europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

Politics isn’t about what you favour, but instead about what you don’t

03bf8c_83de2a62299d4aaf986e60bd256842bd

It has been a long time since I have heard predominantly good things being spoken of a politician, the current political landscape, or their policies. Perhaps some of the moments which last sparked jubilation in the political sphere were when Barack Obama was elected as the first black US President, when Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was last seen conversing naturally with a group of – actually interested – schoolchildren, or when German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood in front of Syrian refugees with open arms.

But it seems that right now, political contentment is at a low. The tone of debate around the world has degraded in recent months, and many of our politicians and their policies seem to revolve around counteracting some form of societal evil. Every day we are instructed that immigrants, nuclear power stations, or even Donald Trump will be the reason for the world’s end. Energised by multiple failings from both above and below, a wide range of voters, activists, and ordinaries have come to believe that politics is not working, a pessimistic and tiresome mindset which is fuelling politics of bitterness.

This advent has helped to kick-start fiery anti-establishment groups, seeing a rise in politics which focuses on resenting specific parts of society, creating a dangerous political culture. This engagement with ‘blame; policy is rapidly increasing, and is having a somewhat devastating side-effect. Whilst many citizens are, of course, uniting in opposition against what they deem to be most threatening to themselves and society, many are detrimentally turning hurtfully against certain social groups, in some cases minimising minorities and bolstering fear.

A handful of recent events serve to prove this. Only last week, the shooting of British MP Jo Cox showed that a sad minority believes in an act as shameful as killing an elected official. In recent days, Italy’s main anti-establishment party has made huge gains, Italy not the only country to see such a rise. Worldwide, the refugee crisis – the biggest movement of people since The Second World War – has provoked mixed sentiment, including a large pool of anti-immigrant protesters, and in many areas, even xenophobic and racist feelings. And a couple of months ago, the Panama Papers revelations exposed large-scale wrongdoing across global governments, fuelling anti-establishment feeling all the more.

It is no wonder that citizens across the world are bored with such endless, fruitless rhetoric. Fear and hatred are fast coming to define politics as citizens see no other remedy to their ailing governments and communities. Wrongdoing within government, a selfish hostility to an influx of immigrants, and resentment towards our MPs are each playing a part in tearing up society. Politics now revolves around marginalisation – not celebration of the good qualities which enhance our nation.

So, who is at fault for the culture of torment and blame which is reconstructing our political culture? Many would argue that society itself is causing the problem. The rise in barbaric terrorist acts shows that much of the gusto for wreaking havoc comes from the people. But it does indeed look like the Establishment has a monumental part to play. In many cases, electorates around the world have turned dead set on voting for manifestos which show pent up discontent with their current rulers. Recent corruption in relation to financial wrongdoing and offshore accounts, the polarisation of our political parties – fostering such intense left and right wings – and the rise of such casually outspoken leaders such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage are each contributing to a new politics stubbornness. In the same way as many of our politicians, scores of voters now flippantly find anyone to blame for the worst of societal calamities. The success of anti-immigration ideals and anti-establishment policy emphasises that such an ethos is becoming increasingly – and somewhat worryingly – commonplace.

Hatred and blame are becoming international epidemics, diseasing our politics. On the social media stage, and even on our streets, jibes aimed at specific minorities are growing worryingly normal. The demonisation of a select few is creating an all too casual class of resentment amongst both voters and our leaders – incumbent and prospective. When, indeed, will an air of acceptance, teamwork and common good return to the fore of society’s mind? Without definite steps towards a strong emphasis on co-operation and interdependence, Britain will grow alien to the world in the same way that many deem outsiders as alien to Britain.

If anything, at least our democracy is functioning properly. A healthy democracy must have channels for opposition, but the scale of dissent is becoming too huge. As governments struggle to deal with new political, social and economic challenges, a blaring national forum is playing out. Our principles of free speech and the ability to challenge are evidently strongly in place. But out nation’s obsession with opposition, and the willingness of albeit very few to marginalise set individuals may soon have the adverse effect. The sudden influx of political discontent and the deeply rooted challenges that many pose to the status quo could see the destruction of our democracy.

