Europe’s largest street festival returned with a bang for the first time since 2019. According to unofficial figures, over two million people were out in force on the road over the bank holiday weekend to enjoy the celebrations over the three-and-a-half mile route.
For vendors, participants and attendees alike, it was widely viewed as a welcome relief to enjoy Notting Hill Carnival in the flesh once again.
Celebration of Caribbean Culture: Restored back to the streets
As echoed by the Mayor of London, the celebrations are deeply rooted into the culture of the capital, established more than six decades ago, the annual event is second to only Rio Carnival in terms of attendees.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – AUGUST 28: Mayor of London Sadiq Khan (L) attends the Notting Hill Carnival which is one of the largest street carnival in Europe, in London, United Kingdom on 28 August 2022. Thousands of people attended the festival, which could not be held for 2 years due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (Photo by Rasid Necati Aslim/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
“This community-led celebration of Caribbean history and culture has become one of the world’s biggest street festivals and part of the very fabric of this city,”
Sadiq Khan, BBC (2022)
Despite a few incidents which attempted to mar the weekend, there can be no doubt that the return after the event that had been postponed two years prior was a major signal of the return to normality, especially for the Lead Member for Culture, Leisure and Community Safety, Cllr Emma Will, who said: “I’m so pleased to see how well Carnival has gone and everyone has worked so hard to ensure it ran smoothly.”
The August Bank holiday weekend saw footfall in excess of two million people (according to unofficial figures)
Biased media/police-driven narratives
With such a large gathering, it is unfortunate that there will be minute pockets of violence, as with all other major events that occur in this country.
There have even been calls from the Met Police to cease the existence of the carnival altogether due to the untoward activity that takes place and numerous arrests.
1.3m people attend Notting Hill carnival and 38 people get arrested. [0.0029%]
“Nationwide headlines”
105k daily Reading and Leeds Festival and they have a 16 y/o dying from Ecstasy, 50 people were ejected for “serious disorder” [0.04%] and tents were set on fire.
This was met (in majority) with backlash due to the perceived inconsistencies of placing violence under the microscope across other major festivals, including Reading & Leeds festival, which saw drug overdosing, tents set on fire, looting as well as numerous ejections with a much smaller crowd.
Europe’s largest street festival saw the streets of Kensington and Chelsea filled to its brim throughout the day
How can we keep it fun and safe?
Notting Hill Carnival started from humble beginnings, with a three-figure turnout for its first event, to seeing attendees fly in from across the world to attend, with a streaming audience in the tens of thousands.
The prospect of a million people in such an enclosed space, dwarfs Glastonbury’s attendance by a factor of 10, yet is not even held in an area three times as large.
The congestion on the roads across the entirety of the route clearly shows that it might be time to expand the route, possibly to include going through the Maida Vale/Hyde Park areas. The only other alternative (which would be met with vociferous opposition) is to place a cap on the number of attendees, by possibly making it a ticketed event.
All images used are courtesy of Sama Kai (Twitter: @OfficialSamaKai)
After weeks of the Tory mudslinging over 15 leadership hustings, The United Kingdom has a new Prime Minister but who is Lizz Truss and what might her premiership hold?
Age: 47
Place of birth: Oxford
Home: London and Norfolk
Education: Roundhay School in Leeds, Oxford University
Family: Married to account Hugh O’Leary with two teenage daughters.
Parliamentary constituency: South-West Norfolk.
At the age of seven, Liz Truss played the role of Margaret Thatcher in her school’s mock general election.
But unlike the prime minister, who won a huge majority in 1983, she did not prove a success.
Many years later, Ms Truss recalled: “I jumped at the chance and gave a heartfelt speech at the hustings, but ended up with zero votes. I didn’t even vote for myself.”
Thirty-nine years on, she has become Britians third female Prime minister following in the Iron Lady’s lead for real.
Education and early years
Truss had a state secondary school education at Roundhay in Leeds, she then went on to read Philosophy, Politics, and economics, at Oxford University.
She was active in student politics, initially for the Lib Dems, but at Oxford, she switched to the Conservative party. Outside of her work in Politics, she worked as a management accountant.
She also worked in the energy and telecommunications industry for a decade as an economics director and commercial manager.
After multiple political setbacks in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, Ms Truss was elected as a councillor in Greenwich, SE London in 2006, from 2008, she was the Deputy Director for the right-of-centre Reform think tank.
Backed by then Conservative leader David Cameron, she was put on his priority list of candidates for the 2010 election.
Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak during Conservative leadership debates- Byline Times
Although an effort to de-select her by the constituency Tory group failed, she then went on to win the seat with a 13,000-vote lead.
After co-authoring a book, Britannia Unchained, a collaborative effort with four other conservative members, she worked as an education minister within Government and in 2014 was promoted to environment secretary until 2016.
What happened Post-Brexit?
After arguably the most important political event of this generation, The EU referendum, Ms Truss supported and advocated for the Remain campaign. Once the Leave campaign had won, she argued that Brexit was an opportunity to “shake up the way things work.”
Moving on, under Theresa May’s tenure ship, she worked as the justice secretary before becoming the chief secretary to the Treasury.
From 2019 onwards. After Boris Johnson became PM she moved to the international trade secretary, A role where she met global political and business leaders to promote UK PLC.
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM – MARCH 24: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and military representative to NATO Ben Bathurst leave NATO Headquarters following a NATO summit on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, on March 24, 2022 in Brussels, Belgium. Heads of State and Government take part in the North Atlantic Council (NAC) Summit. They will discuss the consequences of President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the role of China in the crisis. Then decide on the next steps to strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence. (Photo Henry Nicholls – Pool/Getty Images)
Two years later, she succeeded Domonic Raab in one of the most senior roles in Government as Foreign Secretary. Within that role, she pursued to solve the complicated problem of the Northern Ireland Protocol, by removing parts of a post-Brexit EU-UK deal, a move that was heavily scrutinised by the EU.
Also, during her time, she secured the release of two British-Iranian nationals who had both been arrested and detained.
What will a Liz Truss government look like?
Ms Truss’ leadership campaign has not been free from controversy. After being pressed on how she would deal with the cost-of-living crisis issue, she offered that she would be ‘’lowering tax burden, not giving out handouts.’’
The next British prime minister takes office at a moment of desperate anxiety for the UK, with gas shortages triggered by the war in Ukraine sending inflation to rates that haven’t been seen for a generation. With millions of families struggling to cover their bills, dockers, railworkers and even lawyers have held strikes to demand higher pay while teachers and nurses may follow in the fall.
