

After Judge James Linn sentenced Jussie Smollett for fabricating a hate crime, Jussie Smollett repeatedly said, “I am not suicidal,” and insisted on his innocence. Courtesy of CBS Chicago

Despite receiving his jail sentence, Smollett still believes in his innocence. He has gone to the extent of saying that he was sentenced to jail because he was black. Smollett’s lawyers are trying to find ways to get the actor out of prison early and have asked for more leniency. After spending a few nights in jail, reports say that the actor is worried he will catch covid and is concerned about his mental health. The actor’s family has issued an emergency motion in the appellate court, claiming he should never have been convicted.

Empire Actor Jussie Smollett is in a ‘psych ward’ at the Cook County Jail, said his family, who want him released on bond. Courtesy of ABC 7 Chicago.

Jussie Smollett is known for three things: an actor, a singer and now a meme.

Notwithstanding it being reported that the actor’s health is at risk, which should be of concern, the way the former Empire star has behaved during and after his trial, is outright ridiculous.

Hiring two people to stage a hate crime is not only a complete disrespect to actual victims of hate-related attacks but also a big waste of time to the police and me writing this piece.

This case shows that celebrities like Jussie think they live in a video game where you can do whatever you want and have no consequences for their actions. However, this is the real world, and when you commit a crime like wasting police time, you will face the hammer of the law. But even when Jussie is facing jail time, he thinks he should be treated differently from everyone else because of his so-called popularity in a cringe-worthy television show called Empire. He is trying to use covid and various other excuses as a get out of jail card, like what you find playing Monopoly. And what doesn’t help is that his family and those close around him support his soap opera. But what Jussie and his supporters don’t realise is that he is acting like a victim. 

He is throwing his toys out of his pram whilst using his “acting skills” to try and fool us and have us feeling sorry for him.

Thankfully, the judges assessing this case weren’t fooled by this and have made the right decision. 

What was going through Jussie’s head is still beyond all of us, and we may never know why he would be so stupid in trying to fake a hate crime.  

Who is Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson?

Jalen Nash
-
0
Who is Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson?

Throughout Joe Biden’s campaign, he promised to appoint the first African American U.S. Supreme Court Judge. Justice Stephen Breyer’s announced his retirement early this year, which gave Biden an open opportunity to fulfill a campaign promise. Last month, President Biden nominated a candidate to fill Justice Breyer’s seat in the U.S. Supreme Court. Her name is Ketanji Brown Jackson, and here are her credentials.

Born in Washington D.C. and raised in Miami by public school teachers, Jackson’s success was uncertain. But looking back on her childhood, it was clear to see her planting the seeds for future success.

“My parents set out to teach me that, unlike the many impenetrable barriers that they had to face, my path was clear,” recalled Jackson. “If I worked hard and believed in myself, I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson and Stephen Rosenthal as high school seniors

According to the White House, she stood out as a high achiever throughout her childhood years. As a speech and debate star, she was elected “mayor” of Palmetto Junior High and Miami Palmetto Senior High School student body president. Jackson always had a history of being called into leadership positions. However, like many Black women, Judge Jackson still faced naysayers. 

When Judge Jackson told her high school guidance counselor that she wanted to attend Harvard University, the counselor warned that Jackson should not set her “sights so high.”

Fortunately, comments like those did not deter Judge Jackson. She ultimately graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and served as Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review.

After college, Jackson threw herself into her work. She served as a law clerk from 1996 to 1998, spent a year in private practice at Washington, D.C., and then clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court. She worked for both private and public organizations until 2009 when President Barack Obama nominated her to vice-chair of the United States Sentencing Commission.

As vice-chair, Jackson gained notoriety by reducing the guideline range for crack cocaine offenses and enacting the “drugs minus two” amendment, which implemented a two offense-level reduction for all drug crimes.

Her excellent work on the Sentencing Commission caught the attention of lawmakers, who quickly nominated and confirmed her as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. During her time on the District Court, Jackson wrote multiple decisions adverse to the positions of the Trump administration, solidifying her position as a defender of liberal values. 

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson smiles as she accepts U.S. President Joe Biden’s nomination to be a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice and the first Black woman to serve on the Court while appearing with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 25, 2022. REUTERS/Leah Millis

Her experience came full circle when she was nominated on February 25, 2022, to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. 

Brown is the first African-American woman nominated to fill any Supreme Court vacancy. If confirmed, Jackson would become the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She would also be the first federal public defender to sit on the Court and the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to have represented criminal defendants.

Do Russians Support Putin’s Ambition?

Hamish Hallett
-
0
Do Russians Support Putin’s Ambition?