Perhaps I am, in some ways, no better than the few who continue to rage, exaggerating the pessimism which seems to surround Britain’s politics. Whilst opposition is a fundamentally good thing for politics, the movements in which a select few citizens are involved are turning the act of standing up to certain policies into a license for hatred and resentment. If our politicians and citizens are adamant to blame an failing establishment and lax leaders, perhaps it is indeed our representatives who are wrong, and it is those who continue to fuel such a dirty discussion. Maybe when Britain starts to re-energise its public services, a blame on migrants will diminish, and our discussion will become cleaner. Maybe when our government proves to be truly in touch and right on the level of the people, anti-establishment and its needless addiction to blame will fade away. And maybe when leaders who believe in the acceptance of racial slurs and scaremongering step down from the podium, society will start to rebuild its bridges.

Advertisements
Standard
economy, europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

The economy is the UK’s only care in global matters

o-TTIP-PROTESTS-LONDON-facebook

As the judgment day that is June 23rd fast approaches, the nature of Britain’s foreign policy and its international relations have never before been placed under greater scrutiny. The European Union referendum has meant intense discussion of UK parliamentary sovereignty, global spending, and the nation’s relationships with neighbouring states. But our nation’s ties with states located in Europe aren’t the only ones coming into question.

Past weeks have given ear to the dissonance regarding international affairs across the whole world – most specifically, in the USA. More often known as TTIP, the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between America and the EU is set to boost the global economy, but at a considerable price. Myriad MPs and activists have voiced concern in recent weeks, claiming that the new Atlantic agreement would put public service operations at risk of privatisation, reduce the UK’s financial regulatory powers, and that a robust, European, ethical framework would begin to break down.

What is driving the steady support for the introduction of TTIP is what has always driven the capitalist West – money. It is easy to see that TTIP is attractive from the outset, providing grand chances for the further stimulation of the US and EU economies. Experts have estimated that the agreement would mean a global financial boost of around $100m. The prospects of a stronger world economy are plausible, but cannot come at the expense of a great loss in parliamentary sovereignty to multinationals, and a loss of focus upon the global common good that the EU at least tries to instill. Numerous EU directives would become quickly overridden, and big businesses are sure to have a draconian power influence not only over parliament, but across all of society.

The truth is unravelling all too quickly. The rise in Euroscepticism, meaning an obvious rethink of Britain’s relationships with its neighbours, is showing that our global affairs are not based on camaraderie at all. Many of us do not identify as Europeans, and do not share the sense of community that helps to construct many states in the Eurozone. Innumerable pieces of legislation are born in and baptised by the EU, and it is clear that, for some, its collective direction has shaped our nation’s decision-making process a little too much. Political advantage and dialogue is not what Britain’s politicians seek from the likes of Merkel and Juncker anymore.

During the campaign leading up to 1973 – when Britain gained EU membership – one of the biggest cases in favour of the transition was the almost instantaneous economic advantage. Still, the economy lies at the heart of Britain’s colony in Europe. Neither peace nor teamwork are foremost here. Britain can’t have joined in order to work for the common good like many of those who signed up to the post-war European Community. The stubbornness of the British government over recent months, and from a large proportion of the British people, has made this blatantly obvious. Britain has gained all it wants to from the EU. Trading relationships for several decades have moved the nation back into the spotlight, and the nation’s politicians have maintained and increased the nature’s stature.

Perhaps the European Union has now politically exhausted the United Kingdom. Whilst it would secure increased sovereignty, if the UK votes to leave in just over three weeks’ time, it needs to ensure a back-up plan for its economy. Capitalist America is prime stomping ground, of course. Right-wingers are tired of the EU’s legislative infringement, a burden to a nation that seems to look primarily at its economic standpoint instead.