The British public have been souring on the governing Conservatives after Boris Johnson was forced from office in July follow a string of scandals and the party is running about 10 percentage points behind the opposition Labour Party, with an election due in 2024. Truss’s policies have struck a chord with the Tory party members whose votes will decide the next prime minister when the result of their ballot is announced on Monday, but MPs are concerned about whether she will also be able to address the problems facing the country as a whole.
Some other ministers from the Johnson administration may remain in top government jobs, but Sunak supporters such as Dominic Raab, Michael Gove and Oliver Dowden, are expected to leave government and join the ranks of backbench MPs, who played a role in toppling three of the last four Tory prime ministers. (David Cameron was the exception. He quit after losing the Brexit referendum in 2016.)
In that respect, Truss would start in a more vulnerable position than her predecessors.
Most prime ministers derive their authority from a core support of MPs, but there are few Truss diehards in parliament. She only scraped into the runoff contest against Sunak and it’s her popularity with the rank-and-file that is likely to see her into Downing Street.
Kelly Parker is a doctoral student and research teaching associate at Falmouth University. Alongside these roles, Kelly guest lectures in BIPOC media representation and stereotyping, and is an online tutor in Post-Digital Content. The views in this article are the author’s own.
On May 25th, 2020, African American George Floyd died at the hands of four police officers. His death triggered protests and riots, which saw people worldwide acknowledge the structural racism and inequities experienced by Black people globally.
Big brands and organisations spoke out in support of the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM) following the death of George Floyd.
Brand Activism, which consists of taking “a stand on social, environmental, or political issues”, has become a key to appealing to younger consumers.
However, according to Simon Lucey, the founder and managing director of Hype Collective, a student marketing agency: “Inauthentic brand activism and support for social causes can be damaging in the long run. If public support for causes is not backed by significant actions, it’s meaningless.”
Boohoo Group PLC, the house of brands who own Boohoo, Pretty Little Thing, Nasty Gal and Misspap (to name a few) are one such company that showed support for BLM.
In a statement released following the death of George Floyd, Boohoo stated: “At Boohoo we will no longer just be doing our thing. We will be doing better. We see you, we hear you and we, throughout all of this and beyond will stand with you. We are louder together. Say their names. #BLACKLIVESMATTER.”
It’s been interesting to witness how Fast Fashion advertising responds to such world events and the varying degrees of authenticity behind their public demonstrations of support.
Boohoo Group PLC has a track record of banned adverts or drawing controversy from over-sexualised imagery.
Considering their pledge of support to BLM, the question is, are the Boohoo Group still perpetuating outdated racial stereotypes such as the Jezebel? And does this suggest their messages of support are hollow?
What is the Jezebel Stereotype?
Boohoo Group often promote adverts that feature black and white models. However, there are subtle yet significant differences in how the models are portrayed.
Significantly, the over-sexualisation of Black women has a different effect from that of white women due to historical connotations.
The hyper-sexualisation of black women can be linked to slavery in the 17th century, with the Jezebel label among the most common stereotypes projected on them. Jezebels are characterised as hyper-sexual and deviant – they are considered highly immoral and promiscuous with an insatiable desire for sex.
The stereotype is often associated with black fair-skinned, longer hair, curvy women who fit the European beauty ideals.
This stereotype was created as a construct to discharge accountability among enslavers for systematically sexually abusing enslaved Black women.
The offence of this stereotype was its use to justify inequality, slavery and sexual violence toward Black women.
However, not much has changed regarding how black women are portrayed within mainstream media – especially in the fashion industry
Below, we are going to explore how the Boohoo Group, despite their pledge for change during the BLM protest have continued to promote outdated stereotypes such as The Jezebel.
Pretty Little Thing
Afro B & Ashanti Campaign For PrettyLittleThing by Glam Africa
Jezebel, Jezebel Image Galleries | Ferris State University
Singer and influencer Ashanti’s 2019 advert with Pretty Little Thing was published the year before George Floyd’s death.
Similar to the Jezebel stereotype, with over-sexualised and objectified presentation with a heavy emphasis on her buttocks and cleavage; she is dressed in animal print design and situated in what seems like a jungle synonymous with the habitat of the animals whose print have been used.
Historically, it’s been common to associate Jezebels with animal print; these portrayals in advertising and print are not new. Ashanti wearing animal print in a jungle-esque habitat creates a subliminal inference of an animal. Snake print could connote corruption, deviousness and cunning, much like the Jezebel stereotype suggests.
MISSPAP
Summer 2020 | MISSPAP
Misspap’s Summer 2020 campaign came out within weeks of the George Floyd tragedy, at a time when the BLM movement gained significant traction.
The models used in this campaign, bear a close likeness to the Jezebel stereotype. Fair skinned women of colour, with long hair and a curvaceous physique; they are scantily dressed, maintaining a sexually suggestive position, inviting viewers to gaze upon them.
A similar depiction of the Jezebel stereotype, featured in the Ferris State University’s gallery of Jezebel images provides a comparative image that again demonstrates the harmful nature of the stereotype.
Jezebel, Jezebel Image Galleries, Ferris State University
NASTY GAL
NASTY GAL | “Love Me Do” | Valentines 2021
Jezebel, Jezebel Image Galleries, Ferris State University
Lastly, Nasty Gal’s Valentine’s Day 2021 advert depicts a model that follows the markers Jezebel stereotypes and their depiction of the enslaved female: primarily used for sexual purposes, yet remaining enslaved and expected to undertake whatever tasks were demanded.
She is later pictured leaving the house in only underwear and a jacket. The brand name positioned across her serves to compound this inference of sexual promiscuity. The point is cemented with the #nastygalsdoitbetter, which infers the sexual proficiency of the pictured model. This image bares striking similarities to the historical Jezebel images featured at Ferris State University.
Not much has changed, it seems, before, during and after the Black Lives Matter movement, within Boohoo Group’s advertising. Despite their social media pledge, their adverts certainly continue to perpetuate this stereotype of Black women, suggesting they are sexually available to any that desire them, while masking the appalling history behind it all.
Kelly Parker is a doctoral student and research teaching associate at Falmouth University. Alongside these roles, Kelly guest lectures in BIPOC media representation and stereotyping, and is an online tutor in Post-Digital Content. The views in this article are the author’s own.