Much of the world is in horror over the invasion of Ukraine by Russia as the critiques behind such a move are piling onto the Kremlin.  

Through sanctions, condemnations and even the removal of Russia from a video game, the country is facing the full force of ramifications.

But through such critiques and consequences, is the world blending the ambitions of a few to a nation of people?

This is especially as we find out that not everyone in Russia has the same ambitions as the Kremlin.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy has appealed for Russians to challenge their government and voice opposition to the invasion of Ukraine. Courtesy of The Guardian

Is history repeating itself?

War is an unfortunate reoccurrence, and we can name a few wars on top of our heads. Through such human tragedy, there is an element that doesn’t spring to our minds: the repercussions to those that match the background of the aggressors of a particular conflict. Take World War Two as an example. 600,000 undocumented Italian immigrants in the United States were deemed “enemy aliens” because of the actions of a fascist called Benito Mussolini. These citizens were detained, relocated, stripped of their property, or placed under curfew because of their nationality during this time.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and 9/11 shocks the world. Yet again, the background of the aggressors faced hordes of backlash. From 2000 to 2001, hate crimes against Muslims rose 1617%, according to the FBI, which marked the highest number of Islamophobic hate crimes in the United States. 20 and a few years later, there is still this hateful sentiment towards Muslims across the west, some of which is used as a political tool by the far-right. Then, we had the Israel-Palestine conflict and a flare-up in May 2021. British Jews recorded a stagging 2,255 antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in that year, the highest tally in Europe. 871 of those incidents happened in May and June, which coincided with the flare-up.

And with the current news cycle flying around about this Ukraine-Russia conflict, there is a risk that history may be repeating itself. The Czech Republic, Latvia, and Japan have already stopped issuing visas to Russian citizens, with Belgium’s Minister of Immigration Sammy Mahdi indicating that “at the moment, Russians are not welcome here.” American lawmaker Eric Swalwell suggested on CNN that closing the Russian Embassy and kicking Russian students out of the United States “should be on the table.” Because of these actions and comments, we are at risk of intermingling the Kremlin and ordinary Russians, particularly when it is not clear if Russians support the invasion of Ukraine.    

“Frankly, I think closing their embassy in the United States, kicking every Russian student out of the United States … should … be on the table. … Vladimir Putin needs to know every day that he is in Ukraine, there are more severe options that could come.”

Eric Swalwell during an appearance on CNN.

Do Russians support Putin?

Professor Nikita Savin from HSE University in Moscow has said that about 70% of Russians approve of sending troops to Ukraine, according to some polls in the country.

Yet, she continued to say that “there are a lot of reasons why we should not trust these results.”

Russians are not silent – we are being silenced.

Natalia, a 52-year-old teacher in St Petersburg. Source: The Guardian

It’s better that it’s over quickly; Ukrainians brought this upon themselves; it’s better that it happens there than here; it was inevitable that the West would provoke a large conflict.”

A person writing to Jeremy Morris on Facebook. Source: Opendemocracy

One could include the “social desirability” effect, whereby people want to fit in with the majority opinion. Another reason why there is an uneasiness to trust such results is due to the many anti-war protests in Russia. Over 1000 people were detained in a recent anti-war protest, indicating that the polling results might not match what is going on in the streets of Russia. Not only that, but some Russians are feeling unfairly punished for the actions of Putin. But the most substantial reason is reports of people fearing punishment if they indicate anti-war views in the country through polling or other means. In a Guardian callout asking for Russian views of the situation, those that contacted the outlet expressed concern. Natalia, a 52-year-old teacher in St Petersburg, believe that Russians live in “fear of imprisonment, which nowadays, has become a sad reality.”

Russian civilians are divided on the invasion of Ukraine as anti-war protests break out in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Courtesy of Sky News

We must separate the Kremlin and Russians

Russians are already feeling the international sanctions as their lives have been disrupted. Financial services like Apple Pay and Google Pay have been cut off for these citizens, the rouble has collapsed, and mass queues have been seen outside of ATMs in Russia. But what we must hope is that these financial consequences don’t evolve into something a lot darker, which has already been seen before. As history has pointed out, sentiments that started off towards governments have transferred to ordinary citizens, seen by spikes in hate crimes.

According to The Office for National Statistics, there are estimates of around 73,000 Russians here in the United Kingdom living as residents.

Many of them are worried that this anti-kremlin sentiment will transfer to them, despite wanting to live their lives in peace.   

Let’s hope people have learnt their history and don’t repeat the past mistakes that we have seen when catastrophe strikes.

Whilst our thoughts are with the Ukrainians, there may come a time when we will need to include ordinary Russians in these thoughts as well.

1...111213...91Page 12 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