If Britain chooses to stay, a world of benefits is still available from all directions. But the tasks of interstate teamwork and the concessions that it commands are proving to be too much for vast numbers of national Eurosceptics. Britain and many of its people are willing to forego ethical standards set by the EU, and risk the security of vital public services – anything to ensure that the nation’s economic ballast does not take a hit.

The UK has always been a wily character when it comes to global affairs. Its position in the European Union was, from the start, one that was painstakingly scrutinised and adapted. Looking at the nation’s relationships abroad with a predominantly narrow, economic focus can explain not only the EU and TTIP quandaries, but also the controversial UK-led Saudi arms trade, and Britain’s closed door approach to the refugee crisis.

A devastating side effect of this highly capitalist, 100% economy focus is that any form of moral high ground is likely to disappear from Britain’s view of the political landscape. Neighbouring states and global organisations continue to allow Britain to meticulously negotiate its way into economic partnerships of all kind. In turn, buying into more agreements like TTIP and the EU, seeking only economic benefit, will only degrade the UK’s moral high ground when working on international matters.

Those who favour a Brexit on June 23rd choose to advocate for an odd but somewhat entertaining juxtaposition. The EU is said to be the world’s freest global marketplace. But whilst claiming that the economic case is the most important thing at stake during the EU debate, those backing Vote Leave are essentially supporting a major economic climb-down for the UK. TTIP may stimulate the economy to an extent, but it will take time to build up the success that the UK has had with Europe. Why leave what has been one of the UK’s most sturdy support bases for many decades?  For sure, a Brexit would mean returning to many controversial operations, create social, political and economic animosity all over the European continent, and significantly reduce Britain’s moral standards in both trade and manufacture.

Standard
American Politics, World Politics

Trump is showing up the US ‘grand old’ Establishment

720x405-GettyImages-481233084

An experienced and frank businessman, it seems that Donald Trump’s adeptness as a multinational tycoon is translating into success as a possible US president. Whilst high-profile Republicans have for weeks dismissed the prospects Trump has for winning November’s US election, the iconic blondie has continued to sweep up success in the nation’s primaries, becoming the party’s likely candidate. His politics may be significantly controversial, but the Republican party must come to terms with his achievements. Otherwise, the GOP faces destroying its own collective success in future presidential elections.

The chances of Trump colonising the West Wing next January are growing day-by-day. As divisive as Donald Trump may be, he has revolutionised American politics in ways that even he would claim to be accidental. His surprise success has resulted in the mass mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of voters. Turnout is sure to reach great heights at the tense November election, amongst both defensive Democrats and rabid Republicans. Trump’s surging popularity has resulted in huge chances of Republican presidential power in 2017, but only if the party wakes up to its current transformation.

Politics all over the world divides communities and creates passionate oppositions. The headlines of past months have accentuated this defining characteristic of the Trump campaign very boldly. Donald Trump’s policies of a Muslim shutdown, controversial views on equality, and ideas for low tax rates have been at the eye of a raging political storm. His newfound political success is unarguable. An outspoken right-wing populist, his anti-immigration, patriotic, and truly different politics have shaken up the historic Grand Old Party in more ways than just policy.

From a neutral standpoint, the successes of right-wing populists from around the world have united large proportions of voters. Trump would definitely be no exception to this statement. Regardless of views, political engagement has no doubt seen a boost all over the States within the past year – something of a global political renaissance. Trump’s success in connecting with ordinary Republican voters has resulted in the creation of a sturdy public mandate. The Washington Post last month estimated that Trump will win more Republican primary votes than ever before, purely because of increased engagement. In ways that fellow competitors Cruz and Kasich – as well as former candidates – have failed to, Trump has attached himself to the median GOP voter extremely well. Donald Trump is a new face picking up new votes, and most importantly, has a new mandate with immense foundations. But the political divide reaches further than between only American citizens.