There have been calls for Notting Hill Carnival to be moved to a private venue, or cancelled altogether, after this year’s celebrations saw two female police officers sexually assaulted, among other acts of lawlessness.
One of the officers was ‘grabbed around the neck and kissed on the face without her consent’, whilst the other was ‘surrounded by a group of men who danced and grinded against her’, the Met Police said.
Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari, chairman of the Met Police Federation Ken Marsh said: “Sexually assaulted by numerous males during the carnival… my thoughts go out to that individual right now.”
“There were so many of my colleagues injured, assaulted etc, members of the public seriously assaulted.”
“It [NHC] should be in a private area, Hyde Park etc, where it can be fenced off, people can be controlled. We don’t have the resources to deal with it. This is tens of millions of pounds of public money that is spent on policing this.”
A carnival-goer ‘grinds’ on a female police officer without consent.
He added that “98% of people” who attend the carnival are “law-abiding and want to enjoy themselves”, but “there is an element” who go to “cause harm to others”.
It comes after seven stabbings were reported to the police during the two-day event, with one of them unfortunately turning out to be fatal.
21-year-old father-to-be Takayo Nembhard was found with stab wounds on Ladbroke Grove on Monday evening. The rapper, known as TKorStretch, later died in hospital despite treatment from emergency services.
Sky News reported that over the course of the carnival, 209 arrests were made, 33 of which were related to possession of an offensive weapon.
Five were made for criminal damage, 36 for drug possession and 46 for assault.
Something must be done
Whilst it is quite drastic to ban Notting Hill Carnival, something must be done and quickly.
It seems as if old habits die hard. One would be forgiven for thinking that this edition of the carnival, after two years of absence, would result in more of an appreciation for the event and there would be less of a hostile environment, but this doesn’t seem to be the case.
It’s not the first time that NHC has seen lawlessness. The Met Police reported that there were 463 arrests back in the 2019 edition – the last pre-pandemic edition – with over 209 arrests were made for drug offences alone.
It would, however, be harsh to cancel the event altogether. NHC is a culturally significant event and it would be unjust for the event itself to cease to exist due to the unlawful actions of a few troublemakers.
It is the nature of large events like NHC that these things are unfortunately inevitable.
Perhaps the key difference between NHC and events such as Glastonbury is regulation.
Glastonbury is a ticketed event which averages over 200,000 people a year. It’s a private event – albeit a large one – but a private event nonetheless.
This means organisation is essential and key to how the event unfolds. It’s not an event where people can just turn up to.
With Glastonbury, the approximate amount of tickets sold means not only can the police have more control over the event due to it being in a fixed area, it would also give an idea as to how many officers are needed in order to budget appropriately.
In contrast, NHC is a public event, which means there are no legal limits to how many people can attend. This means anything can happen and therefore an increase in crime is likely.
People are also concerned with the portrayal of NHC compared to other festivals, due to possible racist stereotypes. Many feel the carnival is seen as more violent due to it being a Black space, in comparison to majority White spaces such as Glastonbury.
Depending on how it’s reported, and by whom, a person could be led to believe that NHC is either the most violent event in the UK or that it’s overpoliced compared to White festivals.
However, it’s almost impossible to directly compare NHC’s issues to other festivals. There are so many variables to consider such as numbers of attendees, area space, types of crime etc.
Arrest rates are not the same as crime rates.
What now?
Many believe the writing is on the wall for NHC. Several figures from the police have already called for the event to be more regulated, but some want the event to be cancelled altogether.
Therefore many would argue that the very soul of the event is at stake.
NHC attracts, on average, 2.5 million people over the course of the event across a two-day period. All are expected to fit into a small area of West London.
It is inevitable that safety concerns will be a priority going forward.
It would be unjust to cancel such a culturally significant event for the majority of festival-goers for the sins of a few troublemakers, but to not take serious action now would be irresponsible of the police and local councils.
Rishi Sunak has been criticised after he claimed that he ‘was gagged’ from discussing the harmful effects of lockdown during the Covid pandemic.
The former Chancellor savaged the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) whilst speaking to the Spectator, saying that the organisation had too much influence over emergency legislation during the crisis.
“Whoever wrote the minutes for the SAGE meetings – condensing its discussions into guidance for government – would set the policy of the nation,” Sunak said to the Spectator.
“We didn’t talk at all about missed [doctor’s] appointments or the backlog building in the NHS in a massive way. That was never part of it.”
“We shouldn’t have empowered the scientists in the way we did.”
Rishi Sunak has been criticised for claiming he was ‘gagged’ over effects of Covid lockdowns. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
A key criticism of lockdown was that scientists came to conclusions about the ‘worst-case scenarios’ without obligation to show their calculations.
As a result, many felt scientists were effectively running the country, dictating public policy and shaping the world in their image using the government as enforcement, at the expense of civil liberties and humanity itself.
However, scientists have claimed that they were simply doing their jobs, and it was ultimately the government that had the final say.
Lee Cain, former director of communications at No. 10, tweeted that it would have been ‘morally irresponsible’ to have not implemented lockdown in spring 2020, due to the unnecessary deaths that would have occured and the NHS being overwhelmed.
Hindsight is a terrible thing
It is about time that the UK government is held accountable for the terrible legacy of lockdown.
It is correct to say that it would have been irresponsible not to go into lockdown during the height of the pandemic in 2020, but there’s no denying that it overstayed its welcome.
Scientists were also right to say that ‘they were just doing their jobs, but most suspect that they had their own interests at heart, whether political or financial, but that is a different story.
Ultimately, amongst other members of the Cabinet, Sunak was one of the main decision-makers. The buck stopped with them.
Not only did their decisions result in some of the most inhumane scenes in modern history, but it also gave the West a taste of unchecked power and what happens when a group of people are given the authority to shape the world in their image.
It also demonstrated how states can weaponise fear against their own citizens, and how people are all too willing to forgo civil liberties in order ‘to feel safe.’
Rishi Sunak’s comments come during his Prime Ministerial campaign against fellow Conservative MP Liz Truss (right). Photo credit: Reuters
Also, journalists were threatened with arrest for exercising their right to a free press by photographing anti-lockdown demonstrators.
It is, therefore, to many, extremely hypocritical and coincidental by Sunak to make his remarks above.
As a candidate for Prime Minister, he needs all the support he can get. Therefore, it would be in his best interest to tell people what they want to hear; and nobody enjoyed their liberties being taken away.
What are the odds that Sunak is now speaking about the importance of civil liberties, at a time when he is running for Prime Minister and not at the time when civil liberties were actually at stake?
That’s not a coincidence.
What now?
Of course, the Conservatives need to re-invent themselves after Covid and all the subsequent scandals, so there may be an element of truth to what Sunak has said.
There is the possibility that he is indeed telling the truth, and that there was pressure for him to not say anything, in case he was seen to be willing to risk public health or risk the public questioning the unity of the Conservative party itself.
Unfortunately, his credibility and motives will always be questioned due to his actions during the pandemic.
The timing of Sunak’s comments are questionable to many. Photo credit: The Telegraph
His comments – and the timing of them – will always be scrutinised, and many will fear what their experience would be like if he ever took office should a crisis such as Covid ever happen again.
Sunak, to many, has a conflict of interest. He showed his true colours during the pandemic. For that reason alone, many would vote for Liz Truss instead.
A new study has found that white working-class boys are even less likely to be accepted into university, as the push from universities to promote diversity intensifies.
White male pupils from working-class backgrounds have already appeared to be systematically disadvantaged in the UK education system, yet The Times reports that they are more likely to fall behind their peers in A-Level results.
Social mobility expert Lee Elliot Major says that boys should not be perceived as the dominant gender due to girls’ domination in the education sector, particularly if they come from poorer backgrounds.
The pandemic and the cost of living crisis have impacted the working class, which appears to have exacerbated the gap between them and more affluent families.
“We need to recognise that white working-class boys now suffer some of the lowest university participation rates compared with any other groups,” Major said to The Times.
“A particular vulnerability for white working-class pupils appears to be poor reading early in secondary [high] school which stymies subsequent learning.”
Many feel that the push from universities to meet diversity quotas is responsible for this.
Whilst working-class white boys had been the least likely to make it to university since 2007, they also became the least likely to attend the UK’s most elite universities.
This is compared to 10.7 per cent of black students, 13.4 per cent of mixed race students, 15.6 per cent of Asian students, and 40.7 per cent of Chinese students.
The Education Select Committee has heard that children from white working class deficits are suffering from a ‘status deficit’ (Photo: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS / AFP)
The study comes after a report found that RAF recruiters had been told to favour women and ethnic minority applicants over white applicants, as part of a drive to meet a diversity quota, causing a senior figure to resign in protest.
According to a study by the Guardian, British military recruiters explicitly target’ working-class people to join their ranks, the majority of whom accept offers.
Currently, the UK is the only country in Europe to recruit soldiers at the age of 16.
Maciejewski, who served in Iraq, said that while diversity was important, ‘working class families’ historically made up the majority of the army.
‘I think that in this period where diversity and inclusion have become such an important priority that has also spilt over into recruiting,’ he told the Daily Mail.
‘I think this is obviously important, you know everyone wants to have a diverse and inclusive workforce but sometimes if you lose sight of your core constituency in that process you will also struggle to find the numbers.’
An uncomfortable truth
So what caused this? It is clear that something has gone wrong here.
It may not be the most trendy thing to discuss, but the facts and data don’t lie. The white working-class boy is behind.
It’s unlikely that there is a simple answer to this issue. There are several factors involved that make the situation so nuanced, that it’s impossible to pin it on one single issue.
Things such as varying cultural attitudes towards education, lifestyle choices and personal ambition all come into play.
Despite certain cliché narratives that would suggest ethnic minorities that are in the most need of help, the evidence of the native population being as much at risk of hardship (if not more) is shocking to some and uncomfortable to others.
In society’s push for equality and equity, we inevitably create a hierarchy of problems where some are considered ‘more important than others.
This, in turn, will result in certain people being neglected – both financially and culturally – which can lead to resentment and significant backlash.
The UK government reports that since 2007 white students at state schools have been the least likely to get into university, compared with Asian and Black students.
There has been a rapid growth of ethnic minority students being offered a place on a degree course; particularly Chinese students, who have consistently held the record for the highest number of entry rates.
Between 2007 to date, Black entry rates have had the highest rate of growth, having risen from 23.1 percent to 48.6 percent. Asian entry rates have risen from 34.6 percent to 54.9 percent.
Chinese entry rates have risen from 53.6 percent to a staggering 72.1 percent.
White students represented the least amount of growth, from 21.8% to a mere 33.3%.
We ignore this at our peril
Many would point to two major factors that are seen as the most to blame for this issue: a racial element (which many would argue is the reason for ‘positive discrimination’ in hiring processes) and a socioeconomic element.
From a racial perspective, the issue seems more clear cut. Although positive discrimination is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010, many employers and universities have tried to circumvent it under the guise of equality.
They argue that, due to previous systemic discrimination against ethnic minority communities, positive discrimination is justified and seen as ‘righting previous wrongs.’
It also makes the assumption that, due to white people being the majority in the UK, they as a whole are less in need of affirmative action than minority communities.
Many take issue with this because, in practice, it is seen as ‘anti-white’ as opposed to ‘pro-diversity’. It’s one thing to encourage ethnic minorities to take certain roles, it’s another thing to exclude the ethnic majority to accommodate them.
Former brigadier Justin Maciejewski says working-class families make up most of the army. Photo credit: The British Army
It also reduces people to simple numbers and statistics. Many will feel they’re only in a certain job because their employers are required to meet certain quotas, and not because they have the skills and qualifications in their own right to perform their roles.
Add to the mix that many perceive white people as a whole as better off, whilst ignoring the actual data that demonstrates systemic failings of the white working class, and you have a lethal combination.
It’s trendy to repeat phrases such as ‘institutional racism’, and how it needs to be rectified, yet when evidence is presented about actual institutional failures, there is silence.
One would be forgiven for questioning the legitimacy of positive discrimination. There’s a fine line between inclusion and exclusion. The idea of equality is that people are not supposed to be treated differently due to the colour of their skin. And yet, that’s exactly what’s happening.
The RAF scandal proves this point. Many working-class white men join the army for both financial and holistic reasons; it gets them off the streets and into an environment of discipline, whilst being paid for their services.
Now it seems as if not even that is available to them.
If state-backed institutions are entertaining the idea of positive discrimination, is it any wonder why other public sector employers and private employers feel emboldened to do the same?
As a society, we ignore this at our peril. It has the potential to cause resentment between communities, and jeopardise and undermine actual progress being made in our quest for a truly equal society.
Conservative MP Ben Bradley talks to Parliament about the issue. Video credit: Ben Bradley
How to solve this
To intentionally exclude others in favour of others due to skin colour is the very definition of racism.