Myriad Republicans have proudly supported or vehemently condemned Donald Trump’s campaign since his rivals’ surrenders. With the door handle of the Oval Office becoming more tangible for Trump than ever before, his opinions are certainly creating two very different camps within the party. Paul Ryan, George W Bush, and Lindsey Graham are just a few of the most prominent Republicans deciding not to support Trump in this election.

Their rejection of his politics is, however, more dangerous for the future of the GOP than they seem to think. As expected, with the controversy of Trump’s politics, many are keen to distance themselves from him. But Trump is showing up the pre-existing Republican Establishment. His success as a populist has united swarms of American voters, and has highlighted the pitfalls of his rivals and previous candidates in doing the same.  Their ineptness in attracting substantial votes and engaging voters until now only shows that the GOP is out-dated.

The reaction to Donald Trump in this election is unprecedented in comparison to those of previous years. The fiery candidate has created a strong, new movement, and is finally leading the GOP in the direction it has failed to travel in before. The American right-wing has proven that, with the puny enthusiasm for Cruz or Kasich, and without an anti-establishment figure like Trump, the GOP would only have been annihilated by the Clinton’s crusade. Donald Trump’s revolutionary populism is the only thing that may win this election, and what has prevented previous candidates from doing so.

The politics like those of Romney and his failed revolution in 2012 surely won’t return any time soon with this frenzy. Trump’s effortless mandate has shown that the driving force of the Republicans are not the politicians, but instead the people. It seems that in some ways, right-wing populists like Trump are in fact reinforcing the need for a people-driven democratic electoral process, which has long been dominated by personality politics and strategic media coverage.

The vocal protest of the anti-Trump Republicans will do nothing to restore the GOP. As Trump highlighted a few weeks ago, he doesn’t need the unity of the GOP in order to win the election. It is truly in the hands of the people. Trump may be divisive, but he is rejuvenating the Republican party and its voters in ways never seen before. This populist revolution is a global pandemic, and America is not safe. Trump and similar politicians in other nations are showing up Establishments all over the world, governing with strong public mandates, passionate protest votes and outspoken but honest policy. Even if such impassioned politics is short-lived, it is sure to revolutionise the ethos of the Republican Establishment for a long time.

So why won’t the GOP just support him? It seems that they really are ‘fearties.’ If anything, they are holding their party back. The GOP must wake up to the realities of Trump’s irreversible success, and his opponents must realise the possibilities for real changes in their party’s politics. In many ways, our global democracy is becoming eroded. But the fact that so many American citizens themselves have favoured Trump as the Republican nominee speaks loud volumes. Trump will win based solely on the support of citizens. Republicans all over the USA must understand, however, that he reflects the average supporter, showing up their problematic Establishment – even if they don’t agree with him.

Standard
economy, europe, World Politics

Greece will recover if the EU is realistic and pragmatic

b7994d605d293d6043073f5400a45df8-800x

Violent protests are choking up streets, almost a quarter of the nation is unemployed, and taxes are at unprecedentedly high rates. A country which has faced economic despair for over eight years, Greece is still in need of a realistic, long-term, and sustainable plan in order to rejuvenate its ailing economy. It is time that the European Union accepted that it should not bring Greece to adhere to unrealistic conditions. Instead, it is in the Union’s interests to – albeit begrudgingly – hand the Greek people the support they need.

Greece’s economy has barely improved even with international ‘aid.’ There must be something going wrong with the present strategy. Greece’s level of debt is eating away at the livelihoods of ordinary people, sitting at around 180% of output. It is estimated that as much as 75% citizens’ earnings is being taken in tax revenues, alongside other harsh, EU-imposed austerity measures. Greece’s unemployment is now more than double that of the EU average. Austerity is not working, and the lives of citizens are not improving. It may, in the long-run, make a stronger economy, looking at only the macroeconomic situation. But for the average Greek, their personal income and quality of life will not markedly improve. Surely this should be the primary goal of the EU.