If society wishes to solve this issue, then it needs to abandon this blatant act of discrimination and adopt a more meritocratic approach.
Perhaps more resources could be targeted towards those who are less well off, with more vocational opportunities being made available. The government has already pledged £14 billion over 3 years to help tackle the issue.
It’s not a simple issue that can be solved with a ‘band-aid’ solution. It’s a multi-layered, nuanced dilemma that requires care and sensitivity.
A conversation must be had about allocation of resources, geography, generational engagement from parents, attitudes towards education itself and other factors which contribute to the issue.
There are, however, no excuses for blatant discrimination.
Scotland’s Period Product Acts which was implemented on Monday was celebrated online by women all over England. However, the appointment of a male period dignity officer has sparked outrage as many agree that the position should have gone to ‘people who menstruate.’
On Monday, Scotland became the first country in the World to implement a new law allowing free menstruation products to be made available for girls and women.
This Period Products Act, which was proposed by MP Monica Lennon, is meant to tackle Period Poverty.
Period Poverty is defined as ‘when someone who needs period products a reality.’
The bill means that local councils, schools, and other providers must make period products available at any time.
Monica Lennon (Source monicalennonmsp.org)
Ms Lennon said: “Local authorities and partner organisations have worked hard to make the legal right to access free period products a reality.
“This is another big milestone for period dignity campaigners and grassroots movements which shows the difference that progressive and bold political choices can make,
She added: “As the cost-of-living crisis takes hold, the Period Products Act is a beacon of hope which shows what can be achieved when politicians come together for the good of the people we serve.”
Mr Grant will be involved with working with the area’s period dignity group to roll out the legal right to free period products in public.
He will be expected to lead a regional campaign across schools, colleges and wider communities to ensure that Scottish government funding is allocated appropriately.
However, a group in Tayside has caused a stir on social media for appointing a man as a period dignity officer.
Jason Grant’s hiring has sparked online debates with many critics saying that the job should have gone to a woman.
Jason Grant (Source Grainger PR)
He will be having discussions on free access to periods and menopause.
“It’s about making people aware of the availability of period products for anyone, of any gender, whenever they need it,” Grant told the Daily Mail.
“I think being a man will help me to break down barriers, reduce stigma, and encourage more open discussions. Although affecting women directly, periods are an issue for everyone.”
News of his appointment has sparked criticism on social media and elsewhere, with many calling his appointment ‘absurd’.
“Have we ever tried to explain to men how to shave, or how to take care of their prostate, or whatever?” Wimbledon star Martina Navratilova tweeted in reaction to the news of his appointment. “This is absurd.”
Author Susan Dalgety called it nothing more than “institutionalized mansplaining.”
“I don’t disagree that boys should be taught more about menstruation, but appointing a bloke as the first period dignity officer is institutionalised mansplaining.”
Controversial author Salman Rushdie was stabbed multiple times during a lecture about free speech in New York, prompting fresh concerns about the legal and cultural protections of free speech in the modern West.
The 75-year-old Indian-born British-American author, known mainly for his novel The Satanic Verses, was stabbed in the abdomen and the neck.
Rushdie was rushed to the hospital and placed on a ventilator, unconscious and unable to speak. Doctors said he could, unfortunately, lose an eye, as well as suffer possible liver damage and multiple severed nerves in his arm.
The local district attorney also confirmed that he had been stabbed once in the chest and three times in his right thigh.
Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, which was inspired by Prophet Muhammad and features three pagan Meccan goddesses, sparked controversy across the world upon its release in 1988.
It raised debate as to where the line was drawn between free speech and religious intolerance. On a cultural level, many Muslims were divided between Western ideals regarding free speech and conservative Islamic theology which forbids criticism and/or ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad.
Iranian newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz on Saturday, with the front-page title reading in Farsi: “Knife in the neck of Salman Rushdie.”Atta Kenare / AFP – Getty Images
Then-Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayotollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa against Rushdie, compelling Muslims to kill him, and the novel was banned in several countries for fear of civil unrest.
After the arrest of Rushdie’s attacker, named Hadi Matar, police investigations found that he was a staunch supporter of Ayotollah Khomeini and openly showed support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (a branch of the Iranian armed forces).
J.K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter novels, openly supported Rushdie on Twitter before receiving a death threat which simply read ‘Don’t worry, you are next’.
We are running out of time
Make no mistake about it; society will be forced to choose between free speech and authoritarian censorship at some point. At the risk of undermining liberal, Western values, we as a society must stand up to censorship and intolerance in all its forms.
There are many reasons why a person should not say something. Perhaps their thoughts are so absurd that they’d do well not to speak in a public arena, at the risk of ridicule.
Or, perhaps they choose not to say something so as to not seem unnecessarily cruel or antagonistic. There is a time and a place for everything, and social norms often compel people to act and speak in a certain way, depending on the situation at hand.
Words, like actions, have consequences. However, that statement in itself is so vague and ambiguous, that it can be used to justify the silencing of those deemed to be ‘problematic’, ‘blasphemous’ or ‘offensive’.
It depends purely on the consequences of your words, and the context in which they are used. There is a fine line between conforming to certain social norms (which usually have a moral and ethical framework supporting them), and being forced to conform due to outright fear of being hurt in some way.
If a person makes a decision to say or not say something due to factors such as social norms or legal requirements, then that’s a wise decision.
If that same person feels compelled to say or not say something because of other consequences – such as fear of violent repercussions or ‘cancelling’ – then we have a problem.
Censorship has taken many forms across the world throughout history. Rushdie’s case is just the latest incident of religious intolerance, where people of different faiths concluded that their religion and its figures are sacrosanct, to the extent that even people who aren’t part of the faith are obligated to adhere to its rules.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
George Washington, 1st US President
The idea is that their religious beliefs supersede Western laws and liberal values. In fact, Matar pleaded not guilty when charged with the attempted murder of Rushdie, most likely believing himself to be justified due to Rushdie’s controversial novel making a mockery of certain figures in Islamic theology.
A similar case to this was Charlie Hebdo, where 11 cartoonists of the satirical magazine were slaughtered for daring to depict the Prophet Muhammad in an ‘offensive’ manner.
Remarkably, many people born and raised in Western society also have similar ways of thinking. What they find to be sacred – and therefore untouchable – may be different from religious zealots, but the way of thinking is the same.
It’s based on the premise that a religion, idea, philosophy or identity is sacrosanct and therefore immune from criticism, satire and ridicule.
This way of thinking, by large portions of Western society, is perhaps why the response to Rushdie hasn’t been as vigorous as it should be.
An example of this is comedian Dave Chappelle, who has come under fire in recent years for making jokes about the LGBT community.
Whilst on stage at the ‘Netflix is a Joke’ festival, Chappelle was attacked by 23-year-old Isaiah Lee. Police found a replica handgun on his person upon his arrest. When asked about his motive, Lee said, “I identify as bisexual … and I wanted him to know what he said was triggering.”
“I wanted him to know that next time, he should consider first running his material by people it could affect.”
Comedian Dave Chappelle attacked on stage. Video credit: Sky News Australia
A stark choice must be made, and soon
Whatever flavour of censorship and intolerance rears its ugly head – whether it be religious, criminal or identity-based – fundamentally, at its core, it’s still censorship. It’s time to call a spade a spade.
If a person can be killed, injured or otherwise hurt for daring to ‘blaspheme’ against a so-called sacrosanct idea, religious belief or identity, then we are in the realm of authoritarianism.
Does the West wish to continue down this path? Do Western citizens want their right to speak limited and dictated by an individual or community? Do we want to continue having dissenting perspectives silenced under the guise of ‘offence’ and ‘sensibilities’?
Do we wish for literary and academic freedom to cease to be? Do we, fundamentally, value free speech? If we aren’t prepared to defend free speech, then we shouldn’t be shocked when attempted murders (and actual murders) become commonplace in society; neither do we have the right to be angry about it, as we know the consequences of not defending the principle itself.
It’s cause and effect. If speech isn’t free to all, it’s free to nobody. We are at a crossroads and have a stark choice to make Either we re-embrace the principles of free speech in its entirety, or we become a ‘soft’ authoritarian state. That is the bottom line.
Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre’s Joan of Arc will use ‘they’them’ pronouns in the new production “I, Joan.” Many have accused the theatre of trying to change history, whilst others are celebrating the creation of a new ‘non-binary’ hero.
The Globe Theatre has been accused of ‘violating history’ with its new production of the life of Joan of Arc; the historical French heroine will be made into a non-binary character. This version of Joan would be “rebelling against the world’s expectations, questioning the gender binary.”
According to a statement released by Shakespeare’s Globe, Joan will use the pronouns ‘they/them’.
“For centuries, Joan has been a cultural icon portrayed in countless plays, books, films etc. History has provided countless and wonderful examples of Joan portrayed as a woman. This production is simply offering the possibility of another point of view. That is the role of theatre: to simply ask the question ‘imagine if?”
The role of Joan will be played by Isobel Thom, who also uses the pronouns ‘they/them’.
In a separate post on the website ‘Who was Joan of Arc?’ the author speaks of Joan using the ‘they/them’ pronouns: “Soldier or martyr, patron saint or witch, hero or heretic – whoever Joan truly was, perhaps the most accurate descriptor for them is simply “icon” (italics added).
Medical News Today defines non-binary as a term that describes someone who does not identify exclusively as a man or a woman.
History.com documented that ‘Joan referred to herself only as “Jehanne la Pucelle” (Joan the Maid).” The historical figure was a peasant girl who led the French army into victory over the English at Orleans in 1429. So, if we are to trust the historical facts, we know that Joan was a woman and identified as a woman.
Many have taken to their social media accounts to voice their outrage regarding this new change.
Sophie Walker tweeted: “When I was a little girl, Joan of Arc presented thrilling possibilities about what one young girl could do against massed ranks of men. Rewriting her as not female and presenting it as progress is a massive disappointment.”
The logic behind arguing that Joan of Arc/Jeanne d'Arc was not a woman is much the same logic as the church used to burn her alive at the stake: the idea that wearing men’s clothes, leadership, military prowess, and political authority are all incompatible with womanhood. https://t.co/W66kgzm7Ak
— Sister Outrider is editing (@ClaireShrugged) August 12, 2022
Despite the outcries, others have jumped to the defence of the theatre, saying that they have created a hero for many non-binary children and that the theatre is known for bending genders.
LOVE the Joan of Arc non-binary thing, and would like to take the opportunity to remind the Professionally Outraged Of The Internet that the Globe Theatre has been bending gender identities on stage since the year 1593. Y’all have had 429 years to get your melons around this one.
I agree that theatres, plays, movies and any other form of arts and entertainment should have the creative license to shape and re-shape any story they are trying to produce. However, when you are trying to re-interpret history as they have done in their statements and articles –that’s where people have an issue.
Joan’s fight was not against “the gender binary of her time” but against the constraints placed on women of her time. The fact that she wore male clothes didn’t mean that she questioned her gender. History should not be changed to appease today’s cultural and political climate.
I, Joan is set to run from 25th of August to 22nd of October.
Serena Williams, one of the greatest tennis players of all time, the 23-time Grand Slam singles champion, and a sporting icon, has announced that she will retire to focus on ‘building her family.’
“I’m here to tell you that I’m evolving away from tennis, toward other things that are important to me. A few years ago I quietly started Serena Ventures, a venture capital firm. Soon after that, I started a family. I want to grow that family.”
This is a cross-road that many women, whether athletes or not, would have to face. Some may claim that women have to choose between having a career or a family. At the same time, others argue that it is perfectly okay to have a family and a great career – but can we really have both?
In her “Farewell to Tennis” article with Vogue Magazine, Williams expressed how unfair her decision felt: “Believe me, I never wanted to have to choose between tennis and a family. I don’t think it’s fair. If I were a guy, I wouldn’t be writing this because I’d be out there playing and winning while my wife was doing the physical labor of expanding our family.”
Sergio Hudson dress. Fernando Jorge earring. Fashion Editor: Gabriella Karefa-Johnson.
Raising a child requires time and effort, and juggling a career and a family might not be possible for most women – especially if they want to be hands-on and involved as Serena.
Unlike many great female athletes that have retired at a time that they felt was good for them, Serena would likely leave feeling like she had not accomplished all she had set to do. However, after the complicated pregnancy of her daughter Olympia – which almost claimed her life, it is understandable that she wouldn’t want to be pregnant whilst being an athlete.
So, her choice was made.
Most women would like the opportunity to be fully invested in their careers and equally invest time in raising their children. However, it’s not always the case sometimes; these two worlds overlap, and difficult decisions are made.