The national economy can only recover through investment and employment, in the same way that many of the world’s greatest economies started. The Greek parliament last week was backed into approving €5.4bn of controversial budget cuts. For a nation that voted “oxi” – or “no” – to extensive budget rescaling last year, this is surprising. But is it that surprising, really? The international press and our leaders will keep telling us that Greece has no other option. But really, this is just highlighting the crippling monopoly of the European Union.

The time for a review of the supposed Greek recovery has come, but quarrels between the European Central Bank, Eurozone, and International Monetary Fund are continuing to stall any workable progress. The EU has the chance to serve one of it’s most important functions – to uphold its true values of solidarity, and support its member states in calamities. With particular reluctance on the part of the German government, it seems that Greece and its people will not come back to life unless a form of compromise is made. A harsh economic dictatorship, being orchestrated by Merkel, is neither an intelligent nor viable strategy for a Greek recovery. Amidst worrying social unrest, the Greek government simply has no choice but to succumb to the rigid conditions of troika.

This week, Christine Lagarde of the IMF has reported a significant contraction in the Greek economy, and that the aspirations of the EU for Greece are largely unrealistic. In order to progress to the next stage of bailout, the Greek government must repay €3.5bn by July. But achieving any form of budget surplus means harsh austerity measures, passed as parliament grit their teeth. The only option which could lead to true stability and progress is if member states contribute to a stronger Greek economy, by aiding with debt relief, and if the EU’s expectations are reduced.

Selfishness from the European Union will only lead to increased calamity, and not only financially. Supporting Greece is in member states’ interests. Economic solidarity is necessary in multiple respects, and is what the European Union ought to stand for. Without true moderation and aid, Greece will decline in many ways. Less investment and support will mean more unrest. Greece’s streets have already become increasingly violent, and there is no sign of the chorus of opposition waning. Does Merkel really want to lug around a socially unstable state? Furthermore, chances of tyranny and political instability would only grow.

Unless the EU comes truly to the rescue, the current left-wing government will grow more unpopular, and the anti-establishment, austerity-defending hard right will succeed. Without a good cash flow from Brussels, economic growth will never be high again for at least the next decade. The lives of Greek citizens will become arduous and their prospects weak. There is no denying that it will be a long, hard slog. Choosing to ignore Greece to the furthest extent possible is not a realistic or pragmatic option. Money must be used as an incentive for growth and rejuvenation, not just something to tick a box. The focus must turn to getting people back into work, and reducing austerity to a more acceptable level. Only with a long-term plan which combines components of balance and sustainability will Greece be able to emerge re-energised.

No decision will be favourable, and no form of austerity desirable. But at the moment, the EU is in its own bubble. Christine Lagarde and the IMF have the power to pop it. The creation of a realistic plan should be fast sought. There is no quick fix, but if the government can present a collective strategy with visible, incremental improvements, Greece will be slowly reincarnated. The European Union needs a reality check. It is undermining its own principles of solidarity, support and prosperity. When realistic and pragmatic strategy emerges, with a plan spanning the next decade, the Greek people may finally be a little more content. By ignoring the seriousness of the Greek crisis, the EU is only creating more problems for itself. Unrest will plague communities, government popularity will further decline, the hard-right may well conquer another European region, and individuals will become tired. Surely the nurturing of economic demise is not something the EU wants to credit itself with.

Standard
human rights, UK Politics, World Politics

The Tories’ Saudi arms trade is killing innocent civilians

bae-systems-david-cameron-arms-deal-saudi-arabia-2

With a regular dosage of stories on the destructive consequences of Western interventions in the Middle East recently, it seems that civilian deaths have become something normal. A plethora of extremist groups has taken global governments of late by storm, provoking drastic defence measures involving all the superpowers. Dangerously dispersed power amongst tyrannical factions like Islamic State and al-Qaeda has emphasised the strong need for protecting the global community. But the airstrikes and artillery supported and, in some cases, provided by states like the United Kingdom, is having a detrimental effect on innocent civilians.