Despite explaining her reasons for moving on from the sport, Serena did not explicitly state when she would retire. “My goodness do I enjoy tennis,” she wrote. “But now, the countdown has begun. I have to focus on being a mom, my spiritual goals and finally discovering a different, but just exciting Serena. I’m gonna relish these next few weeks.”
Nickelodeon star memoir “I’m Glad My Mum Died”, details abuse as her mother lived vicariously through her.
Child actress Jennette McCurdy, who co-starred in Nickelodeon shows “iCarly” with Miranda Cosgrove and its spin-off “Sam & Cat” with Ariana Grande, has released her memoir “I’m Glad My Mum Died”. In the book, she details her experiences in Nickelodeon and the “emotional, mental and physical abuse” she received from her mother, Debra McCurdy.
McCurdy recounted a time she had told her mother that she wanted to quit acting: “We’re on the way home, in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the 101 South,” she writes in the excerpt shared by Entertainment Weekly. “I’m sitting in my booster seat since I’m still small enough to be required to sit in it.”
“‘I don’t want to act anymore,’ I say before I even realize I’ve said it. Mom looks at me in the rearview mirror. A mixture of shock and disappointment fills her eyes. I immediately regret saying anything.”
McCurdy’s mother reacts: “‘Don’t be silly, you love acting. It’s your favourite thing in the world,’ Mom says in a way that makes it sound like a threat.”
Though McCurdy defends her view, the child ultimately gives in to her mom’s opinion. “‘You can’t quit!” she sobs. ‘This was our chance! This was ouuuuur chaaaaance!'” McCurdy writes of her mother.
“She bangs on the steering wheel, accidentally hitting the horn. Mascara trickles down her cheeks. She’s hysterical, like I was in the Hollywood Homicide audition. Her hysteria frightens me and demands to be taken care of.”
So, McCurdy responds, “Nevermind.”
Jennette McCurdy and her mother Debbie. Photo by FREDERICK M BROWN/GETTY
Jennette never wanted to become an actress, but she wanted to please her mum. From the title of her book, many would have guessed that McCurdy’s mother is at the centre of her story.
Debra, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer when McCurdy was just two years old and died from battling the illness in 2013 when McCurdy was 21, always wanted to be an actress – in her failure to do so, she forced her unfulfilled dreams unto her daughter.
She controlled Jennette’s likes and dislikes well into her teenage years and insisted on giving her showers where she would perform breast and vaginal exams until she was 16 years old.
In her memoir, Jennette shared that she has suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders and anxiety under the watchful eye of her mother. She stated that “distance from her mum was the only thing that got her healthy.”
My Thoughts
Life comes with its share of disappointments; for some, it is just a passing moment, but others try to deal with their disappointment by living their lives through their children.
Parenting culture differs depending on where you are from – as the daughter of two African parents, the way I was raised is very different from how my white friends were raised. However, we can all agree that parenting can be competitive, which takes a toll on the children as they grow. Being a parent can be exhausting and shame-inducing. Still, when you add this unhealthy desire to one-up everyone to a parent’s unrealised dreams – it is easy to see why most parents live vicariously through their children.
Some parents believe that they are doing what is in the best interest of their child, but it can be difficult for parents to differentiate between supportive and obsessive behaviours. I know most parents would encourage their children to do things they enjoy – and I don’t think that’s bad. There’s nothing wrong with taking your child to the book store if you love reading, or to a basketball game if you are a sports fan. The difference is ignoring your child’s needs and feelings to make them succeed at a particular activity.
Ignoring a child’s needs is harmful because it ignores their individuality and stops them from achieving their dreams – then the cycle repeats itself. Children and parents are different. They have different goals and interests, and even though some children may be interested in the same things their parents are – the way they go about getting to that interest might be different. Parents must be attentive and supportive of their child’s interests for them to become fully functioning adults.
Five Signs To Show That You Are Living Through Your Child:
Forcing children to do things they don’t want to do which offers no benefits
Predetermining your child’s life because of your disappointments
Ignoring your child’s interests and needs
Punishing your child for poor performance at school and extracurricular activities
Telling your child how to think and feel about certain hobbies and goals.
The bank of England has predicted a recession with interest rates rising to 1.75%. How are young people able to protect themselves in a global recession?
Interest rates have risen to 1.75% as the bank struggles to combat the soaring prices, as inflation hits over 13%. Soaring energy bills and the shortage of essential foodstuffs such as grain and cooking oil, driven by the war between Russia and Ukraine have been identified as the main reasons for the high inflation and low growth.
The bank has warned that an average home will pay almost £300 for its energy bill by October.
Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, said he had “huge sympathy and understanding for those who are struggling the most” with the cost of living.
“I know that they will feel, ‘Well, why have you raised interest rates today, doesn’t that make it worse from that perspective in terms of consumption?’, I’m afraid my answer to that is, it doesn’t because I’m afraid the alternative is even worse in terms of persistent inflation.”
The increase in interest rates will affect homeowners on a mortgage and charges on things like credit cards, bank cards, bank loans and car loans. The rise in interest rates is a deliberate way of controlling inflation as borrowing rates increases.
The recession is expected to be the longest since 2008 when the banking system faced collapse – placing a halt on lending. The recession is not meant to be as bad as 14 years ago, but it may last just as long.
Photo by Sigmund on Unsplash
How does recession affect younger people?
The UK has recently experienced two recessions during the 2008 financial crisis and in the first year of the pandemic. Both have affected young people the most. The hospitality industry, which contributed to 3% of the UK’s economic output, provided 2.53 million jobs in the UK in 2019 – primarily for ‘younger workers, foreign-born workers, part-time workers and workers from minority ethnic backgrounds.’
However, the pandemic and the restrictions meant that “one in seven people under 25 found themselves outside of work.” The 2008 recession affected younger people more than the pandemic as “the UK unemployment rate rose to 8% generally but was twice as high for under-25s” – primarily due to cutbacks on graduate recruitment schemes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the recession, young people are the victims. Research indicates that ‘nearly a quarter of young people are forced to take on an additional new job to make ends meet’.
The increase in inflation would also cause student loan interest rates to increase – this means that graduates will have to pay even more money to Student Finance. Young people are more likely to rent their homes than own it. So, with the increase in inflation, there will also be an increase in rent and less disposable income for renters.
How Can You Protect Yourself From A Recession?
Pay off your debt
Try to clear off any credit card debts that you may have or any other costly debts. According to Jonquil Lowe, Senior Lecturer in Economics and Personal Finance at the open University: “Don’t overpay your student loan if you have one – unlike other debts, these repayments automatically stop if your income falls below the repayment threshold (currently £27,295 for many graduates).”
Build up your Savings
Try and build a ‘buffer’ savings account that you are able to use if you are to be affected by the recession. The rule of thumb is to try and save up to three-to-six months of your income.
Multiple source of income
Look to get an additional source of income so that if you were to ve affected by the recession or lose your job, you will have something else to fall back on.
There are a lot of options online for advice on how young people are able to move forward during the recession. Young people should keep informed on how they are able to navigate the current and future changes.
On Wednesday, 20 premier league captains confirmed that they intend to stop taking the knee before every match, instead, they will perform the ‘anti‑racism’ gesture at specific high‑profile moments during the season in the belief that less is more.
The club captains met last week to discuss whether to continue with the gesture that was introduced in 2020 during Project Restart to support the Black Lives Matter movement, which came to prominence after the death of George Floyd in the United States.
Harry Kane of Tottenham Hotspur takes a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement prior to the Premier League match between Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London, UK, on May 12.Photographer: Mike Hewitt/Getty Images
“virtue signalling.”?
This announcement has caused widespread debates on social media, with many calling the gesture “virtue signalling.”
Taking the knee began as a protest against the unfair treatment of African Americans and became more widespread after the death of George Floyd; it has since grown to become a globalized symbol for fighting racism.
The anti-racism protest first began when NFL play Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem before a match in 2016. Since then, premier league players started taking the knee to highlight the racism and inequality that has been in the English game for decades.
However, Premier League Captains announced yesterday that they have decided to stop taking the knee as some players believe it had lost its “gravitas.”
A statement released on behalf of the captains said: “We have decided to select significant moments to take the knee during the season to highlight our unity against all forms of racism and in so doing we continue to show solidarity for a common cause.
“We remain resolutely committed to eradicating racial prejudice, and to bring about an inclusive society with respect and equal opportunities for all.”
These significant moments will be the first and last matched of the 2022-23 campaigns, before Boxing Day fixtures, Cup finals and dedicated ‘No Room For Racism’ match-days.
The belief is that the anti-racism message will be amplified if it is used more sparingly.
The reaction to the announcement has been mixed on the social media platform Twitter. Some called out the gesture as “performative”, “divisive”, and “virtue signalling” – stating that the reason behind the decision has to do with England’s World Cup match against Qatar.
Funny how Premier League players want to stop taking the knee a few months before a World Cup in Qatar. The reason they’re given is its lost its ‘gravitas’ It never had any in the beginning. This country was a world leader in eradicating racism. The kneeling just caused division.
What’s next Rishi? £30 fine for everyone who doesn’t stand for the anthem? Prison sentence for teaching the Bengal famine? Deportation for taking the knee? Your ancestors would slipper you if they could see you now.
Racism hurts, in a real and fundamental way and that is something that we can not deny. Irrespective of what side of the debate you are on, everyone can agree that more needs to be done to address this issue nationally.
Global superstar Beyoncé was in hot water over the use of an offensive term to describe people with cerebral palsy in her track “heated.”
Since the track’s release, fans and activists have spoken against the song. Beyoncé is re-recording the song and replacing the lyrics.
Lizzo was involved in a similar incident a few weeks ago with her song “Grrls”.
Beyond these two incidents, I argue that ableism is more prominent than you think.
Global superstar Beyoncé was in hot water over the use of an offensive term to describe people with cerebral palsy in her track “heated.” Image credit: BBC.
The history of ableism
Ableism isn’t this new, fancy, revolutionary term that has suddenly come about through pop culture. It is a term with a lot of history and means to perpetuate itself. Ableism is discrimination against those who are disabled, and it is a way to portray a negative view of disability. The whispering of the term came about during the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, activists started to invest time in addressing issues relating to disability, like equal rights. Fast-forward to the 1980s, feminists in the United States defined ableism. These feminists emphasised that society viewed disability as a flaw, abnormality or inferiority to those without a disability. Such viewpoints on disability created an implicit bias within society, demonstrated by a study showing that 76% of people have an implicit bias in favour of people without disabilities. The study also found that ableism was among the most common and strongest forms of implicit and explicit bias. This was out of gender, race, weight, and sexuality, with ableism second to only ageism.
The more you dive into ableism, you find out that this term manifests itself in multiple ways. On the institutional level, this term affects various establishments medically, politically and socially. Examples of such can be seen by the idea that disability needs fixing from a medical point of view, inaccessible infrastructure and seclusion of people with disabilities. Below this, ableism impacts interpersonal relationships that involve people with or without disabilities. You see this through people wanting to cure people with a disability, baby-talking to people with disabilities and calling people with disabilities inspirational, superheroes and thinking they deserve pity. Through institutional and interpersonal means of ableism, this has a knock-on effect on people with or without disabilities. This is called internalised ableism, which can include a person feeling that disability accommodations are a privilege, that a disability should be hidden and being ashamed of having a disability.
Combating ableism beyond Beyoncé’s and Lizzo’s lyrical saga
What is for sure is that Beyoncé and Lizzo will not be the only ones to say something ableist. This concept has manifested itself within and out of music. These situations involving the two superstars have taught us that this concept is alive and kicking. We have seen progress with women’s, LGBTQ+, and racial issues, but when it comes to topics relating to disability, the disabled community is seen as an afterthought. This is despite the disabled community making up 15% of the world’s population. Ableist rhetoric can be seen in how 9% of houses in the United Kingdom have accessible features. 22% of the population in the United Kingdom comprises people with a disability, yet only 0.06% of adverts feature this community. Not only that, but one in three disabled people say there is a lot of prejudice against disabled people in Britain.
Ableism is far beyond musical lyrics. It has been entrenched for far too long, and it is only when an offensive song lyric is used that we hear this community. That should not be the case, as disabled voices should be heard beyond a news story. It is especially the case when you see how the lives of those with a disability are affected in such negative ways daily. If that is through unemployment, loneliness or lack of access to services, this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the lives of those who are disabled. They have been seen and treated as an afterthought for too long, and now is the damn time that the disabled community is in our thoughts before doing anything worthwhile. If that is making music, creating infrastructure or the conversations we have, the disabled community should be front and centre of our minds.
Iranian newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz on Saturday, with the front-page title reading in Farsi: “Knife in the neck of Salman Rushdie.”Atta Kenare / AFP – Getty Images