Since Saudi Arabia’s recent intervention in the tempestuous Yemeni civil war between rebel and president forces, the United Kingdom has rabidly supported its destructive defence policy. David Cameron’s conservative-led government has been pivotal in building Saudi military strength, rather controversially. Whilst the marginalising and weakening of barbaric terrorists is essential, coining the UK’s operations wholly as ‘efforts’ would be a huge overstatement.

Whilst the Saudi defence tactics supported by the UK have had successes, their impact has fostered desolation, death and detriment on a vast scale. Our terrorist methodology is becoming similar to that of medieval times. It was reported in April that a cumulative $6bn has been spent on UK arms production for Saudi Arabian use since the Saudis’ entry into the conflict.  David Cameron has scandalously authorised the provision of astronomical quantities of weaponry produced by UK companies for Saudi Arabian use. It is our government which is in control of the Yemeni people’s fate, and it is our leaders who are choosing not to provide constructive humanitarian aid.

Until very recently, the damaging civilian impact of Britain’s violent strategy has been less reported. Whilst combatting extremism to an extent, civilisations are becoming obliterated, children have been displaced, and essential services have ceased to function. Easy come, easy go. Towns and villages are coming to a standstill, and vital support organisations’ hospitals are failing to cope. David Cameron, alongside an army of MPs, is the pioneer of a crusade massacring millions at the expense of erasing only a handful of brutes. It was estimated a few months ago by the World Health Organisation that around 6,400 civilians with no militant motivation have been killed by western weaponry. Further to this, around 2.5m people have had their livelihoods stripped of them, bearing no possessions nor a roof over their head. Médecins Sans Frontières have had countless facilities reduced to rubble. Instead of bringing political stability, the Tory administration are nurturing a mammoth humanitarian crisis across Yemen. How can our leaders stand by such brutality, which is damaging communities?

Akin to the actions of Tony Blair in regard to the pain of the Iraqi conflict, Cameron is in danger of committing atrocious war crimes. Many Westminster MPs have already condemned the government-supported attacks. This comes alongside criticism from organisations like the United Nations and pressure groups Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Our nation is defying vital human rights convention. Many innocents are having their livelihoods instantaneously stolen from them. Such criticism should be setting the alarm bells ringing. If Russia were collaborating with Saudi Arabia, orchestrating attacks such as those that the UK support, there would be international outcry. The Tories’ reprehensible hand in the arms trade is thus the source of great hypocrisy and deceit.

Once again, the moral case has been outdone by the political and economic cases. The prospect of large sums of money from the Saudis is the true power supply of such careless warfare, as one British government inquiry termed it. Our government has proven that it is morally and politically weak. With growing pressure from US Secretary of State John Kerry, David Cameron and his Atlantic allies have chosen to play into the hands of just a few businesses rather than tread the moral high ground of stamping out such demoralising attacks. Large profits have triumphed over more attentive soft power, destroying the chances for dialogue and collective humanitarian action.

Perhaps in a couple of years, when the flame of the harmful Yemeni conflict dies, will a viable solution to the civil war be found. Hunger, poverty and ill health are continuing to prevail throughout the nation, thanks to British bombs. The United Nations is only 40% towards sourcing the $703m needed for reconstructing the Syrian nation, and it looks like the West would be reluctant to help after recent events.

We have to be hard on extremism, but it is clear that the United Kingdom’s interventions are just too much. The civilian loss is huge. Communities will never be the same. Detriment of this type has been felt before in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, alongside a great deal of other regions. Where will be next? If our answer to extremism is blood and bombs, the world will fail to increase in political sustainability? Through the United Kingdom’s current methods for defeating such tyranny, terrorism will grow more commonplace, and our international relations will become more brittle. The Yemeni people need humanitarian support, and it is time that our approach focused on teamwork, peace, and sustainability.

Standard
society, UK Politics, World Politics

A disastrous racial divide is splitting our society

Racial_Divulgacao

Sometimes I find myself creating an image of what I believe might be the most ideal society. I’m certainly not an expert in the field of ethics, but it would definitely enshrine some long-awaited bottom lines. My mind’s utopia would encompass deeply engrained values of equality and tolerance, have its gates open widely to all, and strive to take the issues of all into account when decision making. But I’d better not immerse myself too heavily into this fantasy. The concept of the perfect society won’t truly exist, ever. But it seems worth aiming for in an attempt to quash the most profound of social barriers.

It would simply be inaccurate to suggest that our global community is accepting of all values currently. Don’t get me wrong – many of the reasons for hostility to any perceived outsiders are sometimes with the best of intent and for security, not for exclusion. With an advent of new technology, values, immigration, and – in the most extreme of cases – deeply rooted factional conflict, it can seem only natural that citizens are consistently wary and vigilant.

Deeply worrying news has come this week of some of the most opportunity-bashing and equality-defying divides. The presence of new communities seems to be provoking new and controversial thinking. Brand new studies and news stories have shown that the ideas of inclusion and openness promoted by our politicians, NGOs and schools just do not prevail in ways previously thought .

Over previous days, the existence of distinct barriers to numerous sections of our society has been widely reported. The TUC reported today that at all levels of education and employment in Britain, those of minority ethnic descent are significantly disadvantaged in terms of opportunities, livelihoods and job security. A modern society like Britain can only achieve prosperity and success if it wholeheartedly welcomes people of all mindsets and experiences. Immigration cannot take place begrudgingly, a state of affairs which unfortunately seems existent, ever punctuated by the emergence of movements such as UKIP. Such striking deprivation and unemployment amongst those of minority ethnic backgrounds does not and will not make for a thriving society.

A culture of divides is further endorsed by such unnecessary prejudice. It is evident that racial profiling is creating exclusive communities, creating a feeling of ‘them and us.’ Only last month, one passenger on an easyJet flight was escorted from the plane after a fellow traveller spotted prayers on their neighbour’s phone. The overly accentuated cons of immigration, and relatively sporadic – but undeniably atrocious – national terrorism incidents have led to scaremongering at all levels. It seems that Britain is not a wholly welcoming community. Solidarity and the nurturing of new, vibrant values must be backed.

Possibly one of the gravest problems in relation to our split societies is to do with those who bear power. Even at the top, our law enforcers fail to uphold the values that could rejuvenate our national ethos. It is shameful that a large number of those who are wrongly stopped and searched by our local authorities are so harshly racially profiled. Figures released last year showed that those of black race were over 17 times more likely to be stopped. More scandalously, the rate of further police action which was actually followed through after a search was markedly less.

What about the upcoming local elections, which seem to be exposing the opinions of our politicians to a further extent than previously thought? Those who are battling to become the next London mayor, Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith, have become embroiled in a huge race debate. The past few weeks have allowed the public to closely watch the scaremongering of the Tory candidate Goldsmith, who has horridly accused Labour candidate Khan of protecting minorities, fuelling the rise of extremism. The Labour candidate is not the only one of his party to be in such a quandary. Corbyn has faced calls from both inside and out for a stronger clamping down on the disgusting anti-Semitic views which circulate in many of the party’s branches.

So, what next? Britain must transform its social attitudes, adopting values of inclusivity, openness and warmth. This transformation can only take place, however, with a driving force from the top. Our elected officials and law enforcers must work on creating Britain the open nation it has the potential to be. The most important fix is a surprisingly easy one. It is time that we saw each equally. Instead of labelling and classifying citizens into one category or another, we must become a truly solid community. If it is anything to go by, today marks a real possibility for change. I hugely welcome the remarks of Maria Miller, chair of the Women and Equality Select Committee in the UK Parliament, today calling for increased legislation aimed at weakening such abhorrent abuse and needless divides. Perhaps the utopia which I blueprinted at the start will inevitably never exist. There is no such thing as the perfect society, but isn’t it a concept worth working to? Simply, our governments and leaders must now outline common goals, properly enshrine our all important rights and adopt a nature of true realpolitik.

Standard
American Politics, World Politics

The White House should be sweating over the FBI’s liberty abuse

apple_FBI

Over recent months, a worrying increase in organised crimes and devastating shootouts all over the United States has shocked citizens worldwide. As politicians and security officials have become hard pressed for security legislation, a balance of civil liberties and state protection has proven seemingly hard to weigh out.

The past few weeks’ events involving the formidable FBI and tech giant Apple have accentuated this conundrum all the more. No one advocates for such catastrophic terrorist attacks, but ensuring privacy when monitoring criminal suspects is vital. There is no denying that this form of criminal investigation can be valuable when enforcing the law. Serious organised crimes and terrorist atrocities are more frequent than ever, and monitoring the movements of suspect individuals is paramount for the protection of a nation’s citizens.

But there is something gravely worrying about such robust precautions. The guaranteed right to privacy of many civilians is at threat. Apple’s resilience towards the FBI’s coercive demands, however, is reassuring news for many liberals. The company’s decision not to aid US agencies in the recovery of personal data on a suspect’s phone has highlighted the need for clamping down on the state’s data monopoly.

Last week, however, with third-party support, the FBI succeeded in breaking through what used to be Apple’s impenetrable wall of security. The highest criminal investigations agency in the world had defied the passcode of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s iPhone. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. The FBI’s hacking has proven that the US government – and, evidently, many other global governments – can summon the personal details of any citizen, exposing vast details of their private life. Needless to say, technology use is widespread today. The possibility of those either wrongly or correctly accused of criminal activities having their right to privacy taken away from them is worrying likely. Apple dominates a large section of the worldwide technology market, meaning that the number of individuals who could be at threat from such stringent surveillance measures is considerably large. In the wrong hands, these capabilities could prove to be detrimental. Within myriad governments, the unwarranted tracking of citizens may now become more normal.

The United States isn’t the only nation that must be brought into focus when it comes to the liberties versus security debate. Rigorous monitoring has caused discontent across the world. The information provided by whistle-blowers like Edwards Snowden is pivotal, and shows the large extent to which the US government already spies on its citizens. Other national governments the world over have succeeded in using data monitoring as a source of crime deterrence. China’s strict internet monitoring, the United Kingdom’s ‘snoopers charter’ and the arrest of a Facebook executive in Brazil highlight the rigid surveillance measures which have emerged internationally. Individual liberties are fast becoming unduly curbed. Just because many other states’ governments have succeeded in such wide-scaled monitoring does not mean that the United States can operate a similar system which is free of controversial agenda.

Surely it is time that the White House took definitive action, standing up for its traditionally libertarian principles. There is a large potential for such invasive powers to be used wrongly, and for innocent citizens’ privacy to be crushed. In Obama’s last-minute legislative rush, he and his left-wing democrats should spend the last few months of administration over the protection individual freedoms. Attitudes towards civil liberty and national security could, of course, rapidly change under Presidents Clinton, Trump or Cruz. News that President Obama has failed to either condemn or support the probing actions of the FBI shows up his indecisiveness in relation to the matter. In order to protect his nation’s people, the US President must lucidly proclaim his stance, taking radical action.

Ron Wyden, Senator for Oregon, is just one of the high-profile politicians whom have condemned the controversial actions of the FBI. It seems that, despite the fact that there are plausible arguments for such monitoring in our growingly insecure society, the livelihoods and safety of citizens are at risk. The right to privacy is one which is becoming eroded, and one that is in danger of being forgotten. Unless global governments strike the correct balance, citizens may soon have their individuality and privileges taken from them.

Standard